Inappropriate reviews

Kasswarrior. I'll correct the review, I wouldn't normally delete reviews due to factual inaccruacies, that would be a full time job!

I didn't even know there were Japanese-English online translators!

Not terribly sure if this is "inapporpriate", but it IS kinda funny.  Have a go at it.

GROBSCHNITT Ballermann
Review (Permanent link) by Prog-zilla @ 9:22:26 AM EST, 4/13/2005

 —  What a pathetic pile of drivel. When prog is great, it is really great. When it is bad, it can be simply awful. This miserable mess is not helped by the vocals either, with a horrid German accent. the track "Sahara" has got to be the most pathetic thing I've ever heard. Other stuff on the album is better, but weak and disjointed and sometimes just plain boring. There is something wrong with every song. "Magic Train" is a good example of this. It starts out with a nice piano introduction, and just as you are starting to enjoy it, you realize that it goes on way too long, and then the vocals start - this has to be worst cat- miaowing I've ever heard. Not if they paid you.

erlenst wrote: The latest England - Garden Shed is a disgrace and is clearly reviewed by a musical retard. I know he is entitled to his own opinion, but noone on a progressive rock site should be allowed to have such an outragiously stupid opinion and get away with it.

Symphonic Prog
(Studio Album, 1977)

ENGLAND "Garden Shed"
Review (Permanent link) by Ben Blake Mitchner
Posted 6:36:28 PM EST, 11/29/2005

   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!

Hughes Chantrane (is it possible not to massacre the defendant's name)'s Muse reviews break some of the guidelines in that they attack the decision to include Muse in the archives (as I said above I agree with the inclusion making this point completely invalid), and paint the people responsible as aggressive no-gooders who don't understand Prog and have a degree of ostrichism (I believe he means ostacism but I like his version of hiding one's head in the sand as not to face reality)when it comes to the similarities between them and another band. Those similarities are obvious to anyone listening to it , pertimnebt and help me not only make a case but also describe accurately according to my ears the album.

Thank you for at least acknowledging that!!

Exhibit A:

"Well due to overpowering demand of the Pro-Muse lobby force that put the NRA (National Riffle Association - for the non-Americans see real patriot Michael Moore’s amazing Bowling For Columbine film) to shame, Muse did finally get in our beloved Archives." The fact that humourously mention the intense lobbying that finally did manage the inclusion of the band against the collab's better judgment since both polls about the inclusion were negative in results (remember the collabs voted 11-2 against it) and comparing it to the most famous lobby in the world being put to shame should actually be understood that the band is a controversial addition and many other reviews from other controversial groups have many such critics! ie Queen etc...

Exhibit B:

"...the lobbyist was completely lobotomised as were the hostages, they all came out calmly but completely brainwashed yelling that Bellamy was the new prophet and started out to form yet another lobby to change the Muse Archives sub-genre to Avant/pop or even better RIA (Rock In Affirmation)." While aiming at the gibberish of a certain collab (and he is not the plaintive) , he is not named or shamed> just slightly chuckled at.  I do agree that this whole pargraph has a satyristic feel to it , but this is often the case with my reviews and it never bothers anyone and generally pulls a smile from the readers!

Exhibit C:

"But I would suggest those people downplaying the Radiohead similarity to wake up and re-listen to them." I do not know why this is offending anyone since it is an opinion and not a sarcasm, furthermore you mention yourself the similarities somewhere

Exhibit D:

"But the permanent debate of the Muse lobby in our forum did intrigue me enough to re- investigate the band" Actually singing the praise of the debate since it did push me to listen to the band!

Exhibit E:

"...and not a tenth of the hype is made on the forum about that band." Taken out of context!!! as I am speaking of another band kept all too silent, but would be just as worthy of inclusion in the prog-related genre - RHCP

Sorry, Hughes, but I think that Collaborators should know better than to put this sort of stuff into reviews - think about the message are you sending out. I read that someone actually was convinced about the inclusion of a prog-related band that diserved inclusion . What more can you ask for?

The guidelines clearly state:

"5 - Do not voice general opinions on matters such as whether a band/album/sub-genre should be included in the site, whether you agree with the star rating system, etc.. Such matters should be discussed in the forum. Keep the review pertinent to the specific album concerned. The reviews section is NOT the place for initiating or prolonging a debate. " I am sorry but if discussing genres is not allowed to describe an artiste's soundscapes than it becomes impossible to review an album or even a group! As for the band's inclusion , you should read that my approach was guided by my curiosity for ots inclusion! Furthermore you yourself do make a few comments in your review about the progressiveness of the album. I suppose this is the only gripe you had with my review regarding this guideline!

and

"Do not belittle reviews posted by others, their opinions are as welcome and valid as yours." I do not attack anyone's opinion and especially since I actually agree with the general opinion. I am sorry if you feel aimed at but you were not! If anyone was being aimed at it is myself and my pre-conceptions and maybe the gibberish-ing collab to which I assure you you are not him/her.

 Furthermore I do not even mention another review (so I cannot ridicule it and neither would I wish too since I find excellent if a bit over-appreciative0 ) as I had not read any other reviews before writingg mine. All I did was read the bio you wrote for them , and it did help me! I did read your review after having pasted and posted mine. One of my great joys is to actually read other reviews and compare it with mine and see how close or how far my judgment is from other!