Sigh

Sorry to burst the soap bubble about good/bad reviews, but consider this:

The debate about what is a good or a bad review has been dominating my sphere for the last month. A very silly debate in my view. So never mind the bollocks; here is the meat.

A view on a piece of music, art or a book is an abstract emotion as much as love is an abstract emotion. Passion and the urge to mate *insert a popular sex object here* is a mystery the science has solved now. But why person A want to marry person B while persons C,D,E,F,G,H,I and J does not want to marry person B is a mystery the scientists has not solved and will never do. It is down to abstract emotions as much as a person A's perception of a piece of music is different from persons B,C,D,E etc etc.

That brings us over to the art of reviewing. Or the non-art of reviewing. The general consensus is that a review should start with some researched facts about the piece of music first and then also include some labelling or description of the music. At the end, the reviewer should add his/her opinion about the music and then perhaps add a score. That is the general consensus and I agree with this rule of thumb. Besides of that; there is no such thing as a good or a bad review. The many debates about this issue is just bollocks and utter tripe. These debates is mostly run by people who want to establish a pecking order in a flock of hens/cockrels. It is a tool used in power struggles within a group. Or it is used by people who does not really have a clue what they are talking about, but who want to sound like they know what they are doing. It all boils down to ubermenschen vs untermenschen.

It also boils down to personal style. Some would call a pen for a pen. Others call a pen an analogue writing device. Some call a cow for a cow. Others call a cow an agricultural cowmilk producing device. If you call a pen for a pen; you would probably be compared to Ernest Hemingway (as I am being). If you use other words; you may find yourself being compared to Leo Tolstoy or someone else. Personally, I try to style myself on PG Wodehouse and Mario Puzo. But that is my own personal preference.

....moving on from my Wodehouse'esque disgression though...... My point is that we all have our own style, background and preferences. That is also mirrored in writing our own reviews. Some are more Tolstoy than Hemingway. But that does not mean a thing though in a review. Personal preferences has nothing to do with quality, typing and factual errors excluded.

In short; the whole bad or good reviews debate is pretty useless unless the subject is to establish who is ubermenschen and who is untermenschen. But that is based on other criterias than quality again. That is power struggles and nothing else.

So to the reviewers out there; keep on reviewing in a free world and ignore the naysayers.

(taken from my weekly newspaper feature, which was a reply to a debate in another publication + a small "celebration" of my 20 years anniversary as an album reviewer)

In short; the PA's collabs and non-collabs system is all bollocks and more about grown up men (?) playing "secret societies" (for example Freemasonry) games than facts and common sense. But it is harmless fun so noone should be offended. Those offended by this harmless game the powers-that-is is playing; set up your own blog and earn money from Google or any other advertisers. Period.

This message was sent from Glenview Retirement home where I am enjoying my retirement from ProgArchives. Cheers to all my hard working friends in PA !! 

Yes, but if you want to have a reasonable transparent system, issue a reviewers guideline like everyone else is doing. Just copy and paste from other websides and give it some PA colours. That should make these four times a year debates absolete.

In any case; PA's system is harmless and all artists are happy about it. But someone started this thread and I replied with some sober thoughts. Mostly to kill these debates (see over) once and for all. 

And yes; everyone disagreeing with the collabs/non-collabs system is free to set up their own blogs. Absolute the way to go if chasing collabs status is the main motivation here.  

Guldbamsen wrote:   Another thing entirely is to come back from retirement swinging like a bar brawler that don't particularly like the games we are playing.

When did I say that I did not like the games PA are playing ? I have never said that. You are lying about me, young dane. Go and wash your fingers in chlorine and say Hail Haggis 50 times. Twice. 

Btw. I retired because of time constraints and not being able to contribute any quality anymore. Not because of any form of fall outs (besides of with the software). And my retirement was and is a wrench for me. Not made better by your cheap lies, young dane. 

Guldbamsen wrote: Yeah happy retirement.

Thanx for that ! Good retirement to you too when that time comes. 

Edited by toroddfuglesteg - March 28 2012 at 14:41

No, Dean. Both links are perfect and explains the scope of PA.   What is not entirely perfect is your fellow Admin's Tony R not posting the same links as his post is # 2 here to answer the treadstarter's question. 

Actually, I should had done it myself   if I did not fall for the temptation of posting a short summary of War & Peace instead.