At 02:50 PM 10/8/98 -0400, you wrote:
quoted 13 lines i hope>> i hope
>>to get back on a regular recoreview
>>posting schedule sometime next week.
>>that is, unless my reviews are considered
>>worthless and stupid as recent discussions
>>on this list have let me to believe.
>
>Damn, your reviews are one of the best resources on this list.
>Yes, they're short, since you do so many, but they're descriptive
>without being schematic, they evoke some good imagery, and
>they add a lot of info about good music that would otherwise not
>be discussed on this list. Maybe I'd like a little more clarification
>of
your numbered ranking system, because you'll often pan
quoted 5 lines something but then give it a 6/10 or something. Do you not>something but then give it a 6/10 or something. Do you not
>review the really bad stuff you hear? Would you say 8 and up is
>"very good", and 9-10 is essential? But please, keep posting
>reviews...
>
Regarding my ranking system, you usually don't
see me pan releases because i buy most of the
stuff i review. i usually don't buy the bad stuff
so you don't see those reviews. regarding the
value of the numbering system, i may give
something a 6/10 because it's not all that bad
but i know the artist has done much better, etc;
7/10 is decent to good; 8/10 is very good;
9-10 is essential. anything 5 or below should
be approaced with great caution or avoided
alltogether.
-->-Lance---
p.o. box 450715
westlake, ohio 44145
united states