recently the 4 foot 11 metalhead who i think of as dio with tits remarked on how forced some reviews seem, and i feel like i've commented on this before and as much as it pains me to agree with the brooklyn hipster who drinks pabst (if its so cheap than just fucking drink mouthwash in the bathroom) she's 100% right.
to be on the pro-review crew you have to add about 1k words that don't need to be there. you have to make a much bigger deal about an album of it either being a staple of a genre, a gigantic pile of shit, and even when you say something is middle of the road you have to say its SO in the middle of the road that it DEFINES BEING MIDDLE OF THE ROAD!!! it was so middle of the road that its worthy of note in this multi stanza epic poem you're trenching through like a swamp in laos m-16 over your head and rations on your backpack...what? you have to make insane comparisons to something in order to justify reading the gigantic review, even this entry could be summed up "people who do reviews try too fucking hard" reviwerererers have to convince themselves in advance that their opinion of the new slayer album is important enough that other people should read it before they listen to the album themselves, thats so fucking crazy that even a narcissist prick like myself can admit it.
i can't imagine the nerve it would take someone to submit a sample review to a music site, to think that "i have so much to add to someones music listening experience that they just have to read me use big words to describe the new jesu ep". you have to be so fucking full of shit to think that adding a bunch of vocab words around a paragraph tells anyone anything about any form of media.
having said that i still respect wood and i am all of those things i hate, but you still come here for it so whatever, i hate seeing me in other people because i hate myself so much
6 comments:
spot on
I generally just look at the score most websites will give, and even then, why do they use 10 point scales (often with decimals)? I can hardly read past the first sentence. just can't filter through the bullshit. how do they decide between giving the latest animal collective release a 9.1 or 9.2? fer fuck's sake. stop pretending you're such a brilliant listener of music, an actual journalist, and just rate it as shite, average, or good.
the number system pisses me off to no end
if the new animal collective is a 9.2 then i guess 30 years from now it'll be just as relevant as the wall by floyd and zeppelin albums
people are over value-ing jerk offs and want to feel important about the muic they hear
When it comes down to it, we should be using the old school method of 'this guy (friend, reviewer, self-hating blog poster) seems to like the same music that I do and he likes/hates this release. maybe I will like/hate this release too.'
God knows I don't pick up everything you guys post, but if I need something new to listen to, this is one of the first places I go because I know you have similar tastes. And God knows I never read reviews by professional reviewers because most of them enjoy sucking each other's cocks too much...
the most unique review ratings I've seen on the internet are at http://www.teufelstomb.com/.
compare this nasum review http://www.teufelstomb.com/reviews/nasum-doombringer/
to this squash bowels review http://www.teufelstomb.com/reviews/squashbowels-grindvirus/
to this black dahlia murder review http://www.teufelstomb.com/reviews/theblackdahliamurder-deflorate/
as far as the "bottom line" or the "album rating" I really enjoy their approach. jus' saying.
I like how that review's thesis is that Pelican (and metal these days) is too pretentious and are trying hard to be important. You could probably replace every time they use "Pelican" with "This Review" and "Metal" with "Music Reviews" and it would be pretty accurate.
100% right!
Post a Comment