I love this album especially "Playing with Fire." That song's sooooooo good.

Originally Posted by Jonathan Bautts

Just curious but how does this get a 96 and Linkin Park a 41? That makes no sense whatsoever.

What doesn't make sense is how LP managed a 41! But enough trolling. If the single "Crossfire" is anything to go by, I'm sure this record will be as good as it says. I'm going to listen later on and I'll see...

i prob still wont even give this a shot

Originally Posted by Jonathan Bautts

Just curious but how does this get a 96 and Linkin Park a 41? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Sure it does.

Not many people can comprehend what Linkin Park did on their new album.. not even the reviewer. With that being said, it's easy to compare this album to their previous and say "Well shit, this sucks." It's much deeper than that though. Not many people can tell the difference between and awkward sounding record and pure musical creativity. I believe the comparisons from LP New to LP Old is truly blinding most people when they listen to the record for the first time. I'd put it up in the high 70's-very low 80's area.

This Brandon Flowers album is ABSOLUTELY gorgeous, however.

Originally Posted by Jonathan Bautts

Just curious but how does this get a 96 and Linkin Park a 41? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Hahahaha, you're awesome. I didn't get it at first. Clever. I'm on to you, Star Fox.

Originally Posted by Blake Solomon

ha, haven't heard it and probably never will. I washed my hands of this douchenozzle a couple of years ago.

I would like to see a schematic for a douchenozzle.

Originally Posted by lalaKR@dr1cx

I was hoping that this would be better than the Killers's last which it hopefully will. But holy shit at that score.

This.

This is a tremendously high score for a good but not outstanding album.

The review was critically panned as medicore, but I really liked it, I saw him live @ NYC. But didn't deserve this high of a rating though.

It was not a 94, upper 80s at best

This is the album that should've came after Sam's Town. Day & Age was such a terrible terrible album. This has me excited to hear the Killers next album again.

why was the review rating changed? still don't think it should be that high up

Can you all just read the fucking review rather than just complaining about the score? So what if you wouldn't score it that high? I probably wouldn't either (high 80's for me, I think), but he supported his opinion in his review, and he made it clear that The Killers were one of his favorite bands, so why wouldn't he love this? The same whining about the score happened with Butch Walker earlier this year, and I'm just tired of it plaguing the reviews of albums I love. I didn't complain when Brand New's Daisy got a 90, and that's honestly one of the absolute worst albums I've ever heard in my life.

With any very very high or very very low score, personal interpretation plays the biggest factor. I think as long as anyone understands what such a high score means (that this album is the cream of the crop, the best of the best and will be a favorite for a long time), and they feel that way, give it the very high score. People will disagree. Maybe I'll disagree! I haven't evened listened to this yet but I really want to now.

not aoty material, wheres justin or blake...

Originally Posted by 11:11

One thing that really annoys me about people on this site is that they focus too much on the score an album gets. If I had things my way, there would be no score, that way people could read a review and see if it's postive or not, because that's ultimately what matters.

Rant aside, you've convinced me to check out this album, so job well done.

You better check it out.

I love how most people in this thread are bitching over the score.

I think you wrote a fabulous review, keep writing!