Reviews discussion

^ congratz mate 

Antennas wrote: Marty McFly wrote: ^ I just use (ENTER) and it works anyway. However, when editing review through edit function, the review is completely messed up. However, it looks fine, so I don't mind.    Same here. BTW, how come that every time that I post a review, all my '-' tags have changed to '?'s? Am I doing something wrong, there, or is it just a glitch in the system? I usually end up posting my review, looking at the outcome, and spent editing out all those weird changes thereafter.

The worst thing is when the system breaks your tag (bold one for example) like that:

</
b>

Which will result in unfinished tag problem and will affect the rest of your review and usually also reviews that are under yours (on main page, on album page).

I too always look on main page, often also just to see how it look like, if I should add more (or less) paragraphs, if I should add more information etc. And to fix errors, of course.

It's strange how similar our problems are. I usually end up with "?" when I try to use some odd characters (but usual in my Czech language), like ě-š-č-ř-ž-ý-á-í-é (not even to speak about ň, ď and ť), while some of them works, others don't and use of them will result in "?".

But it's not Ota Petrina, it's Ota Petřina and I would like to be able to use his name properly.

Epignosis wrote: Wait...Steven Wilson? That's that guy who put out Insugentes, right?  And then put out The Incident? Right!  Oh yes, I recall now.  I have a new I-word for him: Incorrigible.

How could I missed this post. Priceless....

Antennas wrote:    Marty! Completely agree with Finnforest on this matter. Looks like Mr. Wilson is a tad too sensitive on people writing reviews on his stuff. In stead, he should be happy that his work seems to inspire so many people to write and comment about it - pretty sure he's got himself a bucketload of fans from all of our 'crappy writings'.   And it might just be me, but what I see written down as 'reviews' in many paper publications surely isn't any better. As long as I still bump into 'official' publications that don't even get the names of band members written down correctly quite regularly, I don't see what's the big deal with the stuff we write down on PA.   Not an intelligent move to complain about us, Steven. Rather, an arrogant one.

Well, except 1985, I can just say that it's not like I will stop liking Porcupine Tree's music because of this interview, because of his words. It's certainly stab to the back from him to our opinion about him as a person, but because I'm trying to find positive thing on every thing, even bad ones, let's just say that I take it as that we should try to write responsibly. We all know about people who are using only two ratings, 1 star and 5 stars, using cool and great over and over again, fanboyism shining high.

Lets just take it as a message to improve ourselves. 

And over to another matter again which annoys an old & putrid man like myself: One paragraphs reviews. In particular those done by Collabs. It is enough to make my eyes hurt and my brain bang against my cranium.

Please use the <p> function to set the paragraphs, guys.  

^

Actually 1955 sounds wonderful too Marty!!  Gimme the keys to the magic car  

Agree with Wilson on the principle on the matter, but there's also a lot of value in the honest opinionated reviews on our site.

If it comes to finding new music and bands to listen to, PA might even be of more value then much of the so-called objective professional music writing.

Well, at least to me it does.

When talking about reviews in this context, I think we need to distinguish between literary works and subjective oponiated comments.

What Mr. Wilson finds lacking (it seems) are descriptions of music done by writers with either an extraordinary talent for writing or a substantial education in the art of using words and language with sophistication and finesse. With the added criteria that the writer in question has a close relationship with the type of music he or she describes.

What we have here at progarchives and most other websites (and in many printed publications as well these days) are ordinary people describing their experiences and thoughts about the music they listen to in an ordinary manner. Some are extremely talented but most are ordinary at best in terms of literary talent. Most lack the finesse and sophistication in terms of using the language and it's possibilities to create works of a quality that would sit well inside a luxury hardcover book publication.

What I disagree with Mr. Wilson about is that this is a bad thing. In between the relatively few who shout out that "this sucks" or "this rules" we're provided with unfiltered subjective opinions about music. And for most potential listeners these opinions will tell them a lot more about the music than the elaborate descriptions crafted by the old time reviewers. Less entertainment value for sure, but often much more informative. The one dimension missing is the writing that appeals strongly to the imagination. Few writers here (or anywhere else when it comes to that) creates descriptions that fires up the imagination and send you off to check an artist you never thought you'd want to explore.

On the other hand, it is much easier to find out about an artist today than it was back in Wilson's youth. To the extent that one might indeed ask if these writers are needed today. Or if their style of writing has an impact overall.

I disagree with Steven. He demands that we should have the same viewpoints as musicians when we review their music. We don't  and neither should we because we are the one the musician communicates to. Music is about communicating and you sometimes hear things you don't like to hear. Me as a reviewer from a PT record and Steven as a musician from my review. So ?  

I think ProgArchives is perfectly OK. And yes, I know that Snow Dog was being sarcastic. 

I'm actually going to make a thread about this in General Music, I think it will be fun.