What about Livin' on a Prayer


ouwowuouwuwou

Album Rating: 3.0

no, in my opinion it isnt well written. it comes across as arrogant and elistist, and many of the the best songs ('and your bird can sing') he just dismisses with unsubstantiated criticism. he obviously doesnt really like much popular music, judging from this review, so why bother review it?



-----



Isn't that my point? People flip out when a reviewer gets neg'd because a "fanboy" dislikes the review rating. It is also likely that the fanboy also dislikes the elitist attitude of the reviewer (and I'm not arguing that the reviewer isn't justified).



You basically made my point. You can find evidence of everything you said in reviews of bands today of all genres. And you'll see a bunch of reviewers who don't like a band make a review just to express their distaste towards the album/band.



My problem isn't with the negative ratings you're giving this guy.

My problem lies with the hypocrisy of giving this guy a bunch of negs just because you disagree with his rating? I mean when you listen to something that is superior musically, you're going to have a condescending tone anyways. And yeah, he's going to just dismiss the "greatest songs" ever. Why does he have to justify a song more than another? Because everyone else thinks it's great? That bears no significance in his mind.



But I guess everyone here is too ignorant or simply stupid to understand my point.

Actually, while it was well written for the most part many of his points were entirely wrong, and bold sweeping generalizations. The beatles were not solely responsible for shaping western society.

Album Rating: 5.0

it's not well written because he doesn't back up his opinions with anything. he skims over most of the songs without really explaining why he dislikes them. there's a difference between elitism and snobbishness.

oh, and im SO sorry that we just aren't up to compete with your superior intellect, your majesty. just because i disagree with you doesnt make me a 'fanboy' or an idiot.

Album Rating: 3.0

I find the need to question myself in why I bother to respond.



Maybe it's my hope that you AREN'T actually an idiot and you'll understand what I'm saying.



But it's a funny thing what's happened here (and I say this to Andre3000 not Gyromania). Because I disagree with your view and am criticizing your idea, suddenly I'm the antagonist here. (*Sigh* What has political correctness done? I can't even disagree without people getting super defensive.)



But you don't understand my point. Look at the positive to negative ratings this rating got. What was it, 11 positives to 29 negatives?



Now go look at a bunch of other reviews from any band. Just read through a bunch of negative reviews (ones that have given 2.0 or less). You'll find one that has basically no justification --- it'll sound like the person is just ranting about the album rather than critiquing it. BUT, I guarantee you that at worst, it'll be 10 positives to like 10 negatives (And that's a stretch).



I'm not saying you can't like this album... And despite how much I despise Yellow Submarine, there is no way I, myself, can give the album a 1.



But my opinion or your opinion on the album is irrelevant--- I'm talking about the double standards that exist here. Where basically, if you bash on the "established classics" then you're immediately condemned by everyone else.

Album Rating: 3.0

Now as for your claim that it's not well-written, I disagree. For example, when he says how atrocious the lyrics of some songs are (Note: I don't mean the whole album, but a lot of the lyrics are truly awful. Yellow Submarine anyone??) , how amazingly simplistic the guitars are, how basic the drumming and basswork are, he's right there. Hell, the actual rhythm and the melodies are pretty simple, as well.

I mean, you have to accept that as a fact. If you compare that to the composers he alluded to or even many rock bands after them, you'll realize the only counter-response is: "Well sometimes technicality doesn't matter.... The Beatles have created some of the best and most memorable tunes ever." Which can be backed up by evidence, sure, but it's also an opinion --- clearly the reviewer feels differently. Are you telling me he should be punished for feeling differently?



But, let me take a different angle. Suppose I concede that despite all of this, he still didn't support it being a 1 with enough evidence. Are you telling me that all the other negative reviews (and I don't mean reviews that got negative ratings, I mean reviews that were negative in its content) haven't been worse in justifying the rating? Hell, if I wrote a review basically saying "This is the greatest album ever for producing the most memorable tunes ever," how is that any different from saying "This is the worst album ever"? They're both opinions. Both claims have no evidence (assuming I didn't provide any). But I would bet you the world that the positive review gets more positives than the negatives. AND, if I said Lil Wayne's new album (I don't even know what it's called) is the greatest album ever and gave no justification, I'd be neg'ed like hell.

Album Rating: 5.0

The theory behind the majority of Bach's music is every bit as simple as The Beatles. A key change here and there does not make a series of V-I oscillations any more harmonically exciting, particularly when a great deal of Bach's pieces don't modulate, and his lack of flair when modulating would not even see him placed among the top 50 composers of all time in that regard. But then again, the fact that you chose to use his name, rather than that of Wagner, Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Berlioz, or even Berg make it seriously unlikely that harmony, complex scoring, and intellectual complexity are actually what you're concerned with. (Honestly, JS Bach, complex scoring?) And since you're stuck arguing about composers who never even lived to see this century, culture can't be your primary concern either, seeing how you can't possibly have been alive to experience the culture that they did. Seems to me that you just lack the mental capacity to appreciate the interdisciplinary approach that popular music demands of the listener, and that you're bitter about the fact that the postmodern age has simply left you behind.

______________________________________________



by far the best post on the thread so far. i dont see how anyone can argue with this really.

(copyright iai ;) )

Album Rating: 2.5

I always pos reviews in the forbidden rating zone no matter how bad they are because reviewing the album is the only way people can give it the rating they want.

Great troll. 10 pages of pure faggotry above.

Album Rating: 4.5

trololololo

Album Rating: 4.5

jesus christ

this is without a doubt their best.

Album Rating: 5.0

'tis indeed my favourite beatles

Dis is overrated. Look how elite I am for saying that.

good album

Album Rating: 4.5

people talk about this review still? I wish I was around for the troll up there, because yeah this isn't even remotely well written.

Album Rating: 4.5

The clean guitars have a distinct ogre-like subtlety in their tone, with some disgustingly hacked out ostinatos masquerading as spice on a musical cake lacking in choice ingredients.

oh this is wonderful. I miss The Human Language even though I wasn't here to experience him first hand

Album Rating: 5.0

This and Abbey Road go back and forth as my favorite.

Album Rating: 5.0

Eh, this albums alright.