Negative Creep wrote:
I think you are nit-picking and analyzing any little thing you can find, instead of just actually reading some of the more lengthy reviews by bigger artists.
Um, it has nothing to do with "nit-picking." The fact is, those are just some examples to the many errors this idiot writes about. He injects so much subjectivity that it merely reads as a personal taste review piece that millions of other people could write about.
It is littered with inaccurate data, misspellings, and sheer ignorance.
Just a random selection where my cursor landed:
"Bill Haley (And The Comets) - Much too often mistaken for a rock'n'roll performer.""Out of the songs, I particularly enjoy 'ABC Boogie', Haley's joyful and playful equivalent to Chuck Berry's grim 'Schoolday'"
"I think that Buddy tends to be a controversial figure - permanently overrated by the 'know-alls' and permanently underrated by the 'know-nothings'.""Elvis is certainly not revered for his music"
"Yeah, Elvis is an untalented redneck, okay, so I admit it. But he's got a great pair of vocal cords"Who do you think actually represented the Teenage Spirit of Rock'n'Roll in the Fifties? Chuck Berry? Nay, he was a bit too professional and laid back for that. Little Richard? Too gospelish and much too weird. Besides, both were black, and these were the Fifties. Elvis? Perhaps. But Elvis was a seriously manufactured figure, and he sold out in a minute. Nay, nay, nay; the true spirit of rock'n'roll resided in that curly-haired Southerner called Jerry Lee
"Little Richard was the first rock'n'roll performer"
Anyone who barely knows about '50s rock music past the standards (Elvis, Chuck, Little Richard, etc.)--and even there he fails--should not be assessing anything from this decade. Merely subjective and yet gets so many of the facts wrong as well.
This is like me writing an analysis of big World War II events with just lukewarm knowledge on the entire subject, providing misinformation, factual errors, and ignorance.
As a reviewer, the guy is great. The way he breaks everything down by sections, years, etc.
There's nothing by Ray Charles or Jackie Wilson and a whole fat roster of other important artists.
Personally, when his reviews are so enthusiastic and detailed
I think they're bland and some of the most atrocious shit I've read by a "professional reviewer."