Reviewers should be judged too.

Guldbamsen wrote: Thanks Dean, I couldn't have said it better myself. If you genuinely consider yourself a reviewer - or at the very least work as one, then you should also be able to voice your opinion when the album in question is poor. There are however many ways of doing so, and some people step over the line. That is why we have the report button (NOT because one's new fave album received a 1 star review). Some of my favourite reviews are 1 and 2 star write ups. Hell, I still go back and read Bob's (ClemofNazareth) old Triumph reviews

My thoughts exactly. One can write a negative review of an album without disrespecting the artist(s) involved. I have been thanked by musicians after writing a less than stellar assessment of their music, because they could tell I had listened to the album thoroughly before starting to write (something that not everyone bothers to do, especially on bigger-name publications). Obviously, there are people who will feel slighted by anything less than lavish praise, but luckily the majority of artists I have interacted with have been very reasonable.

In any case, the best way to avoid bashing an album is - as somebody else wrote in this thread - keeping away from bands/artists/subgenres we have little affinity for. Life is too short to listen to music we dislike just in order to bash it afterwards.

timothy leary wrote: no curse words please, big hug

timothy leary wrote: no curse words please, big hug

now on a lighter note

 right back at you

SteveG wrote: ^To the general populace which includes myself. We could act better at times and that includes myself as well.   I find you to be particularly sophisticated about prog music. To re-emphasize, I find the general populace to be more musically sophisticated than we  give them credit for.   For the love of Pete, these are prog listeners, man!

^Yes, I had to turnoff The Ramones in order to write that!

^To the general populace which includes myself. We could act better at times and that includes myself as well.

Argonaught wrote: 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. Criticism may be unpleasant to some, but is OK and often quite useful; harsh is OK as long as it's civil, and "unfair" is OK (personal views will often seem unfair to those who hold opposing opinions). Not OK: purposefully malevolent content, such as personal attacks and deceitful statements (which, I believe, is stipulated in the standards of conduct). To illustrate: if you are not happy with your eBay transaction, you may leave negative feedback; eBay will not intercede, as long as the feedback is fact-based, not vindictive and not insulting. However, if they determine that you purchased the item in order to badmouth the seller, or made false claims, they will hold you accountable.   I certainly think that by re-stating what I originally said I am also re-stating what you said, which would mean we are largely in agreement.

Metalmarsh89 wrote: SteveG wrote: 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. What if the reviewer doesn't understand the music? I realize that draws a million more incredibly thin lines in the PA world, but don't people often make the unconscious jump from misunderstanding music to regarding it as poor music. This is certainly common in fashion. Maybe your wife thinks your outfit is silly, when you consider it your best attire for the occasion. But I understand that what be near impossible to enforce. How does one decide if they understand something or not? And won't they just attempt to try and understand it with a few more listens? Or will they, pretend to understand it with the general belief that the music didn't accomplish its objective effectively? For me, there is hardly an album I've heard that I consider bad, but there are some. Usually I understand (to an extent) the music I am hearing and enjoy it, or I pass if off as something I just don't get. But rarely do I understand something, and also see it for being sub-par. Maybe that's because I don't write reviews? I don't have a reputation on the line, which our dear reviewers do. As someone previously said, free speech is a b****.

Sorry MM, but this site caters to a more sophisticated audience than I think you realize. I understand that this is not a license to write reviews crammed with technical jargon or music theory that the Average Joe would not understand.

Edited by SteveG - January 23 2015 at 14:47