Torman Maxt

 

CCVP wrote:   Why do you think that more and more artists are trying to get volunteers to review their music instead of advertising it on the website? Free feedback? OK, that's reasonable enough, but limiting the knowlege of their music to people who individually check reviews is much different than having a heading piece of advertisement on a website that accessed more than 50k times a month. That's more than 1.600 people of a very specific audience visiting PA everyday. Still think it doesn't matter?

Considering that the thread about Mono plugging their DVD only got like 17 replies, no, I don't really think so.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at with talking about volunteer reviewers for artists. Where the hell did you pulled that from? I did not say people were not sincere, don't put words in my mouth. Being influenced is not the same as NOT being sincere and you are smart enough to know the difference. And the info that other sites had such an uncoditional contrary opinion compared to PA shows how important the firsts opinions are, how influential they can be, not that people were fooled, suckered or lied.

Either we were fooled, suckered, or lied, or we are idiots, or the album actually just sucks. Which is it? You can't say that the general opinion of PA about the album is wrong without insulting the reviewers.

Besides, try and keep the ad hominem out of this, thank you very much.

Psh, T would even agree with me on that one. :P

tuxon wrote: What happened with Torman Maxt on this site is this.   1. a reviewer rated it badly (one star) that rating was removed and caused controversy. 2. due to this controversy people reacted and listened to the album. 3. people who would normally wouldn't enjoy such album and would never even bother to listen to it suddenly decided that freedom of speech was in jeopardy so their speech should be heard. an thus they rated it with 1 star because they don't like the music (fair) but of course they don't like it for it's not music for their ears.   Basically MOB mentallity got the best of us and people who shouldn't have reviewed the album in the first place rated it with an unfair 1 star (not from individual reviewers perspective, but certainly from the Mob perspective).   they forget to be objective.

This doesn't make any sense. It's not being objective to poorly rate music you don't like because it's not for you? How do you know when music is not "for" you and when it's just terrible? What is the "mob" perspective and how can you know that you're being unfair from its perspective and not your own? 
 

Textbook wrote: I think if I actually read through every post in every thread here before I responded myself, I would leave the forum.   IT WOULD TOO BE A BAD THING

I read every response before replying to any thread, except for the massive argument megathreads, then I only go back a few pages. I find it alarming that so many other people don't.


Edited by Henry Plainview - October 20 2010 at 03:00

What happened with Torman Maxt on this site is this.

I'm not going to post in here.

To be honest Olav, I don't give three damns about how you feel about PA having a lower average for reviews of Maxt. I'll stand by my review every hour if you want. I listened to the music, is crap. Period. If you don't like the average, it's your bad, not PA reviewers'. 

How many unique reviews/ reviewers are there that give it such high ratings though? In some cases I see the same reviews being posted at different sites (and then one must verify that the reviewer has no affiliation with the band). How many sites with very positive multiple reviews (and not including reviews that were formerly posted elsewhere) are there? I did a quite extensive search and didn't find that many unique ones for the album. We talk about other site's reviewing it, but commonly that just means one person who posted a review at a site (not some general consensus of quality).  This is not to undermine those at other sites who did write positive reviews, but I'd rather focus on sites with multiple reviews.

Perhaps various people were harsher on it here due to the circumstances (I might think it two stars -- three and above for me equals I really enjoyed this album and is music that I will keep returning to -- worthwhile to my collection). Even some that I would consider two star, or one star, albums in my collection I genuinely enjoy considerably.

I don't know if any more academic journals of music have reviewed it. Be interesting to hear from those who are really well versed in music theory. I'm just an armchair critic with limited musical training and knowledge (hardly conservatory material, not by a long shot). I know what I like.... I may return to the album to see if it appeals more now as I'm at a rather different place in my musical journey than I was when I heard it and sometime initially difficult/ challenging  music takes a long time to grow on one (maybe years before the amazingness clicks for some). Years down the road this may be thought of as a classic and inspire a whole generation of musicians/ composers. Or be  discovered by rappers and popularised that way for its choice groove.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Mellotron Storm wrote: The answers were honest and how he felt,not terrible at all. If you believe that admitting he only paid for advertising if the site deleted the terrible reviews is not terrible...Well I disagree. Plus it makes me doubt about some good reviews he got on other sites., specially when he said: The line of thinking was similar to a movie studio buying an ad in a newspaper and using reviews or quotes that are favorable. This seemed like a reasonable idea to me. . No guys, it's not the same, you can use whatever you want in a newspaper ad, but you can't buy  the reviews section. Iván The band obviously were badly mistaken about the conditions of buying ads here no doubt about it.I just think there was a backlash towards them because of this.To what extent i don't know, maybe not all that much, but to tell us reviewers that you can't give a review unless it's favourable was unprecedented and wrong and it didn't go over well at all.I haven't heard this cd but i do own the cd before this which i bought years ago.In my review i said "barely 3 stars".So if this is not as good as it i can understand it getting lots of 2 star ratings,what is beyond me is why all these other sites gave it such high ratings if it is that bad.

Mellotron Storm wrote: The answers were honest and how he felt,not terrible at all.

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - October 19 2010 at 10:26

Windhawk wrote: Textbook wrote: Yes but that's understandable given what the guy said in the interview. He's trying to say that actually the album isn't bad and we're pretending to dislike it for some odd reason. The only thing to do in the face of this is to say "No, the album actually is bad." I think this guy's just an amateur really. I mean they've been together for 17 years and have gotten nowhere- not that that's proof of sucking but it suggests something isn't being done right. He doesn't even know how to accept bad press. Then again, this is just about the only website with negative reviews about this item that I have been able to find, after searching rather extensively. That, along with the backdrop history they have on this site, does make it look a bit iffy seen from the perspective of the band. And people not involved with this website as well one might assume. Try googling for reviews on this disc yourself, and see what results you get. Personally I'm really interested in tracking down other negative reviews of this item, as I really dislike this site as of now being the only one I have come across that has such a negative perspective on this effort. That views differ is all right. That one website differs vastly from all others does look strange. Getting factual information that the case isn't as skewed as it appears to be right now would make me feel much more at ease with that situation.

Textbook wrote: Yes but that's understandable given what the guy said in the interview. He's trying to say that actually the album isn't bad and we're pretending to dislike it for some odd reason. The only thing to do in the face of this is to say "No, the album actually is bad."

It had really been done to death long before you came along, and I was just having a laugh on your behalf.

^Would it be so bad if you just had a quick look?

75% of the posts on these two and a half pages is PA -members writing variations over: the reason for my one star is that the music sucks!