IMHO........ (Reviews)

I simply think that all of his friends hang out in the (out)house pictured on his post. Which is probably where his best stuff comes out
But then, I'd like to ask him if he means the group(s) are not able to play, oh I don't know, chords, or does he mean, like, a sport ;  or if he means some notes aren't really notes, they're not in the "note book", or if I'm in a raucous mood, ask him if he has an actual list that he's taken the time to put together while he's in his (out)house to come to the point of determining that this is the worst of all time. You know, like, what's # 2, 3 & so on ...
Mind you, if he finds it such a torture, it says  something about the time he has on his hands (not going to mention what he might have in his hands, apart from cheesies)  that he took all that time to compose his tirade.

P.S. note , maybe he's just showing why he's considered a "special" carburator.

P.P.S. I don't want to give him the bum's (hint) rush here, but I think he's also mispelt the website's name on the bottom (hint hint) of his post; shouldn't that first "g" be a "c". Not that I would understand one's need to share such info, but ...

P.P.P.S. I have to go now, I'm lucky my plumbing is indoors. My mind, however, is all over the place.

And the lights went out all over the world (darn, forgot to pay the electric bill again, note to self, make note to myself  to remind self where I put my reminder).


Edited by pantacruelgruel - February 11 2007 at 00:09

Snow Dog wrote: Is this an example of abusing a band (not just one band) in a review?      horrendously screeching tone deaf vocals, and useless screwing around on the keyboards and guitars in a blatantly awful imitiation of Genesis, and the only other band as awful as this is Barclay James Harvest.

Sheesh! Well, yes, I don't know this album, but yes this is the kind of thing that I don't think does either the reviewer, the band or the site any justice.

The guy obviously does not find this album to his taste ( ) but is this kind of thing necessary? Do we think this kind of talk does us any justice, does it make the album look bad or make the reviewer sound like he is acting like a jerk? Are we so sort of language in the 21st century that we have to resort to insults? Is there no other way to say that he does not like it..... is the keyboard player REALLY "screwing around" ??? Is the vocalist REALLY tone deaf or is he singing in a way that does not please the reviewer... is the reviewer qualified to say?

Sad.

Is this an example of abusing a band (not just one band) in a review?

ENGLAND — Garden Shed

Review by bristolstc

I know a lot of people who either claim this to be a masterwork of early Genesis meets Yes or who think it is a blatantly poor opportunistic venture by talentless hacks. I would go with the latter, but give it even more of a slamming than that. To this prog rock lover this is THE WORST EXPLOITATION OF PROGRESSIVE MUSIC EVER RECORDED AND STRICTLY TO AVOID! I had this album, and taped it. More and more times going back I am so horrified by the lyrics and "music" that I can't even get through the first track anymore. So what makes England so bad? For one thing, their name is a rude backstab against the country they came from, if there is one thing they don't represent it is the country of England. For another, you don't have to listen close to the lyrics of opening track "Midnight Madness" or the painful, agony inducing closer "Poisoned Youth" to know these are really sick people with a kniving obsession! Both tracks end with the main character stabbing himself to death in the most sick. violent, morbid, and horrifying manner. Add to the disgusting grotesque lyrics a drummer who can't keep time and who overcompensates by banging his fists into the drum kit like a bad Hollywood movie score, horrendously screeching tone deaf vocals, and useless screwing around on the keyboards and guitars in a blatantly awful imitiation of Genesis, and the only other band as awful as this is Barclay James Harvest. The tracks are too long, the influences merely a swipe and a copy, and the production horrific. I would expect this album to appeal to those who like BJH or Marillion, but whereas Marillion actually weren't horrible musicians I am strongly reminded of my most hated "symphonic" group BJH again, but with an even more unoriginal sound. BJH couldn't sing or play at all, and England can't either. Is there anything to redeem one moment of this album, even one good passage? No, there is not. This album is beyond bad, it is offensive and disgraceful. I have never heard another band from England who play and sing and write as horribly as this band does, and for the price an original goes for this is something to avoid at all costs. I may be a huge admirer of progressive music, but I know when I'm being taken for a ride and so should you. That's about all I have to say about this most horrendous album. They deserve to be denounced, brought before a court, and put in the dungeon of worst insults ever to music. BAD!

The T wrote: Zappa88 wrote: The T wrote: Many are written by near-children    Hey man I'm only 14 but that doesnt mean I dont work as hard on my reviews as everyone else on this site does. Keep that in mind please   my dear cop, check my post... I say it clearly... some reviews by young people are outstanding and some by old fellows are atrocious. Yours are an example of the good side. You are young and write well, great!  I was more aiming at the inmaturity side of being young which is reflected in a lot of reviews, but again, I never meant that there aren't good young reviewers (like you dear sargeant)... check please, don't think I discard young reviewers, man, I'm always for being young all life, and at that age I used to write a lot of stuff (in spanish of course). I have to make this clear because I don't want the prog-version of robocop to be thinking I don't think he works as hard as anybody else. I repeat, many old reviewers write atrocious reviews, sometimes because they don't have any idea about how to write down ideas and put them in paper so that they sound coherent, something that many young reviewers dominate. So please, sorry If you thought I meant what I didn't.   By the way, I have never asked yours nor anybody's age, have I? I don't have age in mind when I talk to people or read reviews. I only get interested in that when I read some atrocious badly-written reviews that appear to be the work of fifth-graders... and sometimes it turnos out they are the work of "fifth-decaders"...   Now go back to your duties low-life scum-catcher!

Maturity is over-rated...

Easy Livin wrote: Coincidentally, Dick said a similar thing a long time ago.   http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2014

Dick started quite a classic there.

Easy Livin wrote: Threads, like conversations, often drift from the original subject. No problem with that if the discussion is constructive.

Yes Bob, I realise this, but the point of the thread has had to be reiterated several times by the thread originator. I sometimes find it frustrating that posters can't or refuse to talk about what the threads topic is.

Look at this thread of Dick Heaths as another example of not one person addressing the original post!

http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=33946








Edited by Snow Dog - February 06 2007 at 14:44

The T wrote: Many are written by near-children

Threads, like conversations, often drift from the original subject. No problem with that if the discussion is constructive.

please don't stifle the thread, snowy, you can see we're discussing review etiquette =P