Review Reporting Thread

What happened?

No we do not endorse illigal download, and until the official release date the review should be removed, unless of course, the reviewer have a promo copy.

http://www.metalmusicarchives.com/the-final-frontier--review.aspx?id=219027

Unfortunately, PA gained a bad reputation in the prog world because of those unedited reviews. I believe ProgEars adopted the best solution: they have a person who is in charge of editing the reviews submitted by the site members. On a related note, I don't think it's a question of being a native speaker or not, or at least not always. Neither you nor I are (nor is Kim, to name another), and yet we write much better reviews that many native speakers who ignore the rules of punctuation and spelling.

Perhaps the people at PA should be told about that, but I'm not going to do it. 

It does for me, and I'm not even a member anymore (deleted my membership a few days ago - don't like cliques). Anyway, if you go on the ProgEars homepage, you'll see the thread- it's the first in the list as to now.

Just found this on the ProgressiveEars forum:
http://www.progressiveears.com/forums/thread.asp?ForumID=1&TopicID=121186&posttime=7%2F14%2F2010+2%3A17%3A42+PM&private=

The review in question is now on PA's front page. This is one of the reasons why we should pay a lot of attention to anything that is published here. People have eyes, and will comment on what they find around the web.



Edited by Raff - 14 Jul 2010 at 4:27pm

Raff, I really love these expressions "the biggest flaw for the less than successful nature of this disc", "he album�s ill-judged mix", "mercifully, the band avoided overstretching themselves", "what is meant as the disc�s highlight", "somewhat uncomfortable listening on account of its amateurish sound", and "it is to be hoped that, for any future efforts, the band will try to get a better producer, and also tighten up on the compositional aspect"... that's a really classy way of saying "this shit fails" ;-) I wish I had the ability to do bashing with such style and class ;-)

I think that if you think something is shit, you should be allowed to say so. When it's about the music, I don't see the problem, because a review really just says something about yourself and your taste than about the music itself.

It's more reviews that attack groups of people or individuals because of sexuality, ethnicity, religion and whatever (like that review that attacked both Rob Halford as a person for his sexual orientation), because then it's not about the music - then its personal, and then its offensive. Also "this is crap because the the sound production is awful and the songs are too boring and formulaic" is much more informative than "this is crap because the singer i gay and the drummer is black" (which just informs us that the writer of the review is a racist homophobic C.P.)

I agree that writing a good and sober 1 star review can be very difficult, and that reviews that go beyond "this-sucks" or "this-is-crap" are more interesting to read (I especially enjoy negative reviews that make a lot of use of creative similes and metaphors - even if its a review that bashes one of my favorite artists). I don't mind "the music on this album is rubbish" reviews, but I don't like reviews that personally attack the artists (no matter how much they actually suck) and I don't like reviews that attack people who like or don't like that artist (I don't mind if reviews criticize, or agree with, the general attitude towards the release in question; those can actually become quite interesting to read).


Edited by Time Signature - 04 Jul 2010 at 8:58am

Yes, I think it would be better to have the rules appear right under the review box, so that no one can claim they are not easily available to would-be reviewers. Not that having the guidelines so readily visible has ever stopped anyone from violating them...