I’m not sure if this is a copout, but it definitely is a lazy-man’s way to do it. This “review” was originally an e-mail I wrote in September, a good month+ before the concept of this very website existed. That doesn’t mean that the contents of the e-mail aren’t worthy of inclusion on this site. You’ll notice that it’s written more like an e-mail than a review (what with instances of a specific “you” and “me”). I’ve added some links and some popins, and the rating and conclusion are new for this review. This entire e-mail basically was a response to him saying, “As would be expected, the new Weezer album is quite excellent.” As always, don’t be afraid to post comments, it’s not like we’d write an extensive analysis of something that would be contrary to one sentence you wrote or anything.
So, having gotten the new Weezer album just two days ago, and having given it two listens“”.I hate to say it, but I agree with the Pitchfork review. I don’t agree with giving it .4/10, as that would only be appropriate for the review of an album by someone who happened to be responsible for the rape of an immediate family member of the reviewer, but their reasoning for it being “bad” was spot-on. To be fair, I knew that it was reviewed poorly (the .4/10, specifically), but I had not read the contents of the review, so I had no pre-set opinion of the album before listening as Rolling Stone gave it a rather straight-forward 4 star review [the type of 4 star review given to bands that have a solid “sound” (like Cake and soon, the Strokes) that can’t be faulted and release albums that sort of sound alike, for better or worse””.remember that the most recent Cake album was rather poorly reviewed by Rolling Stone for sounding “