Reviews

richardh wrote: Vibrationbaby wrote: There! I re-did my Lamb Lies Down On Broadway review. I'll fix the other one when I have a bit more time. This is more or less my true feeling towards this record. A much better review in my opinion.I agree with your comments about 'Lamb..' being too long.I've often thought that and you do give credit for the better moments like 'In The Cage'.Anyone new to the genre would be well informed by that review.Well done and keep it up!

Cheers and peace throughout the world.

corbet wrote: Well, the old review was certainly more fun to read.  Too bad it almost got you "fired" though, V-baby. [edit: ...and however much I might like "Foxtrot" on its own merits, I have to say your Gentle Giant comment gave me a big ol' smile!  DAMN RIGHT!]

I'm going to rewrite the Foxtrot one again to better reflect my true feelings toward it just the same as I did for TLLDOBW. I did mean it, though, when I made the GG comment. Early Genesis is nothing like Gentle Giant. Technically and otherwise no one can touch them (GG). I've seen people at record conventions ( I used to go to these things ages ago) comparing the two bands and it would just make me think, do these people actually listen to the music? Gentle Giant was one of the most articulate, daunting and adventurous bands ever! Foxtrot definitely has it's merits but right now my dogs are bugging me to go for a run so I'll try and rewrite my Foxtrot critique as soon as I can. (I also want to haul it out and listen to it a couple of times before I do so.)

For all those offended by my rather harsh critique of Foxtrot I finally got around to fixing it up if you want to check it out.

Vibrationbaby:

Since I seem to be the most "culpable" party here vis-a-vis the "accusations" against you, let me first say that I apologize if I offended you personally.  As you know, you and I have had wonderful discussions (and debates) on various threads.  And I very much respect your opinion as a whole.

I think my main concern was that, as "official" reviewers (and I've said this elsewhere), we have an added "responsibility" with regard to "informing" new visitors through our reviews.  That was why I was so "upset" by your single-line reviews; that they were so shockingly "damning" (by both star rating and words) only added to my upset.

I also want you to know that me comment about "getting you fired" was probably as much for "shock value" as your reviews: I never did "petition" Max, nor would I have done so.  At the risk of sounding "snide," it seems my comment had the desired effect: you saw fit to comport your reviews to your true feelings, rather than using them as a "statement" - one that, as noted, had little value for new visitors who might stumble upon those reviews.

Please forgive me for any overzealousness on my part: just as it is, as you say, clear from your addition as an "official" reviewer that Max et al must have seen something in your reviews to warrant your "upgrade," I think that my "passion" for the site - that it truly be a place where new visitors get a sense of history, of honest assessment (even where two assessments are 180 degrees apart), and of "progression" within the genre - was, among other things (and perhaps primarily) what warranted my own upgrade to the admin group.

I offer an olive branch, if you are willing to accept.

Peace.

VB:

Thank you for accepting my olive branch.  I wanted to add that it was actually somewhat strange to find that "Ian Gledhill" and "Vibrationbaby" were one and the same: i.e., the person on the threads seemed so...different from the person doing the reviews.  In this regard, I'm going to ask Max to go back to using our "nicknames" for the reviews, so that there is a consistency between the reviews and the forums: he can always link the nickname to the real name in the "Collaborators" section.

Finally, as the only two "Ians" on the site, we should be standing together, no?

Peace.