Reviews before release date...
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Site News, Newbies, Help and Improvements
Forum Name: Report abuse here
Forum Description: Let us know about inappropriate reviews, posts, PMs, etc.
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=37858
Printed Date: December 04 2024 at 18:59
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Reviews before release date...
Posted By: Melomaniac
Subject: Reviews before release date...
Date Posted: May 11 2007 at 17:51
|
... should not be allowed. It's so easy to say "I base my review on a promo copy", but who really knows if that is the truth ?
To maintain the credibility of this site, I suggest that reviews before an album's official release date be deleted.
Who agrees ? ------------- "One likes to believe in the freedom of Music" - Neil Peart, The Spirit of Radio |
Replies:
Posted By: WaywardSon
Date Posted: May 11 2007 at 18:00
I agree!!
|
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: May 11 2007 at 18:14
|
As I posted in the other thread....Progarchives gets sent advanced copies to review already - they dont tend to be the biggest bands so nobody notices or is bothered. It's not as simple as you think.
 |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: May 11 2007 at 18:16
I've asked for this probably 500 times, and now I understand is not possible. We'll have to live with it. 
Best way to avoid the problem: don't read reviews written before the album is released; wait till it's released and you can be sure the reviewers have actually heard the music. ------------- 
|
Posted By: darkmatter
Date Posted: May 11 2007 at 18:20
|
It's frustrating to see, but I try not to let it bother me. I'm still buying Systematic Chaos when it's released. Plus those reviews shouldn't influence your opinion on the music when you haven't even heard it yet. |
Posted By: tuxon
Date Posted: May 12 2007 at 00:41
|
Leaks are official sources, since they are part of the media plan for promotion.
so who cares about the origin, only the purist, but they are mere pawns in the hands of comercialism.
Let's just review what we know, and if anyone has advance copy's or whatever, let them review what they have.
If the bands don't want leaked coppy's let them securte their material better, else it's safe to asume they leaked the album themselves. ------------- I'm always almost unlucky _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Id5ZcnjXSZaSMFMC Id5LM2q2jfqz3YxT |
Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: May 12 2007 at 04:08
It would actually be ridiculous to make such an assumption.
|
tuxon wrote:Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 12 2007 at 04:47
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to: 
|
Posted By: tuxon
Date Posted: May 12 2007 at 13:17
|
Eminem deliberatly released their album on P2P, U2 deliberatly leaked How To dismantle An Atomic Bomb. In both cases they claimed it was because of theft, but it's just a great marketing ploy, and it workes, for they have bypassed the radio and touring part of promoting the album, instead without any costs the internet did their campaign for them.
Most leaks i know of are deliberate leaks by the bands, Nine Inch Nails turned the leaking in an art-form when they slowly leaked their Year Zero Album one song at a time.
look at the timing of the leaks, watch the bands reaction and see how it affects the sales. it's just a marketing tool, and it works.
------------- I'm always almost unlucky _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Id5ZcnjXSZaSMFMC Id5LM2q2jfqz3YxT |
Posted By: Drew
Date Posted: May 12 2007 at 13:24
|
listening to the leak (DT) makes me want to buy it even more.
------------- |
Posted By: enteredwinter
Date Posted: May 12 2007 at 13:30
|
Although I don't download leaks and don't condone doing so, I actually could see the logic of a band purposely leaking an album. Ilegal downloading has probably both helped and hurt CD sales almost equally (my guess, anyway, although I don't know the statistics) ... because getting the album out there and listened-to could be a good form of promotion and leads to word-of-mouth. If an album is good and well-received, such a tactic could actually lead to increased sales, at least theoretically. EDIT: Drew's post above mine supports this theory. As far as reviewing before the release date, I say keep the same system that we have now. It's flawed, but I sympathize with the Admins ... plus, honestly, as long as a review of a leak shows that the person put at least some thought into it & listened to the whole album, then it's no worse than any other kind of review. Sure, the person may have not properly digested the album and thus may write a foolishly hasty review (e.g. "Sucks, 1 star!" or "Masterpiece, 5 stars!"), but is that really any different from a person buying an album, listening to it once, and immediately giving it a 1 or 5 star review without properly examining it? ------------- 
|
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: May 12 2007 at 18:12
Yes, you're right... Specially when comparing the commercial viability (and also approach) of Eminem and U2 with DT or Marillion...Yes, what a better example to show us that prog bands are leaking because they want to than Eminem??
 While an illegal copy made of a leak off an Eminem album would hurt Mr. Matters' pocket not that much, it really hurts the full-of-holes-wallets of most of our prog bands....
But hey! Let's accept leaks! We're actually helping the bands achieve commercial success by doing so!!!!
Or maybe not???? If there are 1000 DT fans (let's say a number), and there were no leaks, probably 1000 of them would buy the new album, and thus helping the band (maybe DT is not the best example as they're not struggling as much as other bands, but it's THEIR leak we're talking about so...).... But if those same 1000 download "leaks" (an euphemism for INTELLECTUAL RIGHTS THEFT) , maybe only 700 will buy the cd....
Guess who suffers.... The labels? No, they have plenty of more successful artists... the fans? No, some of those cheap fans actually save huge 18 dollars!!!!....The only ones who are being ROBBED are the band members... you know? Those that play the music that you're supposed to like.
-------------
|
Posted By: nuncjusz
Date Posted: May 12 2007 at 18:44
Wait, wait. What we are talking about? I suppose the topic is about leaks BEFORE release date, and not leaks in general. As long as we live in the 21st century and we have p2p network, EVERY album can and eventually sooner or later WILL leak to the net. What you are discussing isn't the problem of the leakage before release date, but leakage in general. Do you really think that 1000 of 1000 fans of some band would buy the album it it wouldn't leaked before release date? No way! Because some of them will download it from the net AFTER release date. Simple case and theme for a completely different topic... I suppose that the simpliest way to avoid reviews before release date would be adding the newly released albums to the site on the day of release and not earlier. Therefore it would be impossible to review an unreleased album... |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: May 12 2007 at 22:37
Yep, I think I may have overreacted and left out of the picture the AFTER-downloading possibility... but the principle remains: leaks of a WHOLE album damage it...and most of all (I agree that this is off topic, so let's get back on it), they damage the credibility of this site...
I will put myself as an example... long before I was a forum member and legendary celebrity
 in PA, I used to come only for reviews... When I saw reviews of not-yet-released albums, that didn't look good to me, it did look exactly as it looks today: an effort for trying to be the first, no matter the actual content of the reviews.... but I guess, as I already said, that the solution I applied at that time and that I still apply today 9and the one I recommended) is to AVOID early reviews, to NOT READ them. -------------
|
Posted By: akin
Date Posted: May 15 2007 at 18:32
|
I wonder if the site has reviews of an album that was not released yet,
it can be accused of admiting that people here illegally download
albums and the site accepts this behaviour (which can easily become
"supports this behaviour" in the hands of a good lawyer, since if it
let people review before it is because they want people to review
before). The fact that some people receive legal advanced copies is not a problem. The reviews from these copies may have the identification of the reviewer and the copy making it easy to prove that the person in fact has a promo copy and not an illegal download. So when someone that receives one of these copies want to review, he enters in contact with some admin, send the review and the admins post the review in the right place, while the other users are forbidden to post reviews until the official release date. |
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: May 15 2007 at 18:34
sounds like a good idea to me...however its not up to me, or any of the Admins..
|
Posted By: akin
Date Posted: May 15 2007 at 18:45
Yes, I know how hard it can be to change a thing in the site, but the ideas are there to be used or not. |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: May 15 2007 at 18:47
|
Good point considering what has happened to recent polls. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: yargh
Date Posted: May 23 2007 at 09:35
|
"I wonder if the site has reviews of an album that was not released yet, it can be accused of admiting that people here illegally download albums and the site accepts this behaviour (which can easily become "supports this behaviour" in the hands of a good lawyer, since if it let people review before it is because they want people to review before)."
There are absolutley no legal ramifications for hosting a site that allows reviews of an album that has not yet been released. There are not even any legal ramifications for writing a review of an album that has not yet been released.
|
Posted By: akin
Date Posted: May 23 2007 at 10:09
Maybe not, but other sites were punished because users discussed illegal downloads in their forums, which does not mean that the site promote illegal downloads or offer them. And many reviews make it implicit or explicit that they downloaded illegally the album (and it generates a lot of work to the admins to track and delete these reviews). So maybe it is better to forbid these reviews (except by people who prove that he has legal access to the music before its official release) just to avoid further complications. |
Posted By: yargh
Date Posted: May 23 2007 at 10:43
|
"Maybe not, but other sites were punished because users discussed illegal downloads in their forums, which does not mean that the site promote illegal downloads or offer them."
I'd love to know more about this. How were the sites "punished?" Since there is no law against it whatsoever, all I can possibly envision here is that someone received a threatening E-mail from the recording industry and then didn't ignore it, because they didn't know any better.
|
Posted By: akin
Date Posted: May 23 2007 at 10:50
| Sorry, I can't give you the details because it was told by another people to me and I cannot say exactly what happen because maybe the things they told me were not the main reasons of the closures of the forums/sites. |
Posted By: Melisma
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 23:17
Now THAT is a great idea " I suppose that the simpliest way to avoid reviews before release date would be adding the newly released albums to the site on the day of release and not earlier. Therefore it would be impossible to review an unreleased album...[/QUOTE]"  ------------- Melisma Life is a trip! Death is an odyssey... |
Posted By: Atkingani
Date Posted: June 22 2007 at 20:49
|
The album can be added, I see no problem, since information about tracks, songs, cover art, etc, are officially available months before its official release.
The goal is to prevent reviews before the release date but we're working on it. ------------- Guigo ~~~~~~ |