muse are awful, this album is probably no exception. won't be checking out.

sorry :<

(if you're curious, here's a review, and this website is generally awesome so... http://www.sputnikmusic.com/album.php?albumid=40324)

I mean, come on, some people even like country music..

Scatterbrain, reviews mean shit when it's for an art form imo

enthusiastic amatures writing reviews however... not needed.

really? some of the reviews over there are the best I've read. try this one -

http://www.sputnikmusic.com/album.php?albumid=185

One of the greatest albums of all time – not only a musical accomplishment to the highest degree, Animals is also a scathing criticism of the system that spawned it.

A musical masterpiece, a literary work of genius, and a political tour de force

Art and art critique live side by side and good critique can advance the form as much as a talented painter.

In your opinion

I would much rather decide whether I dislike something, rather than letting someone else lead me into disliking something. Reviews are useful, but if you let one review form your whole opinion on something then it's just silly, even if the critique is good.

My opinion is based on my study of Art and Music history in which critique was always intended for the artists themselves it became popular as review after it became widly puplished in the 19th century when several people became more famous for critique than their own work itself. The two feed each other. So who said any critique was intended for you in the first place? And I certainly never suggested you base your opinion on only one review. How you even came to that conclusion is beyond me.

So no not just my opinion, the opinion of Aristotle, the opinion of Kant, the opinion of Art history and even of historians them selves.

Oh and if we are talking about review which in this case we are, no you shouldnt trust just one review. You're buying based on you tastes in which case I suggest peer review rather than critique as critique as I've said should not be subjective to the tastes of the critic.

I was talking about scatterbrains dismissal due to that one review, not your opinion or the opinion of great philosophers

In your opinion

I was talking about scatterbrains dismissal due to that one review, not your opinion or the opinion of great philosophers

The thing is though, it's a review for an album that has been out for over three decades AND has garnered mucho critical acclaim in it's time. Personally Animals isn't my favourite album from 'The Floyd's' back catalogue but I can certainly appreciate it for the quality piece of work it so clearly is. When it all comes down to it though, I think a review for it at this stage in the game would always be gushy rather than actually informative. It's clearly written by a swooning fan of the genre who, I'm guessing, pretty much assumes that anybody reading the review simply wants to reiterate that it is, in fact, the dog's wagglies.

Which makes sense really. I doubt anybody would be reading this review in order to ascertain whether they want to nip down to HMV to part with their hard earned scratch. I do agree with you in the respect that reviews should really compare the subject with similar genre leaders; It's only good practice. However, for this particular review, I think it's just about sounding off about how awesome they think Pink Floyd are. And I agree. Pink Floyd are fucking awesome.

If it was a review for Muse's new album though, I'd expect a little more comparison and break down of style, and less brown nosery.

There is no modern music criticism

so hey i herd of dis great music site called pitchfrok its pretty rad and not preetenshush at all you guys shoud check it out some time srsly D;

(but I guess pitchfork is fairly love it or hate it too)