Album Rating: 3.5
LMFAO TITAN
|
| |
Yes, this is setting up nicely.
|
| |
Album Rating: 1.0
Alright actually listening to Ulcerate now.. there's probably something I could muster from this hah..
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.2
9 more listens to go.
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
I want a tundra gorguts review, fuck it throw him in the deep end
|
| |
okay lol I'm going to sleep now, but work out between yourselves
a) if hawks gets the same constraints and handicap or needs his own tailored one
b) when the deadline is, and
c) who the two other judges on the panel are (or three, if i'm just hosting lol)
and i'll stick a list up tomorrow. gonna propose both revs are graded out of five by each judge on prose, insight and professionalism, but open to alternatives
|
| |
I'm looking forward to the two reviews haha.
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
This is the most coordinated I’ve seen sput in years
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
-maybe I am wasting gray matter critiquing this review + I'm sure other people here have already said these things more eloquently but whatever -
Reading your review, the reasoning behind your rating mostly stems from thinking the album is overhyped and continually comparing it to her older material/her peers' output. On their own, these things don't warrant a 1. Something can be overhyped, yet have a plethora of merits. A new album may not even come close to being the best or most inventive of its respective genre, yet still be quite enjoyable. You never touch upon your issues with the album in convincing ways, just lots of "Poppy used to be so quirky and exciting, but now it doesn’t and her music is lacking and bland". How does a lack of quirkiness result in bad songs? How does the presence of quirky production make for a better album than Negative Spaces? You never elaborate on this.
Out of its 12 songs -not counting the 3 interludes- only 3 get mentioned and somewhat analyzed, with one of them even being positively described ("Songs like "The Centers Falling Out" actually deliver some solid riffs, which is a nice change."). There's a serious lack of explanation on the rest of the album and the sounds contained within and the review mostly comes off like being bitter that the album is getting attention and praise, spinning those 3 songs mentioned, writing a half-assed opinion and patting yourself on the back.
Others mentioned that you have posted other reviews for Negative Spaces that got deleted and maybe you went more in depth in those reviews, but as a newer user who isn’t on Sputnik much, I didn’t catch those. But that’s not relevant; the review is sloppy and repetitive and fails to elaborate on why the album is awful. Your review mostly reads like the album is generic — a fair assessment, but one that doesn’t justify a 1.
Your writing in response to an album you didn't click with could use a lot of improving, so looking forward to that Ulcerate review, I guess?
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5
Well put Panos, I agree.
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
christmas in february
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.5
im so excited
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.2
This is gonna be fun lol. Someone make a list so we have a better thread for rules, etc.
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.2
Oh sorry Johnny said he will do it tomorrow my bad lol.
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
This is like the McRib "farewell tour" we get every year
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5
This little comp will be a very good idea and also hopefully stop the pointless bitching and sniping at eachother.
|
| |
Album Rating: 1.5
album sucks but Tundra are you ok
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5
Another rule for Tundra : he cant refer to the album as overhyped or any synonyms relating to calling it overhyped. Also someone come up with a similar rule for Hawks so its fair and balanced
Also a rulw about Ai perhaps?
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.5
@Ectier something tells me that the Hawks/Tundra sniping will never stop
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5
Point Animal, i was just optimistic ig
|
| |
|
|
