My PA rant: Stop reviewing sub-genres you dislike

Dean wrote: someone_else wrote: 2. The criterium should be if the album's format is listenable and if the reviewer listens carefully, not the way is it obtained (although a legal way would be fine, of course). Reviewing an album obtained illegally is distasteful and disrespectful in my opinion, regardless of the rating it's given.

Dean wrote: Snow Dog wrote: Dean wrote: someone_else wrote: 2. The criterium should be if the album's format is listenable and if the reviewer listens carefully, not the way is it obtained (although a legal way would be fine, of course). Reviewing an album obtained illegally is distasteful and disrespectful in my opinion, regardless of the rating it's given.   For the first time ever (I think) Dean...I disagree with you. I don't expect many people here to agree with me on this, I have a very polarised opinion. To me it's like phoning a cuckold husband to complain that his wife is too passive in bed.

Snow Dog wrote: Dean wrote: Snow Dog wrote: Dean wrote: someone_else wrote: 2. The criterium should be if the album's format is listenable and if the reviewer listens carefully, not the way is it obtained (although a legal way would be fine, of course). Reviewing an album obtained illegally is distasteful and disrespectful in my opinion, regardless of the rating it's given.   For the first time ever (I think) Dean...I disagree with you. I don't expect many people here to agree with me on this, I have a very polarised opinion. To me it's like phoning a cuckold husband to complain that his wife is too passive in bed. But as long as the source of the music is not known, what difference does it make?

Amorally, none at all. I'm not amoral.

ShW1 wrote: "stop reviewint etc": In my opinion, there are two conditions for posting a good, relaible review, or rating:   1 - listening to an album at least 4 times. Even album you dislike.   2 - The album should be ligally perchased. as CD, MP3, or any other format. If one person DL an album from I-dont-know-where, listened to it bearly once, doing other things while listening and not fully concentrated, and than say 'yauchhhk, what a disgusting album', and than send a review/rating, well I dont think it's reliable.   Indeed, these two terms are biased the ratings up a bit, but I prefere this situation than annoying case as described by the OP.

Sean Trane wrote:     It's quite true that there aren't many albums (in those genres I cited) that I actually like, but then again most of those genres keep flinging out new albums that are beating the same old ground... and that's bloody boooooooring to me, and extended boredom sessions drive me to sort of dislike the album that drives to that state.   That's the main reasn why I would rate badly an album... and I'd tend to want to warn potential victims to stay away from it, whatever genre it might be in.     if we weren't allowed to rate things we like less, then every rating left would be good ratings and therefore useless to the decerning prospective proghead...

This is actually the root of the 'problem' people complaining about negative reviews for prog metal have. They don't have any problem or at least not as much of a problem with bands going over the same ground as long as it's prog metal.  But that cannot be a valid reason for people not to post reviews stating this and therefore giving a somewhat low rating. 

Not directed at this post, but about growls... I used to think before that that is not a valid reason to bring down the rating but, there's another way to look at it. Addressing that 'issue' tells listeners that it's not an album with broad appeal.  We can discuss this 10 years from now and growls will still polarise listeners and there will still be many listeners who don't like growls. So, it's not even a question of open mindedness, growls simply aren't for everyone and an album with narrower appeal should ideally have a lower average rating than another great album with broader appeal.  An album appealing to only a certain section of listeners and still occupying the top 10 of PA doesn't make a lot of sense. 

Chris S wrote: Snow Dog wrote: Dean wrote: someone_else wrote: 2. The criterium should be if the album's format is listenable and if the reviewer listens carefully, not the way is it obtained (although a legal way would be fine, of course). Reviewing an album obtained illegally is distasteful and disrespectful in my opinion, regardless of the rating it's given.   For the first time ever (I think) Dean...I disagree with you. For the first time ever ( I think) SD.....I agree with you

SolarLuna96 wrote: frippism wrote: Dean wrote: scophone wrote:  I can't agree  I'm watching you. I'd be scared that emoticon creeps me out.

Bully

I read a few posts above but 8 pages worth ... nah!

Apocalyptica don't have a vocalist ... and most of their guest vocalists don't growl, even the female ones.

AtomicCrimsonRush wrote: Dean wrote: Apocalyptica don't have a vocalist ... and most of their guest vocalists don't growl, even the female ones. Ah there you go, I have not heard any of their albums and assumed they were growlers according to the genre.

Which is why people unfamiliar with a subgenre or artist should excercise caution when making blanket statements in their reviews. However, we all do it, life is too short to go through every album of a band when the first thing we heard by them was something we didn't like, so we make assumptions and move onto something we do like.