Commodore Remix

... But where does it end?

OK, people seem to be in agreement that you shouldn't refer to other reviews... But can you refer to other pieces of music? By the same artist that made the track you are reviewing? Other artists who had nothing to do with the song but have a similar style? Other artists who had nothing to do with the track but have a different style?
In my head there is little, if any, diffrence in refering to other reviews and refering to anything else in the world...
I don't see anything wrong in metioning/refering to other reviews as long as you qoute or at least make sure that you explain exactly what it is you are refering to...

A review stops being independent the very moment you refer to something else than what you are reviewing... (or in the case of a remix the track you are reviewing and the original track(s))

Makke wrote:

putzi wrote:Godt skuldret drenge. I gør mig stolt af min nationalitet.

I'm not danish, but I think it says something like:

"Good going, guys. Makes me proud of my nationality."

Exactly

no it doesn't, its says...."can i have fish and chips twice please, open!"

You´re a multi-lingual wonder, Neil
I don´t even speak the swedish-alike "Bork" from the Muppets Show

Whøt's cøøking?

In my head there is little, if any, diffrence in refering to other reviews and refering to anything else in the world...
I don't see anything wrong in metioning/refering to other reviews as long as you qoute or at least make sure that you explain exactly what it is you are refering to...

Well, you can refer to other music, other artists etc. but not to specific reviews. You may say "Most people might think it sucks but I think it rocks because of this and that."

But you shouldn't say "Reviewer X, I don't agree with you."

The latter is not a review, it is a discussion.

It's pretty simple actually: A review must be fully understandable when read out-of-context. It should be still understandable if it were the only review on the world. You know what I mean?

- Markus

I understand what you mean Markus, I just don't fully agree

LMan / Remix64 wrote:The latter is not a review, it is a discussion... A review must be fully understandable when read out-of-context.

I totally agree with this. A review should be a standalone piece of copy that could be posted elsewhere in the C64 remix world and still be understandable. While it could reference influences, styles, other artists--be they C64 remixers, or mainstream pop bands--or other tracks, they should not talk of previous reviews already on the site. As LMan says, that is a discussion, and that is what these boards are for.

The only potential disagreement is within being constructive, viz. saying _why_ you don't like something. In my opinion, that is not needed for a review, but it is needed for a _good_ review, and surely that's what R64 is striving to offer?

I get what you guys are saying but then we are talking about reviews being independant from other reviews, not independant all together. While most people might be familiar with, for example, Jean Michel Jarre, saying that a song you are reviewing is very close to the style of Jarre means that the reader have to be familiar with Jarre's work in order to understand what you are talking about and make the comparison, just as he has to familiar with the another review if that is what you are comparing it to. I know that it is still more likely that the reader is familiar with Jarre than with other reviews of this site... But the review is still not independant...

I think the point is that reviews should be independant of other reviews. Saying "I agree with 'X'" is pointless--you then have to reference the review, and if you agree with him, don't bother to review, or say something different. As for external references, as I said, there's no problem with that, in my opinion. These are very different things; one should be discouraged, while one is perfectly acceptable.