Which album? We should all write negative reviews just to spite him

I've been contacted a few times to change some wording that wasn't accurate but never about changing my stance or rating

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!

Hi,

There is a difference between the constructive criticism, specially from a person you seem to trust, and the (seemingly) member of the band not happy with the 3 rating. However, again, I find the person's comments on that review of 3 stars, as not being fair, or honest, in the least ... and c'mon ... how can you give this band any attention when they are openly trying to influence a reviewer? 

Defending your work is one thing, but upset with a rating? I'm not sure that the band is aware of that, and if they are, they should apologize right away ... not sure I can even consider listening to them in a situation like that ... it's just really sad, when they, or one of them, thinks they need all the good ratings to get more attention ... that's just insane ... good thing that Led Zeppelin, told reviewers to take a hike ... and everyone remembers the band ... and who the heck were those reviewers? Just some crazies who had their own preferences and could not appreciate something different!

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.

   

This is what I'd say.

"OK, I';ll change it.  Might as well change all the others to five-stars too, just to be nice.  I mean, obviously, having an issue and threatening to demonize those who don't comply is the only way to get successful in this world.  I'm sure Beatles, Floyd, and even Bieber have done it.  If you need be to lie for you again, lemme know."

I had this happen when I was a new reviewer at PA. The dude was very aggressive (a prick, tbh) and "corrected me" on a mistake I made before 'foaming at the mouth' about my 3 star rating, which I did inform him means "Good" at PA. Unfortunately, because so many people give 5 stars to everything they like and ignore the site's request that "Masterpiece" status be used very sparingly, some artists take this to mean that 3 stars is an inconceivable insult. 

I corrected the mistake he pointed out but held firm on my rating.

^

Agree on the rating side, though, as a listener, I definitely have learned which reviewers tastes are more likely to match my own, which can be really useful in musical "resource allocation."

Reminds me of the time I was on a Reddit concerning Gloryhammer's cheese factor.  One guy comes in and says, "Sounds like your saying 'Old Gloryhammer's better than new Gloryhammer."  So I reply, "Yep.  While I agree the new album isn't as good as the first three, Gloryhammer always knew who they wanted to be.  Names like 'Unicorn Invansion of Dundee' says it all.  Hell, they even stole their logo font from The Dark Crystal before having to redesign it."

The guy I was replying to, apparently, was the frontman.  I'm gonna wear that story like a badge of honor.  I got all this backlash from a few other users about how I ended up replying to the frontman, but I said what I said and I didn't change it.  The fans said things like, "HOW DARE YOU SUGGEST THAT HIS QUALITY ISN'T CONSISTENT!"  Of course, I told them that I already said what I said, and that Bowes himself should be used to varying opinions by that point.  Bowes himself didn't really reply, but I let him know my honest opinions:

First 3: roughly 85/100

Fourth: roughly 70/100

Another reason to love the original Angus.

My statement would be, "And how would you like the community here to find out you said these things to me because of a review?  You COULD deny that you were the one who said these things and make it look like someone was trying to pull a prank by pretending to be you, and that may likely justify my review in the end, and not make you look bad in front of your own band."

Currently only 2 albums post 1999 scrape into the PA Top 50 list (Wobbler - From Silence To Somewhere at #30 and Steven Wilson - The Raven That Refused to Sing at #39).  I would say that the latter is definitely one such masterpiece. Of course it become highly subjective but the point I think I was trying to make is that reviewers  limiting reviews to mainly 3 or 4 stars is a bit irrelevant and artificial. If you think that a 1000 albums are 5 stars then I don't see a problem going with it personally. It's all subjective.

Hi,

I, likely, would post the cover of the MAD magazine ... "we're number 1" ... and it was the middle finger! It was a comment about The National Lampoon taking pot shots at MAD magazine so they could look better and more important with the lame, high school/college stuff they were doing! At least, MAD had a serious history with a lot of very well known names ... NL? No one knows it or remembers it. It was rather poor and very topical, and not funny half the time!

Hi,

The only issue I have with this is the idea/fact that you could get 1000 Swifties voting a 5 star thing, on an album, and in the end, it is good, but not really a 5 star thing ... a 4 perhaps, and the well done production and such, but the subjective nature of it, makes it look like that simply because there is a number, that something is great, or very good ... and many times, it isn't and in time, that appreciation dies out.

We have to be careful with this "subjective" thing, as it is making a statement that in the end, we do not want. And it would be our responsibility to understand that ... but most voting a 5 star thing, don't give a damn ... it's their preferred and favorite this and that.

This is the main reason why I would prefer that all monthly and yearly lists NOT have a number at all ... so that no one, can think that this one is better than that one. IF, anything, the way that we still find historical stuff from the 1970's is a perfect example ... we took a "top five" kind of thing and left all else behind, only for it to be found, that ... we didn't do a good job selecting those 5 now, did we?

Hi,

Without being vindictive, I would have copied it and posted it ... and questioned the rating and the folks in the previous reviews. If the guy has any class, he would apologize ... otherwise, most of us would know that the whole thing was staged to make the band look better.

Hi,

Thx. In general, and you can check my reviews on the JMA site, I tend to stay "loyal" to the things that still drive me ... and quickly! Thus, doing reviews for Terje Rypdal, Egberto Gismonti, Jan Garbarek ... is something special in my listening life ... all of those albums have lifted me up many times, and they still do. It's hard to believe it, but another listen to "No Caipira" and I have, again, yet another movie in my head ... it's uncanny ... and the same for a couple of the Garbarek albums in his experimental days ... they  are far out, and many of these albums, I love doing reviews for, and now you know why I don't like doing a lot of reviews of rock albums ... too much "subjective" (and cheap) bologna out there, and I prefer the honesty (as you say) and appreciation for the music to be mentioned.

I do find it really sad, when it is so obvious that the "review" is just a band kiss and nothing else ... for me, it feels too dishonest and not about the music ... and it reminds me of a comment Daevid Allen made when we were yapping ... he said he trusted a bad review better than a kissing review ... and I have to agree to a point, but I think that my excitement for some of these reviews I have done, shows ... and I have, just about, gone through all the threads they have for almost everything they have listed for the last couple of years, at least ... some far out stuff out there, but in those listens, I kinda did what Mike has asked me to do before ... los blurbs ... came out! But there was some far out stuff ... that 16 saxophone band needs more attention ... that was far out!