Talk:Stephen Thomas Erlewine
|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to . If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
||It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
Dissenting Opinions (highly subjective)
He is also known by the worst and most absurd review in the entire All Music Guide site: Rammstein - Sehncucht. In this review STE commits several mistakes. First, he calls Rammstein a Prog Metal band what is completely wrong. Then, he states that the singer has "operatic vocals" what is also wrong. In third place, we have the most unbelievable mistake in the entire review. He claims that Rammstein are a Black Metal band (in contradition of what was previous written by himself about Rammstein being a Prog Metal band) what makes many people wonder if this reviewer really knew what Black Metal was or what he was talking about at all. But, it doesn't end up here. We have also a mistake about the band's nacionality, because Rammstein are obviously from Germany and not an american band. To end the "great" review, STE writes that Rammstein are Gothic Metal (the third sub-genre that he puts the band into) what is, again, a huge lapse. SeamusBonneus 02:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- yep ive noticed that too, there was countless mistakes through a guns n roses review i read that he wrote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 06:56, 16 December 2006
- ah im glad to see im not the only one thinking this guy sucks. he really does not know most of the stuff her writes about... — Preceding unsigned comment added by HDS (talk • contribs) 20:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yes i just chanced upon this article after reading his stupid review of Use your Illusion I. This guy blows ass! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2006
- I don't think he's up to much either, but in his defence he does the black metal reference isn't direct. "No other black metal band sounds like Rammstein, nor does any American metal group" By mentioning the American, when at the start of the article he calls them German, he shows that the comparison wasn't between bands of the same genre and nationality as Rammstein, but others.
- But yeah, it's no surprise that his uncle set up the thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colmfinito (talk • contribs) 15:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah i read his use your illusion article and was so pissed off, why does he write thousands of articles on bands, when he actually only knows about so many bands, how can you review a band you dont know about and dont research on! --220.127.116.11 11:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- And if he's dodgy on his facts, then he's downright spastic on his opinions. Take his reviews of Lisa Loeb's first two records. Of the first (Tails) he writes, "Surprisingly, ["Stay"] didn't fade away, becoming a hit with adult alternative radio stations and listeners. That's because Tails delivers on the promise of "Stay." But concerning her very next record he writes, "Lisa Loeb's debut, Tails, failed to deliver on the promise of her first single, "Stay," drifting into generic alt-pop territory when it should have played up her lilting, melodic soft side." I used to work as a music reviewer and I can't think of another guy who is worse at it. Anyone know a good source that shreds his credibility? Monkey Bounce (talk) 07:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- He made a similarly poor review on 30 seconds to mars, does anyone acctually like this guy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AJ182 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the guy should be chastised for... A) Not being a metalhead and knowing all of the ridiculous rules and divisions between subgenres and B) Having his own opinion.
I didn't find anything objectionable about either review. I didn't see any mention of the term "black metal" at all in the Rammstein article and describing their sound as gothic or as prog metal isn't necessarily wrong. Maybe to simple metalhead conventions sure, but there are other meanings. Semantics have nothing to do with quality judgements. What were the errors in the G'n'R review? Seems right on target to me.
The guy's background, knowledge, and taste in music is actually quite broad and detailed and judging the man based on something so completely subjective is ludicrous. Jonas.E.B. 07:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Revising Subjective Language/Superlatives
The opening paragraph has far too much subjective language and superlatives.
I'm not arguing the fact that is important, highly praised, or a prolific writer, but this needs to be toned down, as it sounds like fan-speak. So I'm going I'm reverting to the previous version. and perhaps that will address some the complaints on this talk page.
Regarding the previous discussions, he may or may not actually be a good reviewer- but such an opinion is of no importance to Wikipedia- regardless of what any one person thinks, he is in fact a highly praised and respected critic. If any metal fans/critics/authors have actually published complaints about Stephen Erlewine or noted factual mistakes, then something could be mentioned about that. But this talk page is not the place to air your grievances with the man.
This article also lacks references/sources, for the VH1 comment or to support the statement that he is highly praised. This article should cite sources to back these claims, but I didn't write this article, so I don't know what the sources would be. -Canjecricketer 17:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Not Objective.... at all...
Here are a few examples;
Nine Inch Nails
As the double-disc The Fragile unfurls, all of Nine Inch Nails' trademarks — gargantuan, processed guitars, ominous electro rhythms, near-ambient keyboards, Trent Reznor's shredded vocals and tortured words — are unveiled, all sounding pretty much how they did on The Downward Spiral. Upon closer inspection, there are new frills, yet these aren't apparent without digging — and what's on the surface isn't necessarily inviting, either. There is nothing as rhythmic or catchy as "Closer," nothing as jarring as the piano chorus of "March of the Pigs," no ballad as naked as "Hurt." When Reznor does try for something immediate and visceral, he sounds recycled. Fortunately, The Fragile lives up to its title once the first disc is over. There are some detours into noisy bluster (some, like the Marilyn Manson dis "Starfuckers, Inc.," work quite well) but they're surrounded by long, evocative instrumental sections that highlight Reznor's gifts for arrangement. Whenever Reznor crafts delicate, alternately haunting and pretty soundscapes or interesting sonic juxtapositions, The Fragile is compelling. Since they provide a change of pace, the bursts of industrial noise assist the flow of the album, which never feels indulgent, even though it runs over 100 minutes. Still, The Fragile is ultimately a letdown. There's no denying that it's often gripping, offering odd and interesting variations on NIN themes, but that's the problem — they're just variations, not progressions. Considering that it arrives five years after Spiral, that is a disappointment. It's easy to tell where the time went — Reznor's music is immaculately crafted and arranged, with every note and nuance gliding into the next — but he spent more time constructing surfaces than songs. Those surfaces can be enticing but since it's just surface, The Fragile winds up being vaguely unsatisfying.
Angels & Airwaves
About This Album If Tom DeLonge is anything, he's a man of conviction. He holds onto his beliefs long after other men would abandon them, cherishing them with the obstinate fervor of a teenager even though he's long past adolescence. Others would have buckled at the lukewarm, occasionally mocking reception of his post-blink-182 project Angels & Airwaves and their 2006 debut, We Don't Need to Whisper, but instead of revamping the group for their quickly recorded sophomore effort, I-Empire -- who knows whether the title is either a pun on Apple's iCulture or a reflection of DeLonge's never-ending quest of self-improvement -- he digs in his heels, refusing to budge from his oddly misconstrued Cure and U2 amalgam. The basic sound of A&A may be the same, but there are some notable, albeit minor, differences this time around. First of all, not every song takes a minute to get off the ground, but the greater improvement is that DeLonge no longer shuns his knack for naggingly catchy, sing-song hooks, which makes I-Empire immediate where We Don't Need to Whisper was elusive. It's a welcome change of pace but more of a lateral move than a step forward, as these pop inclinations aren't integrated into the band; they're merely grafted upon A&A's spacy murk. The band continues to toil in the same cavernous echo chamber, whipping out variations of the "Pride (In the Name of Love)" riff while their leader spins stories of personal discoveries, all delivered with his signature pinched whine. Sure, Angels & Airwaves is more adult than blink-182, but just because this isn't snotty punk doesn't meant that it's mature, as all of the musical and conceptual ideas sound unformed, as if DeLonge is still sorting out how he's planning to grow up. Such eternal adolescence can be a bit hard to swallow, particularly when it's unconscious as it is here, but nevertheless I-Empire is an easier record to like than We Don't Need to Whisper, as it marks a very small, very tentative progression toward DeLonge realizing that he can expand his sonic and emotional horizons without abandoning the pop songcraft that remains his greatest strength. ~ Stephen Thomas Erlewine, All Music Guide
40 Oz. To Freedom
With their debut, 40 Oz. to Freedom, Sublime attempt to have it both ways. The group wants to appeal to alterna-punks, but they want to cut a little deeper and make some sort of social statement, both with their lyrics and their self-consciously eclectic music. Since the group has a knack for combining dancehall reggae with hardcore punk, the music can be nervy and invigorating, but their joyous blend of cultures doesn't fare so well at the lyrical level. No matter how you look at it, "Date Rape" isn't a bold, ironic satire on macho mores -- it's frat rock that's bound to be misinterpreted, especially with its homophobic "I can't take pity on men of his kind, even though he now takes it in the behind" conclusion. Lyrics like that prevent 40 Oz. to Freedom from being the cracking, skanking skatepunk record that it had the potential to be. ~ Stephen Thomas Erlewine, All Music Guide
--Canjecricketer 17:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
He is a third rate nobody. Why does he still have a page here but Mark Prindle who is a much more well-known reviewer gets kicked off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 03:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
This guy just writes because he has to fill column. Reviewing VERTU poorly shows his lack of knowledge and talent. He also doesn't Like Bob Marley or Jimmy Hendrix!? CASE CLOSED —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 03:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk)
Nickname, also known as, etc
The subject is known for his work on Allmusic. His byline there is Stephen Thomas Erlewine. Unless proven with a reliable source that he goes by another name, no other name(s) should be provided. --CutOffTies (talk) 15:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
He should be called the "Epiphany man" or "Epiphanous man" for his constant use of that word. It even permeates Wikipedia. I guess its a inside joke to leave his mark. But,its annoying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 10:50, 24 March 2013
File:Steven Thomas Erlewine.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
|An image used in this article, File:Steven Thomas Erlewine.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
WHAT the HELL? Does AllMusic OWN Wikimedia?
This is an article about an AllMusic employee, with ONLY AllMusic and their published books cited as sources!
This man is not truly NOTABLE. He's an Internet rock critic! And I'll bet my very privilege to edit Wikipedia that this "band" of his is going absolutely nowhere.
AllMusic is badly overused as a source, and VERY frequently has its facts wrong. I can't tell you HOW much bullshit I've removed from articles related to Pink Floyd, The Cars, and others, things I knew to be clearly false, or strictly opinion, originating ONLY from AllMusic.
Bad enough we overuse AllMusic, worse that we write an ARTICLE ABOUT AllMusic. But to give the actual reviewers their own articles? WHAT EVIL IS THIS?