Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
> I'm not saying how a review should be, I'm only concerned with a review serving my needs and whims. I love this sort of honesty. Thanks. I wish all reviewers were just as honest. > A lot of reviewers think they're stating facts, or that the facts they choose to state provide an accurate picture of what they're discussing, but I don't take that as a given. True. I think we are in violent agreement here. Basically, they contort value language to look like factual language, or abuse factual language, stating falsehoods. > I mean, recently I read a dozen reviews of the new Richard Thompson album which described it as his first solo acoustic record since an album he released in the early 80's. However, just reading the album credits showed that it was neither solo nor acoustic, and neither was the previous album being referred to. Yup, reviewer didn't do his homework: falacy #2 that we point out above in light of abusing factual language - that is, stating a falsehood. Okay, can we close this topic out and get back to the others? :) I'm behind on this software/laptop discussion...need to read that thread you sited from harmony. Kris On 10/27/05, Kris Hartung <khartung@cableone.net> wrote: > > Pretty much other than the name of the act, the location, the date and > the cover charge--after that it's all a bit questionable. > > I think this statement is questionable, not to mention it's not a > categorical one. It's > a value statement based on what you like to see out of a review, or perhaps > just > an observation of what you see a lot in reviews, neither of which > necessarily imply what a > decent and well review should look like (and I emphasize "necessarily" > here). I speak > to many music enthusiasts who enjoy very much when a music review >provides > some > background on a group or CD and actually shows that the reviewer gives a > shit about > their artform, other than just doing a cursory review of a band or CD with > no > regard to context.