1. Originally posted by Bloodraven:[..]
    I'm totally out of the loop about the tour... is that amount more than what they used to charge for previous tours? are tickets not selling ok compared to previous tours?

    I don't know about it, but if there's problems to sell tickets, I wouldn't blame it on the SOE material released so far, I'd put it on the fact they just toured this year, and a band like this in this stage of its career is not really suited for touring on a yearly basis.

    ("U2? I already watched them last year, I think I'll pass this time..." seems to me more plausible than "U2? I didn't really liked the couple of songs I've heard from their new album, I'll pass...")
    "U2? I didn't really liked the couple of songs I've heard from their new album, so fo[/u]r $329, I'll pass...")

    That's all I'm saying. According to Remy, $329 is about $130 more than same seat on SOI, and, as you said, they just did TJT....
  2. Originally posted by blueeyedboy:[..]
    "U2? I didn't really liked the couple of songs I've heard from their new album, so fo[/u]r $329, I'll pass...")

    That's all I'm saying. According to Remy, $329 is about $130 more than same seat on SOI, and, as you said, they just did TJT....
    ugh... well... I'm well trained in the art of letting pass the chance to see my favorite band live because tickets are irresponsibly expensive, even if they come only once every 7 years or so... I understand the frustration.
  3. Originally posted by ferrari:You can give your opinion about the 4 or 5 songs we have heard. (I only know The little things well, which is awsome, the others only parts), but not about an record of 13 and 3 bonus songs, from which most you have not listened yet. So why so dramatic posts here.


    He actually heard the whole album already.
  4. Originally posted by Bloodraven:[..]
    ugh... well... I'm well trained in the art of letting pass the chance to see my favorite band live because tickets are irresponsibly expensive, even if they come only once every 7 years or so... I understand the frustration.
    This one might be the one where they overvalued their product and outpriced their fans...


  5. these ratings bother me. 8/10 = 4/5 so it's not in any way more accurate in the first place, but even if it became 8.2 what difference is that from a 8.3, 8.0 or 7.8 with something as subjective as music? why label it "out of 10" if you don't strictly use integers therefore giving a literal infinite number of possible scores? and is this relative to some other piece of music, if so why not just rank it above/below instead of the arbitrary number? even more, whenever the score is out of 10, the rater often views anything below a 6 as a letter grade F and thus 2s and 4s are equally bad, just tell us if you liked it or not and what about you liked! I'd call both Stay and The Fly perfect "10"s but the two sound nothing alike, the number describes nothing!

    Sorry for the off topic rant, just something that always bothers me about how people review.
  6. Originally posted by NeonTiger64:[..]


    these ratings bother me. 8/10 = 4/5 so it's not in any way more accurate in the first place, but even if it became 8.2 what difference is that from a 8.3, 8.0 or 7.8 with something as subjective as music? why label it "out of 10" if you don't strictly use integers therefore giving a literal infinite number of possible scores? and is this relative to some other piece of music, if so why not just rank it above/below instead of the arbitrary number? even more, whenever the score is out of 10, the rater often views anything below a 6 as a letter grade F and thus 2s and 4s are equally bad, just tell us if you liked it or not and what about you liked! I'd call both Stay and The Fly perfect "10"s but the two sound nothing alike, the number describes nothing!

    Sorry for the off topic rant, just something that always bothers me about how people review.
    Depends if people use decimals or strictly integer values in their ratings. If people are open to using decimals, then yes 8/10 vs 4/5 wouldn't make much sense as somebody could easily do 4.2 or 3.9 out of 10. This sort of distinction does make more sense for ratings that are limited to integer values as 4/5 = 8/10 while 3/5 = 6/10. I generally agree that numerical ratings, which are already arbitrary to begin with, can be made even more confusing when people don't clearly lay out a somewhat objective reference.

    Personally, I attribute ratings to my response to a song.
    5* songs I will never ever skip and will go out of my way to put them on playlists.
    4* songs most likely will not be skipped when they come up and I may put them on playlists.
    3* songs might get skipped every so often and I most likely will not go out of my way to add them.
    2* songs are not going to stay on active playlists, but maybe I'll revisit them after a while.
    1* and 0* songs I won't ever revisit intentionally.