Re: BWBK review - I found it!
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, tgalloca <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> At the risk of sounding unpopular. I like the BW&BK mag. As forthe
> reviews.You don't sound unpopular at all. We all know you and you're always
frank. You built your site in a very honnest and rational way. Good
and bad reviews, you show all. The links for every bars and every
bands that are on the front page...we always know that you don't hide
anything. You are logical.
The difference between you and Henderson is that you don't publish
some articles or some reviews that could influence the "sales".
Don't you look at the reviews before to buy an album? I'm not talking
about Anvil...If it's just a personal point of view that they
publish, why people refer to this magazine to buy an albums?
If someone wants to know all the story of Anvil, the best site is
yours because it tells absolutely all. When a magazine is only
negative about an album that other reviewers liked a lot "months ago"
(it's listed on your site), I just think it's not correct and
unhonnest. From there, I can't figure out how they can be a good
magazine. Is it logical for a redactor to make a very bad review to
Anvil (it looked personal), and to publish that Lee Aaron had a baby
when it's a magazine about rock music? Would you set on your front
page "Official now: a TRIUMPH reunion!" ?.
Your site is about Anvil...you set only things that are about Anvil.
Do Bw&Bk publishes only about rock music....the topics are they
always about music? Rolling Stone Magazine is only made of adds
now...There's nothing interesting to read. When I want to know about
music now, I go on the web. Rory Gallagher, The Sweet, etc...because
at least I don't waste my money....and the "Google Bar" blocks the
popups. I would prefer to read all the BTB's reviews listed on your
site before to make my mind! Moreover, it saves the trees...You're
not unpopular, you're transparent which is not the case with some
magazine's redactor...and President!