Print Page | Close Window

Negative comments on bios...

Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Site News, Newbies, Help and Improvements
Forum Name: Help us improve the site
Forum Description: Help us improve the forums, and the site as a whole
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=42663
Printed Date: December 02 2024 at 15:52
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Negative comments on bios...
Posted By: The T
Subject: Negative comments on bios...
Date 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


-------------



Replies:
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date 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...



Posted By: Tuzvihar
Date 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


Posted By: bhikkhu
Date 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.

-------------
a.k.a. H.T.

http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com


Posted By: Chris H
Date Posted: October 16 2007 at 16:44
Except those of the criticsWink

-------------
Beauty will save the world.


Posted By: Easy Livin
Date 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?


Posted By: Dean
Date 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?


Posted By: bhikkhu
Date 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.

-------------
a.k.a. H.T.

http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com


Posted By: Chris H
Date 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.


Posted By: bhikkhu
Date 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.



-------------
a.k.a. H.T.

http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com


Posted By: The T
Date 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


-------------


Posted By: bhikkhu
Date 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.

-------------
a.k.a. H.T.

http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com


Posted By: Atavachron
Date 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








Posted By: Raff
Date 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.


Posted By: Sean Trane
Date 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


Posted By: Easy Livin
Date 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.


Posted By: Angelo
Date 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....


-------------
http://www.iskcrocks.com" rel="nofollow - ISKC Rock Radio
I stopped blogging and reviewing - so won't be handling requests. Promo's for ariplay can be sent to [email protected]


Posted By: Easy Livin
Date 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.


Posted By: debrewguy
Date 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.


Posted By: Atavachron
Date 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






Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: October 17 2007 at 22:27
Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

 
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?  
 
 
Well T, there are some facts you should know before commenting: 
  1. STYX was here a long time and didn't had a Bio, my bio gives a lot of facts that almost nobody knew and my personal opinion in one album.
  2. This Bio was not added by me, IT WAS APPROVED, CORRECTED AND ADDED BY mailto:M@X - M@X personally.
  3. The only nergative phrase is: ."This era ends in 1983 with the infamous "Kilroy Was Here" a weak concept album that reached their lowest point with the terrible track "Mr. Robotto" and the Live album "Caught in the Act".....that's a fact.
  4. The word INFAMOUS means: having a reputation of the worst kind, and that's a fact, the reputation of Kilroy was Here, and the song Mr Robotto can't be worst, I'm inventing nothing.
  5. When i say this album is bad, it's for a purpose, so people who listen it, know that there are much better albums and don't stop listening STYX because they found Kilroy Was Here is terrible.
  6. Even the band fans and every Prog site recognize Kilroy was Here is the lowest point ogf their career.
  7. If people hear Kilroy Was Here and hate it, they can assume all STYX is like this and refuse to listen other great albums, I read hundreeds of times people refusing to listen Gabriel Genesis because they heard Invisible Touch, and I don't want this to hapen to STYX.
  8. I am not a machine of giving facts, if you want that,forget bios, make a list of their albums, you can't be more cold than that, but I'm also a person of opinions, and believe me, you will be surprised how many bands have copied my bios for their sites, because the opinion is the human touch.
  9. My bio about the album of Anton Roolaart says his voice is not the best for a Prog album, but his site and his own  label included it, because a bio and a review need the human touch and honesty.
  10. Atb the end, this is my style and it's honest.

If you have any problem with the review, tell mailto:M@X - M@X who approved and added this bio nobody did in almost two years (In the early days of PA  mailto:M@X - M@X was the only one who added the bands, but you don't know that because you were not a member then).

A biography needs facts and opinions, cold enumeration of facts helps nothing, an opinion is also important.
 
I stand in my opinion.
 
Iván
 
EDIT:
 
Just in case, this is my bio of STYX
 
Quote STYX is one of those bands that are always mentioned with some fear and shame by the progressive fan because they always played in the border that divides progressive rock from plain POP, I believe the best way to describe them is as Prog Related (understanding this description as the simplest and more commercial form of Progressive Rock) blended with AOR, somehow in the same vein as JOURNEY or BOSTON but a bit more complex.

Officially born in 1972 from the ashes of "The TRADEWINS” and “TW4” was formed by the Panozzo twins (Chuck on bass and John on drums), Dennis de Young (vocals and keyboards), James Young (guitar, vocals) and John Curulewski (guitar, vocals).

In the first years they were closer to progressive rock than ever, from 1972 to 1974 the band released four albums, "Styx", "Styx II", "The Serpent is Rising" and "Man of Miracles", even though they were popular in Chicago, still the band couldn’t reach commercial success. As a curiosity, in their first album they recorded "Movement for a Common Man" based in Aaron Copland’s Fanfare for the Common Man, almost five years before ELP. In 1975 they release their more commercially consistent album (at that point of course) "Equinox" which blended Rock & Roll, Pop and Progressive Rock in an efficient way, "Light Up", "Lorelei" and "Suite Madam Blue" are the first songs in which the band achieve some financial success and show the sound they pretended to create.

1976 was a crucial year for "STYX", John Curulewsky leaves the band and is replaced by Tommy Shaw who became the front man with his California boy image (Even when he was born in Montgomery Alabama) and lighter style, the band finally had the face capable of reaching the female public and massive acceptance. "Crystal Ball" was released in the same year with a moderate success, "Crystal Ball", "Mademoiselle" and "Put me On" became favorites in their massive concerts, the band was reaching their commercial peak but started to abandon prog rock and turning into an ARENA band.

At this point the story is well known, "The Grand Illusion" became a platinum album with major hits like "Fooling Yourself" and of course "Come Sail Away", also their three next albums "Pieces of Eight", "Cornerstone" and "Paradise Theater" reached commercial success with tracks that go from light prog’ to soft pop ballads. This era ends in 1983 with the infamous "Kilroy Was Here" a weak concept album that reached their lowest point with the terrible track "Mr. Robotto" and the Live album "Caught in the Act", after that the tragedy hits the band, John Panozzo dies in 1996 and his brother Chuck contracted Aids, after a few albums the band joins again for another successful tour and the release of their album and video "Return to Paradise" featuring the excellent drummer Todd Sucherman.

The story turns more turbulent when Dennis de Young sues the rest of the band and settle in 2001. In the spring of 2003 they release "Cyclorama" with a different formation and only two members (James Young and Tommy Shaw) from the classic lineup.

Iván Melgar Morey, PERU
 
I believe it will get the interest of listeners more than just giving facts and dates, as a fact I believe it speaks well of the band, telling people that everything they did is better than Kilroy Was Here....If I got a dime for each time I read "Hey STYX is crap, just listen Mr Robotto", I would be rich, but this comments harm the the band, because people believe all their music is in the level of this album, and that's not true.
 
Read the forums, many people use Mr Robotto and Babe to attack STYX, and probably they never listened anything else, I'm trying to be honest swaying...Yes KWH is bad, but they have a lot of good music also.


-------------
            


Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: October 17 2007 at 22:38
Originally posted by Ghost Rider Ghost Rider wrote:



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.
 
We did this on Symphonic Raffaella, Bob, HT and me added more than 200 biographies of bands that didn't had one or had a two lines bio, it was a monumental task, but we managed to do it in less than a month.
 
If you check, Symphonic has at the most two bands without bios out of almost 400 and hardly very short ones, it took a lot of job, but it was rewarding.
 
Iván


-------------
            


Posted By: The T
Date Posted: October 18 2007 at 00:20
If people read my initial post, you can check, as it's the best way to do to find out truths, that I never even mention who wrote that email, as, in fact, I didn't even know and didn't even care. I just heard STYX the night before and I checked the bio to see what was said about "Kilroy was here". I found out something I don't agree with, I create a thread about it, as I said, mostly for FUTURE bios, as it's quite difficult that old ones would be changed.
 
I stand by what I said. For future bios, I suggest to keep them opinion-less, specially if those opinions are negative.
 
I don't care who wrote what. I never attacked nobody. If someone thinks I did it, well, let's apply the cold "reading what the words say and what they leterally MEAN" principle and we'll find my initial idea is about something bigger (or smaller, whatever you want) than just bashing a person's work.
 
Live with what you want.
 
EDIT: Please, let's not turn this into a personal matter...the discussion was going very well and ws quite useful up to this point


-------------


Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: October 18 2007 at 00:26
I think we all do a phenomenal job.. if someone slips in a complimentary remark or notes a criticism, I think that's fine.. many professional bios include such important things









Posted By: The T
Date Posted: October 18 2007 at 00:28
Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

I think we all do a phenomenal job.. if someone slips in a complimentary remark or notes a criticism, I think that's fine


 
Of course we do. If we're so easy to give criticism to bands and albums (as ALL of us are), I think we can take opinions about some work that we have done, specially when the author of it was irrelevant for the actual substance of the opinion.
 
This is just for the future.


-------------


Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: October 18 2007 at 00:31
don't quite follow that..




Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: October 18 2007 at 00:44
Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

If people read my initial post, you can check, as it's the best way to do to find out truths, that I never even mention who wrote that email, as, in fact, I didn't even know and didn't even care. I just heard STYX the night before and I checked the bio to see what was said about "Kilroy was here". I found out something I don't agree with, I create a thread about it, as I said, mostly for FUTURE bios, as it's quite difficult that old ones would be changed.
 
They can be changed, but I believe it would be dishonest, that's my opinion about Kilroy Was Here and specially Mr Roboto, please, even Tommy Shaw  (member of the band and co-author) speaks of this album.
 
Quote Tommy Shaw: Yes. After my third solo album I really wanted to be doing something else. JY and I had gotten friendly enough to the point where he came and sang on one of my songs on the last record. You know, we were warming up. I thought, what the heck, I'm over all the stupidity of the Kilroy fiasco and all of that, so we started warming up.
http://www.styxcollector.com/intvframe.html - http://www.styxcollector.com/intvframe.html
 
The album was bad, and I believe we must be honest, people come here for information.
 
BTW: What Email?
 
I stand by what I said. For future bios, I suggest to keep them opinion-less, specially if those opinions are negative.
 
I don't agree, bios and reviews must be honest, if you want something exact, cold and without opinions, i suggest this format:
  1. The band was formed in the year ....
  2. Their founders  were.......
    • X member was changed by Y member
    • Z member was changed for A member
  3. This is their discography (without opinions)
  4. Don't compare the band with another one or mention influences, bexcause this can be subjective.
  5. The band split in ......

But people don't come to PA to read that, if they want facts, they can go to Wikipedia or Allmusic, they come here to read opinions, people trust in this site, this review has been here for a couple of years and never anybody said a word about it, maybe is bad (I'm not Shakespeare LOL) but it's honest. 

I don't care who wrote what. I never attacked nobody. If someone thinks I did it, well, let's apply the cold "reading what the words say and what they leterally MEAN" principle and we'll find my initial idea is about something bigger (or smaller, whatever you want) than just bashing a person's work.
 
I didn't say you attacked, I only stand on what i wrote.
 
Live with what you want.
 
Don't get that one.
 
Iván
 
 
 
 
 
 


-------------
            


Posted By: The T
Date Posted: October 18 2007 at 00:52
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

If people read my initial post, you can check, as it's the best way to do to find out truths, that I never even mention who wrote that email, as, in fact, I didn't even know and didn't even care. I just heard STYX the night before and I checked the bio to see what was said about "Kilroy was here". I found out something I don't agree with, I create a thread about it, as I said, mostly for FUTURE bios, as it's quite difficult that old ones would be changed.
 
They can be changed, but I believe it would be dishonest, that's my opinion about Kilroy Was Here and specially Mr Roboto, please, even Tommty Shaw speraks of this album.
 
BTW: What Email? I was thinking about something else. My mistake. The word should be BIO.
 
Please, read what the members of the band have to say about Kilroy was here:
 
Quote Tommy Shaw: Yes. After my third solo album I really wanted to be doing something else. JY and I had gotten friendly enough to the point where he came and sang on one of my songs on the last record. You know, we were warming up. I thought, what the heck, I'm over all the stupidity of the Kilroy fiasco and all of that, so we started warming up.
http://www.styxcollector.com/intvframe.html - http://www.styxcollector.com/intvframe.html
 
The album was bad, and I believe we must be honest, people come here for information. I agree. But my point is (and I insist: mostly for FUTURE bios): review are for opinions. If you see the page of each artist, you'll find a list of albums with ratings. They'll see "Kilroy.....2.23" They can dig further and read the reviews... 
 
I stand by what I said. For future bios, I suggest to keep them opinion-less, specially if those opinions are negative.
 
I don't agree, bios and reviews must be honest, if you want something exact, cold and without opinions, i suggest this format:
  1. The band was formed in the year ....
  2. Their founders  were.......
    • X member was changed by Y member
    • Z member was changed for A member
  3. This is their discography (without opinions)
  4. The band split in ......

I actually would agree with that, maybe with a little "heart", but mostly in talking about the good things of a band. I really agree with that format you described.

But people don't come to PA to read that, if they want facts, they can go to Wikipedia or Allmusic, they come here to read opinions, people trust in this site, this review has been here for a couple of years and never anybody said a word about it, maybe is bad (I'm not Shakespeare LOL) but it's honest.  No it's not bad (bio, not review by the way). I just found it after listening to a compilation and I happened to notice something that could be useful to us in the future.

I don't care who wrote what. I never attacked nobody. If someone thinks I did it, well, let's apply the cold "reading what the words say and what they leterally MEAN" principle and we'll find my initial idea is about something bigger (or smaller, whatever you want) than just bashing a person's work.
 
I didn't say you attacked, I only stand on what i wrote. I also do the same. Good though, that you realize that.
 
Live with what you want.
 
Don't get that one. Again, that can be discarded.
 
Iván T
 
 
 
 
 
 


-------------


Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: October 18 2007 at 01:03
Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

I was thinking about something else. My mistake. The word should be BIO.
 
Don't worry 
 
 I agree. But my point is (and I insist: mostly for FUTURE bios): review are for opinions. If you see the page of each artist, you'll find a list of albums with ratings. They'll see "Kilroy.....2.23" They can dig further and read the reviews... 
 
Do you believe Prog Archives is the N° 1 site in the net for the average given to the albums? No T, this site is N° 1 BECAUSE WE GIVE OPINIONS AND INFORM.
 
Do you believe anybody cares if the average of "Kilroy was Here is 2.23??? Please, nopbody cares about that, huindreeds of times has been written that the rating is a visual aid, the important facts and opinions can be found in the bios and reviews.
 
Check how many of our bios are copied and posted in the bands web sites, this is for the opinions, not for cold numbers,
 
, maybe with a little "heart", but mostly in talking about the good things of a band. I really agree with that format you described.

Oh please T, this is not school to give facts and dates, if we make Bios and Reviews with that format, nobody would read us, they can find that info in the Amazon page.
 
People come here for substance, if we only give positive feedback, we are being dishonest, people trust us and we need to tell them our complete and 100% honest opinion. 
 
And why talk only about the good things of the band? leave that to their label and producer, we are here to say our truth, not to make propaganda.
 
As I said before , there are bands that really suck and we had to be diplomatioc to the extreme to make a couple of lines about them without telling people..Hey this is crap....I won't go to that extreme, but I won't say, this album or band is good if it is terrible.
 
  No it's not bad (bio, not review by the way). I just found it after listening to a compilation and I happened to notice something that could be useful to us in the future.
 
I still believe that a good biographer and reviewer must point the high and low points, doing otherwise woyuld be dishonest, I don't have the balls to tell a newbie, "Hey buy Invisible Touch, you will love it" if the guy is asking for a Prog album,. I must tell him, it's not Prog at all, it's only a POP album, if you like POP, buy it, but if you want Prog, run from it.
 
In the same way I must say to a newbie, "Hey you can get The Grand Illusion, but don't get Kilroy was Here, becauise it's a terrible album". 
 
I also do the same. Good though, that you realize that.
 
Then we are Ok
 
 Again, that can be discarded
 
Better, because it blew my brains. LOL
 
Iván
 
 
 
 
 


-------------
            


Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: October 18 2007 at 03:39
I think the point here is not to take this thread  as a criticism of a single biography, but a general discussion on the styling of biographies. Let not get tied up in personalities.
 
Atavachron, no problem at all with discogs in the bio section, but as has been stated, they tend not to get updated after the bio has been added.
 
Anyone can write a biography for a band, and receive credit for it. If the band does not presently have a biography, jsut send the new one on to Hibou for validation and addition. If there is already a biography, it's probably bets to check with a member of the specialist team for the band's genre before submitting.


Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: October 18 2007 at 03:42
OK, I'll restate my point on this.
 
Negative comments on bio about albums generally considered poor by the majority or popular wisdom is not be seen as an opinion, but a fact!!
 
I don't see where saying in the bio that from a ProgArchives that Invisible Touch is less worthy from a prog point of view than The Lamb or even Duke is an opînion, but simply an argument that reflects the site's advice in general. You'll find other sites that will say the opposite.
 
 
 
In Styx's case, I don't think it is a problem either as the whole band reneg the Killroy album anyway and call it a piece of crap, except its sole conceptor Denis DeYoung.
 
As a matter of fact, this "opinion" becomes a precious info for those wanting to spare money!
 
 
Originally posted by Easy Livin Easy Livin wrote:

Anyone can write a biography for a band, and receive credit for it. If the band does not presently have a biography, just send the new one on to Hibou for validation and addition. If there is already a biography, it's probably bets to check with a member of the specialist team for the band's genre before submitting.
 
Is Lise still active?? (haven't heard from her in agesBroken%20Heart
 
and must we send her our propsed bios for her approval???


-------------
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


Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: October 18 2007 at 03:55

I think we're barking up the same tree Hugues. It is perhaps a question of how you say it, rather than what you say. If you say "The general view of fans is..." That is different to simply saying "XXX album is their worst", which sounds like a personal opinion.

Yes, Hibou is still active behind the scenes. Those SCs who have direct access to the bios can of course still update them.


Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: October 18 2007 at 09:18
Originally posted by Easy Livin Easy Livin wrote:

I think we're barking up the same tree Hugues. It is perhaps a question of how you say it, rather than what you say. If you say "The general view of fans is..." That is different to simply saying "XXX album is their worst", which sounds like a personal opinion. >>>> ClapClapClapClapClap

Yes, Hibou is still active behind the scenes. Those SCs who have direct access to the bios can of course still update them.>>> Goodie!! I'll drop her a pm somedayHugStarHeartYing%20YangHug


-------------
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


Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: October 18 2007 at 12:51
Originally posted by Easy Livin Easy Livin wrote:

I think we're barking up the same tree Hugues. It is perhaps a question of how you say it, rather than what you say. If you say "The general view of fans is..." That is different to simply saying "XXX album is their worst", which sounds like a personal opinion.

 
Hi Bob, I understand you, but please understand me, everyboddy klnows that despite the general dislike in this Forum for STYX, I'm a fan and always find myself defending them, so there's no hatred or bad intentions towards the band, by the contrary.
 
But I read and heard phrases similiar to this one hundreeds of times:
 
"STYX shouldn't be here, just listen the crap they released as Babe and Mr Roboto"
 
And this doesn't happen only with STYX, also with Kansas, people criticize them because "Dust in the Wind", a member has called them Redneck Prog and Pork Burger.
 
So if you know where the hate against this bands goes, the best thing to do is to tell people, "Yes, Kilroy Was Here is a terrible album, but  Crystal Ball and The Grand Illusion are outstanding, maybe not totally Prog, but both are great albums"
 
This is the general idea about STYX:
 
Originally posted by Witchwoodhermit Witchwoodhermit wrote:

I remember being in junior high when Styx surfaced. Anyone caught listening to "that" were beaten to the ground-or at least ridiculed.
I stay away from Styx.
http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=36440&KW=STYX - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=36440&KW=STYX
 
So if I talk the truth (Please, it's accepted by the own members of STYX except Dennis de Young) people will learn, that they didn't listened the best album and that the general sound of STYX is far better than  the infamous album, so they will give a chance to The Grand Illusion or STYX with CYO DVD..
 
The more people that buy Kinroy was Here or listen Babe, the less people that will have interest in listening STYX, so better avoid this album and give a chance to the rest.
 
People in Perú hate STYX because they heard only Mr Roboto and Babe (outr radios played both songs ad nauseam), so in a Peruvian Forum in which I'm moderator, I'm also in charge of the album of the week (Since may I believe) and there  I added The Grand illusion .
http://www.rogerwatersenlima.com/foro/viewtopic.php?t=2340&highlight=styx - http://www.rogerwatersenlima.com/foro/viewtopic.php?t=2340&highlight=styx
 
The response was incredible, people couldn't believe this was the same band that released Kilroy Was here, now they are buying this album.
 
That's my opinion, it's better top tell the wiode known truth that to tell people that this album has something good, becauise most of thepeople who listemn it, won't go for the older stuff.
 
Iván


-------------
            


Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: October 18 2007 at 15:50
Ivan, I think we all agree on that. What we're saying though is that such comments should not simply be put as a personal opinion, but phrased in such a way that it is established opinion. The case you make here makes that clear, but perhaps the phrasing in the biography does not.


Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: October 18 2007 at 21:47
Originally posted by Easy Livin Easy Livin wrote:

Ivan, I think we all agree on that. What we're saying though is that such comments should not simply be put as a personal opinion, but phrased in such a way that it is established opinion. The case you make here makes that clear, but perhaps the phrasing in the biography does not.
 
Well, to avoid suceptibilities, I changed the phrase for:
 
This era ends in 1983 with the infamous "Kilroy Was Here" a weak concept album,  which according to critics and fans reached their lowest musical point with the ultra commercial, repetitive and way bellow their standards track "Mr. Roboto".
 
I won't change the word infamous because according to the dictionary it means "Having a reputation of the worst kind", and that's a fact.
 
So now it's clear that the opinion about Kilroy and Mr Roboto comes from the critics and fans.
 
Hope it's clear now.
 
Iván


-------------
            


Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: October 19 2007 at 03:31
Ideal Ivan.Thumbs%20Up A good example for others.
 


Posted By: Angelo
Date Posted: October 19 2007 at 03:51
Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

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


Not really - once a new album comes out, it is added to the site, but never to the list at the end of the discography. Redundancy and mismatches go hand in hand after a while.
Besides that, there's a slow but steady discography completion project on the roll.

EDIT: but after reading this thread start-to-end, I guess this point was made already Wink


-------------
http://www.iskcrocks.com" rel="nofollow - ISKC Rock Radio
I stopped blogging and reviewing - so won't be handling requests. Promo's for ariplay can be sent to [email protected]



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2014 Web Wiz Ltd. - http://www.webwiz.co.uk