RE: Product reviews (was pedal abuse (was sitar))

["Timothy Mungenast" <mungenast@earthlink.net>]

I   must take exception to the slag of the Sitar Swami pedal... true, it
sucks very very hard as a sitar emulator, but if you forget all about
sitar, then the pedal is a decent noisemaker. So it is not a complete turd,
simply an interesting, entertaining failure ;-)
~Tim



> [Original Message]
> From: hazard factor <artists@hazardfactor.com>
> To: <Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com>
> Date: 8/7/2005 9:11:56 PM
> Subject: RE: Product reviews (was pedal abuse (was sitar))
>
> Thanks Doug, you have helped me clear out some misconceptions about the
> review process. From a reader point of view, it is hard to tell 'which
comes
> first', the advertising or the review. I know if I do see some huge ads
> around the review for the very same product, my most logical conclusion 
>is
> that "the advertiser bought 2 whole pages, so he gets a great review,
> anything bad is edited out". Now, according to Per's view "if a review is
> happening the ad buyer typically does request ad space on neighboring
> pages.", well, this may be true, but with so many products out there, why
> make it so obvious or make the reader think the advertiser 'bought' the
> review? Again, it makes me think of those 'Musician's Friend' catalog
> 'reviews'. A run-down of the features, followed by 'if you are looking
for a
> pedal like this, this may be the one to look for (!?!). 
>
> A good example recently discussed is the Sitar Swami...there were some
> *great* reviews of this thing (and full page ads) which is now considered
> one of the worst pedals ever made. It was as if the reviewer never even
> tried it at all. Same with the new Crossroads and Hendrix pedals. 
>
> I realized there is a balance here- the magazine must balance ad $, with
> target audience, with at least a nod towards a non-biased review process.
> And space- guitar mags don't have the space that Sound on Sound does, and
> music software has a lot more features than most amps. Guitar mags are
> making everything shorter these days- tiny interviews (remember 12 pages
in
> Guitar Player about Holdsworth's Synthaxe?)...they are getting to be like
> Cosmo with all the ads- oh yeah, get off my lawn...
>
> As far as letting the manufacturer seeing the review first- I remember
> reading a review, then seeing an ad in the same mag with quotes from the
> review a few pages earlier. Funny, that. It would be awesome though, for 
>a
> CD reviewer to contact the band to see if he got his facts 'straight'.
But a
> band doesn't have the money to take out an ad in the next issue, I am
> guessing. 
>
> My favorite reviews (and most interesting to read) were those Guitar
Player
> shootouts in the 80s. Manufacturers and players alike talking about a lot
of
> gear at once. I understand how hard that is to do, but it was still
> interesting to read. Even just pitting a few different pieces of gear
aimed
> for the same market against each other helps me understand what one can 
>do
> and the other can't. 
>  
> I also find it interesting to know about the crap they send to you- I
> honestly thought the builder would labor over a special 'review piece' to
> get stuff right. 
>
> Dave Eichenberger 
> http://www.hazardfactor.com
>  
> > 
> > Hey Crew-
> >     I'm gonna try and pull a few of these posts into a single 
> > reply. It's l-o-o-o-o-n-n-n-n-g-g-g....
> > 
> > Dave Eichenberger wrote:
> > > Wow, cool- for which magazine?
> > I write for Guitar One, not Guitar World. (David Beardsley is 
> > probably remembering when I wrote for World about 
> > five-to-eight years ago.) More on the differences between the 
> > two in a moment.
> > 
> > ...and...
> > > Do they ever 'guide' or change things in your reviews?
> > I have had some radical revisions made to my writing when I 
> > wrote for Guitar World, part of the reason why I no longer 
> > write for them, except in "emergency" situations. (G. World 
> > and G. One are owned by the same publisher now (Future 
> > Network) and share the same office space in Manhattan. I 
> > e-commute from my home on Long Island, and only go into the 
> > office once or twice a year.) Sometimes World will be short a 
> > reviewer and I'll write a review for them, but overall the 
> > two magazines are actually in competition with each other. I 
> > have not had radical revisions - or ANY significant revisions 
> > - made while writing for Guitar One, except for experiences 
> > similar to Per's comments (following). My take is, I trust my 
> > co-reviewers at G. One more than the guys at G. World. Even 
> > tho' the guys at World are nice and all, I've seen what 
> > they've done to my writing, soooo.... (D'ya think there's a 
> > "tell all" trash true story in this?)
> >     Per wrote:
> > >  Every mag has its own set of guidelines (or templates) for which 
> > > areas of the product a review has to go into. All Swedish magazines 
> > > I'm writing for usually send a copy of the manuscript to the 
> > > manufacturer, or product agent, before it goes to print. So if the 
> > > reviewer should have misunderstood something, it can be 
> > corrected. If 
> > > the product is found to suck and gets bashed in the text, the agent 
> > > has the chance to send in information on eventual plans for 
> > upgrades, 
> > > special customer support regarding that product etc.
> >     In the case of Guitar One, if we get a product that 
> > really sucks, we don't review it. We return it to the 
> > manufacturer, and I usually provide the manufacturer with a 
> > detailed explanation of why it was rejected. We also provide 
> > the manufacturer with a copy of the text before publishing 
> > for a "fact check." The manufacturer can (and should) correct 
> > any factual errors at this point, and can suggest rephrasing 
> > to correct misleading impressions, but I reject any attempt 
> > by them to sweeten or rewrite a review.
> > Interestingly, I just finished a review of a Mesa Boogie Lone 
> > Star Special amp, and compared its 30-watt output very 
> > favorably to a 50- or 100-watt amp. Boogie - one of the 
> > coolest companies going, im my H.O. - actually requested that 
> > I remove the comparison because it was "too positive!" I kept 
> > the comparison in.
> > 
> > Dave continues:
> > > How come reviews in the 70s and 80s seemed to be a lot more honest?
> > Hmmm.... Maybe because it was a newer field, and the bucks 
> > weren't as big...? I've got a lot of the old mags from the 
> > day, maybe I'll crack a few of them and see how they phrased things.
> > 
> > > And how come, sometimes,  *within the pages of a review* there are 
> > > full page ads for the product that is being reviewed?
> > Per nailed it:
> > > Any company can buy ads in a magazine. Without the income 
> > from selling 
> > > ad space there wouldn't even be possible to put out a 
> > magazine. And if 
> > > a review is happening the ad buyer typically does request 
> > ad space on 
> > > neighboring pages.
> > Reviews and advertising space unfortunately go hand in hand. 
> > We have a limited amount of space available in the magazine 
> > for reviews. Advertisers get their product reviewed first. 
> > And placing an ad next to a review is just a perk for the advertiser.
> > 
> > > Why do a lot of
> > > reviews spend half of the words telling you the features- 
> > you can look 
> > > up the ad in the same issue to see those.
> > Most ads don't explain the layout or function of the 
> > features. I like to integrate descriptions of features with a 
> > sense of a product's function.
> > "The knobs do this and this, and the taper of the tone pot 
> > was a bit sudden..." That sort of thing.
> > 
> > > I don't mean to get down on you, I honestly am trying to figure out 
> > > why reviews are either non-committal or overbearingly wonderful. I 
> > > know there isn't that much great stuff out there.
> > You're not getting down on me/us at all, Dave! I like this 
> > kind of dialogue, and honestly wish the editors at my 
> > magazine would discuss the review process more in print. As 
> > to why reviews are "either non-committal or overbearingly 
> > wonderful," well, I would hope that mine *range* from non-com 
> > to wonder. As I said earlier, we don't review stuff that's 
> > flawed or really sub-standard. And quite honestly, I believe 
> > that there *is* a lot of great stuff out there. I'm amazed at 
> > the quality of the Korean and Chinese guitars, and effects 
> > processors are getting better with each new product.
> > Also note that Guitar One has its "One" Award, which I only 
> > give to about one out of five or six products. With our 
> > magazine, you can look at it this
> > way: If the product is getting a review at all, it's decent. 
> > If I point out specific flaws in a review, there is cause for 
> > concern. If the review is non-committal, then the product 
> > didn't excite me. The more excited my prose, the more 
> > positive I felt about the product. And if it gets the "One" 
> > Award, it's truly exceptional. You can also *hear* the 
> > product on our magazine's CD. When I review a product, I 
> > record it myself, so you can hear *me* putting the product 
> > through its paces. Really good products inspire better 
> > playing on my part.
> > 
> > > I honestly think it would be cool for a magazine to review 
> > the whole 
> > > purchase process...from store to home. Go to a store, buy 
> > the product,
> > bring
> > > it home. You get to review the salesperson, the condition of the
> > equipment,
> > > as well as the item.
> > Personally, I'm not interested in the "store" aspect. It 
> > would be very easy to get buddy-buddy with a reviewer and be 
> > sure he/she gets preferential treatment. And stores are 
> > *local.* The guys on 48th St. in Manhattan are a whole 
> > different animal than the yobbos in the 'burbs, who are yet 
> > again different from a mom 'n' pop in the country. On the 
> > other hand, I do take packaging and manufacturer response 
> > into account, although it might not appear specifically in print.
> > 
> > > They wouldn't be hand picked items the manufacturer sends.
> > Ah, Ha, ha, ha! Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! You should see some of 
> > the crap that gets sent to me. You would *think* the 
> > manufacturer would send something special, something tweaked 
> > just right, with a better grade of wood, a flawless finish, 
> > knobs tight and fresh batteries. You would think, and you 
> > would be wrong. So we either send it back, or point it out in 
> > the review.
> >     And by the way, I think Harmony Central is the coolest 
> > thing in the world. If you're gonna drop some coin on a 
> > product, check out what HC posters say. Believe me, I often 
> > cross-check my evaluation with HC posts to be sure I've 
> > covered everything, or captured the vibe of the product correctly.
> > 
> > Douglas Baldwin, coyote-at-large
> > coyotelk@optonline.net
> > 
> > "The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a 
> > long plastic hallway where pimps and thieves run free and 
> > good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side."
> > --- Hunter S. Thompson
> >