Reviews reporting thread

huge wrote: Not sure of the relevance of the following comment here but I'm sure someone will correct me...   I'm waiting for the new Arena album that is due out at the end of the month, and have noticed that there are already 21 reviews on this site, how come? The album is yet to be released... Whilst I understand that promo copies could be in circulation, and, if this being the case then a comprehensive review would be more suitable, instead all that is given is a rating. I seem to recollect I raised a similar issue about the validity of such ratings a few years ago, suggesting that it gave a skewed result. There are so many people out there who spend inordinate ammounts of time to provide excellent reviews that genuinely help others to make a calculated choice. So why are others allowed to provide a meaningless rating only; especially with an album (in this instance) that has yet to see the light of day...

This happens whenever an eagerly awaited release is due alas. The latest instance being the Haken Visions album. It's a tricky thing to manage due to a number of factors:

1 - Release dates can differ in certain parts of the world
2 - Promo copies are often  sent out before the release date
3 - Song samples are usually streamed from the artist's own web site
4 - the entire album often appears on You Tube before the release date
5 - In the Haken Visions case, legit copies were available for purchase at one of the band's concerts before the official release date
6 - PA threads are sometimes started to discuss the merits or otherwise of an album that ain't even available for purchase (go figure)

I'll visit the Arena page tonight and try to establish a firm release date from official sources. As you can surmise, it's practically impossible for us to prove if a review was sourced from an illegally obtained copy of the album. Assuming I can find an official release date, I'll delete all the 'ratings only' reviews prior to this. I think any author(s) should have sufficient nous to state in any written review if their appraisal was sourced from a promo copy.

^ the official release date for the album is 28th November 2011 (sourced from the bands record label  http://www.verglas.com)

However, those little scamps at Verglas have a special edition package - 56 minute long, 13 track cd in a 3 leafed digibook with a 28 page pullout booklet packed with original artwork, a complimentary set of Arena Tour Oven Gloves + a bonus 50 minute DVD "The making of The Seventh Degree Of Separation" which can be purchased before the official release date - they also mention that you can buy the album at one of Arena's gigs from 4th November through to the 27th November.

All of which just cements my prejudiced view that the official release date of 28/11/2011 is a completely arbitrary and artificial marketing ploy plucked from thin air to get diehard fans to splash the cash pronto.

As I write this there are 23 'ratings only' reviews of Arena's The Seventh Degree of Separation - 9 of which are 5 sparklies and 2 of which are just one dwarf star.

Ergo, as much as I'd like to call a few fanboy bluffs round here, I have no basis upon which to delete any of the reviews.

(Bugger)


Edited by ExittheLemming - November 10 2011 at 03:36

^ Yes the first couple of sentences have to be removed.

ExittheLemming wrote: I agree that reviews are not the place to raise misgivings about the sub-genre of Prog that an artist has been placed in. (That's what the forums are for) The Monty Python comparison may be tongue in cheek and the Benny Hill one certainly is but neither are outside the review guidelines. In fact BrufordFreak, despite his inappropriate and transparent reluctance to consider the artist fully fledged Prog, is pretty even handed as to the album's strengths and weaknesses. I find it odd that you are offended at being portrayed as relieved and/or delighted that William D Drake has been included in the Eclectic Prog sub genre? (Finally William D. Drake makes the PA grade! ) However I acknowledge your objection to having this statement presented as it were from your own lips and have edited the review accordingly.

Oh, agreed it's a pretty positive review overall, though some of the comparisons are indeed a little odd (especially the inclusion of Ziegler, an instrumental track, in the list of "lyrically-clever songs"). I'm offended because the comment could be read as me, in my zealous fanboyish way, pushing for an addition he deems inappropriate or misplaced. I've no way of knowing if that was how BrufordFreak intended the comment to be read, but it came across that way to me and could, presumably, come across likewise for others. If other people read it in that way then it undermines my own review and reflects badly on me.

I appreciate you editing it, but I've refreshed the page a few times and it still seems to be saying the same thing. Is my browser being funny or has something gone awry?

I'm not able to edit his review (continually getting Server 500 error ), I can only ask him to change it which I've done by PM now (failing that I can of course delete it)

Update: I can now see that Brufordfreak has edited his review accordingly


Edited by ExittheLemming - November 16 2011 at 02:44

^ You Shook Me appears to be Italian in origin and 'unofficial' but I need to dig around a bit more. The 10 legendary singles is legit.

Update - You Shock Me (sic) is a bootleg and has been deleted accordingly


Edited by ExittheLemming - November 19 2011 at 04:43

I tried to fix that already but I get the "Server" error in the Admin Panel. 

^amazing

This comes up in his Sabbath debut review too

This Yes album review is a stunner!

Edited by Snow Dog - December 02 2011 at 11:29