The use of commas is the least of what bothers me in audio reviews online. Some writers are better than others. I consider Clement Perry, the Editor of Stereo Times, to be one of the very worst writers overall, but as an online publication I would have to give the prize to enjoythemusic.com.
It seems that the editor accepts reviews from writers and then publishes them with no regard to spelling, punctuation or sentence structure. I frequently see missing words! It was also my understanding that an editor’s job was to edit the actual content and remove repetitive content or content that added nothing to the finished review.
I recently read one on enjoythemusic in which the reviewer mentioned the beautiful build and finish of the cabinets of the speakers under review at least 4 times.
I know that it may sound picky to criticize, and I have certainly been guilty of pointing out common errors members here make in threads, (and I do too!) but when an online publication makes serious mistakes like these on a regular basis, it’s disheartening. It really takes some of the pleasure out of reading, and seems to show that the editors look at the enterprise as not much more than a casual hobby.
I think what is actually worse is the presentation of the so-called information in many reviews. So much of what some reviewers present as factual information is really just technobabble lifted directly from the brochures of the piece under review, liberally seasoned with little stories about the designer and what a great guy he is, and how he really cares about the music above all. (Yes Clement Perry, I’m talking about you)
There are very few reviewers these days who I feel that I can trust to really get down to the business of a clearly written and sensible review that provides real and useful information and opinion, but fortunately there are still a few.
It seems that the editor accepts reviews from writers and then publishes them with no regard to spelling, punctuation or sentence structure. I frequently see missing words! It was also my understanding that an editor’s job was to edit the actual content and remove repetitive content or content that added nothing to the finished review.
I recently read one on enjoythemusic in which the reviewer mentioned the beautiful build and finish of the cabinets of the speakers under review at least 4 times.
I know that it may sound picky to criticize, and I have certainly been guilty of pointing out common errors members here make in threads, (and I do too!) but when an online publication makes serious mistakes like these on a regular basis, it’s disheartening. It really takes some of the pleasure out of reading, and seems to show that the editors look at the enterprise as not much more than a casual hobby.
I think what is actually worse is the presentation of the so-called information in many reviews. So much of what some reviewers present as factual information is really just technobabble lifted directly from the brochures of the piece under review, liberally seasoned with little stories about the designer and what a great guy he is, and how he really cares about the music above all. (Yes Clement Perry, I’m talking about you)
There are very few reviewers these days who I feel that I can trust to really get down to the business of a clearly written and sensible review that provides real and useful information and opinion, but fortunately there are still a few.