[direwolf74]

Instead of lambasting the guy for not liking the Hip, why not lambaste him for writing an incompetent review?

The point of writing a review is to tell readers something about the work you're reviewing, not simply to set yourself up as an authority and pass judgment. So instead of calling a band a failed R.E.M., the reviewer should be telling you how they resemble R.E.M. and why he thinks they fail. If you never heard them before, that would let you understand whether you would like them or not.

Reviews that say "this release sucks" or "this band is great" without giving you any real information are worthless, and the people who write them should have their fingers amputated as a service to humanity.

Well said. I couldn't agree more. :thumb:

[Roy-at-tth]

Instead of lambasting the guy for not liking the Hip, why not lambaste him for writing an incompetent review?

The point of writing a review is to tell readers something about the work you're reviewing, not simply to set yourself up as an authority and pass judgment. So instead of calling a band a failed R.E.M., the reviewer should be telling you how they resemble R.E.M. and why he thinks they fail. If you never heard them before, that would let you understand whether you would like them or not.

Reviews that say "this release sucks" or "this band is great" without giving you any real information are worthless, and the people who write them should have their fingers amputated as a service to humanity.

Have you failed journalism?

You are wrong, reviews pass judgement, that is what they do. They say what they think. They don't take your hand and guide you through a work. How they resemble R.E.M and why they fail? Jesus christ man, if you're looking for that, read seventeen magazine.

Here's something more, that was a short review. Writers are subject to the rules of a magazine and their editor. The editor likely told him he only had little space for this review, and so he cut it down to its basics.

I'm not saying he's super, but thats a review. You're attacking the guy for "poor writing" for no good reason. I wonder if you know any better.

[direwolf74]

Instead of lambasting the guy for not liking the Hip, why not lambaste him for writing an incompetent review?

The point of writing a review is to tell readers something about the work you're reviewing, not simply to set yourself up as an authority and pass judgment. So instead of calling a band a failed R.E.M., the reviewer should be telling you how they resemble R.E.M. and why he thinks they fail. If you never heard them before, that would let you understand whether you would like them or not.

Reviews that say "this release sucks" or "this band is great" without giving you any real information are worthless, and the people who write them should have their fingers amputated as a service to humanity.

Have you failed journalism?

You are wrong, reviews pass judgement, that is what they do. They say what they think. They don't take your hand and guide you through a work.

Being a graduate of journalism school, I'm gonna have to agree with Skippy here. Guiding you through a work is exactly what a good review SHOULD do. Stating an opinion is great, but ya gotta back that up with some info/background on the artist and a solid basis for your opinion. That way the reader at least has an idea of where you're coming from. This guy's IBE review is incredibly vague. Any idiot can "google" the Hip and find countless reviews containing an R.E.M. comparison (wow, how original). He provides no examples from the music or any specific songs, which tells me he didn't even listen to the record. Most of all, it seems as if his sole argument for why he thinks they suck is the flag-waving zealousness of their fans. That's not a review. That's just laziness.

[skippy the wonder dog]

I'm not saying he's super, but thats a review. You're attacking the guy for "poor writing" for no good reason. I wonder if you know any better.

Actually, my work for magazines has been published in Canada, the United States, and Japan, and I've won an award or two. I think I'm qualified to comment on writing and journalism.

Reviews do pass judgment, but a well written review provides enough information that the reader can understand the reviewer's frame of reference. Simply writing your opinion, good or bad, is not reviewing a work; it's laziness. Unfortunately, it's also the standard for most reviews these days.

[Roy-at-tth]

thats awesome, I've been published published too...but i'm starting to doubt you were published for writing reviews.

Fact is, he is the editors bitch...editor says he has few words, that the way it goes. You should know this, being so "experienced" and all.

[direwolf74]

thats awesome, I've been published published too...but i'm starting to doubt you were published for writing reviews.

Fact is, he is the editors bitch...editor says he has few words, that the way it goes. You should know this, being so "experienced" and all.

Editor's bitch or not, that still doesn't change the fact that it's a badly written review.

[skippy the wonder dog]

Only having a few words doesn't preclude using them well.