A general survey about P.A. and RYM

Kati wrote: Reading back all these msg's inc. yours Dean on other forums, I had no idea anyone had tainted me on your private collab forum link, saying I was asking for 5 star reviews. This makes me so sad, I only ever asked Lucas and Angelo for a review on CS first album, also asked Juris through fb (fb name) aka VanDerGraafGenerator because he was a friend of Connor, who to date I think know that Connor is one of the nicest clever person's to date I have ever met. Thus total first album asked 3 people for a review, second album I have not asked anyone to review it.. I am sad because reading back  on a lot of things said and my happy ignorant replies, now I feel like a fool, I was an optimist and really loved it here.

Everyone and their dog's understudy hairdresser's personal trainer on PA got asked to review the second Corvus Stone album. This type of carpet bombing spamming for reviews just chafes everyone's teats and would ordinarily be potentially counter productive to positive appraisals of this music from any discerning and objective reviewer. (I opened a separate thread devoted to the acceptability or otherwise of such marketing practices recently) The album's current score of 4.09 however, clearly contradicts this rationale and seems contrarily inflated by less than assiduous reviews. Yes, that IS judgmental isn't it?. I received a PM asking me to review the album which I flatly declined. I then bought the album based on a You Tube video for Boots for Hire which I enjoyed hugely. I've not submitted a written review yet but would hazard three sparklies from this habitually grudging rodent i.e. good but clearly NOT essential (CS II is a devoted and sincere fans' record, NOT an original artist's one) None of the foregoing spamming can be attributed to Sonia so where the accusations of reviewer manipulation stem from is at best obscure at at worst delusional. As Dean says, no-one on PA has any problem with band members, their friends and family submitting reviews as long as they don't pretend to be disinterested third parties.

Svetonio wrote: ^ Thank you, Kati. If you had not posted that report, I would not have learned that King Crimson was in former Prog Archives' Art Rock section

 

moshkito wrote: Svetonio wrote: ^ Thank you, Kati. If you had not posted that report, I would not have learned that King Crimson was in former Prog Archives' Art Rock section   In the early 70's it WAS considered "art rock", as was YES, when it made it. I almost would suggest that the majority of stuff on the early FM radio in the US was all "art rock" ... and stopped being that when FM became just another commercial station!

moshkito wrote: Svetonio wrote: ^ Thank you, Kati. If you had not posted that report, I would not have learned that King Crimson was in former Prog Archives' Art Rock section   In the early 70's it WAS considered "art rock", as was YES, when it made it. I almost would suggest that the majority of stuff on the early FM radio in the US was all "art rock" ... and stopped being that when FM became just another commercial station!

Of course. I know that in the seventies, particularly on the other side of the Atlantic, the progressive rock was synonymously called art rock and that it was the same thing.
However, I wanted to point out something else. Back in 2007, Prog Archives had the "art rock" section as a separate genre - probably the acts a la Roxy Music, 10cc, David Bowie, Kate Bush and so on. As King Crimson was there, what was ridiculous, I pointed this:

ExittheLemming wrote: Everyone and their dog's understudy hairdresser's personal trainer on PA got asked to review the second Corvus Stone album. This type of carpet bombing spamming for reviews just chafes everyone's teats and would ordinarily be potentially counter productive to positive appraisals of this music from any discerning and objective reviewer. (I opened a separate thread devoted to the acceptability or otherwise of such marketing practices recently) The album's current score of 4.09 however, clearly contradicts this rationale and seems contrarily inflated by less than assiduous reviews. Yes, that IS judgmental isn't it?. I received a PM asking me to review the album which I flatly declined. I then bought the album based on a You Tube video for Boots for Hire which I enjoyed hugely. I've not submitted a written review yet but would hazard three sparklies from this habitually grudging rodent i.e. good but clearly NOT essential (CS II is a devoted and sincere fans' record, NOT an original artist's one) None of the foregoing spamming can be attributed to Sonia so where the accusations of reviewer manipulation stem from is at best obscure at at worst delusional. As Dean says, no-one on PA has any problem with band members, their friends and family submitting reviews as long as they don't pretend to be disinterested third parties.

The Dark Elf wrote: Kati wrote: Reading back all these msg's inc. yours Dean on other forums, I had no idea anyone had tainted me on your private collab forum link, saying I was asking for 5 star reviews. This makes me so sad, I only ever asked Lucas and Angelo for a review on CS first album, also asked Juris through fb (fb name) aka VanDerGraafGenerator because he was a friend of Connor, who to date I think know that Connor is one of the nicest clever person's to date I have ever met. Thus total first album asked 3 people for a review, second album I have not asked anyone to review it.. I am sad because reading back  on a lot of things said and my happy ignorant replies, now I feel like a fool, I was an optimist and really loved it here.   Continue being an optimist, Sonia. There are quite enough cynics, fanatics and out-and-out nuts on this forum. You needn't feel foolish or change your attitude here. And I do hope you decide to continue posting on PA. Like the endless whining over statistics, we need your optimism to counterbalance the cynicism; otherwise, it will be a darker place.

This beautiful sad song is so special and dedicated to Dean

Edited by Kati - March 25 2015 at 01:10

Dean wrote: Kati wrote:   Dean, as you know I cannot see what was said about me, although am shocked to find out of what was said behind my back, this was crushing. By no means I meant you had anything to do with the lies and you surely are aware how much I like you among all members here? I thought you were suspicious of my intentions because of some comments you made concerning the band and now clearly I feel really bad, like the most stupid ignorant idiot too, feel really bad again for being wrong. I always seem to get things so wrong, I speak my mind always from my heart and in my post I named you too to discuss this but your reply makes me feel really bad now, obviously deservingly so! I did not mean it to come out that way. I swear. xxx Well, that's a little clearer. Don't feel bad about it, it's a misunderstanding that's all. Frankly I cannot muster the ergs to try and track down what, if anything, was said in the collab zone - most discussions of this nature are usually done in the Report Abuse section of the Public forum - but even if I did I wouldn't be able to comment on it here.  Remember the first three rules of Fight Club? Well, the CZ operates in a similar policy: what happens in the CZ stays in the CZ. And there a many good reasons for this, least of all being it allows us collabs to biatch and squabble without making a public spectacle of ourselves, but it also allows us to discuss sensitive issues openly and freely without fear of causing upset or kicking off a public scene. If I were still an Admin I would be far more interested in who broke the first rule of fight club and why than anything we've discussed here. However, I'm not an Admin and I seldom visit the CZ these days so I couldn't care less. I "fell-out" with someone I thought was a good friend over a similar indiscretion and I'm not prepared to go through all that BS again. I must point out however that anything that is discussed in the Collaborators private area of the forum is not "behind your back", it is "in camera" - you are not privy to what was said but that does not mean that the matter was being dealt with unfairly. That no disciplinary warning was issued as a result (I presume) suggests it was either a storm in a tea cup, summarily dismissed as unsubstantiated or not considered to be an issue.   I should also point out from a topological perspective "behind your back" is actually in front of you (think about it ). I'm not much of a touchy-feely person but ...

 I deleted my comment here because it was redundant, really.

Edited by Kati - March 25 2015 at 05:17