Reviews discussion

^ Can't quite get my head around that;  I'd hate to debate about what exactly a "serious review by an established collab of a reputable site" is and how it would differ from a "unserious review by an established collab of a reputable site" (if that could even exist), or what "reputable" even means in the context of the web these days.

Second, there is something to be said about Dean's 'watered-down' notion.   I've always found it a bit unseemly and too easy to post the same review at other music sites.   Also in PA's case it's like a brand, the brand of an international community of folks who sure damn friggin' know their prog and understand its background and impact on music.   That matters, and does not require reproduction.   It cheapens it and lessens whatever impact a review may have.   I remember someone saying here years ago that when he started getting into Prog and asked a knowledgeable friend what albums to get, the friend said "read the reviews on PA".   I think that says a lot.  

As for the $25 a review thing, what a load of garbage.   Reminds me of the infamous 'Pay-to-Play' scam club owners used to foist on musicians (and probably still do), compelling bands to actually shell-out cash to perform.   And for what?   A night of lukewarm publicity and unreceptive crowds?   Not to mention the obvious conflict of interest wherein someone is making cash for providing what can never be truly objective write-ups.

Dayvenkirq wrote: Atavachron wrote: ... there is something to be said about Dean's 'watered-down' notion.   I've always found it a bit unseemly and too easy to post the same review at other music sites. Unseemly? How?      -  It's bad journalistic form.   Maybe even lazy. Atavachron wrote: Also in PA's case it's like a brand, the brand of an international community of folks who sure damn friggin' know their prog and understand its background and impact on music. That matters, and does not require reproduction. It does not need to require reproduction. And a review is a review. It belongs to the author, not to a community. The author can belong to whatever site he pleases. And the review is his work. He can do anything he wishes with it.      - Of course he may and I never said it wasn't; my work is my work.   It's not that it belongs to a community, but that it comes from the community.   A community.   This one.   Over time that has accrued value--  it's got street cred. Atavachron wrote: It cheapens it and lessens whatever impact a review may have. How?      - Enough with the one-liner questions; come up with some of your own answers.   If my point wasn't clear in that one sentence, then I've lost you. Atavachron wrote: I remember someone saying here years ago that when he started getting into Prog and asked a knowledgeable friend what albums to get, the friend said "read the reviews on PA". I think that says a lot. M-m-m ... it doesn't ... not to me. PA gets all sorts of folks. Besides, in this particular scenario that you've described that second person, the friend, recommended only one website. But how well does he know other sites? ('Cause there's so many of them.)      - That's the point, he didn't suggest any other sites.   He didn't feel the need to.

Dayvenkirq wrote: Atavachron wrote: Dayvenkirq wrote: Atavachron wrote: It cheapens it and lessens whatever impact a review may have. How?.      - Enough with the one-liner questions; come up with some of your own answers.   If my point wasn't clear in that one sentence, then I've lost you. And I've lost you. And what if none of my answers will make any sense? If you don't like my one-liners, then maybe it's because you don't want to have this discussion ... 'cause the name of the thread is "Reviews discussion".

I'm with David here. All you appear to be doing is playing verbal ping-pong. I cannot see how we can explain watering down any better than by simply saying "watering down" or "diluted" - if you don't get that then further discusssion is pointelss and futile., if you simply don't agree then do as David asked come up with your own answers, or get off the pot.

^ Run a poll, my guess is most of us will be anti cut and paste

Interesting as it is to read everyone's opinions about re-printing reviews elsewhere, the real issue is a legal one.

octopus-4 wrote: I hope M@x is not concerned if I've posted one Claudio Milano review both on PA and JMA

Dean wrote: However, as the Legal Notice points out, the reviewer has granted the PA " an exclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sub licensable right to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, and display such ratings, reviews and comments throughout the world in any media, whether now known or hereafter developed" .. ie if we want to re-publish any review from PA on JMA or MMA then we can, the "exclusive" clause means you need our permission to republish the review elsewhere. However, we have never enforced this.

And should never.

Were such a rule seriously enforced, the author could remove said reviews from PA and that material would again become the sole ownership of the author (despite any other sites that have improperly reproduced those reviews, as happens continuously to countless PA Reviewers).  

The "perpetual and irrevocable" rights to original reviews apply to reviews that currently appear on PA.   Once they are gone, a reversal of rights occurs back to the author.   I have discussed this with M@x and though it is a somewhat grey area, he agreed.   The point being that if worse came to worst, material permanently reclaimed by the author is once again their sole property.

This however may not apply to Biographies which are understandably donated to the site as a proprietary need.

I'm no lawyer and my intention is not to cause a controversy, but this has been a quietly discussed matter for some time now and some clarity may be required in the future.   Once published, material dispersed on the Net does of course by nature belong to the World, much like a book or article, but that doesn't mean the author permanently gives up exclusive right-reversion and ownership.

^ If you encounter a duplicate, you can always just skip it. No big deal. But if you have feelings about duplicates, then I guess, as aapatsos suggested, you can simply add the original source of your review at the beginning of your duplicate to tell the reader "hey, you may find this review again in another place".

Edited by Dayvenkirq - October 09 2013 at 18:20

Dean wrote: Second Life Syndrome wrote: Dean wrote: Because he's a f**king idiot Seriously?  Grow up.  I just pointed out the obvious.  It doesn't matter what kind of explanation someone gives you, you won't respect anyone's opinion but your own.  That's fine.  It doesn't mean you have to start calling people names.  What is this?  High school? I am as grown up as I need to be or as I want to be. Your reply was unnecessary and unwarranted. I state my opinion, you put words in my mouth that I never said, something that can do nothing but further lower my opinion of you. You talk of respect but failed to give it.     Until now I have been restrained in what I posted, so now I shall state my opinion more forcefully: I do not approve of people posting secondhand reviews on our site, when this is done by an appointed collaborator of this site I find that to be reprehensible and inexcusable.

Magic Mountain wrote: [QUOTE=Horizons]I don't like PoS or Ritual. And it would be pretty boring if every album that came out on PA only had the same praising reviews. He wrote honestly about an album, no need to get mad over it.

Of course you do, but these albums and some more on this site that this guy likes to be negative about them, are really high on the ranks. OK, this is not a contest but all these people cannot be wrong about it. So the least you and me can do is to respect it. And most of all and that's the case here, respect the artist and his work. He sacrificed a lot more than just a few minutes in front of a PC writing random ideas. It is a free world but I myself like ecclectic and tasty reviews with arguments and facts that stick to the music not just annoying showing off / trolling. And I don't want it to be removed, leave it there exposed.
BTW I used these 2 bands just to emphasize about it, not to start a race of taste.

Edited by Sophocles - January 23 2014 at 15:54