Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Avant Garde Jazz (revised)

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review
Revision as of 23:31, May 1, 2011 by Black flamingo11 (talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

FAQ

edit Avant Garde Jazz

107.5.33.113 11:08, April 20, 2011 (UTC)

I'll get this. 24 hours. --Black Flamingo 11:33, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
Humour: 5 Ok, I've read the article, and I would say there are a few things in there that you should probably take another look when you come to revise it. Let's go through section by section for now, because there are lots of little things I want to bring up.


Intro
Well, you do introduce the thing to some extent, but you could probably go into more detail. It would probably benefit from less silliness and vulgarity too. The first joke in here is the one where you strikethrough the word "jizz" in the title of the piece. Problem is, I'm not sure this jokes works as well as you seem to think it does. You use strikeout a lot in article, but strikeout is only really funny when it satirically reveals the author's "true" feelings. This doesn't really make sense, why would someone write jizz anyway? It's also pointlessly crude, and it's difficult to make crudeness funny. I would recommend avoiding it when you can. I have nothing against crudeness per se, but it has to be a bit more original, and when it just comes out of nowhere like this it's too sudden. It's like the joke about the music being like sex too, that doesn't really make sense and I don't see how it like sex any way, despite your explanation. Are you just trying to be crude again? Because random crudeness out of nowhere is very rarely funny. Another little thing in the intro I didn't quite understand in the intro was when you say it is a "WTF! form of jazz" That doesn't even mean anything.

History
Overall this section presents us with a fairly stupid story. Now, there might be something workable in the idea that they're all insane, but it's the silly little details that make this story totally unconvincing, such as the part where they steal all the music instruments (what, in the whole world?). And why would they ban it simply for being weird? That seems a bit over the top. Obviously it probably wouldn't get the same kind of airplay, which I suppose is tantamount to banning, but you go a bit far here I feel. I also start to get confused around here as to what exactly the narrator's opinion on AGJ is, because at times he says it's painful to listen to, but in this section he is defending it. Whether it's neutral, positive or negative, you need to stay consistent or it just looks sloppy.

Music
There is some better stuff in here; the jokes about the musicians thinking it's really clever and everyone else thinking it's nonsense has a semblance of humour. You should expand upon it though, because it's a good idea. I think the main thing is you need to learn how to word things in a funnier way, rather than just mentioning these silly things in this chatty style. I would recommend you read a few of our better musical articles, like A Fine Frenzy and Kate Bush, and take a look at how they use punchlines in a way where they take the reader by surprise. It is much more surprising and funny to say something like "many saxophonists in the Avant Garde Jazz movement preferred to suck into their saxophones instead of blow, which would have made a noticeable difference in sound if it wasn't for the fact that they were actually playing fish" than it is to say "many saxophonists play while taking a big shit and fucking a Nazi stripper in the ear".

Symptoms from Listening to Avant Garde Jazz
I approached this section warily, having come across a lot of similar ones in other noob-penned music articles (it's a very, very common trait in them, and they tend to be a load of random nonsense). Yours isn't as bad as the others, admittedly, mainly because you do actually use proper humour techniques such as the unexpected punchline about dogs being used as fireworks/bombs, rather than just randomly listing stuff. You do a decent job with that part, my only advice would be to make it a bit more subtle, for instance, getting rid of the all-caps and boldface on the word "exploded". It still suffers from severe bouts of nonsense though: Who is Tubby the Tuba? And who is Chimp? Or do you mean "a" chimp? These parts are incredibly random and I would definitely recommend you (re)read How to be funny and not just stupid, it has some decent tips on writing for the site, the main one being that truth is funnier than just making random stuff up, which generally speaking it is.

Comparisons with Free Jazz
And finally, there is a little more silliness here. You say, for instance, that Free Jazz is made by chimps, which is just totally unbelievable. You could say something like "people assumed it was made by chimps", which I could accept. And there's another little bit that confused me, where you say, "and no, I'm not talking about the fat citizens that live in America!" I didn't think you were, was I supposed to? This could do with clearing up I think, although jokes about Americans being fat tend to be a little cheap anyway.

Concept: 6 I would say the main issue is that a lot of the time it doesn't really get past the "this genre is shit" style of humour. It would be nice to see a little more neutrality; report the facts, especially if they're funny. There's nothing wrong with the biased narrator, but I think it's harder to pull off. It's totally up to you of course, but just calling something shit isn't really funny. It's something that most "obscure subgenre of music" articles do, and it a bit juvenile really. I would try to get rid of references to things like "bat-shit insane" and "monkeys throwing faeces" and all the other usual hallmarks of articles written by twelve year olds. I guess there probably isn't a whole lot to say on the subject, given how narrow a concept it is. It might be worth thinking about another approach. Like writing the article in the style of the subject, that's always a popular one. Check out our featured articles for ideas on this, Psychedelic music is an article that springs to mind, as is Milton Babbitt - give those a glance and take note of the unique approaches employed. If you're going to stick the encyclopaedic style, which would be fine, and understandable, I recommend you have a think about all the clichés of Jazz and Avant Garde art and see how you can play them for comic effect. The line I made up about saxophonists playing fish is a good example of what I mean, the main thing to remember is that you've got to word jokes in an interesting way or they won't be funny. So you can't just say "they played fish", you have to build up to it, make the reader think you're going somewhere else. You do this quite well already when you talk about the exploding dogs; try to make other jokes in that style.
Prose and formatting: 3 Ok, I'm going to have to be blunt I'm afraid, the prose is a bit weak. There are spelling errors, grammar errors, typos, and parts that are either hastily written or simply clumsy. I'm going to go through as many examples as I can, but certainly haven't got the constitution to mention everything. You should definitely get this proofread. There are a few things you can do in regards to this; paste it into a spellchecker, get someone else to read it for you, try reading it aloud - all these things help. Anyway, let's take a look at some of the gaffes.

Intro

  • "It's" doesn't need an apostrophe unless you're contracting "it is". Possessive its (confusingly) don't have apostrophes.
  • "along with" - then you list the features that come "along with" it. This doesn't really make sense, just say "it typically involves" or something like that.
  • "going Panic Dissorderly" - I know what you mean (I think) but it's not really a phrase is it? Revise this and make it clearer. Also, there is only one S in disorderly.

History

  • What do you mean by "indulge in"? Do you mean that was all they had to listen to?
  • "Every song in music back then was cheap and fabricated singles you would hear on the Radio Stations" - this is very clumsy - perhaps you mean: "the cheap and fabricated kinds of singles"?
  • "in which were lipsinked from the rather talented (but obese) backup singers." - I think you mean "dubbed by", not "lip-synched from" (note the spelling too, while we're here). And you don't need the "in" part.
  • "they escaped from the twisted Mental Hospital, stolen every single musical instruments from music stores," - you're changing between tenses here, it should be "stole", not "stolen".
  • "and made the most hauntingly lunatic Jazz songs that only your tone-deaf grandmother would have love" - you don't need the "have", I'm not sure what you're trying to do with that but it's definitely wrong.
  • "Harmful to the ears of the crappy accessible music people MUST listen in America" - this doesn't make sense. For a start, the accessible music doesn't have ears.

Music

  • "like their taking a big shit in the bathroom" - this should be "they're" instead of "their".
  • "by the lesser known Captain Beefheart" - lesser known than what? You use a comparative word but don't compare him to anything.

Symptoms

  • "the Psychiatric Hospital" - I think you mean "a" psychiatric hospital, rather than "the". "The" implies you're talking about a specific one, which, if you are, you're going to need to name it.
  • "in at leat 5 minutes of "Loneley Woman" by Ornette Coleman the retards have suffered uncontrollable Crisis Stabilization" - do you mean after five minutes? Also, “lonely” is spelled wrong.
  • "For Tubby the Tuba he turned into a crazed madman" - do you mean "as for"?
  • "know days" - I think you mean "now days".
  • "and because of it getting divorced by his wife" - should be "got" divorced "from" his wife.
  • "he was crazily having sex with a trannie hooker" - I don't think you need the "crazily", it doesn't add anything and just makes it look messy.
  • "and man the reaction was..." - the "and man" part is far too colloquial in comparison to the rest of the article, don't let your prose slip up like this.

"quite higher than those of humans" - this makes absolutely no sense either. I don't even think I can correct it, because I don't know what you're trying to say. How can a reaction be higher? What do you even mean by higher?

  • "giving of them AND abstract artists a bad name" - you don't need the "of".
  • "unstabled" - should just be "unstable".
Images: 3 They all look quickly thrown together on MS Paint. If you want a better chop and aren't able to do it yourself, make a request over at RadicalX's corner. These ones are ugly and, I'm afraid to say, a bit unfunny. Images themselves don't need to be inherently funny, but if not you should make sure there are good jokes in the captions. My advice in all the above sections is relevant to those too.
Miscellaneous: 5 Overall impression.
Final Score: 22 It's nice to see you still working on this. I would say there was a little way to go yet though, so I hope you don't give up now; keep up the good work! The key things to work on in my opinion are getting the humour a little less silly and crude, and fixing the clumsy, rushed-looking prose. If there's anything I've said here that you want me to explain better, or if you want my opinion on anything I might have missed, please let me know on my talky page and I'll try to help. Keep up the good work and I hope the review is ok.
Reviewer: --Black Flamingo 23:31, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects