Reviews discussion

^    ..... (dunno why I can't get the emoticon of the dude rolling on the floor laughing.....always comes up with the regular lol dude......)

Gallifrey wrote: m2thek wrote: I just skimmed his review after reading it earlier today, and I don't see anything wrong with it. It's not a style I would have written in but his review backs up his score and I think he totally articulated why he didn't like it. That's basically what a review is supposed to do: inform the reader if they should purchase some product. I think if anyone reads that and shares similar feelings to the reviewer they will be well informed. Yeah, I admit I was a bit hostile, but I also did describe that the album was more or less the same as the last, so if someone enjoyed the last, they could take that to mean that they would like it. Negative reviews can be beneficial as well. I know for a fact I have a few reviewers who I follow, to listen to stuff they give bad reviews to.

Of course negative reviews can be useful, and fun to read.   But that misses the point.   A negative review that is not convincing or alluring or written with some discipline fails in its purpose and bores the reader with aimless diatribe.  You must simmer in your hate of an album for awhile, digest your contempt, and then use words to hunt down and eviscerate your prey.   Honesty isn't enough.   It has to be true as well, and it's your job to prove your case.

m2thek wrote: I just skimmed his review after reading it earlier today, and I don't see anything wrong with it. It's not a style I would have written in but his review backs up his score and I think he totally articulated why he didn't like it. That's basically what a review is supposed to do: inform the reader if they should purchase some product. I think if anyone reads that and shares similar feelings to the reviewer they will be well informed.

Magic Mountain wrote: [QUOTE=Horizons]I don't like PoS or Ritual. And it would be pretty boring if every album that came out on PA only had the same praising reviews. He wrote honestly about an album, no need to get mad over it.

Of course you do, but these albums and some more on this site that this guy likes to be negative about them, are really high on the ranks. OK, this is not a contest but all these people cannot be wrong about it. So the least you and me can do is to respect it. And most of all and that's the case here, respect the artist and his work. He sacrificed a lot more than just a few minutes in front of a PC writing random ideas. It is a free world but I myself like ecclectic and tasty reviews with arguments and facts that stick to the music not just annoying showing off / trolling. And I don't want it to be removed, leave it there exposed.
BTW I used these 2 bands just to emphasize about it, not to start a race of taste.

Edited by Sophocles - January 23 2014 at 15:54

Dean wrote: Second Life Syndrome wrote: Dean wrote: Because he's a f**king idiot Seriously?  Grow up.  I just pointed out the obvious.  It doesn't matter what kind of explanation someone gives you, you won't respect anyone's opinion but your own.  That's fine.  It doesn't mean you have to start calling people names.  What is this?  High school? I am as grown up as I need to be or as I want to be. Your reply was unnecessary and unwarranted. I state my opinion, you put words in my mouth that I never said, something that can do nothing but further lower my opinion of you. You talk of respect but failed to give it.     Until now I have been restrained in what I posted, so now I shall state my opinion more forcefully: I do not approve of people posting secondhand reviews on our site, when this is done by an appointed collaborator of this site I find that to be reprehensible and inexcusable.

^ If you encounter a duplicate, you can always just skip it. No big deal. But if you have feelings about duplicates, then I guess, as aapatsos suggested, you can simply add the original source of your review at the beginning of your duplicate to tell the reader "hey, you may find this review again in another place".

Edited by Dayvenkirq - October 09 2013 at 18:20

Dean wrote: However, as the Legal Notice points out, the reviewer has granted the PA " an exclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sub licensable right to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, and display such ratings, reviews and comments throughout the world in any media, whether now known or hereafter developed" .. ie if we want to re-publish any review from PA on JMA or MMA then we can, the "exclusive" clause means you need our permission to republish the review elsewhere. However, we have never enforced this.

And should never.

Were such a rule seriously enforced, the author could remove said reviews from PA and that material would again become the sole ownership of the author (despite any other sites that have improperly reproduced those reviews, as happens continuously to countless PA Reviewers).  

The "perpetual and irrevocable" rights to original reviews apply to reviews that currently appear on PA.   Once they are gone, a reversal of rights occurs back to the author.   I have discussed this with M@x and though it is a somewhat grey area, he agreed.   The point being that if worse came to worst, material permanently reclaimed by the author is once again their sole property.

This however may not apply to Biographies which are understandably donated to the site as a proprietary need.

I'm no lawyer and my intention is not to cause a controversy, but this has been a quietly discussed matter for some time now and some clarity may be required in the future.   Once published, material dispersed on the Net does of course by nature belong to the World, much like a book or article, but that doesn't mean the author permanently gives up exclusive right-reversion and ownership.

octopus-4 wrote: I hope M@x is not concerned if I've posted one Claudio Milano review both on PA and JMA

Interesting as it is to read everyone's opinions about re-printing reviews elsewhere, the real issue is a legal one.