Reviewers should be judged too.

earlyprog wrote: Kati wrote: hug to you  Hugs to you too, Kati.  (Between you and me, I think I got a crush on you ) Could you spare some of that love for me?

Nogbad_The_Bad wrote: I don't review much and when I do it tends to be albums I have a lot of excitement about and want to spread the word, personally I don't have a lot of energy for writing reviews about albums I don't like, ....

Edited by earlyprog - January 23 2015 at 12:23

I don't review much and when I do it tends to be albums I have a lot of excitement about and want to spread the word, personally I don't have a lot of energy for writing reviews about albums I don't like, I also struggle to be fair and not come off as mean. All that said I 100% agree with Dean's comments. 

^Ah, your cognitive reasoning seems pretty good to me, Steve.

Dean wrote: Reviewers must be permitted to comment with impunity if they are to give their honest opinion of a piece of work, even if that is harsh or "unfair". Judging whether that harsh opinion is not an honest opinion is an "after-the-event" assessment that the reader is entitled to make, however, what we cannot do is presume that the reviewer is not being honest. If we start imposing rules (above the normal standards of conduct implied by the Review Guidelines) then we are enforcing restrictions on reviewing practices that will also hamper fair and impartial reviews.  Not every album is solid gold and a review is of the music presented, not of the effort involved in making it.

This says it all.

HolyMoly wrote: Formalized "criticism" of artistic pursuits in general is an odd pastime, when I think about it.  Part of me knows that their purpose is to inform the reader of the reviewers considered assessment of the "value" of the work, in the hopes that the reader will have a similar point of view (making it a persuasive piece of writing, in essence).  But then another part of me also knows that art and music are really above and beyond objective criticism (apart from a purely technical description of the music), and that no two people can hear an album the same way (kind of what Walton Street is saying above), so then the purpose of the review is primarily to entertain rather than inform.  And if the purpose is to entertain, then there is some "value" in a piece which harshly criticizes a piece of art - because for some people, that kind of thing is fun to read.  But in doing this, one must also be sensitive to the parties involved.  And in the case of a music review, the artist who made the album is most definitely involved.  I always tell myself that whatever I publish on the internet could very well be read by the subjects of my review, and I will have to answer to whatever I write.   This doesn't mean sugar-coating everything, but it does mean using tact - and if you make a bold claim, be sure you're ready to back it up.  We are all responsible for what we do and say.  In the internet world, it's easy to forget that, as we all hide behind masks and sometimes think we can do or say anything without any consequences.  Those are the kind of environments I try to avoid on the internet, because then it resembles actual human interaction less and less, and I'm just not into that.  Some are. Conclusion - take ownership of your reviews.  Say good things, say bad things, but be prepared to back it up, and use a level of tact befitting actual human intercourse discourse.

Formalized "criticism" of artistic pursuits in general is an odd pastime, when I think about it.  Part of me knows that their purpose is to inform the reader of the reviewers considered assessment of the "value" of the work, in the hopes that the reader will have a similar point of view (making it a persuasive piece of writing, in essence). 

But then another part of me also knows that art and music are really above and beyond objective criticism (apart from a purely technical description of the music), and that no two people can hear an album the same way (kind of what Walton Street is saying above), so then the purpose of the review is primarily to entertain rather than inform.  And if the purpose is to entertain, then there is some "value" in a piece which harshly criticizes a piece of art - because for some people, that kind of thing is fun to read.  But in doing this, one must also be sensitive to the parties involved.  And in the case of a music review, the artist who made the album is most definitely involved. 

I always tell myself that whatever I publish on the internet could very well be read by the subjects of my review, and I will have to answer to whatever I write.   This doesn't mean sugar-coating everything, but it does mean using tact - and if you make a bold claim, be sure you're ready to back it up.  We are all responsible for what we do and say.  In the internet world, it's easy to forget that, as we all hide behind masks and sometimes think we can do or say anything without any consequences.  Those are the kind of environments I try to avoid on the internet, because then it resembles actual human interaction less and less, and I'm just not into that.  Some are.

Conclusion - take ownership of your reviews.  Say good things, say bad things, but be prepared to back it up, and use a level of tact befitting actual human intercourse discourse.

Guldbamsen wrote: I completely get what you're saying Sonia....but then again, these people are out in the open for all to see.  Who in their right minds will trust a writer if the reviews are shallow, judgemental and poorly written? Trust me, they receive their end of the bad karma. Free speech* is a real bitch. *......although we only allow free speech with a bit of common courtesy mixed in here on PA Damn I got ninja'd by Walton there  He even said the same thing - only much more comprehensible.

I completely get what you're saying Sonia....but then again, these people are out in the open for all to see. 

Edited by Guldbamsen - January 23 2015 at 07:42

well the short answer is yes .. especially when it comes to factual errors.