Quit bitching cuz people didn't like your In Rainbows review. If you think this is a good review, pos it. Undoubtedly some of the negs are because of the rating, but probably most of the negs are because it's a poorly written review, as evidenced in the comments of this thread.This Message Edited On 12.10.07

Um, I'm pretty sure most people said they liked my review, and didn't understand the negs.

Album Rating: 5.0 | Sound Off

I'd neg because it's horribly written but I'm not that cruel. The review is half-assed LOOKATMEIMGOINGAGAINSTTHEGRAIN nonsense.

ElectricCity...

[quote=DeadToPain]good review. i think you could have focused a little more on the music. but, hey, that's the way i would do it. very good. totally slays mine![/quote]

[quote=LunchForTheSky]Good review. This album needed a 5 review.[/quote]

[quote=Reznor]Someone could have a problem with the review and just hasn't posted. I thought it was a good review, but I don't care too much for Radiohead.[/quote]

[quote=NortherlyNanook]Well, the least the negsters could do is say why they neg'd it. Or if it's one of the people yelling about how it doesn't deserve a 5, I think they ought to note how the "Yes" and "No" voting is for the review being well-written. It's no longer that agree midgetry! Comon, munchkins![/quote]

Owned.
This Message Edited On 12.10.07

Moonlight Bleeding, even if that's the case, you're still sucking sour grapes because you got negged. To be honest, I don't know why you got negged either, although the review was a tad fanboyish, it was still well written.

And stop trying to act tough you look like a douchebag.This Message Edited On 12.10.07

Album Rating: 5.0 | Sound Off

Stop bitching about the site and your review on another unrelated review. This review was bad; not because of the rating, but because of the general lack of thought and effort put into it.

Album Rating: 3.0

The first paragraph is really awkward.



also

Well, I think it should be confined to that niche of people who like power metal and nothing else, really.

Same with the guitar work: it's your typical 80s meld of standard hard rock riffs that every other heavy metal band back then was using

Album Rating: 4.5

a 2.5, that is an insult to an album that has such great music on it, so much more than just holy diver, every song is epic, 2.5, i cant get over that, why are you reviewing this album!!

Album Rating: 3.5

saying this is "dated" is so stupid anyway, it came out in 1983, and at the time was huge, you can't expect it to be as heavy as bands that are around now who basically owe their ass to albums like these.

Album Rating: 3.5

Oh wow I remember this album. I used to be floored by it, but not anymore. Definitely overated, but I still reckon its probably about a solid 3.5. Havn't given it a spin in yonks though.

Well some would call it dated I call it kick-ass old school production.

I love the way it sounds, the crappy Killswitch Engage cover is proof to me a modern sheen doesn't necessarily mean better. This dumbass on Youtube commented they took a half-metal song from Dio and turned it into full metal. The original has far more metal content.This Message Edited On 12.10.07

Album Rating: 3.0

The original has far more metal content.

Album Rating: 5.0

Dio actually has a very emotionally faceted and melodramatic voice. To whine about him not possessing Rob Halford's range is rather dramatically miss the point.



I have to wonder just how much thought went into this review as it looks more like my stream of conscioussness rants I type out in R&M than an actual review.

Album Rating: 5.0

Glad to see all those comments got deleted.



Gypsy is awesome. Discuss.

Wow, Coke, I've never seen you more pissed about an album. Usually you're on the other end of this type of situation. Perhaps I'd get more attention with my reviews if I started bashing popular albums...

I don't like Dio's persona, however, I admit he is a very good singer. Lyrically hes pretty crappy but that suits his vocals heaps well. As they are strong and enchanting.

Also about the review wasn't thrash pretty much invented in 1986? Therefore, it couldn't have been thrash as that we know it as, due to it being recorded in 1983.

Album Rating: 3.0

Also about the review wasn't thrash pretty much invented in 1986?

Oh.

Excellent people. You negged the crap out of what seemed a decent review (to me) just because of the rating. He discussed why the instruments and music were boring. Seemed good enough to me at least.

Album Rating: 5.0 | Sound Off

We negged (well I didnt) because it was not well written. He had no point; his observations were ridiculous and frankly made up, and he clearly spent nearly no time listening to this before writing this. Furthermore, the context in which he reviewed it was absolutely stupid and unforgivable.



If you're going to rate such a highly regarded album as "average" you had better come up with some good, valid reasons. He did not do this. This Message Edited On 12.11.07