Album Rating: 5.0

Why yes good sir. I concur

wait a second

*waits a second*

Misconceptions dear sputnikers, more like literary flair.

"Ratings are based off opinions for these albums, writing styles are even based off the quality and or genre of the album in question (Robin Smith vs. John Anderton - emo releases vs. post-rock releases),"

wha? what has rawbins smiff got to do with that?



...actually I was gonna continue quoting confusing stuff but I would actually end up just copying the entire review with lots of "whas" and "bluhs" and "???" after everything.

album sucks but the review sucks even more

wait
you're saying that you made this review ridiculously confusing and offputting on purpose to make it a metaphor for a confusing and offputting album? sounds like you're giving trying to high-level-thinking excuses for what is ultimately a shitty review.

this new influx of "im going to write a scathing pretentious wordy review of an album highly regarded on this site" reviewers is pretty annoying

and yeah by influx i mean two people

even then they might actually all be the same person
it's a conspiracy

Album Rating: 4.0

I actually like Ayn Rand's writing style, but not her philosophy. WHAT IS UP WITH THAT!

glanced at it, have no intention of reading the whole thing

what's the point of doing a tired parody of MJ's reviewing style


this is probably that Dogshit guy again, someone should check it for plagiarism.

neg

Album Rating: 4.5 | Sound Off

you must be MJ. Review was well written, like MJ's, but didn't relate enough to the music and attempted to sound intelligent by connecting to culture that has nothing to do with the music. Awful review overall, and we didn't need another one.

Album Rating: 4.5 | Sound Off

and please good sir, don't say 'it related to how disjointed the album is' or something like that, the review doesn't connect with the MUSIC. But any way, I won't neg, because even though it stands as an awful review, its still well written, so no pos or neg.

Album Rating: 3.5

You know, instead of the incredibly long and somewhat meaningless intro, you could have just said "this album has a lot of technical wankery," rather than try to epitomize the album's wankery in your own review.

actually i dont think its MJ, his last review which was of Joanna Newsom was actually really well written and actually related to the music and made sense. This is just a rant full of pretentious bullshit, no relevance to the music, no argument, structure fucking sucks. Absolutely pointless introduction and rambling on about shit which has no relevance whatsoever. You really need to get your head out of the thesarus and stop trying to look up theories or whatever bullshit you wrote to make yourself appear intelligent and witty. In truth you are a pretentious douchebag who's review is even more wanky the music itself. Here is where i insert what neutral would say in this situation. STOP REVIEWING.

Well yeah, it's clearly not MJ

Album Rating: 3.5

I'm with objectivsm,although I enjoyed the album in parts.

I got your point,and i read the whole review.It is well written with pretentious words and confusing meanings which tend to distract you from the album itself.And maybe thats Colors too.A pretentious achievement that maybe fails to catch the listeners attention in a gentle way,and not through excessiveness and ostentation.



And by the way,the word "bad" fails to characterize communism in overall,in contrast with Nazism.

Album Rating: 4.5

This review is full of literary technical wankery.

started to read it, burst out loud laughing once ayn rand got mentioned then sort of skimmed through the rest

what a right load of crap, not all that fond of this group though

it's silly that people are writing bad reviews then are saying BUT IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE BAD COS THE ALBUM'S BAD