Reviews reporting thread

This review claims none of the musicians involved were “trained musicians”. I think this does the members of Spooky Tooth, individually named in the review, a great dis-service. https://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=3030290

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ Had to look it up. Certainly wasn't part of my Cambridge C2 Proficiency Exam

In college, my favorite 5 dollar word was "philippic". But I always spelled it incorrectly. 

^ Had to look it up. Certainly wasn't part of my Cambridge C2 Proficiency Exam 

I think that's the most usages of the word "fruity" I've ever read in a review. They should get bonus points for that. The phrases that really caught my attention were: "in a corner I smell the scent of Robert FRIPP" and "like a fruit juice cut with water to go down more easily." He should write lyrics for my little prog project.

alainPP again. I understand there may well be language issues and people have already said there may be several posters using this nom de plume but really this is gibberish. If the AlainPP nomenclature is appended to a post I just usually scroll on and ignore but for some reason decided to check out this one. Am I being too harsh!? It’s not offensive in anyway apart from to the senses?!

I have no sacred cows. Anyone can dislike any album they want. But this "review", to put it in the reviewers own terms, is "as if someone took some cool twenty word review and extended it in order to get 100 words and qualify as a review".

I was not entirely serious. Technically we would have to qualify each rating and review with which version the reviewer is referring to. But that would make the database much more complex, and in the vast majority of cases the version of the recording which people are listening to has no impact on the rating. So I guess it will be a mess for those few albums where the artists and/or rights owners screw up.

In regards to the reported review of The Flower Kings Unfold the Future. And I'll quote a little of it....

Buy the original, run away from the 2022 remaster! But to remove things like that aforementioned ribbon controller sound effect is just a desecration on top of the original. 2/5, would be 1/5 but the original was good.

... It is a shame that we do not have the site functionality like with RYM to review specific releases of albums and they all gets lumped into one. Sometimes those remastered and of course remixed releases can be of such variant quality and qualities from the original. If the reviewer had only known the remastered version, then I would expect that person to be reviewing the remastered version as it stands. In this case the person knows both versions and is comparing the two but ultimately rating the remaster and the review is about criticising it mostly and serves as a warning. I think it's very useful to compare the two, partially as a warning, but, if accessible, I would be more likely to review the earlier version that I liked as my focus and then go into details about the remaster. Also, starting the review with "I am reviewing [whatever] version" if one knows that there are significant differences between releases is a good idea.

Adding some guidelines on this issue to the "Reviews guidelines" topic in Site Rules and Guidelines would be a good idea. I have been reluctant to edit those, but maybe I will add a paragraph on that in the new year.

I will PM the reviewer to suggest potential edits.

What if, as some bands have done, the remastered version is now the only one that's readily available?

Grumpyprogfan wrote: siLLy puPPy wrote: ^ yes but as an extra AFTER reviewing the music But if the sonics are terrible the music is unlistenable and not worth reviewing. Just my thoughts.

Yeah, but in this case there are two mixes of the album. The original, which the reviewer likes, and the remix which the reviewer criticizes. But on PA, both releases are collapsed into one database entry.