GREAT site for reviews

[sonickteam2]

now, when they are reviewing an album...do you need facts and figures to prove that a record is bad?

[ggw]

Originally posted by Anton Newcombe:
   

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
  Unfortunately, they are playing with Electric 6, who i would like to see.

will you sing along to "gay bar" too? [/b]

Who doesn't sing along to Gay Bar?
 
 http://www.rathergood.com/gaybar/

[markie]

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
  [Yes, I know that is more or less what you are saying, but it is contrary to Rhett's belief that anything under 70 must be absolutely "bad."

exactly.
 
 but looking at the list I would guess in practice that Rhett is right though in theory he should possibly be wrong.
 
 Just because an artist has notoriety doesnt mean their new release will be any good or critically acclaimed, just ask Lou Reed.
 
 Actually, that makes Rhett the victor, sorry GGW, you and I were both wrong.

[Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer]

If you look back at what I wrote, in the second paragraph, I said "significantly below 70". Tha'ts probably a better way to look at it. There's probably not much difference between a 71 and a 68. but there is between a 71 and 50.
 
 

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
   

Originally posted by Anton Newcombe:
   

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
 

Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
 [qb] There is little motivation to do reviews of poor quality albums from bands that are not widely known, as nobody would really care. [/b]

but thats ok as it would just change the classification from great/average/bad to excellent/good/ok, not really much difference. [/b]

Well, you have to believe that most of the albums are being reviewed simply because they are believed to be good in the first place.  There aren't reviews of the total population of albums being released, only albums from people that presumably did something good in the past, or new acts that are making a name for themselves by releasing something good.
 
 So, this wouldn't indicate that anything below 70 (the bottom quartile) is necessarily "bad."  It simply means that it is relatively less good than those that score higher.  But since the whole sample is skewed toward "good" albums, they may very well be "good" anyway.
 
 Yes, I know that is more or less what you are saying, but it is contrary to Rhett's belief that anything under 70 must be absolutely "bad." [/b]

[Jaguär]

Originally posted by sonickteam2:
    no reviews for me         but i get Q for the cool pictures and to pretend i am British.        
 
  oh, and i like Spin too (where did the damn spin joke start anyway!)

Yes, I understand. Pictures can be very enticing. Sometimes I like to read a good interview. That way you get some insider info that you won't get out of a review. That is, if it's a good interview.
 
 BTW, forget Q. Go with X-Ray.      
 
 Oh, and I still enjoy reading the NME sometimes but that's because it's so damned funny! Up there with the Gallagher Bros.. The information is usually crap but they take liberties that other magazines rarely take. Pure comedy! Often, I'll totally disagree with whatever they are saying but I'll be laughing my ass off so hard that I end up loving it anyway.

[markie]

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
   http://www.rathergood.com/gaybar/

that was rather good.......
 
 I wish I hadnt let Jadetree keep the 10cent album sampler right now.

[Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer]

So are some of you saying you pick what bands you like based on what they look like in pictures?
 
 I've usually found that the uglier and less fasionable the band, the more talented they were.
 
 Except for that prettyboy Rhett of course.