The only thing stunning about the Argos victory was how stunningly stupid Wally Buono was as coach of a team that had all the tools to win the big one. Let me just say as a Ti-Cat fan in all seriousness that Mike Clemons and Damon Allen are two of the classiest individuals in the sporting or any other world and its extremely hard to be upset about them winning anything. Oh yeah and Mike O'Shea is still a world-class knob. He probably downs post-game pints with Marty York. Now back to the music.

First off, excellent topic. God knows with the proliferation of websites professing to be the last word and testament on what we should be listening to its certainly a timely subject. Personally I've always been a sucker for a glowing review. Now, perhaps more than ever given that my musical horizons have expanded to include almost all types of music.

Back in the early 80's I would read NME and Melody Maker with religious fervor and rush out to buy the latest import from Manchester or Glasgow based solely on their word that this record was the future of rock and roll. But they basically only covered that musical genre and my tastes surely didn't run to jazz, classical, country, rap, Mongolian skirl etc. Now though I pick up Exclaim and with the exception of the "Hard, Thrash Metal" section I feel I have to read every bloody review for the fear that I may miss the next big thing. (btw can someone explain why they feel the need to devote 3 or 4 pages to metal records)

So I am a sucker for reviews, good or bad. Unfortunately I spend as much time reading reviews as I do in immersing myself in the actual art. This is a problem.

There is no doubt that some venues are better than others when it comes to the art of the review. For example when NOW reviews a book they often devote barely 150 to 200 words and tell you its a 5 star book. So why not cut out the ads that are covering the remaining 90% of the page and give the book the space that it obviously merits. Suffice to say I ignore these reviews.

On the other hand, as Brian has mentioned to me several times, the NY Times Review of Books makes almost every book they review worthy of your undivided attention. Good review or bad the reviewers make you feel as if they have spent time with the book, and the authors body of work, and not merely skimmed it in order to dash off a quick review.

With music the reviews that I find the most annoying are those that spend their allotted 100 words telling you what other bands this record sounds like. Or like every review for Luna CDs since Penthouse or any Paul Westerberg album, telling you that this record wont win any new fans but will continue to please the faithful. How presumptious without really telling you anything about the musical progression the musicians have made.

I think Stuart has the right idea when he talks about a greater need to share the knowledge. Between the 5 of us it cuts a pretty deep and wide swath. I would be happy to read complete disc reviews by any of us right here. It doesn't do a record justice, 3 or 4 beers in, to say "this band's from Minneapolis and this disc rocks." Let's post some detailed album reviews, good and especially bad, on the blog. I think Brian has already started us off.