that was a stupic article, why even bother wasting our time with a posting like that, the guy doesnt have a clue what he's talking about, he's a total idiot! :rambo: A failed r.e.m? Are you kidding me, what a stupid comparison. I like r.e.m but the Hip rocks over r.e.m anyday. :thumb:
thats why he writes for a shitty magazine like paste
Unh... that guy's just LOOKING to get his ass kicked. :rambo: :rambo:
What an asshole.
"The band pulls off some solid rockers on Evolution, but the lyrics flip-flop between high-school notebook drivel and stream-of-consciousness rambling. And the music is bland, almost-alt rock—a failed R.E.M./Soul Asylum hybrid. No wonder it ran me off so fast when I caught the band in ’98."
This asshole probably didn't even graduate highschool judging by his contrived pretentious writing.
I'm gonna write this f*cker.
Mick
hehehe..that kinda stuff makes me laugh.
What moron. However, the hip are unique in that you either get them or you don't. I know it took a few listens for the album to grow on me. However, that guy is still a moron.
God forbid someone out there exists who dislikes the hips music. Music is a matter of taste. . The Hip's music does not suit this person's taste obviously. He's not an idiot, just stating his opinion.
intothenight, good call. I agree completely. You are my hero until i finish typing this post...
which is now.
sorry.
Instead of lambasting the guy for not liking the Hip, why not lambaste him for writing an incompetent review?
The point of writing a review is to tell readers something about the work you're reviewing, not simply to set yourself up as an authority and pass judgment. So instead of calling a band a failed R.E.M., the reviewer should be telling you how they resemble R.E.M. and why he thinks they fail. If you never heard them before, that would let you understand whether you would like them or not.
Reviews that say "this release sucks" or "this band is great" without giving you any real information are worthless, and the people who write them should have their fingers amputated as a service to humanity.
skippy the wonder dog Wrote:Instead of lambasting the guy for not liking the Hip, why not lambaste him for writing an incompetent review?
The point of writing a review is to tell readers something about the work you're reviewing, not simply to set yourself up as an authority and pass judgment. So instead of calling a band a failed R.E.M., the reviewer should be telling you how they resemble R.E.M. and why he thinks they fail. If you never heard them before, that would let you understand whether you would like them or not.
Reviews that say "this release sucks" or "this band is great" without giving you any real information are worthless, and the people who write them should have their fingers amputated as a service to humanity.
:thumb: :thumb:
skippy the wonder dog Wrote:Instead of lambasting the guy for not liking the Hip, why not lambaste him for writing an incompetent review?
The point of writing a review is to tell readers something about the work you're reviewing, not simply to set yourself up as an authority and pass judgment. So instead of calling a band a failed R.E.M., the reviewer should be telling you how they resemble R.E.M. and why he thinks they fail. If you never heard them before, that would let you understand whether you would like them or not.
Reviews that say "this release sucks" or "this band is great" without giving you any real information are worthless, and the people who write them should have their fingers amputated as a service to humanity.
I find music review to be a waste of time anyway. Of course if every critic in the known world is praising someone it may be worth a listen. . but the point is. . the chances of finding someone who enjoys exactly everything you enjoy as well. . is slim to none. Music is such a broad art with so many possibilities that a review from one person is basically worthless. The only way I take reviews seriously, is if it seems the album or movie or whatever is getting mass bad reviews. . such as The Forgotten.