Reviews discussion

Cristi wrote: 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 that's that user's style. His reviews look like rants. His reviews have been under scrutiny before. You can question the writing style, it's poorly written and so on, but I don't think it's abusive.

^ Disagree with the review and the rating, but that's what platforms like PA and AP (or RYM) are there for ... we don't all need to share the same opinion.

Hrychu wrote: Or maybe he uses ChatGPT + machine translation sometimes and sometimes not?

Edited by Cristi - December 11 2023 at 10:22

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

Necrotica wrote: Logan wrote: And it's true that the standards changed. Exactly. If anyone saw my old reviews from 2008-2009, they'd probably wince a bit

^ Ah, yes Easy Livin wrote one of my all-time favourite reviews in PA despite, or more because of actually, me disagreeing with it in so many ways. It is for Soft Machine's Third which he gave one star.

1 stars Turds So what's all the fuss about then? I have to admit up front that trad jazz (along with rap) is about the only type of music I just do not like. I first heard this album in the early 70's and thought it was dreadful. My tastes have "matured" somewhat since then, so I bought the album on CD thinking that I must have missed something way back then. Unfortunately, I hadn't, it's still dreadful. Setting aside "Moon in June" for the moment, there is nothing remotely musical here. All there is rambling free form jazz, with no form or structure. It's hard to tell at times whether any of the band are actually capable of playing their instruments, so disjointed is the overall sound. "Moon in June" does have suggestions of a tune. It would be an exaggeration to call it the best track, it's not really good enough to warrant such an accolade, but it is better than the others. Soft Machine are usually branded as part of the Canterbury sound, but to do so is a gross insult to the likes of Caravan and Camel.

I do like humour in reviews, and it is a very funny one to me. It doesn't matter that I rank it very high.

Edited by Logan - June 07 2023 at 01:46

^ I think that's fine by PA standards. I like it, it's short and to the point. I don't have the patience I once did. I have just joined rateyourmusic again, rated one album a 4.5. Most ratings there were not as generous despite it being a high-ranked album. I wrote a few reviews at your site long ago, Guapo ones at least. They took me quite little time to write, but I was happier with the results than with some here where I took much, much longer to write (not that I wrote many). What I often look for specifically in reviews are things like favourite tracks, similar albums, related artists.... And if one believes that it's a very poor album, I want to know which seems worst. I actually am a very detail oriented person, but I also like pithy.

Edited by Logan - June 07 2023 at 01:27

^ I commonly write far too much, and I do value brevity.

"To use many words to communicate few thoughts is everywhere the unmistakable sign of mediocrity. To gather much thought into few words stamps the man of genius" (Arthur Schopenhauer).

^ More than bit ;) Not to worry.

It's not much of a review of course, and even by the standards, just sufficient. I actually like reading very short commentaries quite often, especially when reading through a lot of them, but that is on the lacking side. In the early years it was common to have really short commentary type reviews, and I actually think that is better than a lot I saw. I'm okay with it especially as but one review of four (unless it's on the from page, if I'm interested to read the reviews then I rarely would read just the one review). I don't have much issue with it beyond lacking much content -- it's a   review that I would put in the eminently ignorable and easily forgotten category.

What M@x perhaps could do if he doesn't want such minimal reviews to show up is to up the word limit for the ones that are visible (100 words may be too little). So that would not even show up. Then we could focus more on those ones that are considered abusive like, from the reviews guidelines (ones that break this rule are the ones we commonly are harshest with) :

"4 - Write in an intelligent and considerate manner. Rude or insulting language (including blatant vulgarity) will not be tolerated! Show respect for other reviewers, readers, the artists, and the CD and song titles. Do not belittle reviews posted by others, their opinions are as welcome and valid as yours. It is generally best to avoid commenting on other reviews altogether.
The following are examples of phrases which should NOT appear in reviews: "Reviewer Joe Smith is stupid for saying that...", "Anyone who doesn't like this album is an idiot", "The band which made this album is rubbish", etc."

From HERE

Of course that specifically is about submitting reviews, not comments on reviews in this thread in case anyone takes it that way. Although one can relate that to forum expectations.

Edited by Logan - June 07 2023 at 00:30

Logan wrote: And it's true that the standards changed.