Shrimp
|
Re: Negative Reviews
Jul 10, 2004, 17:34
|
remember that there is also an unsung forum for discussion and general comment however that too has been taken over by in the main a lot of complete bolloxs threads of best this and best that and list list list n ....- but then that has always been there - perhaps the discussion content is just less evident these days n nights
but i keep coming back so therefore something must be right!
|
cancer boy
|
Re: Negative Reviews
Jul 10, 2004, 17:55
|
|
If you're deleting some reviews could you maybe repost them in the forum (as the original reviewer and date, through the magic of mySQL)? Then they won't be lost to posterity and you can ream out the reviews section for anything that's off topic without fear of being called a censor.
|
Shrimp
|
Re: Negative Reviews
Jul 10, 2004, 17:58
|
|
perfect
|
Dog 3000
|
in defense of ELP!
Jul 10, 2004, 18:40
|
Having not read any of the other responses to this post yet . . .
Maybe my "Trilogy" review came off sounding very negative, but as I mentioned here in the Unsung forum I really do LIKE that album. I'd call it creative lisence in the style of the writing, not a "negative review" as such. Obviously there's something worthy about the record otherwise I wouldn't have bothered in the first place. (As for Arfanaardvark, he's written a couple trash-talk reviews like that before -- I doubt I "inspired" him.)
Furthermore, I could swear there used to be this article by Julian somewhere giving advice on writing reviews, which mentioned something along the lines of not praising mediocrities to the skies on account of people having limited budgets and so forth. Responsibility on the part of the reviewer in a sense.
Is the problem that I don't praise ELP enough, or are they merely unworthy of review in the first place? If ELP is out, how can Hawkwind, Zeppelin, Sabbath etc. possibly be "Unsung"?
Just my thoughts. Thanks for listening.
|
keith a
|
Re: Can of Worms
Jul 10, 2004, 18:44
|
I like both, but within the confines of this site, the PSB's are more unsung than, say, Can.
Talk about having to preach to the converted.
|
Dog 3000
|
One final thought:
Jul 10, 2004, 18:52
|
|
"As Julian is a self-styled 'forward-thinking Motherfucker', he has no intention of limiting, editing, or even seeing your reviews before you post them. Over the years, he himself has championed many types of music which were then *unfashionable*. . . "
|
keith a
|
Re: Sung/Unsung?
Jul 10, 2004, 19:05
|
I thought it was good that the PSB's were reviewed there. Are they particularly 'sung' now? I think not, they're pretty forgotten about apart from a hardcore audience who get their singles into the charts for a week. Relentless is a forgotten little gem, but the lack of guitars is obviously an obstacle for some people.
Personally I thought it made a change from a lot of the pretentious "I-like-more-obscure-music-than-you" bollocks spouted here from time to time.
And can I just say I find the term "lost rock'n'roll" bollocks, unless you're gonna do wall to wall Jerry Lee and Chuck Berry reviews. If the people who run this site are going to be so pedantic, so will I. Can aren't 'rock'n'roll' anymore than Suede. They might be better (IMO), but they're not 'R&R'. They just happen to have longer hair. And that seems to be what matters here.
It strikes me as being stuck-in-the-past and conservative.
|
Severin
|
Re: One final thought:
Jul 10, 2004, 19:05
|
|
Bravo on both counts,Dog3000
|
Lugia
|
Re: Negative Reviews
Jul 10, 2004, 19:33
|
But...
Let's take an example of a fabled, storied album that's obscure, but which really isn't a musical essential due to some wack-type content, but because of the album's connections to other cool stuff, etc, it's got a 'cachet' that might lead some people on to picking it up. While I understand that 'championing' lost rock etc is important here, I also consider it important that people know that some of this material doesn't live up to the unobtanium-gilded hype.
Case I'm citing here, of course, is my review of the "Liliental" album. Looking at it, with Dieter Moebius, Conny Plank, Asmus Tietchens et al, you would presume this would be a stupendous piece of work on par with the great Basel scene collabs that resulted in R-U. Kaiser's Kosmische production output. But appearances deceive, as the album really only hits home about 50% of the time, if that. So in this case, I felt that reviewing this in order to shed some light on the DOWNsides of this release was worthwhile. And I can think of other 'unsung'-type examples where pointing out certain flaws on a hyper-hyped album would be worthwhile to readers.
So I don't think you can slam things which don't 'champion' something...mainly because by exposing some of the sub-par work, people will be able to better concentrate with their ears and wallets on that which IS worth championing. In the end, though, it all comes down to true critique, in which Dog3k succeeded with the ELP review and Aardwhatever failed with the presumptive Spiritualized slam. Things have to be viewed in that light, I think...is it valid critique, or is it just pure smackdown for smackdown's sake?
|
lordsitar
|
Re: Can of Worms
Jul 10, 2004, 20:13
|
|
yeah i hate can but you gotto take the rough with the smooth
|
