You know, for a long time I thought everyone was being nice when they said things like "RaiNny, you're really good at writing reviews. You should write reviews. No one else should write reviews because they're completely stupid when you read them. I'm hungry." and "People who write reviews are cock-sucking faggots!!! Except for you RaiNny, you're a cock-sucking TALENTED review writing faggot!!!". But now I know that you people weren't being nice. You were being truthful. You see, every time I read a review about ANY band I inevitably come across one word..."Incubus". For some reason, paid reviewers seem to only have one reference point when penning their newest auditory examination. I can only deduce two reasons for such a phenomenon.1. Incubus is the only band that they are familiar with that bears even the slightest resemblance to the style of music the band they're reviewing falls under. And therefore, have no other frame of reference to view the music from. Obviously, this is a very bad way to look at things. By making comparisons between two totally unrelated artists, you're giving people who can actually discern between the two an incorrect idea as to what is readily apparent upon listening and thus irrelevant. This could be likened to saying that Dali and Picasso are similar in style. While they both produced mind-bending work anyone with apt ability would never say that what they did was not unlike the other.
2. Incubus is the only band that most people are familiar with and therefore the writers believe that using anything else as a vantage point would be impractical. This style of thinking is just as annoying as the first. If a musician doesn't really sound anything like another person and you compare it to them (this being the only thing someone else is accustomed to) then this time the uninitiated is on the short end of the stick. Now the customer has a false sense of what they are getting into. This is especially dangerous considering how dissimilar the two pieces might be (I once read a review (I believe it was in "Stuff Magazine" or another inane Men's editorial) that said The Deftones last album had elements of Incubus contained within it. Anyone who has any idea of what the two bands really sounds like would say that this is a horrible comparison. And if someone bought the album thinking that they'd get a sister-Incubus they'd be sorely disappointed.).
These two reasons make writing the editorials completely irrelevant as neither of these scenarios provides anything worthwhile to the reader whether they be aficionados or mere novices in the lore of the scene.
If you want some idea of what I'm talking about you can read two reviews produced by Rolling Stone about 30 Seconds To Mars, here and here. One thing to notice is that they were written by two different authors. So don't make the mistake thinking that it's just ONE dumbass doing this, IT'S A WHOLE LOT OF DUMBASSES.
There's only one other source for good reviews in the entire world (the other obviously being myself), ThePRP.com. If you make a quick comparison, you'll see that they almost always agree with what I say, and that alone makes it credible.
-RaiNny
hk_newbie said...
and have you noticed that the old-school incubus is practically non-existent by reviewers' standards?
when in fact, it is the old-school incubus that COULD be used in comparison to EVERY OTHER BAND ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH. Just because they rocked so hard, once upon a time.
hk_newbie said...
you know, i just read both of those reviews, and it seems to me that "Rolling Stone" magazine is painfully retarted.
I can only assume that is the image they're shooting for (and achieving).
RaiNny said...
Oh Doc, did you happen to like the Swift album?
hk_newbie said...
Rainny, I LOVE IT. it took some getting used to at frist, but after the third listen, It hasn't come out of my CD player yet.