Which album? We should all write negative reviews just to spite him

I've been contacted a few times to change some wording that wasn't accurate but never about changing my stance or rating

Over all the years and above 600 film reviews and at least 100 music reviews, and 50+ DVD's ... this has never happened to me at all.

In general, I have made a lot of friends from those reviews, and I'm sure that they have heard a lot of things about them ... that was not nice. I, generally, will not review something that asks for a negative comment from me ... safer to steer clear, and that means, for example, that hundreds of film will not be reviewed by me, for one reason or another, and the same about music in general. This is the main reason I do not do top ten ... 

It concerns me the person's comments about your review, specially as you mentioned that the other reviews were tops. Normally, and happens often here, those with high marks are folks related to the band, and (in general) they should not be reviewing anything ... but in the age of the kissypoo and advertising, it seems that we all "believe" that cheating is fine, and this is one of the reasons I do not like the numbers on the lists for favorite of the month or year, even though it has been made clear the numbers don't usually relate to anything but just a count of items. The basic idea is that because they are listed on the top that they are better, and generally speaking that is not the case, or likely, though wwe still have to account for personal favoritism to get a better answer.

A lot of my reviews, specially in film, are a bit more technical, about cinematography, the music used and how, and details that tend to stay away from acting preferences, though sometimes it's very difficult to get away from that part in the excellent work all around ... c'mon ... you gonna say anything bad about Sir John Gielgud in "Prospero's Books"? Is it that you don't like Willie, or you can't stand the wording as used so beautifully to express various moments from the play itself. It's OK to dislike Willie, and I'm not one for enjoying his work a lot ... too much really poor stuff to satisfy the crowd, which was necessary in his time, rather than keep an audience bummed for 2 to 3 hours! And Willie is downright nasty and very foul mouthed very often! But all English Departments ignore that for the Iambic metering, for example, specially disliking theater department renditions of Willie's plays for not being on point!

It gets ridiculous, and I think that sometimes we have to ignore it ...  though I'm not sure I have ever had anyone say anything bad about the reviews, except some folks on PA ... whose talent is strictly to troll some folks, not that they don't have anything to say, but sometimes, it is rather obvious ... but it's their prerogative and I'm gonna let them live and die in their own ________ ! 

But a band not happy with a rating? If I was PA I would remove the band and the reviews ... let them get appreciation somewhere else, and hopefully it helps them better, with the kissers on their team!

Hi,

There is a difference between the constructive criticism, specially from a person you seem to trust, and the (seemingly) member of the band not happy with the 3 rating. However, again, I find the person's comments on that review of 3 stars, as not being fair, or honest, in the least ... and c'mon ... how can you give this band any attention when they are openly trying to influence a reviewer? 

Defending your work is one thing, but upset with a rating? I'm not sure that the band is aware of that, and if they are, they should apologize right away ... not sure I can even consider listening to them in a situation like that ... it's just really sad, when they, or one of them, thinks they need all the good ratings to get more attention ... that's just insane ... good thing that Led Zeppelin, told reviewers to take a hike ... and everyone remembers the band ... and who the heck were those reviewers? Just some crazies who had their own preferences and could not appreciate something different!

Whenever you post or publish anything to the public, music, writings, reviews or just personal opinions, you are subject to be criticised. Sometimes an artist may think to have released a masterpiece that's great i his mind only. If you accept being reviewed you must accept 1-stars reviews, too. If not, you can pick your stuff up and listen to it on your own HiFi at home without bothering others, that's what I'm used to do with my own stuff. 

Disclaimer: in my case it's because I know how rubbish my stuff is, not because I can't accept criticism.

So, as a reviewer you have the right to express your honest opinion. 

Trivia: in 1978, an Italian famous musical reviewer, Roberto Bertoncelli, was very hard against the last album released by the songwriter Francesco Guccini "Stanze di Vita Quotridiana". 

Guccini in his following album released a song against him and the musical reviewers in general which ended to be one of his biggest successes.

Bertoncelli did him a favour in the end.

   

This is what I'd say.

"OK, I';ll change it.  Might as well change all the others to five-stars too, just to be nice.  I mean, obviously, having an issue and threatening to demonize those who don't comply is the only way to get successful in this world.  I'm sure Beatles, Floyd, and even Bieber have done it.  If you need be to lie for you again, lemme know."

I had this happen when I was a new reviewer at PA. The dude was very aggressive (a prick, tbh) and "corrected me" on a mistake I made before 'foaming at the mouth' about my 3 star rating, which I did inform him means "Good" at PA. Unfortunately, because so many people give 5 stars to everything they like and ignore the site's request that "Masterpiece" status be used very sparingly, some artists take this to mean that 3 stars is an inconceivable insult. 

I corrected the mistake he pointed out but held firm on my rating.

^

Agree on the rating side, though, as a listener, I definitely have learned which reviewers tastes are more likely to match my own, which can be really useful in musical "resource allocation."

Reminds me of the time I was on a Reddit concerning Gloryhammer's cheese factor.  One guy comes in and says, "Sounds like your saying 'Old Gloryhammer's better than new Gloryhammer."  So I reply, "Yep.  While I agree the new album isn't as good as the first three, Gloryhammer always knew who they wanted to be.  Names like 'Unicorn Invansion of Dundee' says it all.  Hell, they even stole their logo font from The Dark Crystal before having to redesign it."

The guy I was replying to, apparently, was the frontman.  I'm gonna wear that story like a badge of honor.  I got all this backlash from a few other users about how I ended up replying to the frontman, but I said what I said and I didn't change it.  The fans said things like, "HOW DARE YOU SUGGEST THAT HIS QUALITY ISN'T CONSISTENT!"  Of course, I told them that I already said what I said, and that Bowes himself should be used to varying opinions by that point.  Bowes himself didn't really reply, but I let him know my honest opinions:

First 3: roughly 85/100

Fourth: roughly 70/100

Another reason to love the original Angus.

My statement would be, "And how would you like the community here to find out you said these things to me because of a review?  You COULD deny that you were the one who said these things and make it look like someone was trying to pull a prank by pretending to be you, and that may likely justify my review in the end, and not make you look bad in front of your own band."

Currently only 2 albums post 1999 scrape into the PA Top 50 list (Wobbler - From Silence To Somewhere at #30 and Steven Wilson - The Raven That Refused to Sing at #39).  I would say that the latter is definitely one such masterpiece. Of course it become highly subjective but the point I think I was trying to make is that reviewers  limiting reviews to mainly 3 or 4 stars is a bit irrelevant and artificial. If you think that a 1000 albums are 5 stars then I don't see a problem going with it personally. It's all subjective.

Hi,

I, likely, would post the cover of the MAD magazine ... "we're number 1" ... and it was the middle finger! It was a comment about The National Lampoon taking pot shots at MAD magazine so they could look better and more important with the lame, high school/college stuff they were doing! At least, MAD had a serious history with a lot of very well known names ... NL? No one knows it or remembers it. It was rather poor and very topical, and not funny half the time!

Hi,

The only issue I have with this is the idea/fact that you could get 1000 Swifties voting a 5 star thing, on an album, and in the end, it is good, but not really a 5 star thing ... a 4 perhaps, and the well done production and such, but the subjective nature of it, makes it look like that simply because there is a number, that something is great, or very good ... and many times, it isn't and in time, that appreciation dies out.

We have to be careful with this "subjective" thing, as it is making a statement that in the end, we do not want. And it would be our responsibility to understand that ... but most voting a 5 star thing, don't give a damn ... it's their preferred and favorite this and that.

This is the main reason why I would prefer that all monthly and yearly lists NOT have a number at all ... so that no one, can think that this one is better than that one. IF, anything, the way that we still find historical stuff from the 1970's is a perfect example ... we took a "top five" kind of thing and left all else behind, only for it to be found, that ... we didn't do a good job selecting those 5 now, did we?

Hi,

Without being vindictive, I would have copied it and posted it ... and questioned the rating and the folks in the previous reviews. If the guy has any class, he would apologize ... otherwise, most of us would know that the whole thing was staged to make the band look better.

Hi,

Thx. In general, and you can check my reviews on the JMA site, I tend to stay "loyal" to the things that still drive me ... and quickly! Thus, doing reviews for Terje Rypdal, Egberto Gismonti, Jan Garbarek ... is something special in my listening life ... all of those albums have lifted me up many times, and they still do. It's hard to believe it, but another listen to "No Caipira" and I have, again, yet another movie in my head ... it's uncanny ... and the same for a couple of the Garbarek albums in his experimental days ... they  are far out, and many of these albums, I love doing reviews for, and now you know why I don't like doing a lot of reviews of rock albums ... too much "subjective" (and cheap) bologna out there, and I prefer the honesty (as you say) and appreciation for the music to be mentioned.

I do find it really sad, when it is so obvious that the "review" is just a band kiss and nothing else ... for me, it feels too dishonest and not about the music ... and it reminds me of a comment Daevid Allen made when we were yapping ... he said he trusted a bad review better than a kissing review ... and I have to agree to a point, but I think that my excitement for some of these reviews I have done, shows ... and I have, just about, gone through all the threads they have for almost everything they have listed for the last couple of years, at least ... some far out stuff out there, but in those listens, I kinda did what Mike has asked me to do before ... los blurbs ... came out! But there was some far out stuff ... that 16 saxophone band needs more attention ... that was far out!

 Was it entertaining?  Is there talent here?   Is it dark, uplifting, moody, raucous?  Did I like it?   How much did I like it?  There are many questions a reviewer can answer in a few paragraphs without a rating.

Unfortunately for me, I have to rate it.  This five-star system is especially grating due my 0-100 system.  But you're certainly right about the questions.  I ask myself four every time I check out a new album, movie, book, etc.

1. What's the goal of this creation?

2. Does it meet its goal?

3. Did the creator sacrifice or neglect anything important to meet its goal?

4. Were the sacrifices made up for by other aspects of the creation?

This has been stellar for helping me right the most in-depth reviews.  I've got a Sixth Sense one around Movieforums somewhere...

Hi,

In my book, this is not an issue. In all my years, and up to 3K LP's I never had anything in my collection that required another listen, although I have to admit that now and then ... I could not remember what that one was, and had to go back and listen to it, but it re-kindled my feelings on the album and why I had it in the first place.

It has to do with HOW you listen. If you sit and listen to it, intently and completely, you might not need another listen, because you gave that album a solid attention and listen. But, the issue, here, is something that comes from "commercial radio" where the repetition is what reminds us that something is good, and weather it is or not, is another story.

I really think, that these days, folks don't listen as much as they could, or should, and I believe that a lot of the comments are so generalized as to give me an idea that the album was not heard all the way through ... and it's as if the comments are strictly about the one or two songs folks seem to like, and the rest of the work is ignored. In the toob, for example, everyone can hunt and peck, and not listen to the whole thing and then make comments on the work as if they knew it ... and many times, I find that those comments are not exactly on par with the rest of the work, and to me, that is not a listen ... that is hunt and peck!

At the very least, no one can accuse me of not giving an album, or band, a fair shot ... and if I have not heard them properly, I rarely comment ... for example, GENESIS after PG left ... ToTT is fine, and WAW is fine, but it all died for me, right after it, and I stopped listening, or wanting to say anything about any of the albums. But I stuck with GG to the end, for example, even though I have not reviewed any of the albums ... not that I don't like them, but in my mind there is so much going on that it is difficult to come up with the right words about it. The same with Magma ... which in my experience is more about its live shows than it is about an album ... the experience is fantastic, and no album of theirs comes close.

It requires some research.  For example, IQ's Subterranea is supposed to be an intriguing adventure of an experiment who's let loose and tries to get revenge on his captors while being a more ambitious album with more playing with genre an an extended runtime and more melodic focus, while fleshing out the band's sound.  There are several goals here.

Does it meet its goal?  Fairly.  The story's pretty predictable and a little tropy when you take Mindcrime into account, and the genres are recycled.  The sound is easily fleshed out, though.

What did it sacrifice or neglect?  Really, it's the runtime that's the biggest issue.  The 20-minute epic that ends this album pales in comparison to the one that starts their debut.

Are the major flaws made up for?  The melodies stay fine, the lyrics are pretty poetic and the sound is fleshed out perfectly.  So about an 85/100.

Hi,

You're going to get in trouble in film, some ... because there is a lot of work that does not exactly have a goal, and that was the intent of the director. And some film makers, intentionally, play with your perception of things left and right ... you'll likely hate Godard forever, is my guess, because he is the ultimate bad boy with a camera in his hands, just as Fellini also was for a long time, after he became "famous" ... try the opening of INTERVISTA if you have courage ... that boy is Fellini, plain and simple! The only goal was that the kid needed to take a pee! Wow ... such great news!!!! 

Rexorcist wrote: ... 2. Does it meet its goal? 3. Did the creator sacrifice or neglect anything important to meet its goal? 4. Were the sacrifices made up for by other aspects of the creation? ...

There is an expectation here, that will only allow reviews of the commercially viable films that all do this to ensure that you "know" the story. The art stuff out of Europe is very different and the reason why so many don't discuss it, here, or anywhere ... a lot of these things are difficult to interpret as they might be considered closer to the LITERATURE of the times, than otherwise. This is not the case in the majority of Hollywood film, although trying this whole thing in a Robert Altman thing, will drive you nuts ... read Altman on Altman ... and you will know why ... even the actors didn't know why, and often something else was filmed and the "rehearsal" was more of a joke for the actors than a reality that was used! 

And many folks get confused, when the film is not clear in its ... anything.

For me, and I'm very well versed in the theater and film experiments, since WW2, and how it changed the acting and directing, this has been a far out journey that often ... has no words for it. You can't say that Marat/Sade (Peter Brook) is bad ... and even the filming of the play is crazy ... you really want to be in that audience!!! You can't say that Beetlejuice doing a Monty Python is a Shakespeare play is bad ... it was not only hilarious, it was perfect, but is an interpretation that is far out. Likewise, seeing Richard III on a Jeep saying a kingdom for a horse ... is likely to throw your smithereens to a pulp ... or worse ... try Prospero's Books, and figure out anything in there ... it's not gonna happen, but you will remember a lot of really well spoken words by Sir John Gielgud.

I have never, over 600+ reviews of film on my website, even thought of an idea of what it is, or should be ... it takes away the freedom of the art form ... PERIOD.

(And unfortunately, this is something that PA has a serious issue with ... and tend to dislike albums that the majority of folks dislike, more as a socialistic concept, than a personal point of view.)

1. That's just it.  Sometimes, the goal is simply to be a fun action movie or a cashgrab, but that can come in many forms: palatable sequel to a blockbuster, new thematic horror franchise, proper onscreen adaptation of a book, etc.  And if not, you can still skip ahead to question three in this instance and worry about the sacrifices.

This is well thought out. I am not very good at writing (reviews or otherwise) I can see you are pretty intelligent about the process and have experience with it.  Level Logical heads are a rarity these days.  

Hi,

I only have one concern, and that is that we have a tendency in this commercial world to think that something that can be understood and experienced, is valuable. And, there are many directors, and musicians, that do not live by that style at all, and tend to find different things as they go along ... and sometimes, it becomes a suggestion that a free forming writer, film maker, musician can not experience this at all ... like they themselves do not have a "level logical head" for the work they do. Brian Eno can speak of that for days!

This is often seen, very easily in folks that paint, that today did this part in blue, and tomorrow they will change it to something else ... as if there was any "sense" for it having happened, and sometimes there isn't ... and I have this idea that we're trying to close that door. If we do, over 50 years of the arts from Europe in the 20th century will die over night ... because it was not thought out, and I always had a great laugh when Salvador Dali, whom my father knew and met, used to say if he knew what he was going to do, he would not have done it ... it had to have that element of surprise ... and I think that was one of the best parts of what film became ... even better than literature, in its evocative style and colors and such. You can't say, and neither does Werner Herzog, how he chose that music or the color that went with it ... the same for Storaro in coloring so many of Bertolucci's films ... it just is ... and their work stands out because of it, not because it was thought that the color this or that would help bring out some kind of idea or other ... many times, it is not about what it brings out ... some folks just like the juxtaposition and how it looks.

In a workshop with Daevid Allen, he made it clear that the most important part of improvising (he did it a lot with his glissando school) was to not be thinking of anything and let the hands just do their thing ... and while some of us will think this is way too zen, in the end, it expresses a new way of doing something or other, and the same thing abou meditation ... it is all about "turning off the internal dialogue" in order to get to the next step and experience.

And the suggestion that a review can not have that feeling, is scary for me ... I have never really thought of how to write a review ... I merely tried to find, many times, the right set of words to express what I felt ... and that is not about "thinking" or defining what, and how, I do what I do ... it is what it is, and something I learned through improvisation with many actors way back when and will be in my book on it ... and I find that, in the end, some folks are afraid of it, in the end ... what if I get the chord wrong kind of thing ... it doesn't matter as you learn to find and see new moments in time that can not exactly be thought of ahead of time.

I'm not sure I follow you...

  But I "Get" your Zenlike free flowing improvisational writing style.  Whatever works Mosh!