Reviews discussion

Lucent wrote: The fact that the prog archives staff get more priority in review power and more space on the review page makes me sad.

Well, you used the word 'staff', which is correct in that we do WORK on behalf of the site. You should also be informed, however, of the fact that we do so completely for free, and that perhaps having more review power and space can be viewed as compensation for what we do.

Then, as Jim and Uwe pointed out, anyone who writes a number of good-quality reviews can become a Prog Reviewer, and gain access to the Collab Zone. In that, PA gives its members a lot of opportunities. I became a PR after only three months here, and was soon promoted SC.

You guys are making me jealous, it took me two years to become a collaborator

Just a general observation, but I actually find it easier to write a review of an album that I think really sucks, compared to one I love unconditionally. Why this should be so I am unsure, so does anyone else have a similar experience (or a contrary one ?)

I guess I just run out of superlatives for the good (but seem to have a bottomless well of invective ?!)

This phenomenon probably says as much about me the reviewer, as it does about the music...

I consciously changed my reviewing style in the last year or so, as I felt I was becoming too negative (an attribute I think I shared with some other prolific reviewers).

Yes, but sometimes pointing out the mediocraties is good. I stumbled up Orion. The album is O.K., and would likely go over well with the hard core Symphonic fan. But if you're had the chance to listen to it, and found it average at best, it does PA well. I find that some relatively  obscure acts (Eloy as an example, not to opine on the quality of music) gets rather high ratings. And I figure that part of that is due to some folks picking them up based on the ratings or reviews, not liking them, and not bothering to follow up with their own opinion.

It's like when I go to Harmony Central or Ulitmate Guitar for some info on a piece of musical gear - I pass over most of the raves (i.e. - this solid state Marshall MG15 beats all other amps out there. Period), and take note of the negative ones to see what to look for before buying, or better , while trying out the piece of equipment.

Yep I agree with kenethlevine and found that having gotten over reviewing the classic discs from say 69 - 75 in my collection, I feel compelled to promote (or relegate) some of the more obscure prog that I have stumbled upon. After all, if Close to the the Edge (which I like) has garnered >900 reviews, what chance is there of the curious visitor to this site getting to learn about Maxophone, Bram Stoker, Quill, Residents, Ethos, Runaway Totem etc ?

Although I have certainly given a few discs a right damn good kicking, I have (wherever possible) striven to accentuate what little positives or merit I can find in these releases...(OK apart from Matching Mole, but Lemmings and filthy welfare scrounging Moles are sworn enemies)

I do think that (sincere) negative reviews of avowed "masterpieces" are necessary for balance on PA, as they are currently the only counterweight to the seemingly inexaustible deluge of 5 star reviews that proliferate on the site. Such enthusiasm and affection for an album I do not wish to undermine, but have to question the application of flimsy criteria in arriving at a rating. What I do find patricularly tiresome are those 5 star ratings of an album where the reviewer admits that one, or a couple of tracks appear that he/she does not care for at all ? How can 5 stars accomodate such glaring flaws ?

- Apart from the sloppy ceiling, you've done a grand job with the Sistine Chapel Michael -

For me, a 5 star album is one where there are NO weak tracks or FILLER. To date I think I have only given five albums a 'full house"

Have they gone now?

OK, I'm on the case.

Thus shutteth up Zarathustra

OK enough already, he probably doesn't realize this isn't the way to review, I think Admin is on it