Reviews that Stand Out

Vibrationbaby wrote: I find that you guys just want to read good things about the bands you really like. There are bands that I love but when they put out what I call a dud it deserves a bad review.for example I love the Hungarian band Omega but in the 1980`s they went, well, pop, I gave Omega 11 a bomb .See some of my other reviews. Also check out my wife`s review on Gentle Giant Octopus. If someone doesn`t like Dark Side ( I myself love it, great album to have sex to ) then he /she is entitled to voice their particular opinion and it is up to the reader of the review to decide for themselves by comparing other reviwes to that particular review. Like Clint Eastwood said in a Dirty Harry film opinions are like a-holes, everyone has one. This to me is even a dumber thread than the Mariah thread.

Like Marshall McLuhan said in Annie Hall, "You know nothing of my work!". I'm going to need you to re-read my original post stating the goal of this thread (or any of the majority of posts here which have no judgement on the bands discussed in the quoted reviews) before you call it dumb. I have no control over whether some members want to use it to defend or attack specific points of view; I'm just trying to find examples which are either so off the point that they can't even be called reviews or examples of communications gone awry. I find that infinitely more fascinating, for instance, than discussing which album was Genesis' last real prog album (for the nth time), or what the exact definition of 'prog' is.

I was more concerned that people would think I was having a laugh at someone else's expense. However, even if we assume for a moment that your concept of this thread is correct, why shouldn't we have a thread to respond to opinions expressed in reviews? This is a music review site, and this is the music review site discussion board, so what better place to discuss the reviews? In fact, to be blunt about it, this review site discussion board spends very little time actually talking about the reviews which (I'll say it again) are the main purpose of the site. Let me rephrase this concept, as I don't want it to be misunderstood (like the concept of this thread was misunderstood): ProgArchives.com is a progressive rock review website, and the discussion forum spends almost no time discussing the reviews. This is one of the few threads that does. Got it? Do you still find fault?

If you're having a bad day, don't take it out on my thread

Some interesting points there Vibe.

True intamacy with a work will almost always only be gained if you enjoy the music, and therefore want to hear it on a regular basis. Would this preclude you from reviewing "seriously", an album you were not so keen on?

I think most of the reviews here will have been given a fair bit of thought. We all listen on different levels though, and the reviews we submit will be written accordingly. Personally, I don't enjoy reviews so much if they are too "technical". I'm not that interested whether a tune has 4 bars or 5, whether its an A-B-A-C-A-B or a A-C-A-C-B. A technical review may reveal that the music has been well put together from an academic point of view, but it doesn't tell me if I'll actually like it. Its what the reviewer feels about the music, and why they feel it, which I'm interested in. As you imply, some people are better at expressing that than others.

Track by track reviews can be interesting, but I often find I glance over them after the first couple of tracks. I prefer ones which give me a flavour of the album as a whole, perhaps mentioning specific high and low points.

I like to read critical reviews too. A well written adverse review is probably harder to compose than for an album you enjoy. It's easy to say "this is rubbish" it's much more difficult to explain constuctively why you think it's rubbish.

I think your Porcupine Tree etc. reviews may have been taken seriously because they did not show the reviewer's name as the one we all know as Vibrationbaby!

Vibrationbaby wrote: danbo wrote: This is a review forum?  I thought this was a social club for the socially inept. OR is that musically sophisticated? I`m socially inept very socially inept, just ask my dogs. Oh yeah, and my wife too.

Us too! Where's yer pic, BTW?

Anyobody ever tell you that you look like...oh yeah, we've done that

I can't find a pic with both me and my wife AND the bulldogs (someone has to press the button) so you'll have to settle for two bulldogs, a cat, and my broken-nosed doughboy presence on the couch.

Vibrationbaby wrote: If you ask me the best reviews come from Peter Rideout. They are by far the Rolls Royces of reviews because they involve  a certain amount of thought.

Thank you for the very kind compliments, Vibe!

I try....

More environmentally unfriendly, gas-guzzling, ostentacious, archaic, overpriced, glitzy, overlong, poor handling, but powerful and chauffeur-driven reviews upcoming!

This is just begging for inclusion:

PALLAS - The Cross And The Crucible
Review by James D Hill @ 1:05:57 AM EST, 8/27/2004

  —   Neo prog filled that void between Pink Floyd The Wall and Anglagard Hybris and Im greatfull because that era sucked but neo prog by definition is a watered down version of prog and is lacking in many ways.Why do so many neo prog band think they are Genesis?It seems to be a pattern.By the way they forgot the details that made Genesis great.No matter its still good.