Reviews reporting thread

Edited by Rivertree - May 06 2020 at 16:06

Tom Ozric wrote:  I have better things to do.

Ok, that is your opinion. I'm sorry if my review isn't to your standards. If you don't like my review, then ignore it. I gave my reasons why I wasn't a fan of Third, and trust me I tried. I gave it plenty of honest listens, but it was a no go. Fact is, you can say something is fact when it's not, so don't be upset that I didn't enjoy the album and gave it a bad review.

Ok, don't be so rude. I'm not a Monster, I'm a genuinely nice and relatively harmless person. I'm sorry you were upset by my review and hopefully my rewrite of my Larks review will help you understand my point of view better. Music overall is totally subjective to everyone, you can forget that what you may like, others may not. It's not a perfect world, and I hope my clarification on my review of Larks helps people see my point of view.

Tapfret wrote: Just delete the reviews and let him/her know that they are entitled to their opinion, but reviews will require explanation to validate that point of view.

That's what I did, I wrote my point of view out, Site my Larks review.

Alright, since I believe I was being a bit unfair in my reviews to King Crimson, I sat down and listened to Larks another 4 more times, I had listened to the album a week in advance of writing the review and it was obvious I didn't try. Hopefully the new review I put helps, just so you know, I'm not going totally back on my word. I am going to listen to Red a bunch and see how it works out. Also please don't make rude comments about me based on a review, it's actually kinda low.

The objections have nothing to do with opinions or tastes. The site covers a huge range of sub-categories and is visited by people with very different musical proclivities. What this is about is not engaging in any level of detail that would lead the reader to have any confidence that the writer actually listened to the album. There is no application of any objectivity in your reviews to indicate where the perceived problems are. (or bright spots in the case of favorable reviews). 

Edited by Tapfret - May 07 2020 at 00:36

^ Much better. I honestly doubt anyone on this site could feel such hatred towards "Starless" and give an intelligent explanation

“ I would rather listen to Hybris “   Well, me too. But how many readers actually know Hybris ?? That line means sh*t to someone not familiar with Anglagard. So it bears no weight in a review (says he who has not reviewed anything for years.......)

All traps on earth takes aspects of hybris and other Anglagard releases (the band is 3/4th Anglagard afterall) and adds tons of layers of Avant grade and Zeuhl, a sh*t ton of woodwinds, and arguably more symphonic elements. To completely write it off as an Anglagard clone and have that be your sole criticism is pretty lazy and ignorant imo.