Inappropriate reviews

PORCUPINE TREE — Voyage 34

Review by Sean Trane (Hugues Chantraine)
SPECIAL COLLABORATOR Prog-Folk Specialist If anybody understands what this is about and find that there is more to it than aimless psychedelia , please try and explain it here. If anybody understands what this is about and find that there is more to it than aimless psychedelia , please try and explain it here. If anybody understands what this is about and find that there is more to it than aimless psychedelia , please try and explain it here. If anybody understands what this is about and find that there is more to it than aimless psychedelia , please try and explain it here.

sbrushfan wrote: "Defend the indefensible?"  Really?  Hardly.  Cert1f1ed...

Well, it is abusive - even though it might be your opinion, it still goes as far as it can to tread on toes.

Looks like a troll to me - but that's only my opinion, to which I'm entitled.


     

Consider that a report, then, Bob.

Bob, if you want , you can dish out the Porcupine Tree review.

Tony R wrote: Having just read the review I think it falls badly between two stools. As an attempt at comedy it falls flat because the observations are too aggressive to be satirical.Also poking fun at Fish's accent (he's Scottish for heaven's sake!) is just lame and completely manages to misjudge Fish's use of irony both as a vocal and lyrical tool.The review is not humourous enough to to be considered comedy. As a straight review it fails because the author awards one star yet uses hyperbole (however stilted and repetative) to describe some parts of the album: "Rothery plays great guitar here" "Kelly has a great synth interlude" "an excellent blend of tom-toms, bass and keys in the intro. Guitars come in, and Rothery is playing his heart out. Wonderful" These are not the sentiments one would use to explain a one star award. You would probably suggest a 3 star rating but for the vocalist and award a two star rating. Its a hatchet job purely and simply born out of a wish to give the album 1 star which the author then struggles to justify. That's my two-penneth anyway. Not a good review but doesnt warrant D-E-L-E-T-I-N-G either...

    

I agree that it is probably one of the worst reviews I've ever read (in my opinion), but two things prompted me to report it for deletion:

1) As I asserted above, it has troll-like characteristics in that it is almost guaranteed to raise a negative reaction in fans of the album. I don't mean me here - I mean at least one review that appeared shortly afterwards (but was deleted, appropriately enough) because it complained about the review in question here.

I would suspect that it will generate more like that, simply because of its disrespectful tone - hence I think this review is inappropriate and abusive:

"Write in an intelligent and considerate manner. Rude or insulting language (including blatant vulgarity) will not be tolerated! Show respect for other reviewers, readers, the artists, and the CD and song titles."


"The following are examples of phrases which should NOT appear in reviews: "Reviewer Joe Smith is stupid for saying that...", "Anyone who doesn't like this album is an idiot", "The band which made this album is rubbish", etc., "


Exhibit A
"Fish sings tunelessly, muttering bizarre lyrics like his mouth is full of marbles. At best, laughable; at worst, well…let’s not go there. Funny… the only thing they’re assassinating thus far is my ears. Rothery plays great guitar here, but the tone is thin. And it doesn’t help that Fish is warbling tunelessly over it. Kelly has a great synth interlude, but Fish has to piss on that, too. Shut up already!"


2) Aside from the factual inaccuracies about "tuneless singing", etc. - as there is evidently a tune, this is quite obviosuly insulting to Fish - I can't see how it could be read otherwise, as it is not accurate.

Surely the words "piss" and "sh*t" are vulgar? (I'm quoting the review here, BTW, not trying to shock or get past the censors - although I note that the second word is censored here - but not in the review).


The rest is an excercise in Fish-bashing, nothing more or less - and peppered with factual inaccuracies in a lame attempt at humour.

The most laughable is this;

"He’s off key and out of tune. Vocal lessons, anyone?"

As someone with perfect pitch, I can categorically state that he is not off key or out of tune. It is a deliberate style.

Aural lessons, anyone?


I think it does warrant DELETING for these reasons and a few more besides.


    
    
    
    

Edited by Certif1ed - August 08 2006 at 04:08

There are more elegant ways of saying it.

Currently it sends out the message that we can all swear like troopers - and it's OK because we're just expressing our opinions.


How many expletives is it OK to use in a review?


    
"Rude or insulting language (including blatant vulgarity) will not be tolerated!"   
    

I feel quite nauseated about having to post this toilet-mouthed tissue of hatred for reference, but it seems that needs must:


MARILLION — Fugazi
Review by sbrushfan (Shane Michael Bailey)
Track one (ASSASSING) takes forever to get started. Weird chants about the 0:54 mark make me cringe. Song finally starts at 1:32 (far too long for a song not even 8 minutes). Guitar plays a disco (!) rhythm; in fact, the entire damn opening sounds like something from Donna Summer. Fish sings tunelessly, muttering bizarre lyrics like his mouth is full of marbles. At best, laughable; at worst, well…let’s not go there. Funny… the only thing they’re assassinating thus far is my ears. Rothery plays great guitar here, but the tone is thin. And it doesn’t help that Fish is warbling tunelessly over it. Kelly has a great synth interlude, but Fish has to piss on that, too. Shut up already! He finally gets in tune at the 5:10 mark (over another disco rhythm, it must be noted), but it’s far too late by then. Fish…please let someone else do the talking…PLEASE!

Next track (PUNCH AND JUDY) has a synth opening, followed by the whole band. Nice time signature and good opening. But again, Fish sings like he’s got a mouthful of marbles (or something), and ruins it. Like I said, Fish…shut the [%*!#] up! He even quotes a classic country song by Tammy Wynette and George Jones; D-I-V-O-R-C-E (enough already)! The chorus is somewhat more tuneful…where he asks a bunch of seemingly rhetorical questions to a lover (i.e.; Whatever happened to walks in the pouring rain?). I tell you what happened, Derek…she left when you opened your damn mouth! It’s back to the “Punch and Judy” opening (not much of a hook)…and all I can do is hit the skip button. Next up is JIG SAW, with an excellent blend of tom-toms, bass and keys in the intro. Guitars come in, and Rothery is playing his heart out. Wonderful! But Fish has to barge in and ruin it with some more high pitched, ear-rending gargle-screeching…this time, he sounds like a cat in heat. He’s off key and out of tune. Vocal lessons, anyone? sh*t… this puppy is only 5 minutes long? I feel like it’s 10! Then he starts screaming INNOCENCE (???) over a weird processed backing vocal, and suddenly, it all starts to make sense…it’s senseless! Blech. EMERALD LIES opens with a great string synth, and for once, Fish is singing within his register. That’s a plus. In some instances, he sounds like a choir boy (albeit one with VERY limited range). Fantastic guitar around the 3:36 mark…very emotional…very Alex Lifeson-esque. I could listen to this lead forever…kinda like the one in KAYLEIGH. In fact, this track sounds like that one, what with the wistful lyrics and whatnot. Fish has managed to uncover something that he’s yet to show thus far…EMOTION! This is a great song! Yes…this is what I’m looking for. It closes with some more string synth, in a relaxed manner. Thanks, guys. SHE CHAMELEON is up…faint church organ sounds that fade in; ok; what next? Ah… that’s right; Fish. But he’s decent here (though it pales in comparison to the last song). I’m starting to notice that he has a (bad) habit of stretching out his syllables to the point of breaking…it irritates the hell out of me, because the more he does it, the less in tune he is. “Watch The Lizard…” Does he think he’s Jim Morrison? Hehe…yeah right. Enough with the “lizard” bull[&*!#] already. Say something intriguing, for once in your damn life! Wait…I can’t go on listening to this drivel anymore. The “songs” are tedious and boring…Fish is pompous and self-aggrandizing, and he drowns out the rest of the band with his waste-of-time-and-my-hearing lyrics! Say no more, please…FUGAZI? More like just [%*!#]ed up. One star!


    
     
Maybe I'm getting over-sensitive in me old age or something - I wonder what Peter R thinks?    
    
    
    

Edited by Certif1ed - August 08 2006 at 07:39

Not even 50 words,and not much of a review.

http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=86155

Easy Livin wrote: Clearly English is not the first language of Jacques Brenier. I don't think it takes too much effort though, to understand where he's coming from.

GENESIS — Foxtrot
Review by Shakespeare (Josh)

The frog was a prince, the prince was a brick, the brick was an egg, the egg was a bird...

The entire album is flooded with poetry. Musical perfection is impossible, yes, but the nearest an group had come would be seen on the track "Supper's Ready". The only song that compares to it's beauty is Thick as a brick. This album is what made Genesis among the best prog acts.

this guy thinks he's Shakespear

what do you think about this? nothing much.

Cygnus X-2 wrote: stonebeard wrote: Hugues is trying to update his reviews, but he's writtien over 1000, so it's taking so time. The only reviews of his I don't recommend him changing are his IQ reviews (Nonzamo particularly). It's masterliness in text form.

Thanks for reminding that,Cygnus.


BTW Hugues, have you changed yet your NOMZAMO virulence?