Reviewing leaked albums

"Poor Opeth, don't    t trash their album, they're an undergound band and need to sell copies to gain some money... Be good to them and write some 5 stars review.".

Honestly I don't care about the source of the reviewer's album; there are a lot of impossible-to-find albums that are still listened and praised (or bashed) thanks to file-sharing. This is not a black/white issue, but my main purpose on using this site is the quality of the INFO the listeners can share about prog rock groups. I respect the owner's policy. I always buy the albums that I like as soon as I can (usually a dozen per month), even importing them when this is necessary (in a lot of cases). But I never more will lost time and money in a blind-bought. Samples can be erroneous, so I truly believe that the future of the music business is in the hands of people like Radiohead's management. I like to buy the regular album from the artists I apreciate, even knowing that they don't see anything from my money except in live shows. But to ignore the file-sharing world as they don't exist seems to me a medieval-like policy, avoiding to face the future (actually the present) for fearing it.

If the band's label didn't want to have early reviews then they wouldn't have leaked their albums. :F

oddentity wrote: [   I see that Dick Heath has mentioned that PA does come down severely on reviews of leaks,   Actually somebody else     Perhaps it is encumbant upon the reviewer to state openly that he is reviewing a promo, so we can eliminate the suspicion once and for all.   I do if my review predates the release date, however, after the released date such a statement is largely redundant.   Often, the first few reviews can establish the tone for how the album will be received in the long run, irrespective of how good the album is.  We can see a similar thing happening in the theatrical business in which a single overly-critical review in the early stages can ruin a play's run and cause it to shut down prematurely.       However,  promos are issued to a quite number of reviewers/critics/djs  simultaneously (just as critics tend to attend en masse  the first night of a theatrical performance), so if  these people care to a number of reviews can be published in quite a short period, so giving  contrast of opinions.

My problem with the situation is that it clearly states, on the Watershed page:

NOTE - This album is not yet legally available. Reviews or ratings posted prior to release will be deleted.

Yet, I see reviews and ratings.... wtf?

Studio Album, released in 2008

Track Listings NOTE - This album is not yet legally available. Reviews or ratings posted prior to release will be deleted.


I'll look into this.

There is a hell of a difference between allowing people to post reviews of leaked albums and not allowing people to post links to illegal downloads in the forum. This is so obvious it doesnt need further explanantion.
If a review mentions that it is based on a downloaded copy it will be deleted. Other thab that what else can we do?  We would not want to blank legitimate pre-release reviews based on copies of the album deliberatelt sent out for review.

Interesting topic.

While I will not name the band here, a certain prog band's manager sends me pre-release mp3 files of the bands albums.  He usually asks me to post a link to my progarchives review on the bands Yahoo group.  He wants me to review it prior to release, and the band obviously supports this (they also send out normal CD promos, which I don't get because I'm merely a friend of their manager, not a "professional" reviewer.  But the band is fully aware he is sending me mp3's of the album.

Should I not post these reviews before the release date?  I could state I have a promo, but that is not strictly true and I'd prefer not to lie in a review.  In any case, I have yet to post a review for their most recent album because I'm still trying to absorb it and I didn't get time to listen to it enough before the release.  I'm just curious how I should handle this in the future.

In general though, I am pretty used to seeing pre-release reviews all over the place (not just here).  While it can be a little depressing to see so many people shamelessly admitting to illegal downloading, it is a fact of modern life that isn't going away anytime soon.  For myself, I don't really base any purchasing decisions on these reviews for the simple fact that I don't think these people have had sufficient time to create a decent review.  If I have not heard a band before, I will wait until a few months after release to get a good overview of reviews of the album before I decide to buy it (for the most part, I don't like to hear samples.......though on rare occasions I will listen to a song or two on the artists site or myspace or here).  As to what progarchives should do, well, that is up to the admins.  Whatever they choose I will support, as they have done a fantastic job with this site so far, IMO.

such a huge subject, so much to say I just wrote such a huge piece I thought you'd all be in a coma if I posted it.

So I will shrink it down. Personally I think it is morally reprehensible to sl*g of something that you have stolen and has not been given a chance to have buyers stand up for it. (equally reprehensible to go fan boy crazy over something you've nicked even if you "intend to buy" later!)  Having said that I do appreciate that M@x and team are unable to police every prog fan in the world!!!!

Dick Heath wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: Dick Heath wrote: And of course release dates may often vary from country to country Now there's a real bee in my bonnet, releasing something somewhere before they release it here.  Arrgh.  Not that I won't order it as an import if I really have to.   Hate to say the UK suffers from more from that than the USA, especially with cinematic DVD releases, and it used to be a real problem in the 60's and 70's  with anywhere from 2 weeks to 8 months between US and UK release dates - the Touch album was an example of the latter. However, in 2000 I shocked to see a legit copy of the Disney cartoon Tarzan being sold on video  in Kuala Lumpa (Malaysia)  6 months before its release in the UK - and then the UK version was almost three times the price - Disney know which parts of the world are daft enough to play well over the odds!

Don't look now, but the U.S. release for Apocalyptica's Worlds Collide was 7 months after the European releases.

On topic, I have no problem with someone giving an early review, but there's always the danger of reviewing the incomplete product...

//EDIT: By the way, as for "morally reprehensible", you you think that there are no reviews on the site for which the reviewer does not own the actual disc? I hate to burst your bubble, but it doesn't even have to be new for that to be true. And let's say I pre-order a disc and then download it. Technically, I don't have the album, but I have paid for it. Can we say moral gray area?


Edited by Gamemako - May 31 2008 at 08:46