Reviews discussion

It takes quite a lot of work to delete review, think about it, talk about it, gather evidence etc, than to write 100 words :-)

Watch me .

^ThaST PRETTY UNBALANCED REVIEWING. I said to a post above in the reviews repoirting thread.

Edited by Snow Dog - October 02 2009 at 19:06

Easy Money wrote: Conor Fynes wrote: There's a rather interesting fellow named 'amontes' who's been giving some interesting reviews. He's reviewed most masterpieces as one star, with very poor reviews to back them up...   To make matters more interesting, there are about 40 reviews related to King Crimson and Robert Fripp that are all 'masterpieces.'   Someone check it out? http://www.progarchives.com/Collaborators.asp?id=25592 Thanks Conor, but that really isn't against PA review guidlines, you're pretty much free to like and dislike whatever you want.

Edited by Snow Dog - October 02 2009 at 19:05

Epignosis wrote: TheProgtologist wrote: Can we accept a review for an album where the reviewer admits he hasn't even listened to the whole thing yet? http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=243569 This one also, perhaps? http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=243472

If the promo copy is the equivalent of what the official release will be (only without the bonus second disc). then I guess the reviewers should have simply tried harder reviewing it properly

So if such, I doubt the reviews will be erased for being weak.

Not that I know of Ian.

Easy Money wrote: Epignosis wrote: TheProgtologist wrote: Can we accept a review for an album where the reviewer admits he hasn't even listened to the whole thing yet? http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=243569 This one also, perhaps?http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=243472 Hey Rob, thanks for the report, but it looks like he listened to a promo copy so that counts. If the album is up on the site then it's fair game to be reviewed.

That's fine, but it just seemed to read as though the person only listened to the first disc.  I could be wrong of course.

Negoba wrote: Ok here's a question...how many times do you typically listen to an album before you review it? There's discussions of reviewing before you've even heard the whole album. There are very few albums I've reviewed off 3 listens to the entire thing, but dangnation. There are some albums that I think would be truly impossible to rate appropriately without at least ten full listens (and I mean the actual full 10 hours of listening time). A few, more than that.   Others experiences?

I don't have a set number of listens.  I review something when I feel comfortable enough with the material to actually have intelligent things to say about it.

That said, albums I rate ones and twos I generally listen to far fewer times than those I rate fours and fives.

Many times, and over many months, ideally.  Complex titles especially should be given many plays over a long period of time so the reviewer understands everything that is happening.  I can't count the number of times I've initially not liked something, only to "get it" quite suddenly later on, the light bulb just goes on if you give something time. 

Certainly, there are exceptions like an early Beatles album or the like, where things are fairly obvious. 

Also, if I have a brand new release and want to do an early review to get some information posted, I will, but I will note in my review that I'm doing so. 

When I see someone write about a challenging title and indicate they've "just got the CD a few days ago" or only played it once or twice, I will usually just stop reading the review.  When an artist takes months or years of effort to create something, the least we can do is give it time and patience to be sure we "know" what we're hearing, for better or worse.   This is especially true for high and low ratings.  Anything declared a masterpiece should be something that has held up for you for a long time.  Very rarely will I give something 5 stars that hasn't been played over several years.  When I do, I'll reassess often to make sure the rating is truly deserved. 

Then again, I'm a ratings-psycho.  If I had my way, Max would have it set up so that no more than 5% of a reviewer's total ratings could be "5 stars."   So we knew what people *really* liked.  Now that would be awesome.   

JMO. 

Well we seem to be in agreement, it just irks me where it's clear the reviewer hasn't even listened to the album very much. At least we don't get the Amazon "My case was cracked so I'm giving the CD a 1 star rating."