Review on Reviewers, Reviewing Reviewer’s Reviews: In Review

Review on Reviewers, Reviewing Reviewer’s Reviews: In Review

Recently I read an article from Mr James Hargreaves on the Dee Jay One site in regard to RGM reviewers and itself as an institution. I have to say that his reviewing of reviews is in much need of review, as the reviewing of the reviews must be looked at from a review reviewer’s perspective before allowing a reviewer’s review review to enter a valid discussion canon.


After talking about the review of the tagline “honest”, he references other reviews in order to gain a foothold in his review reviewing stance, however it is clear that whilst reviewing a review, one must understand that all reviews happen in their own context and thusly rendering the review about reviewing, subject to review.


Everyone (meaning me) agrees that there was a touch too much hype about The Sherlocks, and they should not be allowed to write their own press releases. Plus lots of nastyness I’ve heard about them, involving an incident with hitting a girl in Leeds. I’ve done lights for them and they seemed nice then, meh. Kinda not what this article is about. 


Can we make a difference?


In terms of reviewing a review, some personal attacks are made on reviewers directly, however in the great scheme of things, reviewing the review has to be fairly spread over the body of his work, creating a palette for the context of the institutional review (once other reviewers in the institution have had their reviews reviewed by a review reviewer), that will allow the review to be placed against both online publications, as a comparative measure to fairly assess them, in terms of their content, for the purposes of reviewing reviewers reviews. Simply not enough reviewing of reviews have taken place to allow the review of this review to be placed into the proper pool of review, in order to be reviewed properly by a reviews review reviewer.


So by reviewing the review, Mr Hargreaves has placed himself in a position beyond typical and tangible criticism, unless we are able to review his review in the larger context of more local reviewers review reviews.

This process at CIGM is understandably under review, until we gain the services of an Editor Editor. This will allow us to review the reviewers reviews, so that it can be placed for review by The Editor (myself) and the reviewer, without descending into a paradoxical vortex that will consume all space and time.


We have attempted to recruit Pugh, Pugh, Barney McGrew, Cuthbert, Dibble, and Grub for the positions of Editor Editor and Reviews Review Reviewer, but being ex-firemen with no journalistic experience, we’ve had to nick nack paddywack and make our best assumption.  

Rhetorical Question?

In order to conclude this review about a reviewer’s review, we need to consider the fact that all of this is completely unnecessary. If people want to share their opinion, they may do so. If you do not agree, make your own point and let them stand up side by side without calling them out directly or attacking the institution, as this could be interpreted as a disingenuous move to lay pressure on a news/opinion source or individual in order to make them more compliant with your perspective in the future.


Also “honest” is a very subjective term. A man who believes he is Christ born again will “honestly” tell you that he is in fact Jesus. The fact is that it’s all subjective and everything resonates from the bias of your own experience and from personal tastes that you have acquired via proximity through life, making all music reviews otherwise null and void. An ‘honest’ music review can be typically held in the same regard, that Listerine ‘helps’ the felling of large concrete objects through water erosion.


This is of course undermined by the fact, that all sides of the equation can edit, re-edit and delete their reviews as they please. So the process of review reviewing could be happening this very second, making any statement I make on the concept of reviewing reviews invalid as soon as I type it; making all points about reviewing reviewers reviews by reviewing reviews by reviewers reviewing reviewers reviews reviews, subject to ongoing review of it’s review review review reviewing process.


At this point, I lack the ability to define the profession that would regulate this, as I am mortal.  


The point I’m trying to make FINALLY!


Regardless of your opinion, even my most cutting criticism of what The Sherlocks have produced is a mere shade of the actual effort they have put in. They will be above any criticism that you have to make, as their most poultry throwaway offerings are more giving to the culture of Sheffield and music, than any of this feckless whingeing will ever achieve. Then again I can slap 4 chords together and do the same and I write my own press releases too. Take Tanglerope’s for example (#CAUTION SHAMELESS PLUG TYPED UP AS AN ‘INTRESTING’ ARTICLE).


In short, The Sherlocks sound great to fans of The Sherlocks music*


And finally, If it ain’t in print it don’t mean shit.




Dave Chitty xxxxoxoxxxoooxx

Glamourous Dictator of CIGM, Editor of Wanton Magazine, Ringmaster of Wanton Gigs, and Disingenuous Satirist


And thank god for me. Bloody AAA Publishers.


* (subject to review)**

** (subject to reviewers review of review)***

*** (pint anyone… go see a band?)

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.