Reviews discussion

Tapfret wrote: But when I see this nonsense as the first entry on the front page, it does nothing but make me cringe at what someone who is visiting the site for the first time must think.

It's not a formal review or even a proper review as it's not a critical assessment of the album, but instead it's a short opinion piece. Maybe it should go as it is reactionary. I read your post, it's short. I responded more to Nikola's post and whether it is indeed pure cowsh*t, as well as generally from whatever angle interested me. In my vernacular, that refers to actual cow dung and erroneous, nonsense claims and opinions, commonly intended to mislead.   I looked at the review to see what I consider to be bullsh*t from my perspective.

So one could take this, or not, which I never meant to imply was the substance of your issue:

"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..."

Now if I had good reason that no one had every claimed that, then I would be more likely think of the whole piece as horsesh*t. But I know firsthand that people have claimed this. Nickola might have meant it in a different way, but I had my interpretation. Successfully communicating ideas, especially nuanced ones, can be tough. And that's the beauty of conversation as one can clarify points and develop ideas along the way provided it is not hostile and people are open-minded (since otherwise two-way communication becomes harder).

I'll leave other admin to decide if it breaks the rules, but while problematic I don't think it requires action at this time. I also would not be upset to see it gone, My mind might change on an another inspection or based on other arguments, but it's not just my decision, of course. And I am not as into that side of things as some others. The forums are my happy place here usually,


Edited by Logan - January 12 2024 at 13:52

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Tapfret wrote: I have no sacred cows. Anyone can dislike any album they want. But this "review", to put it in the reviewers own terms, is "a<span style="font-family: " Sans", Arial, sans-serif;">s if someone took some cool twenty word review and extended it in order to get 100 words and qualify as a review".</span> It’s acceptable to me. Inexperienced as the reviewer may be, it sounds like a genuine opinion. Cute how almost every song title is not spelled correctly

That in itself should disqualify the review! 

Hrychu wrote: Yeah. What I'm saying is that those reviews suck on a stylistic level. But we all start somewhere, don't we!

Yes, we all have to start somewhere, but not from the bottom of the barrel.

Yeah. What I'm saying is that those reviews suck on a stylistic level. But we all start somewhere, don't we!

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.   

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

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

^ It's just very selective logic.