I've always considered other peoples' reviews of music (and all art, for that matter) to be rather misleading, especially if they are being paid to churn out drivel, so I do what I can to stay well clear of it if not just ignore it altogether.

Sometimes arts "journalism" can make me very cross. There is not very much that I will say in praise of these monsters.

As far as other peoples' opinions on music etc. go, I am happy to make exceptions (obviously) for those who are not being paid to talk bollocks and whose opinions of such things I respect (e.g. I don't care much for Jack's music taste, he listens almost exclusively to Funeral For A Friend, but I will consider Jill's opinion, as she is vegan or something like that)

Salut! citizens of the EA forum! I respect your opinioni and consider you to be for the most part well-informed in the field of musica di passione!
Shut up your face! Pitchfork Media! Your opinioni are much too manufactured for me!


...and why do they give a score out of 10 (with a decimal place)? I think that they ought to consider a larger denominator. 100 would be more logical but equally invalid - an ideal improvement for them, non?

They should score between 0 and a billion. That would be fat.

soup alex wrote:but I will consider Jill's opinion, as she is vegan or something like that)

You are insane.

FURB!

(I believe this is "urban" for "FU RITE BAK")

I am kidding. You understand what I am trying to say, though, yah?

maybe but a persons diet and their ability to judge music aren't really connected. I don't think being a vegan makes anyone a better assessor of things. other than maybe Vegan recipies.

Vegans turtley know everything. Purebreeds can see through walls n'shit.