Why I dislike Oliver Wang...
Cos360
nothing...seriously the guy just spews rhetoric.
-----------
Amazon.com
Though heralded as an instant hip-hop classic by some, Common's Be doesn't
quite live up to the hype, though it is still has several strengths going
for it. Compared to the esoteric themes and production of his last album,
Electric Circus, Be is far more grounded in street-level beats and rhymes,
especially on songs like "The Corner" and "Real People"--Common's odes to
personality and places 'round the way. At only 11 songs, this is a very
compact album, both a blessing and curse by keeping the pacing brisk but it
also amplifies weaknesses like the syrupy crossover attempt, "Go," or overly
sentimental "Love Is." Production by Kanye West and Jay Dee is uniformly
strong and it lends a consistency that is essential for such a relatively
short album. It is worth noting that Common and Kanye's chemistry is
especially well matched. -- Oliver Wang
STRATEGY
Cos360 wrote:
> I came across this review of "Be" on Amazon. He is saying a lot about
> nothing...seriously the guy just spews rhetoric.
>
> -----------
I thought I didn't like him and ripped him on here once.
He emailed me about it and it turned out the main thing I didn't like
about him was something I had attributed to him whihc it turns out he
didn't actually write.
The other part of why I didn't like him was because:
1) He reps a lot of hip-hop I don't care for.
2) He wrote a local hiphop column in one of the indie weeklies here in
the Bay and he never repped the local artists that *I* liked and
listened to.
Both are poor reasons for not linking someone.
He seems like a very nice guy and a stand-up guy at that (willing to
repond to critics, etc).
The review you seem to hate isn't particularly in-depth, but what he
says makes sense to me (although I have only a passing familiarity with
"BE").
STRATEGY
A to the L
wrote:
>
>Cos360 wrote:
>> I came across this review of "Be" on Amazon. He is saying a lot about
>> nothing...seriously the guy just spews rhetoric.
>>
though that review is indeed a rambler, and more than a little
contradictory, O-Dub despite being a smidgeon pretentious at times is
alright in my book...
plus his site has an owl on the title banner... http://poplicks.com/
see?
A to the L
"if someone made a pie with lil jon's face baked on it that would be amazing"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contradictory Hiphop truth with a bitter and twisted attitude
http://www.altrap.com
STRATEGY
STRATEGY wrote:
> Both are poor reasons for not linking someone.
linking=liking, obviously
suntzu
> Cos360 wrote:
>
>>I came across this review of "Be" on Amazon. He is saying a lot about
>>nothing...seriously the guy just spews rhetoric.
>>
>>-----------
>
>
> I thought I didn't like him and ripped him on here once.
>
> He emailed me about it and it turned out the main thing I didn't like
> about him was something I had attributed to him whihc it turns out he
> didn't actually write.
>
>
> The other part of why I didn't like him was because:
>
> 1) He reps a lot of hip-hop I don't care for.
>
> 2) He wrote a local hiphop column in one of the indie weeklies here in
> the Bay and he never repped the local artists that *I* liked and
> listened to.
>
> Both are poor reasons for not linking someone.
>
> He seems like a very nice guy and a stand-up guy at that (willing to
> repond to critics, etc).
>
> The review you seem to hate isn't particularly in-depth, but what he
> says makes sense to me (although I have only a passing familiarity with
> "BE").
yeah, as paragraph long amazon summaries go, it's not bad...
Chris Zabel
news:43bc443f$0$15795$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> I came across this review of "Be" on Amazon. He is saying a lot about
> nothing...seriously the guy just spews rhetoric.
In my experience Oliver Wang is nothing but a real standup guy who has
repped hip hop for a long time. The review seemed pretty reasonable to
me...
--
"They tease me now, telling me it was only a dream. But does it matter
whether it was a dream or reality, if the dream made known to me the
truth?" - Dostoevsky
Cos360°
"street-level beats","esoteric", "pacing brisk", " it lends a
consistency"...just get tot he point!!
Plus, does he like or hate it??
He seems to be threading the middle line but why?? Because he is being paid
to write the review by Amazon?? If your not up for being partial based on
equally weighing up an albums merits (as all good music reviewers should be)
don't write the review.
- Kwaj
"Chris Zabel" <alep...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:pM3vf.2952$%W1....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
T. Tauri
Cos360° wrote:
> come on guys...he's not saying anything.
Hafta say... I always found Ollie's reviews weak, going back to the
singles roundups he used to post here. Really enjoyed reading his
discussions of larger hip-hop issues, context, what-not, but his
reviews always felt overcooked to me.
Peece,
T. Tauri
mattmatical
>come on guys...he's not saying anything.
>He seems to be threading the middle line but why?? Because he is being paid
>to write the review by Amazon??
Of course. I don't see anything wrong with that.
Nobody's gonna mistake something officially
comissioned by Amazon for a critical review.
Matt
ILL
> He seems to be threading the middle line but why?? Because he is being paid
> to write the review by Amazon?? If your not up for being partial based on
Because there's not much else to say about Be, besides: Beats dope,
lyrics OK.
I do like the fact that he only barely mentioned common in the whole thing.
ILL
TJ Xenos
I agree. I dont really like wang as a reviewer but this is a decent
paragraph review. I mean, you know the basics of the sound based on
who's rapping and who's doing the production, he lets you know how it
is to listen to. It's definitely a review written for someone who has
extensive knowledge of hiphop and know what its going to sound like for
the most part already. He lets you know the merits and problems with
the album within that framework. It's a good but not great album and
thus doesnt inspire an impassioned review...
Cos360°
"TJ Xenos" <talv...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1136488061....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
It's a review by a guy who has an extensive understanding of the english
language who obviusly not gutsy enough to put forth an opinion
nesta
Cos360° wrote:
>
> does he like or hate it??
what the fuck do you care? are you gonna dickride his opinion? it
would seem to me more informative to get a description of how an album
sounds than whether he likes it or doesn't. that way you could decide
if it sounds like something _you_ would like, and, i don't know, make
your own decision about it?
if someone was able to evoke through their writing exactly how
_resurrection_ sounds, why does it matter to me if he concludes that he
hates it? i already can tell it sounds like the best hip-hop album
ever. all his conclusion tells me is i don't care for his taste in
hip-hop. i'm still gonna run out to cop it.
Cos360°
"nesta" <nesta...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1136506343.8...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Cos360° wrote:
>
> does he like or hate it??
>what the fuck do you care? are you gonna dickride his opinion?
well guttermouth...unlike you, when I am made to read an opinion...I expect
it to be an opinion.
Reverend Jazz
I think you're expecting too much from an Amazon review. I don't
remember Ollie's reviews here (probably didn't read them much) but his
discussions on hip-hop were appreciable (is that a word). He gave me
an honest review of my crew which I appreciated-- it was short and to
the point like this one. I guess I'd expect more if it were allhiphop
or sohh.com but it's amazon. I think it's a nice short review.
Cos360°
"Reverend Jazz" <steves...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1136597053.6...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
perhaps. I guess Amazon is set up to sell records
ILL
> perhaps. I guess Amazon is set up to sell records
Good guess.
ILL
A to the L
<kw...@nospam.iinet.nospam.net.au> wrote:
>
>perhaps. I guess Amazon is set up to sell records
>
next episode: McDonalds in selling burgers shocker!!!
TJ Xenos
If he's not putting forth an opinion then how come my last sentence
sums up the review so accurately? I'm able to glean from his
critiquing of the album relative to the praise its receiving as a
classic, and the experimentalism of the previous one that he considers
is a good album, and something of a return to form, but the few
missteps are amplified by the brevity, and it's not quite a classic.
It's a 4 mic album review if i've ever seen one.
TJ Xenos
Maybe nesta, like me, realizes that an opinion is not necessarily part
of a "review". The review is effective at laying out the factsa that
more than adequately allow to place the album within the vast framework
of hiphop and figure out if that's an area they would like to listen to
and determine whether they like it or not on their own.
nesta
Cos360° wrote:
>
> > does he like or hate it??
>
> >what the fuck do you care? are you gonna dickride his opinion?
>
> well guttermouth...unlike you, when I am made to read an opinion...I expect
> it to be an opinion.
who made you read it?
who called it an opinion? it's a review.
Cos360°
Cos360° wrote:
>
> > does he like or hate it??
>
> >what the fuck do you care? are you gonna dickride his opinion?
>
> well guttermouth...unlike you, when I am made to read an opinion...I
> expect
> it to be an opinion.
>who made you read it?
It's on the website and its the only endorsed review by Amazon...if your
looking to read anything, at the very least you will read that.
>who called it an opinion? it's a review.
A review should always include an opinion, that's if the person knows what
they are doing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Review
A review is a piece of writing that discusses the author's OPINION on a
piece of publication, such as a movie, video game, musical composition, or
novel. In addition to the verbalized OPINION there may also be a formalized
assessment; for instance, the author may assign the work one to five stars
to indicate its relative merit. More loosely, an author may review current
events or items in the news. A compilation of reviews may itself be called a
review. ...
As I have stated, his piece is garbage. Complete garbage.
TJ Xenos
My american heritage has like 15 different definitions for review
(between the verb and noun forms) and the word opinion is neither used
nor implied anywhere. Also, arent you one of the ones who wont accept
wiki citations in your class?
ILL
> Cos360° wrote:
> My american heritage has like 15 different definitions for review
> (between the verb and noun forms) and the word opinion is neither used
> nor implied anywhere. Also, arent you one of the ones who wont accept
> wiki citations in your class?
Ohhh...
ILL
Cos360°
come on, what definition of review would not at least imply or state an
opinion...
>Also, arent you one of the ones who wont accept
>wiki citations in your class?
as a means to prevent them from quoting woeful inaccuracies; basically
restricting people from quoting inaccurate references. however, the above
definition is on-point in this case, regardless of if you take the wiki
reference or if you look up an alternative definition in another dictiory
suntzu
the american heritage dictionary, apparently.
i think the reviewer's opinion is secondary in any decent review. the
important part is that they do a good job of describing what they're
reviewing (and not giving anything important away, in the case of a
novel or movie). i'd find it much more useful to read a review and know
whether *i'll* like something than to read a review and know whether the
*reviewer* likes something.
for instance, if you see a review that consists solely of the number of
the stars the reviewer gave, that's not a very informative or helpful
review. that's kind of the difference between a rating and a review.
>
>
>>Also, arent you one of the ones who wont accept
>>wiki citations in your class?
>
>
> as a means to prevent them from quoting woeful inaccuracies; basically
> restricting people from quoting inaccurate references. however, the above
> definition is on-point in this case, regardless of if you take the wiki
> reference or if you look up an alternative definition in another dictiory
>
>
that seems unfair... if a source isn't worth citing, it isn't worth
citing, regardless of it's apparent accuracy in a given case, wouldn't
you say? whether a source is worth citing tends to be a judgement on
that source's validity as a whole.
in general, i tend not to cite wikipedia for things like definitions,
since there are sources for the same info that are free and generally
better regarded, but i find them good as a starting point for looking
into things or as an easy way of providing links online for sciencey and
techy stuff, since those explanations tend to be more accurate (and
since i'm usually providing them as links to sumarize an idea i already
have a pretty good grasp of).
anyway, in this case, i'd say the american heritage dictionary is at
least as credible as wikipedia, and tj seems to be saying that it
doesn't really consider a clear opinion ot be an essential part of all
definitions of "review".
Cos360°
"suntzu" <sun...@freeshell.notpartoftheaddress.org> wrote in message
news:dpqd27$np2$1...@news.Stanford.EDU...
> in general, i tend not to cite wikipedia for things like definitions,
> since there are sources for the same info that are free and generally
> better regarded, but i find them good as a starting point for looking
> into things or as an easy way of providing links online for sciencey and
> techy stuff, since those explanations tend to be more accurate (and
> since i'm usually providing them as links to sumarize an idea i already
> have a pretty good grasp of).
I only seem to quote when in RMHH. not terribly consistent
