Should reviews be written only by genres'

The T wrote: Rocktopus wrote: For example: should The T review Dream Theater? Should someone that worships DT review DT albums? Will those reviews be fairer or more just towards the music than reviews written by the bands haters?   It's actually too late, as I've reviewed all of their albums, and you can go check, the fanboyism that I'm so unfairly accused of  isn't present there.... And I really think you CAN write fair reviews even about bands you love or despise.... I've done it myself, and most good reviewers also do it. About the more just part, I think reviews would be more just if they were written by a totally impartial person, but that's impossible in music, or it would have to be an a-musical person, and who would care about what he would have to say anyway?

So, I guess we agree then? If we're going to keep the fanboy ones, we must also keep the reviews that dismisses whole genres.

I just twisted your sentences around to prove that point.

BTW: I apologize for my crap english spelling all over this thread.


Edited by Rocktopus - May 03 2007 at 05:23

^ bashing a band (or album) which is commonly referred to as a masterpiece or "just" an excellent album can be quite disrespectful. I'm just saying that when you post a review which is in contradiction to a large number of other reviews (not just by fanboys but also by respected collabs) then circumstances suggest that you might be wrong in pointing out that it's a bad album "generally speaking". It's a bad album for you, but not for most other reviewers ... personally I'm always interested in such reviews (which represent minority opinions), but only if they're respectful of the fact that most people disagree.

^ especially this type of humour can come across as being very disrespectful. Maybe you'd be also offended if someone bashed one of your "secret masterpieces" saying things like "how can people give this more than 2 stars ... those damn fanboys make me sick!".

I think we should simply stop second-guessing the reasons people might have for their ratings.

Writing stuff like: 'DT is the best band on the planet!'. Now what I call that's really disrespectful.

@Rocktopus: which doesn't mean that you should be equally disrespectful, does it?

Edited by MikeEnRegalia - May 03 2007 at 06:25

Edit: Mike ^Dunno. Have to think a while about that one. It probably means I should, but I'm too nice.

Visitor: What? Except for the extra the, that sneaked its way in, I'm pleased with myself.

Another edit: and spelling necessarily wrong, you nitpicker.

Edited by Rocktopus - May 03 2007 at 06:56

Have to say, some of the things Hugues doesn't like- Curved Air, Flower Kings, some Strawbs/Camel albums, Fruupp etc.- that I really do, I do still find the reviews amusing. They are not as stand-offish in terms of demeanour. 

erik neuteboom wrote: My critical comments about the review by Teaflax (2112 by Rush) and Prophet (Perpetuum Karma by Nexus) have nothing to do with a lack of objectivity, I only took these reviews as an example because I know the music very well. More and more this site delivers reviews in which reviewers use very unpleasant, provoking, degrading and other verbally agressive language, I would like to emphasize that if we take this for granted gradually we accept that it's normal to use that language. And in my opinion reviews should be about music and not a showcase for sarcastic and venomous comments that tell more about the reviewer than about the music. I can imagine that people don't mind about the things that bothers me, I am aware that I am a minority in this thread but that doesn't keep me from saying that the reviews by Teaflax and Prophet contain sentences that are too sarcastic and degrading and therefore should be deleted, in my opinion. In the past I have also been rude and verbally agressive in some posts (because I was too frustrated about certain things), I had no problem with deleting my posts because I accept that borders should be guarded. The problem is that the borders vary personally and that in my opinion it has become quite popular to react venomous and verbally agressive, especially on The Forum but also on the homepage in reviews. I don't like that development, I am concerned about it but it's up to the moderators where the borders are.

for the whole post, not only the bolded section.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ bashing a band (or album) which is commonly referred to as a masterpiece or "just" an excellent album can be quite disrespectful. I'm just saying that when you post a review which is in contradiction to a large number of other reviews (not just by fanboys but also by respected collabs) then circumstances suggest that you might be wrong in pointing out that it's a bad album "generally speaking". It's a bad album for you, but not for most other reviewers ... personally I'm always interested in such reviews (which represent minority opinions), but only if they're respectful of the fact that most people disagree.

If I were, for example, to think that a highly acclaimed and incredibly well-selling album by Evanescence or Coldplay was bad, and gave it a poor rating and negative review, would that be disrespectful?  What about a symphony by Mozart, or a classic like Thick as a Brick?  Where can a line be drawn, if anywhere?

Just because a lot of people (including critics and reviewers) like something, or because something is a turning point for a type of music, doesn't mean everyone will like it.  I don't think they should have to step on eggshells and pad their reviews with apologies or excuses.  The people who love it don't need to apologize or excuse themselves to the rest of humanity.  So why should those who dislike something downplay their opinions, even if they're in the minority?  My take on this is that reviewers should  be respectful of each other by not commenting on other reviewers at all.  Say what you think, back it up with descriptions of the music, and let the readers sort out whether they think your taste is similar to theirs or not.  That doesn't mean I think a reviewer should be vulgar, or say things like, 'this band is stupid, no one should ever listen to them' in their review.  Rather, I think it is just helpful to see the different perspectives people have when they listen to the same music.

EDIT:  Bashing any album is disrespectful, but there's a difference between bashing and a negative review. 

debrewguy wrote: A great helpful and negative review. Everyone who's not a fan of Rush, can see that. And if I had to choose between the DT or the Nexus review on which one I'd rather see deleted, I'd go for the DT-fanboy.

Even someone who is a fan of Rush (me) can see that. :P  I don't agree with the review, but I think it's a helpful and descriptive review, overall.



Edited by StarsongAgeless - May 03 2007 at 16:56

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ There's a fine line between bashing and merely voicing a negative opinion ... of couse there's no need to be 100% politically correct all the time, but it's also wrong to go totally over the top with sarcasm and insults.

Agreed.  But personally, I don't think someone should have to apologize or excuse themselves because their review is negative.  It makes it seem like negative reviews are less valid than positive ones.

EDIT: Not to say that if someone does regularly apologize for their negative reviews, that they should stop... but I also don't think it should be a requirement.  The difference between bashing and a negative review is not whether a person apologized for their opinion.  It's a lot harder to define than that.  A person might conceivably apologize for their review or admit that other people love the stuff, but still have written a review full of bashing.


Edited by StarsongAgeless - May 03 2007 at 16:59