Reviews discussion

From the Reviews reporting thread:

A Crimson Mellotron wrote: I am just a little unsure about the most recent review of Mike Oldfield's 'Ommadawn', it comes up on top of the PA page as of now... It is very strange, let's put it this way. "I tuned out to talk to my wife for a few minutes then I remembered I was rating an album." is a quote from that same review. https://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=3139684

"Part 2 however was a major step down". At this point I heartily agree with Porky. And I can confirm that Ommadawn part 2 offers more than a few minutes of opportunity to tune out and have a chat with your wife without affecting a two star rating. There is little wrong with the review, though it is neither class nor quality.

My only question is how they can like schizoid and find the REST of the album depressing!

Do you think this is a troll?
http://www.progarchives.com/review.asp?id=3111754

I love Schizoid man but I was never more disappointed by an album in my life . Not what I expected. The most overrated album in history. I love Crimson but cant listen to the first two albums . Why couldnt there be more tracks like Schizoid man? How am I supposed to like Schizoid man and the other tracks? Dont get it . The other tracks are so depressing. How could anyone come up with music like this? Are they mentally ill? Why would anyone want to listen to this depressing crap? How am i supposed to fell after this and the rest of the day? With this sad crap going thru my head? They were so low on material they took 12 minutes for Moonchild with 10 minutes of fuсking around? Epitaph and the title track are a few minutes too long. What is this shіt?

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ All good reviews are to a large extent opinion pieces. I'd say that all good reviews also contain some factual information about the music, e.g. who some of the musicians are, how the tracks are structured, where the music was recorded, interesting anekdotes and so forth. But like I said, that's "good" reviews. This one is not so good. But I fail to see why that is a problem. On a platform for prog music reviews there should be good, bad and in-between reviews.

A negative opinion could sometimes detail repetition of songs from one album or another, more simplistic music structures or lack of input from certain band members as compared to previous albums, poor song writing, inane lyrics, etc., etc., as just a few examples. I don't see any of that here. But not to flog this horse any further, I'll let it go at that.

Edited by SteveG - January 18 2024 at 08:05

Hrychu wrote: SteveG wrote: Hrychu wrote: Yeah. What I'm saying is that those reviews suck on a stylistic level. But we all start somewhere, don't we! Yes, we all have to start somewhere, but not from the bottom of the barrel. You'd be surprised how many people start from the bottom and later get to the very top! :)

I'll say it again. This 'review' is not a critique of the album's music but a long opinion piece. We get it. He thinks the album sucks. He could have said that in a five word sentence. It's not the negative opinions. He could have said that the album was great in a five word sentence too, with the same outcome. That makes this review below the bottom of the barrel.

^ very true

^ That's why I rarely look back on my old reviews 

Tapfret wrote: But when I see this nonsense as the first entry on the front page, it does nothing but make me cringe at what someone who is visiting the site for the first time must think.

It's not a formal review or even a proper review as it's not a critical assessment of the album, but instead it's a short opinion piece. Maybe it should go as it is reactionary. I read your post, it's short. I responded more to Nikola's post and whether it is indeed pure cowsh*t, as well as generally from whatever angle interested me. In my vernacular, that refers to actual cow dung and erroneous, nonsense claims and opinions, commonly intended to mislead.   I looked at the review to see what I consider to be bullsh*t from my perspective.

So one could take this, or not, which I never meant to imply was the substance of your issue:

"Sorry to everyone who claims that this album should be liked by everyone who calls themselves a prog listener, as I didn't like it at all. I have listened to the entire album and it felt like if I was listening to a 3h album, even tho it's just one hour long..."

Now if I had good reason that no one had every claimed that, then I would be more likely think of the whole piece as horsesh*t. But I know firsthand that people have claimed this. Nickola might have meant it in a different way, but I had my interpretation. Successfully communicating ideas, especially nuanced ones, can be tough. And that's the beauty of conversation as one can clarify points and develop ideas along the way provided it is not hostile and people are open-minded (since otherwise two-way communication becomes harder).

I'll leave other admin to decide if it breaks the rules, but while problematic I don't think it requires action at this time. I also would not be upset to see it gone, My mind might change on an another inspection or based on other arguments, but it's not just my decision, of course. And I am not as into that side of things as some others. The forums are my happy place here usually,


Edited by Logan - January 12 2024 at 13:52

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Tapfret wrote: I have no sacred cows. Anyone can dislike any album they want. But this "review", to put it in the reviewers own terms, is "a<span style="font-family: " Sans", Arial, sans-serif;">s if someone took some cool twenty word review and extended it in order to get 100 words and qualify as a review".</span> It’s acceptable to me. Inexperienced as the reviewer may be, it sounds like a genuine opinion. Cute how almost every song title is not spelled correctly

That in itself should disqualify the review!