Album Rating: 3.5
the lack of a rating doesn't say much. u just said u listened to this twice dude, if u dont care about the review why would u do this. edit: cuz even if u don't care about it it's still a shitty way to get into albums
i mean i know i couldn't do it, but w/e, if it works for u, cool.
|
| |
ambiex is your argument even necessary?
|
| |
Album Rating: 2.0
could it be so far-fetched to believe that i actually WANT to repeatedly listen to an album by one of my favorite bands?
wow who would have thought
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5
twice in a row, no not a lot. especially since it's new, u hadn't fully absorbed it, and u don't know if u like it yet.
edit: but again, if it works for u...
|
| |
Album Rating: 2.0
.... wat
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5
u know perfectly well what i mean, but this is not an interrogation and ur free to do whatever u like, w/e
|
| |
do you have autism? serious question
|
| |
Album Rating: 2.0
No I know what you mean I'm just commenting on the sheer stupidity of the argument that I can't listen to an album back to back because I "hadn't fully absorbed it" and that somehow it will affect my eventual subjective opinion of said album.
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5
Asdfp take a chill pill. I don't understand why you're getting so worked up about crysis listening to this twice. He only listened
twice and didn't rate and doesn't want to review it yet cause he can't form a solid opinion just yet. Don't see why an argument
has to continue here. He also said its one of his fav bands so he really wanted to listen to it.
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5
nvm, i fucked up reading, oops. i guess u can indeed listen twice in a row an album u find boring cuz agalloch, again if u can digest this that way, fine, cool
edit:
@mongi: i dunno he started getting defensive lol ¯_(ツ)_/¯
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
As a person with autism:
fuck you Hyp
fuck you
|
| |
i just dont want to make fun of him for something thats not his fault
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
You're still a douche
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5
um bad reading, i guess. i got the idea that he wanted to review this fast to stop the stupid reviews that will pop up, and i got it from your comment on the first page as if it was his (lol yep i came back to see wtf happened and...)
edit: then he said he listened to this twice in a row, which i still find stupid but w/e, blah blah
|
| |
Album Rating: 2.0 | Sound Off
God dammit, I need to stop reading this thread in the library
|
| |
Album Rating: 2.0
w h a t t h e h e l l i s t h i s
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5
a classic asd
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5
and also the thread of an album that has been streaming for 13 hours or something
|
| |
Album Rating: 2.5
"umm, what is your point?"
My point was, you stated that only your opinion mattered to you moments after attacking someones opinion.
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5
"In my opinion, it is a FACT that this review is really terrible. "
I'm not going to argue with you that an opinion can't be a fact. The bottom line is that it is a fact that it can't.
"If you remove all the lines you repeated we'd be left with a mediocre piece that is almost enough to warrant a soundoff. Don't believe that your writing is either strong or cohesive, because its not"
The same could be said if 90% of any of your reviews, or any review ever written, was removed. Just because the lines are repeated doesn't mean they hold any less value than non-repeated ones. Each line in the review serves a purpose; mine are just repetitious. As for your second point, that is an opinion. But if I were to take your opinion above all others, I guess the 95 pos's on my last review aren't worth anything. ;)
If any of you are curious as to how repetition can be used effectively, you should listen to my instrumental avant-garde EP which I have thrown up on my YouTube channel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
|
| |
|
|
