Before you read this you should be aware that I haven't listened to this Jedward band or the album in question (although some of their covers have filtered their way into my news stream and I've watched them).
The Guardian, of which I'm a huge fan, recently gave the Planet Jedward album 1 out of 5 stars. Now I know how you're feeling: something along the lines of "It's utter tripe, completely useless and to give it even one is an insult to the star." However that's not the worrying point for me. The review gives no real insight as to why the result was given, only complimenting their efforts on one or two songs. It seems to me that if an album is worthy of such a bad marks then surely there should be some long winded complaint about the dreadful thing this piece is doing to music and the surely horrific things it instills in the young people who will follow in their footsteps. The review was lacking. It's almost as if they hire one person to write the review another to attach the stars.
It's not the first time The Guardian has posted strange reviews. Within two weeks it's possible to see two reviews of the same band (for live shows or even albums) with completely different star ratings and comments being made. It seems to me that in order to maintain journalistic credibility there is a need to be at the very least consistent. Poor show Guardian, poor show.
The Guardian, of which I'm a huge fan, recently gave the Planet Jedward album 1 out of 5 stars. Now I know how you're feeling: something along the lines of "It's utter tripe, completely useless and to give it even one is an insult to the star." However that's not the worrying point for me. The review gives no real insight as to why the result was given, only complimenting their efforts on one or two songs. It seems to me that if an album is worthy of such a bad marks then surely there should be some long winded complaint about the dreadful thing this piece is doing to music and the surely horrific things it instills in the young people who will follow in their footsteps. The review was lacking. It's almost as if they hire one person to write the review another to attach the stars.
It's not the first time The Guardian has posted strange reviews. Within two weeks it's possible to see two reviews of the same band (for live shows or even albums) with completely different star ratings and comments being made. It seems to me that in order to maintain journalistic credibility there is a need to be at the very least consistent. Poor show Guardian, poor show.
No comments:
Post a Comment