Question for reviewers

Over all the years and above 600 film reviews and at least 100 music reviews, and 50+ DVD's ... this has never happened to me at all.

In general, I have made a lot of friends from those reviews, and I'm sure that they have heard a lot of things about them ... that was not nice. I, generally, will not review something that asks for a negative comment from me ... safer to steer clear, and that means, for example, that hundreds of film will not be reviewed by me, for one reason or another, and the same about music in general. This is the main reason I do not do top ten ... 

It concerns me the person's comments about your review, specially as you mentioned that the other reviews were tops. Normally, and happens often here, those with high marks are folks related to the band, and (in general) they should not be reviewing anything ... but in the age of the kissypoo and advertising, it seems that we all "believe" that cheating is fine, and this is one of the reasons I do not like the numbers on the lists for favorite of the month or year, even though it has been made clear the numbers don't usually relate to anything but just a count of items. The basic idea is that because they are listed on the top that they are better, and generally speaking that is not the case, or likely, though wwe still have to account for personal favoritism to get a better answer.

A lot of my reviews, specially in film, are a bit more technical, about cinematography, the music used and how, and details that tend to stay away from acting preferences, though sometimes it's very difficult to get away from that part in the excellent work all around ... c'mon ... you gonna say anything bad about Sir John Gielgud in "Prospero's Books"? Is it that you don't like Willie, or you can't stand the wording as used so beautifully to express various moments from the play itself. It's OK to dislike Willie, and I'm not one for enjoying his work a lot ... too much really poor stuff to satisfy the crowd, which was necessary in his time, rather than keep an audience bummed for 2 to 3 hours! And Willie is downright nasty and very foul mouthed very often! But all English Departments ignore that for the Iambic metering, for example, specially disliking theater department renditions of Willie's plays for not being on point!

It gets ridiculous, and I think that sometimes we have to ignore it ...  though I'm not sure I have ever had anyone say anything bad about the reviews, except some folks on PA ... whose talent is strictly to troll some folks, not that they don't have anything to say, but sometimes, it is rather obvious ... but it's their prerogative and I'm gonna let them live and die in their own ________ ! 

But a band not happy with a rating? If I was PA I would remove the band and the reviews ... let them get appreciation somewhere else, and hopefully it helps them better, with the kissers on their team!

Whenever you post or publish anything to the public, music, writings, reviews or just personal opinions, you are subject to be criticised. Sometimes an artist may think to have released a masterpiece that's great i his mind only. If you accept being reviewed you must accept 1-stars reviews, too. If not, you can pick your stuff up and listen to it on your own HiFi at home without bothering others, that's what I'm used to do with my own stuff. 

Disclaimer: in my case it's because I know how rubbish my stuff is, not because I can't accept criticism.

So, as a reviewer you have the right to express your honest opinion. 

Trivia: in 1978, an Italian famous musical reviewer, Roberto Bertoncelli, was very hard against the last album released by the songwriter Francesco Guccini "Stanze di Vita Quotridiana". 

Guccini in his following album released a song against him and the musical reviewers in general which ended to be one of his biggest successes.

Bertoncelli did him a favour in the end.