Also, I remember liking Recitation, but I don't remember one iota of it, and I haven't jammed it since i don't know when, so I guess I didn't like it that much. Won't jam this, tbh.

"I'm really not sure what all the uproar is about regarding this review. Is it a masterpiece? No, but not everything a writer turns in is going to be phenomenal."

Not phenomenal and flat out awful might not be mutually exclusive, but there's quite a difference.

"I've definitely written worse reviews than this before and gotten shat on at least 90% less."

I don't see how that should affect the way I treat this review.

Maybe stop taking one review so seriousoly? Just let it go.

Album Rating: 3.0

why the fuck are you so angry about one dude's opinion on an album, IntriguingSergei? like, i legitimately don't understand why you'd be angry about it

I get it in a way. As a staff review, this piece is in a way representative of how the site feels about the album as a whole, and honestly, will influence anyone who listens to the album after reading. I mean, what if a site posted a harsh review of an album you considered a 5, and it contained points that (to you) seemed unfair or unwarranted?

That being said, yeah dude, chill out.

Album Rating: 3.0

i'd just say "wow. well, your loss, dude." and move on, frankly.



i'm sure you can understand how used i am to disagreeing with others by now

I don't think the review is bad, but the underlying point is that it's always good for staff writers to strive for excellence, and users should criticize more often. I think the fact that Eli had negative things to say made some users scrutinize it more than they otherwise might have.

woops, didnt expect such a rating

Album Rating: 2.5

As a staff review, this piece is in a way representative of how the site feels about the album as a whole

but it is, so.........

"As a staff review, this piece is in a way representative of how the site feels about the album as a whole"

I think it's more so representative of the quality of workmanship that comes from this site. If there's a staff writer that is half-assing his/her reviews, it sets a bad example for what's to be expected on here.

Is it? Really the only persons viewpoint that a review should represent is the reviewers, the overall attidude of the userbase to an album should be disregarded otherwiwe youll just end up pandering to them

i agree with that as well, but when you go to a site like wikipedia (please do not start the validity of wiki war) and it has SPUTNIKMUSIC: 2.2/5 and an excerpt from the review, people associate that poor rating of the album with the site, whether the majority of the people here actually agree with that rating or not.

also, the thing is, whether we like to admit it or not, a positive or negative review on some levels colors our opinion of the album beforehand, whether it be the expectations or judging by how high you value the opinion of the person reviewing it ... i.e. i generally agree with eli and our musical tastes (for the most part) are very similar, so i have no intention of checking this out, in large part due to his rating. now that's just me, but i feel like we all have other users who we connect with taste-wise and will specifically avoid certain albums if they claim them to not be worth our time.

Oof. I didn't have high hopes for this after that preview track.

I feel like Xeno is the only one that brings shit storms with polarizing views on albums/bands that people generally like. It's entertaining. Sometimes there are too many positive reviews on this sire, at least from the reviews I tend to read. I remember that Dir En Grey "Dim Spiro Spero" review.

"Is it? Really the only persons viewpoint that a review should represent is the reviewers, the overall attidude of the userbase to an album should be disregarded otherwiwe youll just end up pandering to them"

While I generally agree with this statement, it doesn't really fall in line with what I'm trying to communicate. I'm not talking about viewpoints, opinions or attitudes of the userbase. I'm talking about quality of writing. Workmanship.

If people read a staff review that is lazily or poorly written (and I'm not saying this one is, per se), that review sets a standard for review quality on the site for a user, specifically new users or people passing by.

"I mean, what if a site posted a harsh review of an album you considered a 5, and it contained points that (to you) seemed unfair or unwarranted? "

The guy you're talking about said this earlier:

"Dude if you're referring to me, I don't care about this band one bit, I was just pissed at how lousy the review was."

So that 5 isn't actually a 5

Hopelust i wasnt responding to you man i was responding to spirit

Tho i mainly agree with u and spirit anyway

oh. my bad.