Inappropriate reviews

The person doing this posting is probably the same one who launched an attack on Tony and his family many months ago.

Hi

 

After posting this review and receiving criticism for it, I did come onto the forums to explain myself, and also to apologise for its inaccuracies.  I am on the website and browse the forums every day, yet I have not ventured back into reviewing since.  However, I do believe that although this review is admittedly harsh and overly simplistic, the fact that I have expressed an opinion on an album does not deserve to be cited in the ‘inappropriate reviews’ section along with complaints about reviews containing utter gibberish, insults and those written in non-English.

 

Thanks

getinvolved2006 wrote: Hi   After posting this review and receiving criticism for it, I did come onto the forums to explain myself, and also to apologise for its inaccuracies.  I am on the website and browse the forums every day, yet I have not ventured back into reviewing since.  However, I do believe that although this review is admittedly harsh and overly simplistic, the fact that I have expressed an opinion on an album does not deserve to be cited in the ‘inappropriate reviews’ section along with complaints about reviews containing utter gibberish, insults and those written in non-English.   Thanks

Edited by Atkingani - July 13 2006 at 11:06

getinvolved2006 wrote: After posting this review and receiving criticism for it, I did come onto the forums to explain myself, and also to apologise for its inaccuracies. I am on the website and browse the forums every day, yet I have not ventured back into reviewing since. However, I do believe that although this review is admittedly harsh and overly simplistic, the fact that I have expressed an opinion on an album does not deserve to be cited in the ‘inappropriate reviews’ section along with complaints about reviews containing utter gibberish, insults and those written in non-English.

GI'06,

Good to know you are an active member of the site. Just to clarify - you were not being criticized for your review (at least not by me). You'll note I was specifically asking for the feedback of others on whether they felt it was appropriate and met the site's guidelines. I added my personal observations explaining why I felt it might not be.

As you can see from the few replies to my post, the general consensus seems to be that it was an appropriate review.

Best regards,

Clem

getinvolved2006 wrote: apologies (yes, I am a noob)     ClemofNazareth wrote: I'd be interested in other's impressions on the appropriateness of this review.  This individual became a member, recorded this as his only review the same day, and never came back to the site.  By his own admission he only listened to the album four times, does not appear to know much else about the band, and his only substantive comments are that he doesn't think Hodgeson is a very good piano player and he didn't find the lyrics very complex.  It doesn't seem to me could have had much of a grasp of the rating system, offers no specific examples of why/what he found the keyboards and lyrics not to his liking, and his only comment about any specific track is to call it "interesting". SUPERTRAMP — Crime of the Century Review by getinvolved2006 (Gareth Brazier)  After reading the reviews of this album I felt compelled to rush out and buy a copy, as I felt that it would fill a whole in my expanding prog collection. From the reviews I wasn't expecting pure prog rock, but a more gentle and simple style of music. What I wasn't expecting, however, was boredom. After listening to this album four times, I cannot rouse any interest in it at all. It is by no means terrible, but after a year of listening to the greats such as Genesis, Yes, Jethro Tull and King Crimson, I found the music on offer here so simple and unchallenging. Much of the music is piano driven, yet I feel Roger Hodgson is at best an adequate piano player. Many of the songs here seem based around the repetitive playing of keyboard or piano chords, which are simply layered upon one another to create the illusion of a complex song. The lyrics are unchallenging and uninteresting and many of the tracks seem deviod of direction or structure. The only track on this album worthy of any real mention is Dreamer, which at least has a fairly interesting sound. However, this song is typical of the entire album as it simply consists of layers of bog-standard keyboard chords repeated over and over. Posted Friday, March 03, 2006, 09:07 EST

I just noticed this review for the DVD/VHS version of PULSE (1995).

Note the two passages near the end I have highlighted: 1 - he is not reviewing the product, only its audio; 2 - he is advocating illegal downloading

PINK FLOYD — P-U-L-S-E

Review by Palmer

O.K., I'm reviewing this P-U-L-S-E version because i have the audio track of the video on a double cd set, but it is not the real P-U-L-S-E album.(It's the same concert of this DVD. It's got the same songlist). It's really cool. It starts with a "Shine On..." version which contains an edit of parts 1 to 9 , lasting 13 minutes. It sounds very much like the original (which was recorded 20 years before!). As Waters wasn't in the band by this time, Gilmour does the lead vocal. This shows that Waters isn't the only one who can sing it well. Then you've got songs from the post-Waters-era. Although many guys say Pink Floyd was nothing after Waters left, I still think they had some cool songs : "Learning to Fly"(1987), "High Hopes"(1994-one of my favourite Floyd songs. The guitar solo in the end is amazing!), "Take it Back", "Comming back to life"(1994), "Sorrow"(1987- One of the greatest guitar works by Gilmour) and "Keep Talking"(1994). After all these songs,there's "Another brick in the wall pt2" which starts with the helicopter and the final "ah-ah-ah" part from "Happiest days of our lives", and then bursts into rock with:" We don't need no education!...". "One of these days " sounds identical to the original, and it's amazing( you can't find this song in the PULSE CD). The complete live version of "Dark side of the moon" is amazing. DSOTM is a really cool album, and the fact that the whole of it is played live here makes it sound even cooler! "Speak to me", "Breathe", "On the run" and "Time/Breathe reprise" sound as great as the original 1973 versions. Things start to change on "The great gig in the sky" which sounds a lot better than the original (since the original souds more like a collection of screams< but it's still a good song>, and this one has more proper vocals). "Money" sounds amazing! Maybe the best version ever. Gilmour stretches his guitar 2 minutes more, making the song last more than 8 minutes. "Us and them " and "Any coloue you like" sound as amazing as the originals. Gilmour replaces Waters vocals on "Brain damage" and "Eclipse" and he does really well. When you think everything is finished, Wright, Mason, Gilmour and the other musicians go back to the stage and play "Wish you were here"(which sounds the same as the studio version <1975>), "Comfortably Numb"(With Wright, bassist Guy Pratt and extra keyboardist Jon Carin replacing Water's vocal part, and a much, much longer guitar solo by Gilmour, making the song last 9 minutes instead of just 6). "Run like hell" is the best song to end a concert. The guitar sounds mind-blowing , the bass sounds BRUTAL and the backing organ and drums really help to keep the greatness of the song. The ending is the most brutal one I've ever heard! Although I haven't got the video and this is the closest thing to it I've got, I once saw the videos of "WYWH" and "Comfortably numb" from this concert, and saw fotos of every song in this show on a website. Highly recomended. Get it if you can, and if you can't , then, download its audio track, as I did. A pure masterpiece of live music!

Posted Thursday, December 29, 2005, 15:38 EST

Joolz wrote: I just noticed this review for the DVD/VHS version of PULSE (1995). Note the two passages near the end I have highlighted: 1 - he is not reviewing the product, only its audio; 2 - he is advocating illegal downloading PINK FLOYD — P-U-L-S-E Review by Palmer  Posted Thursday, December 29, 2005, 15:38 EST

Ouch!  I do see your point, but can we really discriminate against those who do this?  Some people are dyslexic and cannot spell very well and may have problems with grammar.  Some people also cannot spell particular words (who aren't necessarily dyslexic).

I agree about the replacement of vulgar words however.

I was guilty of a factual error in my own review (which I have since corrected), so I know it's easy to do so.

What's everyone elses viewpoint on this?


Edited by Geck0 - July 15 2006 at 16:03

I think if the review was cleaned up it would be perfectly acceptable.  Omit the "fricken" parts and use spell check and then it's good to go.

video vertigo wrote: I think if the review was cleaned up it would be perfectly acceptable.  Omit the "fricken" parts and use spell check and then it's good to go.

I agree - if its nouns and start of sentences had caps, and 'fricken' was removed I would not have made any comment. Indeed, 5 points for one of my favourite albums has got to be a good thing, right?
As for spelling, I can overlook the odd mistake, but there are such things as spell checkers