Forum Home Forum Home > Site News, Newbies, Help and Improvements > Help us improve the site
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Negative comments on bios...
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedNegative comments on bios...

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
Message
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Direct Link To This Post Topic: Negative comments on bios...
    Posted: October 16 2007 at 15:27
I was browsing around and I found that the STYX bio gives a negative, final opinion about "Kilroy was here" and the track "Mr Roboto". Now, I don't care if the album is a disaster and if that track is the worst thing since the Great Flood.... The way that part of the bio is worded, I think it's not correct. And that applies to any bio of any artist. Why do we have to go around giving negative comments on bios? Are that what reviews are for? Aren't we supposed to promote, or at least give a fair chance, to ANY artist no matter how great, popular, small or bad it is? (Styx is old news and they don't need us, for sure, but is an example).
 
The bio says "a weak concept album that reached their lowest point with the terrible track "Mr. Robotto".... Now, we can agree with that. But why don't we say "an album widely regarded as their weakest with their most criticized track, Mr Roboto"? Something like that, I guess, doesn't sound like we';re giving our final judgement in a BIO. In a review, I think we should be free to bash whatever we want (with respect of course)... but in a bio?  
 
One could argue that positive, adulatory comments on bios shouldn't be there also. But shouldn't we let the listeners decide if something is bad? I'm checking my few bios and, as I haven't written that many (mostly about unknown artists, a few unknown even to myself)... with the biggest acts, which have longer, more detailed bios, is more difficult not to let opinions get in the way. But those ARE BIOS. Descriptions, in a way. To say that something is widely bashed, OK, it's a fact. To say that something is terrible, it's an opinion. Which should belong to reviews only.
 
This is just one example. I'm speaking mostly for future bios, as probably nothing can be done to already-written ones. (it would take too much work maybe?) But please, in the future, I suggest to keep bios OPINION-free... (specially if it's a negative opinion..)
 
This is MY opinion, of course.
 
Smile
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 16 2007 at 15:32
I'd agree.  I'm not a fan, but the bio should be promotive.  I try and keep my reviews as promotive as I can.  Sometimes I find the review slams to be self serving.  "Hey look at me and see what a great critic I am."  Tell me what you like and if you don't like I don't really care what you think.  If I don't like something, I find it's not worth my time to review.
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

Back to Top
Tuzvihar View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 18 2005
Location: C. Schinesghe
Status: Offline
Points: 13536
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 16 2007 at 15:35
Yes, I agree. A bio is not a good place for a review. Smile
"Music is much like f**king, but some composers can't climax and others climax too often, leaving themselves and the listener jaded and spent."

Charles Bukowski
Back to Top
bhikkhu View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 06 2006
Location: A² Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 5109
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 16 2007 at 16:42
True, but there might be some relevancy to tracking high and low points of a career. If worded correctly, the point can still be made. For example, you could say that "Kilroy Was Here" got panned by the critics. Thus leaving out any personal opinions.
Back to Top
Chris H View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: October 08 2006
Location: Charlotte, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 8191
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 16 2007 at 16:44
Except those of the criticsWink
Beauty will save the world.
Back to Top
Easy Livin View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: February 21 2004
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 15585
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 16 2007 at 17:03
I tend to agree with you. The biography should focus on facts. Saying an album is bad is an opinion. Saying "most fans think it is bad" is a fact, assuming it can be substantiated in some way.
 
That said, the biography guidelines do say something like " comment on the band's best albums".
 
How should we address this generally (i.e. not just for Styx)? Any thoughts?
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 16 2007 at 18:03

I tend to agree that personal opinion is not necessary in a biography, but some factual history is valid even if it is negative, there is nothing wrong in saying that a particular album was not well received or contained material that was not considered to be progressive (since this is a prog site).

What?
Back to Top
bhikkhu View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 06 2006
Location: A² Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 5109
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 16 2007 at 18:03
That depends on how much information is available. If you are struggling to put a bio together, I would recommend staying away from any value judgments. If there is ample information to make it comprehensive, it should be composed as if from an impartial observer. Bands with longer histories have highs and lows. If a particular album is sited as having an impact, it should be related as how the general public, or media responded. Such could be the case as when discussing Yes. "Drama" did not sell as well, but was more favorably received amongst fans than "90125." "Union" was touted as a possible great return to form, but was not well received by fans or critics, nor did it sell very well. Those are all just statements of what when on. They have nothing to do with any of my feelings about any of those albums.
Back to Top
Chris H View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: October 08 2006
Location: Charlotte, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 8191
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 16 2007 at 18:16
I like the idea, but I think tht saying "album X was better received than album Y" will spark some more controversy, even if it is true. I don't see a problem stating a fact that any given album's sales were down, I just don't think we should be comparing them to other albums.
 
Know what I'm sayin?
Could just be me though.
Beauty will save the world.
Back to Top
bhikkhu View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 06 2006
Location: A² Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 5109
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 16 2007 at 18:48
Originally posted by Zappa88 Zappa88 wrote:

I like the idea, but I think tht saying "album X was better received than album Y" will spark some more controversy, even if it is true. I don't see a problem stating a fact that any given album's sales were down, I just don't think we should be comparing them to other albums.
 

Know what I'm sayin?

Could just be me though.


It's not an exact science. I was just using that as an example as the right way to discuss it. Saying something like, "90125" was a sellout, or "Union" was boring, would be wrong.

Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 16 2007 at 19:11
Originally posted by bhikkhu bhikkhu wrote:

True, but there might be some relevancy to tracking high and low points of a career. If worded correctly, the point can still be made. For example, you could say that "Kilroy Was Here" got panned by the critics. Thus leaving out any personal opinions.
 
Exactly my point in the initial post.
 
"Band X released album Y which sucked" = not good.
 
"Band X released album Y which was met with negative reviews" = proper
 
My opinion
Back to Top
bhikkhu View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 06 2006
Location: A² Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 5109
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 16 2007 at 19:32
^^^Obviously, you will find no argument here Teo. I've written quite a few bios. Sometimes it does take a lot of effort to be diplomatic, but it can be done. I wrote one for an artist that I didn't like at all. I found out that he copied it to use on his own site.
Back to Top
Atavachron View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65268
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 16 2007 at 21:08
yes, it's all in the wording... positive praise should be moderate and negative comments should be expressed in an objective way, as suggested by others.  One good way to do this is to step out of our Prog atmosphere and write from the perspective of the general music audience/community






Back to Top
Raff View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: July 29 2005
Location: None
Status: Offline
Points: 24429
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 17 2007 at 04:28
I agree with everything that has been said so far. A bio should be factual above all, and not express any personal opinion about an artist, as there are reviews for that purpose. Having written a few bios myself, I know it's not always easy to be detached, especially if we either love or hate the act in question - but, for the sake of the site's credibiity as well as our own, it has to be done.

Which brings me to another important issue... I am afraid many of the bios here need a major overhaul, since they are either too short, too biased, or somewhat incorrect as to the information they contain. However, I also realise this would be a monumental undertaking, and not something to be tackled lightly.
Back to Top
Sean Trane View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Prog Folk

Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 20252
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 17 2007 at 05:49
In Styx's case, I'd say that the opinion is so widely spread out, that it has become a fact!!PigLOL
 
 
There isalways a notion of subjectivity even in a bio and I can see the point made in the opening post of the thread. But the classic albums must be emphasized. Or else we'd have to treat Invisible Touch equaly to Nursery Cryme.
let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword
Back to Top
Easy Livin View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: February 21 2004
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 15585
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 17 2007 at 10:26
Indeed Hugues, I think the point being made is that such emphasis must be supported by facts, and not simply reflect the opinion only of the writer of the biography.
Back to Top
Angelo View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: May 07 2006
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 13244
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 17 2007 at 10:44
Bio's are an issue on this site in many ways. I agree with Teo and Bob, and all the others who joined them on this thread.

However, I also agree with Rafaella that more needs to be done. There's also a lot of bio's that refer to 'the band's latest album', which makes the bio go outdated right after a new album is released.
Finally, a lot of bio's include a long discography list, which is often incomplete and mostly redundant with the discography stored on the site....

We've got a project coming here....
ISKC Rock Radio
I stopped blogging and reviewing - so won't be handling requests. Promo's for ariplay can be sent to [email protected]
Back to Top
Easy Livin View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: February 21 2004
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 15585
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 17 2007 at 11:52
Actually, the only reason the discography is added to bio is to facilitate the adding of albums. Once the albums have been added it is effectively redundant and could be removed.
Back to Top
debrewguy View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 17 2007 at 21:39
Originally posted by Ghost Rider Ghost Rider wrote:

I agree with everything that has been said so far. A bio should be factual above all, and not express any personal opinion about an artist, as there are reviews for that purpose. Having written a few bios myself, I know it's not always easy to be detached, especially if we either love or hate the act in question - but, for the sake of the site's credibiity as well as our own, it has to be done.

Which brings me to another important issue... I am afraid many of the bios here need a major overhaul, since they are either too short, too biased, or somewhat incorrect as to the information they contain. However, I also realise this would be a monumental undertaking, and not something to be tackled lightly.


That raises a good point - Bios are important, but how picky can PA be in getting people to write them.
Now mind you, as I am a person of very unlimited free time (extended sick leave) , I would be open to giving a helping hand in this project. Just let me know how to do them (i.e. requirements for a complete bio, any directions or helpful insight as to where I can search for info etc ), for who, and for when. I can even promise to self-edit my writing, to avoid an occasional failing found in my posts - too long ....Smile


"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
Back to Top
Atavachron View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65268
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 17 2007 at 21:49
what's wrong with having discographies at the bottom of bios?  It's an easy, quick way of getting information without having to scroll all the way down.. and are often a more complete list than the actual albums added which is frequently incomplete just by the nature of how much music there is out there




Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.