I think it's unethical to give as superficial a review as that and yet try to profit from it. Larkin put some time and effort into making the record. The best they could do is put some time and effort into writing a proper review. Seems the "Vice" magazine mentality is spreading. I've seen reviews like this many times - people think they are being witty when actually they're showing their lack of intellect and ability to express themselves without reverting to exclamations of a five year old. There was no thought put into that review at all, most likely because whomever wrote it can't figure out how to break themselves out of a paper bag.
It's not unethical to sell work they think is weak - but to give a review that reveals less than nothing of the musical work AND try to profit from it, that's weak. If they don't have anything to say about it (and "it sucks beyond belief" isn't saying anything) then they should not review it. MEK m...@m50.net wrote on 01/28/2009 03:48:55 PM: > Review in question: "New Kenny Larking album! " CD version, "New Kenny > Larking album and it sucks beyond belief! " 2XLP version. > > MEK: You raise an interesting point - is it unethical for them to sell work > that they think is weak? Would it be unethical for them to give a good > review to the album in order to make more money off of his work if they > think it's weak? > > m50 > > > At 2009.01.28 13:24, michael.elliot-kni...@fallon.com wrote: > >Hilarious? I think the Dope Jams review is petulant and devoid of thought. > >Pretty lame of them to give Kenny such a juvenile review and then try to > >make money off his work. > > > >MEK > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 9:33 AM, JT Stewart <etmach...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > That K Larkin album was really bad too. > > > > Dope Jams has a hilarious description of it on their site. > > > > >
