Reviews discussion

NotAProghead wrote: ^ Igor's review was posted several months earlier! So he did not copy a thing.

your vampire comment threw me  

keiser willhelm wrote: micky wrote: keiser willhelm wrote: This comes from the collaborators reviews, which kinda surprised me. anyways, they are almost word for word, neither offering more than the other. This is Igor's original review http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=81702. and this is the copy by b_olariu http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=125709http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=125709 can I offer a suggestion.... stick to posting...  people don't take kindly to being reported.. and the only real similarity is they are short, don't care for the album.. and start by saying the album is the only one they have.  Whether collab or not... but yes.. especially for a collab who are judged by their own ...  accusing someone of copying or whatever your point is... unless you are SURE.. is bad news. and If you aren't doing that... what is the point of your post... Im sorry if i offended anyone. ok so no-one likes being reported. obviously. its not like i have a vendetta or was doing this maliciously. i have nothing against the reviewer i just stumbled across it and thought maybe id bring it up. apparantly that was 'bad news'. i AM pretty sure it was copied though. . . not in full but in most of the content. its word for word. that doesnt happen on accident. little bits are cropped out but for the most part, its the same review. this is the first time ive seen someone get jumped on for reporting a review. Again, it wasnt like i was doing it maliciously. i guess i owe an appology? sorry i offended you mickey.

I  was a bit strong... but sort of am protective of people...  so I'm the one whose sorry. Listen.. neither of them is a native speaker of English and yes... they are a bit similar... but suspect many that are short and have relatively the same point of views are.  The main thing is...  the bad news I meant.. was not some lightning bolt was going to strike you down.. but as collabs we work together and you get a sense of the kind of people we are.   These guys aren't two Joe Plumbers that wandered in ...but 2 valued contributors to the site...  and I for one ..tend to give the benefit of the doubt that Igor wouldn't knowingly copy another reivew... and by reporting it in this way.. this is exactly what is being insinuated. So sorry if I came down on you hard.. and I did...... consider it more sticking up for them.

Probably Igor, like a vampire, came to b_olariu at night... Even white spaces are missing at the same places. Lack of imagination?
Different pieces are in red.

Review
Prog-jester
(Igor Sidorenko)     
This is the only HARMONIUM album I own,and I have no further wish to buy anything else from them.I was told this is a Masterpiece.I saw it in PA's Top 50.And I finally got it.And I'm a bit disappointed. Their songs have left me unimpressed.The first epic has nice mellotron mid-part,but I can name dozens of bands which have better ones.The closing instrumental has some nice moments,but it's a bit boring and usual. I can't get what's the hype around this album.There are thousands of bands needing more attention than this one!The album is not even GOOD,BUT NON-ESSENTIAL:there are 5-6 minutes of nice music I'm able to listen to!Exusance for these 2 stars,but it doesn't worth more for me.I hope I've explained it pretty clear

Review
b_olariu
(Bogdan Olariu)
Prog Reviewer     
This is the only Harmonium album I own, and at least this one is very poor symphonic album, i don't know the rest of their discography. I was told this is a Masterpiece. I saw it in PA's Top 100. And I'm a bit disappointed. Their songs have left me unimpressed.The first epic has nice mellotron mid-part,but I can name dozens of bands which have better ones.The closing instrumental has some nice moments,but it's a bit boring and usual. I can't get what's the fuss around this album.There are thousands of bands needing more attention than this one!The album is 3 star. And i don't get the comparation with Vivaldi that Sean Trane said here. Still good but most of the time usual music. 3 stars


Edited by NotAProghead - October 17 2008 at 18:47

150 words should definitely appear OK. I think the actual count is done on letters (about 200) as it's easier, so any word limit is just an indication.

Logan wrote: And although I, like Dean, would like the option not to have rate an album that one reviews, I certainly have been swayed by ratings as to what should be more essential purchases, or at least what is worth further investigation (generally, I've found it a good guide -- I haven't found the placement in the top lists that helpful -- which also depends on number of ratings --, but the overall rating has influenced my purchases considerably.  I do like to listen to mp3s before buying if available -- a representative mp3 is worth a  thousand words, but the ratings often have swayed me towards investigating certain albums, as has going through streaming mp3s alone).  In quite a few cases, it's been a well-written bio that has influenced me.

Exactly, there is most definitely a lot of utility value for ratings and they have swayed me towards particular albums too - it has happened to just about everyone, I am sure - but I just feel that the review being a more in depth exercise should be kept separate from the ratings. While there is a judgmental element in reviews too, the descriptive element is far more important. It's quite possible that the album the reviewer thinks is bad might be good for me but if he can describe what the album sounds like - and there are most definitely ways to do it without getting lost in a maze of technical jargon - he would still have been helpful to me.

Logan wrote: [When I'm posting, I am often taking care of two rambunctious young children at the same time, which affects my ability to respond in a thoughtful manner more than my ability to comprehend what others say.  I was giving my reasons why I would not rate it four stars, while recognising that you rated it four (I can see why you would make the assumption that I had somehow missed that), and also saying that I, too, would be sparing with five stars, whereas some give them out very easily.  I tend to respond in a more general manner, anyway, but use other posts as a springboard for my own (some thing I'm doing in this post too). I haven't reviewed much, but I gave one of my favourite albums of the time, Pascal Duffard's Dieu est Fou, four stars.  Incidentally, there are beloved by many classics such as Close to the Edge which might deserve  a five for its place in Prog that I could not give five stars to, and would be reluctant to give four stars to -- not that I would bother rating and reviewing it.

Oh, sorry .  Well, should I say, thanks for having carefully read my earlier post.   I would probably give  a higher rating for CTTE than Scheherazade, so seeing as you wouldn't give four stars to either, that's fair enough, in any case it's the rating you see fit, that's all.    Coming back to ratings, obviously one has personal preferences but I object to the phenomenon on the net of jacking up ratings to get one's favourite albums higher in the lists or to drag down supposedly undeserving bands.  It's not possible beyond a point to streamline the rating process because the user will click whatever option he sees fit. But what can be done is to separate the reviewing process from the rating process so that the reviewer gives his honest views unhindered by the general consensus and perceptions of the album on the forum.  

Edited by Easy Livin - October 07 2008 at 03:12

rogerthat wrote: Logan: Indeed you are too distracted because as I mentioned, my own rating for Scheherazade was only four stars though I am rather keen on Haslam's vocals.  I guess after listening to the nth symphonic metal band with operatic vocals, I craved for a more natural style of singing and Haslam answered the inner calling.  Of course, something really quirky like the soprano vocals in Magma's Kohntarkosz is always wonderful to my ears.  Anyway, my point was that the rating should not involve any favouritism, which with the listmania prevalent in the internet is an unrealistic expectation though with long experience of reviewing - on another website - , I practice it assidiously.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I did read and understand your post.  Sorry for not expressing myself more clearly/ giving the wrong impression which led to your assumption (I actually have very poor communicative skills these days due to various factors, so don't feel bad about your misunderstanding).  I just had too many distractions to properly respond to your points at the time -- I did apologise in advance for that (I would have liked to come up with a generous, thorough response).  When I'm posting, I am often taking care of two rambunctious young children at the same time, which affects my ability to respond in a thoughtful manner more than my ability to comprehend what others say.  I was giving my reasons why I would not rate it four stars, while recognising that you rated it four (I can see why you would make the assumption that I had somehow missed that), and also saying that I, too, would be sparing with five stars, whereas some give them out very easily.  I tend to respond in a more general manner, anyway, but use other posts as a springboard for my own (some thing I'm doing in this post too).

I haven't reviewed much, but I gave one of my favourite albums of the time, Pascal Duffard's Dieu est Fou, four stars.  Incidentally, there are beloved by many classics such as Close to the Edge which might deserve  a five for its place in Prog that I could not give five stars to, and would be reluctant to give four stars to -- not that I would bother rating and reviewing it.  If I were to review albums, I'd rather concentrate on the lesser-known ones.  I keep on meaning to do one for Jean-Paul Prat's Masal.

I actually don't think a certain amount of favouritism in the rating is bad at all -- part objective, and part subjective. I don't want to just see others parrot how others rate albums.  In a way, I prefer it when they do reflect the tastes of the individual.  I've used various member's ratings (from the profile) as an easy guide since I know they have very similar tastes to my own.  The other problem is that the same albums will always be the highest rated ones if people just follow the norm (what has been generally accepted).  If I think an album is altogether excellent, according to my tastes, then I would rate it higher than a "classic" that I don't find that good.  As the number of ratings also affects its placement, one won't find, say, Bubu's Anabelas or Hellebore's Il y a des Jours overtaking Close to the Edge and Selling England by the Pound, but I would rate Bubu's and Hellebore's higher -- ratings do reflect taste, but at the same time, they should reflect more than that, in my opinion. EDIT: Actually, I'd be fine if they were all just subjective ratings, but people are not consistent in how they rate.  The reviews themselves are more important, but the ratings can provide a handy guide.

Regarding another comment: If I'm not at least intrigued/ quite enjoy an album on the first spin, I don't grow to really like it, and I never force myself (edit: that's not true, I have evaluated music that I really dislike, forced myself to listen carefully, for PA as I'm part of a  team, and try to listen to suggestions for various categories to help with placement, or just to acknowledge a suggestion and try to help -- but in regards to music for my own pleasure and musical expansion... at least not nearly so much).  I have a good idea on the first spin, but that appreciation may deepen or lessen over time.  Some take more time to fully absorb than others, and depends on circumstances.  I often prefer to let an album wash over me on first spin, and really listen the second time -- when I feel like it.  Sometimes I skip through looking for that track, or moment, that automatically clicks.  I used to get so many albums that I wouldn't give them much attention on first spin.  Some I'd put away, and then some days later I'd have this strong urge to listen again (might even have certain passages playing over and over in my head).


Edited by Logan - October 06 2008 at 14:23

Finnforest wrote: I'm not trying to force a "set" number of listens on anyone, Windhawk and debrew.  Just trying to point out that it is good to be fair to the artist by giving each album a reasonable shot.  A good PR will know how many that is for him or her, but clearly the site feels it is more than 2 ideally.  Surely we can all agree on that.  For goodness sake I hope so.  And of course I agree about negative review...that we need them.  Yes.  So long as they are informed.  Who rants about 5 star ratings abuse more than I do?  No one does.

I agree that more than a couple of listens would be required to evaluate the album unless the listener's comprehension capacity is so high that he should know the album inside out with just one listen.   Ok, ok, I am not denying that theoretical possibility but I haven't at least met anybody who could do that.  As for the question of days, I think that is a purely relative issue and the reviewer should understand his own capabilities and limitations when he sets out to write a review. For instance, I almost never end up liking an album that I ruminate over for a long time, trying in vain to break through and see the point.  The albums that I love the most are almost always the ones I liked right away. In these cases, I usually follow up such an album with subsequent listens in quick succession so that in a matter of few days - said phrase used to intend the same thing as you did and not Ivan - I would know the album inside out and would clearly be able to pick out my favourite moments from each song and clearly spell out what exactly it was that fascinated me about the album.  Should I then -for the sake of it - let the review hibernate a month or two - even a year p'haps - so that I get the 'true' picture of the album? I don't think so because my opinion on an album hasn't altered after my appreciation of it peaked at some stage.  Some albums may reveal additional facets with time but perhaps these albums will exhibit this tendency for my lifetime and in that case, I would never be in a position to write the review.   In reality all that is required is for the review to give a reliable description of what the album is like with its pros and cons weighed with reasonable clarity.



 










Edited by rogerthat - October 06 2008 at 04:32

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Finnforest wrote: The part I don't like is that he states right off the top he has only heard the album for a few days, a few plays, something like that.  I think before a SC writes about a highly-beloved piece of music by so many people, it deserves to be given a few weeks or months to be appreciated, not a weekend.       a few days is a formula that could mean two weeks and even a month