Reviews discussion

Andyman1125 wrote: DisgruntledPorcupine wrote: Anyways, how much do you guys wanna bet this guy listened to all of Aube's albums? http://www.progarchives.com/Collaborators.asp?id=30423&genreId=33&showall=true#reviews With all his obvious experience and knowledge, they must really suck.

Edited by AtomicCrimsonRush - December 03 2011 at 04:39

OK Torod, perhaps the term tsunami was inappropriate (I should have stated 'surfeit') but I still maintain that the majority of shorter reviews currently appearing on the front page do not even fulfil the basic criteria you have outlined. I agree that a brief historical context, description of the music (even if it has to reference other similar artists) and reasons for the rating are the bare minimum to qualify as a considered appraisal. We don't expect literary master-works or verbal pyrotechnics but do expect people to make the effort to articulate their ideas clearly and with sincerity. Our stated aim on PA is to be most complete and powerful progressive rock resource and 100 word reviews at their prevailing current standard just don't cut it I'm afraid. Such reviews betray a lazy presumption that all readers are au fait with the broad span and associated characteristics and reference points of Prog i.e. we are often guilty of preaching (very short) sermons to the converted.


Edited by ExittheLemming - December 03 2011 at 03:34

I will correct myself to a minimum 50 - 75 reviews a year. In particular for those of us who likes to write about music in the forums and display a bit of a knowledge about this theme. 

A review = A small bit of the history of the record, a description of the music and finally; the views and why the 1 to 5 stars is given. That's all a review has to include. No reason to include anything else like a minute by minute appraisal of the record. The latter one is nice off course, but not necessary. Warthur's reviews, which is around 150-250 words, is fulfilling all the reviews criterias in contents and length. I don't think Warthur is exhausting himself or all his sparetime either in writing these to-the-point reviews. It is off course very nice to read a 300 to 1500 words reviews too. But Warthur's short and to the point reviews is sufficient and wins my vote for best reviewer in PA.  

If tsunamis was as you described, the people in Japan would had been very grateful. Not to mention; alive. Even when the Americans are awake and the internet use are on it's peak, you rarely get even a small breeze on the water with reviews here. I can publish a review at around midnight, London time, and go to bed for some hours of sleep before I log on at around 0600 again....... and my review is still on the frontpage. That is not a tsunami. That is not even a wave of reviews. It is like a whale breaking the surface for air and that does not kill thousands of Japanese farmers.

We are off topic by now.    

Edited by toroddfuglesteg - December 03 2011 at 02:30

Guldbamsen wrote: Epignosis wrote: My reaction is that he's a strict religious person who does not like when a band delves in drugs or alcohol or devil-worship or even appears to.  Exceptions may apply. Maybe you´re right, and all he´s really doing is running his own little crusade against the "evils" that lurk inside PA If that´s the case though, why not write at a black metal site or Krautrock site? I thought the reviews here should reflect the music and not solely the ideology, but then again it is a fresh take on how to write about records... I´ve learned a lot reading various reviews on here with all kinds of different people chiming in, and one thing that has stuck with me, is that whatever religion, political direction and whatnot one might subscribe to - it´s still perfectly possible to judge the music without having to share the sentiments of the artist involved. You should be the perfect example of this methinks. Torodd also wrote a review on Matching Mole´s Little Red Record, although he didn´t exactly cheer about the praising of communism.

I agree with that and maybe I should had kept my views on genocide praisings to a blog. I have just resurected my old one for that purpose. I am not particular proud of my Matching Mole review which I should have kept of PA and in the blog. Anyway, I do mistakes like everyone else. I think you all know by now that I do not approve of genocides. Period. 

There is a lot of views around and blogs and political/religious forums is the right place to keep them. Views on specific records should be kept in the reviews.

Which also reminds me about not being too pleased to see certain people here, collabs in fact (but not necessary you), voicing their approval and disapproval about specific albums in the forum without commiting them to PA as reviews. Collabs in general writes far too few reviews. And a review does not have to be Knut Hamsun like in quality. Just knotting down the views on that record into 100 words or more are sufficient enough. I think an acceptable review output for a collab is minimum 100 reviews a year.   

Conclusion: Keep the political/religious views to the blogs and forums, opinions about certain albums as reviews and high quality musings as million selling novels. 

 

Edited by toroddfuglesteg - December 03 2011 at 01:35

I've never heard Aube, but apparently it's pretty harsh noise music. So I can understand maybe he heard one thing and then started raging and rating all the albums 1 star.

It really does suck though that all those albums have 1 star because of him....

Anyways, how much do you guys wanna bet this guy listened to all of Aube's albums?

http://www.progarchives.com/Collaborators.asp?id=30423&genreId=33&showall=true#reviews

ExittheLemming wrote: DisgruntledPorcupine wrote: http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=431018 I love feedback on my reviews, so here's one now. It's a well written, passionate and sincere review . I like the first paragraph as it sets the mood of the album very succinctly. (I also own this album and like it well enough although not perhaps with the unbridled ardour you express) Avoid repeating adjectives wherever possible e.g. majestic, beautiful are fine the first time but can grate if used too often. It's NOT remotely pretentious and a solid piece of work

Agreed, and as a rule of thumb always leave out anything that doesn't quite work or isn't necessary;  if in doubt, leave it out, and you'll rarely be sorry.  Also, don't apologize for anything, we want to hear what you think unapologetically (that's one of the secrets to a really good review)

Finnforest wrote: ^seems a bit insulting of the artist, but not sure if it crosses the line or not.  I still want to know what butt-rock is.  That's quite a term.

Edited by Eärendil - October 14 2011 at 19:19

He obviously listened in depth to your albums.