Just because he hasn't found an album that he's managed to have fallen in love with, should that somehow negate his position and his hobby? If he's told himself that he wants to cover the new DRGN KING release, and then listens to to it and realises that it isn't the greatest thing in the world, should he then stop himself from writing about it? I like Irving's reviews because he refrains from the kind of hyperbolic nonsense that plagues this site, and his opinions are presented in a much more realistic light as a result. His job (if you wish to call it that) is to shed light on new albums; his is just one opinion, listen to it and make your own
I said he can review whatever he wants. You just really dont think its odd how he hasnt managed to review more than two 4s in about 16 months? Ive seen you give out a couple 5s, and you know what? Those albums ended up getting alot of attention because of it. Im sure the next one you give a 5 will get the same.
Also I listened to a bunch of songs off some of the things he reviewed, and I have to agree that they are indeed mediocre. So he did describe them well .
Digging: Jeff Bridges - Sleeping Tapes
So what's the problem then, because he's clearly on the money. So he hasn't stumbled across something that he's found to be overly remarkable. There are a a million users on this site who find the next best thing every other day, let them peddle their wares on you
Look, it just comes down to this. I want to hear some good tunes. Thats all I come here for. I want to hear what you guys think are the best tunes and those should get the most attention. I want your best recs. If I was your friend at your house and asked you the best album youve heard lately, I dont want the one you gave a 2.5. Now I could think your 2.5 is a 4.5 sure, but chances are as a whole the albums you think are amazing are going to be better than the ones you think are meh. Irving seems to only review meh and give them meh scores. Its depressing that he hasnt found any better albums to review than the ones he has.
As stated, too many people (staff included) here are guilty of being "caught in the moment". It's actually nice to see more level-headedness and less zomg.
If we only reviewed 4s and up you would all be bitching that we don't diversify our reviews and post lower scores. This thread is just typical userbase bitching. There's nothing remarkable going on at all.
Digging: Mew - -
thankfully 4-4.5-5s are evidently all i write anyway when im not lambasting my former favorite bands
but seriously, we're not getting paid for this nor do we have any obligation to anyone to write anything but what we write here. power to irving for writing about things he finds mediocre and working on that cuz god knows that's hard, and a skill I wish I was better at.
obviously a writer's writing is better when he/she feels passionately about the material, but you only get better by practicing. and if you still just can't get past "oh great, another 3/5 irving review" just don't read it, no need to lambaste the guy for writing an essay you're not personally inclined to read.
Album Rating: 2.5
So should we discuss the music now?
I listened to that Holy Ghost track
wasn't very impressed
Album Rating: 2.7
Digging: The Observatory (Singapore) - OSCILLA
We don't really have a tradition of agreeing on a lot of stuff so I was hoping our opinions would differ once again :]
My thoughts were always that everything should get accurate coverage. So that if you heard about something and wanted to check up on it, you could, both now and later. Kind of like how restaurant guides review every restaurant so you don't accidentally get talked into going to a place with fake crab meat and bath water on a first date.
Admittedly, aside from the name, I was interested to see what Irv had to say - sometimes 3s are my cup of tea, sometimes they aren't. This just doesn't sound like it is.
Anyway, keep up the good work, Irv.
Digging: Jakub Zytecki - Wishful Lotus Proof
^What you just said should be common sense. An album is what it is, and that's what reviewers should write about. They shouldn't cater to readers to the point that they are only writing reviews of albums they'd rate a 3.5 or higher.
Digging: Sufjan Stevens - Carrie and Lowell
full stream already.
Digging: Diarrhea Planet - I'm Rich Beyond Your Wildest Dreams
"I want your best recs. If I was your friend at your house and asked you the best album youve heard lately, I dont want the one you gave a 2.5."
If you want recs for awesome albums, make a list asking for recs. Reviews examine the caliber of new releases, and they'll be pretty harsh. Reviews take into account much more than "hey, this sounds pretty cool," (which is more list material.) Reviews provide a context for albums, but if you're just looking for recs you shouldn't read reviews for them.
Digging: CHON - Grow
Alternately, read pianotuna's reviews. Everything's a 4.5
shouldn't have deleted the comment where irving said he writes his reviews while looking out the window of the tallest building in the world
True, but I don't mind his reviews all being fairly positive because he describes the music in such eccentric ways. If you're going to primarily endorse albums, that's the ideal way to do it in my eyes
the tallest man on erf
I agree with you Jacob. He might not be very discerning but damn can he write