Ragana Rawrcat
Posts: 4919 |
Hahaha, this made me laugh. I'm not sure I'd give this album a chance in the first place, it looks too exotic for me and I'm pretty sceptical about metal what comes from places like that. However, the review is great even though the album apparently is not (I for sure would like to know what's good on it since the rating still is optimal).
How come I always end up with reading one of your reviews? And why the artworks of the albums you review are always so... attractive?
Loading...
|
Lucas Mr. Noise ElitePosts: 13427 |
29.11.2009 - 21:37Rating: 5
LucasMr. NoiseElitePosts: 13427
Written by Ragana on 29.11.2009 at 21:33
(I'd sure would like to know what's good on it since the rating still is optimal).
Thanks for the comment.
But, what do you mean with 'optimal'? A 5.4 is, in my country/culture, the 'highest insufficient' you can get. A 5.5 and above means you passed (usually). The album is boring, uninteresting and more, but the musicians aren't bad, there are some good riffs etc. Hope that explains it a bit.
Quote: How come I always end up with reading one of your reviews?
No idea.
Quote: And why the artworks of the albums you review are always so... attractive?
Hahaha, this has really been true the last months. I don't know, actually. But I've heard this before and most of the albums indeed have really cool artwork, or in this case, something that grabs your attention. Colour schemes, I guess.
----
SLUDGE. DOOM. DEATH. Wait, what?
"The reason I'm running for president is because I can't be Bruce Springsteen." - Barack Obama
Loading...
|
Ragana Rawrcat
Posts: 4919 |
Quote: But, what do you mean with 'optimal'? A 5.4 is, in my country/culture, the 'highest insufficient' you can get. A 5.5 and above means you passed (usually). The album is boring, uninteresting and more, but the musicians aren't bad, there are some good riffs etc. Hope that explains it a bit.
Well, if we remember that 5 is half of 10 and if 10 is the highest, as we all know, then 5 doesn't seem so bad at all. However, now I can see why it's low for you. The rating systems in our countries are different. Here the highest insufficient is 3, surprisingly low comparing to your 5.4. And 4 is sufficient although it still counts as a bad mark.
However, now I understand why the rating is 5.4, thank you.
Quote: Hahaha, this has really been true the last months. I don't know, actually. But I've heard this before and most of the albums indeed have really cool artwork, or in this case, something that grabs your attention. Colour schemes, I guess.
Then, I guess, you have a good taste in album artworks or art in general.
Loading...
|
Lucas Mr. Noise ElitePosts: 13427 |
29.11.2009 - 21:59Rating: 5
LucasMr. NoiseElitePosts: 13427
Quote:
Written by Ragana on 29.11.2009 at 21:55
Quote: But, what do you mean with 'optimal'? A 5.4 is, in my country/culture, the 'highest insufficient' you can get. A 5.5 and above means you passed (usually). The album is boring, uninteresting and more, but the musicians aren't bad, there are some good riffs etc. Hope that explains it a bit.
Well, if we remember that 5 is half of 10 and if 10 is the highest, as we all know, then 5 doesn't seem so bad at all. However, now I can see why it's low for you. The rating systems in our countries are different. Here the highest insufficient is 3, surprisingly low comparing to your 5.4. And 4 is sufficient although it still counts as a bad mark.
However, now I understand why the rating is 5.4, thank you.
Yeah, that's actually often a problem, that people attribute different 'quality' to different numbers. In this case, your 3 would match my 5.4, but it gets even more confusing when you ask the question 'what would I want to listen to?'. I rarely listening to anything below 8.5, because well, I don't have infinite hours in the day and I have to decide on what album to spend my time. That's why the words are always more important.
Quote: Hahaha, this has really been true the last months. I don't know, actually. But I've heard this before and most of the albums indeed have really cool artwork, or in this case, something that grabs your attention. Colour schemes, I guess.
Then, I guess, you have a good taste in album artworks or art in general.
Nah, I don't have good taste. Most of the albums are sent to me, I don't choose them.
----
SLUDGE. DOOM. DEATH. Wait, what?
"The reason I'm running for president is because I can't be Bruce Springsteen." - Barack Obama
Loading...
|
Ragana Rawrcat
Posts: 4919 |
Sounds pretty awful, but you definitely know how to plan your time what is a veeeery good thing. Sad is that you don't have enough time to listen to what you'd like to whilst some of us *whistles* don't even know what to listen to because everything seems so:
a) boring
b) uninteresting
c) unwanted?.
Quote: Nah, I don't have good taste. Most of the albums are sent to me, I don't choose them.
Aww, it's sad to hear that. Well then someone's definitely got a good taste. XD
Loading...
|
Lucas Mr. Noise ElitePosts: 13427 |
29.11.2009 - 22:20Rating: 5
LucasMr. NoiseElitePosts: 13427
Written by Ragana on 29.11.2009 at 22:16
Sounds pretty awful, but you definitely know how to plan your time what is a veeeery good thing. Sad is that you don't have enough time to listen to what you'd like to whilst some of us *whistles* don't even know what to listen to because everything seems so:
a) boring
b) uninteresting
c) unwanted?
With 600+ CD's there's got to be something appealing for every moment of the day. It's harder to choose what NOT to listen to then what to listen to. But most of the time I listen to the music I need to review, I rarely listen to my 'own' albums. Usually only at night.
----
SLUDGE. DOOM. DEATH. Wait, what?
"The reason I'm running for president is because I can't be Bruce Springsteen." - Barack Obama
Loading...
|
Ragana Rawrcat
Posts: 4919 |
Ah, for me it's vice versa. But I surely wouldn't want to be in your place when I HAVE to listen to something to write a review. Writing a review (to be more precise - writing bad jokes on it) sounds good, though. And currently you're at your best, so you're doing a very good job even though there's no time to for other albums you'd like to listen to and you have to listen to something what's even below 5.5 (!). Waste of time, actually.
You can look at the albums and *feel* the music through the artworks. That's an idea.
Loading...
|
ponderer
Posts: 153 |
Those are the kinds of scores that'll keep me from snagging this offering. Also @ Ragana, you can't use I'd and then WOULD right after each other. You are basically saying, "I would would". Sorry, it's my job.
Loading...
|
Ragana Rawrcat
Posts: 4919 |
You're right. I have no idea why I said like that or why I didn't edit that sentence. Anyway, thanks a lot for showing me my own mistakes.
Loading...
|
Raiden Down Under Staff ElitePosts: 8292 |
RaidenDown Under StaffElitePosts: 8292
Yeah well a 7 is "good", a 6 "average" so this release would be "below average"
I did notice the cover artwork too! I was thinking that one could be deceived by the good artwork and decent logo if one saw this album in a shop.
----
"Scream for me Melbourne!!!!"
- Bruce Dickinson
"I don't see any god up here"
- Yuri Gagarin (while in orbit, 1961)
Loading...
|
Ragana Rawrcat
Posts: 4919 |
Aye, it's good that now we know the album is not good. We wouldn't be deceived by it's looks if we ever saw it, hehe.
I didn't meant it's rated as 'good', I was just saying it's not a bad rating for an album which, um, sucks pretty much.
Here a 6 is 'almost good' and only a 5 is 'average'. Damn, we really do have a bad rating system that allows dumb children to graduate the school.
Loading...
|