Reviews discussion

AlainPP's proficiency in writing in English goes back and forth from good to bad between reviews. That really bugs me. xD

Or maybe he uses ChatGPT + machine translation sometimes and sometimes not?
BTW, is writing reviews using ChatGPT allowed on PA?

Edited by Hrychu - December 11 2023 at 10:18

OK. I'm gonna be 100% honest now. I didn't like Himlabacken Vol. 2 that much. I think the compositions are quite watered-down compared to the band's previous material and that the classic Moon Safari techniques simply don't work when they're constantly interrupted by that hard to describe plasticky Bon Jovi prog-on-the-verge-of-prog-metal sound.

http://www.progarchives.com/review.asp?id=2973810

But this (obviously rushed) review doesn't justify the 1 star rating at all IMO.

Hrychu wrote: OK. I'm gonna be 100% honest now. I didn't like Himlabacken Vol. 2 that much. I think the compositions are quite watered-down compared to the band's previous material and that the classic Moon Safari techniques simply don't work when they're constantly interrupted by that hard to describe plasticky Bon Jovi prog-on-the-verge-of-prog-metal sound. http://www.progarchives.com/review.asp?id=2973810 But this (obviously rushed) review doesn't justify the 1 star rating at all IMO.

^ I think it's awesome. I guess that some people get annoyed by the fact that it's not even trying to re-invent the wheel, while others do not care and focus on other aspects.

^ It's just very selective logic. 

It's not a great review for sure, but since when is that the bar?

One's appreciation is subjective, but I take issue when people make questionable claims about art and other things that may be "personal truth" but lack objective merits. For abuse, we have a set of guidelines and try to follow those criteria when evaluating the reviews (but subjectivity comes into play then too). Poor reviews are allowed as long as they are not considered abusive. If someone makes verifiably erroneous claims, then I think the reviewer should be contacted to correct those. if those claims are deemed abusive according to one's interpretation of the guidelines, then summary execution may occur.

I'll quote each paragraph.

Sorry to everyone who claims that this album should be liked by everyone who calls themselves a prog listener, as I didn't like it at all. I have listened to the entire album and it felt like if I was listening to a 3h album, even tho it's just one hour long...

I have heard that claim from people. I also feel that the album feels really long for a short album. I have rarely managed to make it all the way through, and I have been trying now and then since the 80s.   This may be seen as off from me since I can enjoy lots of repetition, droning, and really long tracks that others find thoroughly tedious/ boring (Swans being an example).   To each his or her own tastes.

The album was extremely boring, as if someone took some cool two minutes songs and extended them in order to get two 10 minute songs, Siberia and You and I. It also sounded mediocre, as if instead of YES, some garage band was playing.

Yep, I find it boring, probably not as boring. And it does strike me as mediocre. I like the opening, But that;s just my experience, doesn't mean I think others should feel the same way, It has seemed odd to me that this, to my ears, very mediocre albums does get hyped as much as it has been. But live and let live. I won't tell others that they should not like it and I would rather others not tell me (or a general we) that I should like it. People have.

Overall, I didn't like the album, maybe it's not the kind of prog I'm used to listening, usually fast prog, and I may like it in the future, in that case I'll come back and edit the review.

Fair enough.

The review could be more detailed, I think it's more along the lines of the quality of a pretty fine forum post, but I don't see that it meets the standards of being reported as abuse. More one for the Reviews discussion topic, imo. PA does not have high standards except when it comes to official Prog Reviewers, and I have seen poorer than this from some in the early years. And I have seen longer reviews with even less substance.

Calling it "pure cowsh*t" seems like bullsh*t (or hyperbole) to me based on my experiences. I prefer clownsh*t personally. And I don't get what the reasoning/ inferences would be behind asking what the hell is it doing here. Members can submit reviews, good, bad, mediocre. And commonly it's healthy to have a variety of opinions on albums on display else.

Different perspectives. Might want to address these ideas in more depth in the Reviews Discussion thread to better understand each other's thought processes. Maybe I'm being thick (as a brick).

Edited by Logan - January 12 2024 at 10:03

Does primarily stating in the review that the album is boring and that the reviewer doesn't like it actually constitute a critique of the album? I thought that was the basis for a review.