I don't think Uncyclopedia really needs an article about that damn noise those stupid kids listen to when they're smoking reefer, but I'll review this within 24 hours just to shut the punks up. RabbiWHY???(What wouldZappado?) 02:30, December 3, 2009 (UTC)
Introduction to your reviewer
I like to introduce myself to my reviewees so you'll know how unqualified I am. I was named RotM for last month, so somebody thinks I don't completely suck. As for R & R, well, I grew up with it like most people here (and I also like Classical, Jazz, etc.) OK, so that was rather pointless, wasn't it?
My first thought is this sounds like an article that would have been written a few decades ago, long before the original Rock & Roll generation started retiring and getting elected head of major nations. I think that's fine, but don't find the concept developed much beyond this level. I think it could use more, maybe how Rock and roll caused not only musical, but also moral and maybe spiritual decay.
Prose and Formatting:
I like putting most Humour comments with P & F so I don't repeat myself, but do score them separately. Some of the prose I would rate much higher--see comments below. The main problem I see is that the article has a lot of repetition of ideas, and doesn't have much of a build. But I think there's some very good parts here.
"pained ostriches"--like this. I would like "stones" with a link to The Rolling Stones if only because it might get someone to improve that article (I changed my mind, as described below--I like it not mentioning the Beatles and Stones). Your intro gets me thinking, how's the author going to back this up?
Types of Rock and Roll
like the "stampede of hooved animals" reference. This section starts out quite vitrolic, which I like.
"...identify any music the (that) was...."--I'm assuming there's a typo here, and that you wanted "that". The KLOS reference has me wondering about a possible connection between you and a certain western state. (I'm listening to KLOS right now to get me in the proper mood; right now they're playing the top 1000 of all time, and are in the mid 20s. Do you remember its now dead rival KMET 94.7, which passed away sometime around 1990?). I don't get "(to capitulate a bit) King Crimson" I do like the Billy Joel "old junk" quote.
"For some reason, some people think a subgenre can be determined simply by the decibel level."--yes. "...who, turned down a bit (maybe to 10)"--is this by any chance a reference to This is Spinal Tap? I notice you repeat both Joan Jett and Beck. As Beck is the name that keeps getting repeated, I'd suggest you only list Joan Jett once; I think it will strengthen the joke.
"no difference between the genres called "Heavy Metal" and "Hard Rock""--completely inaccurate, but fits your supposed "writer"--like it.
"three chords on two guitars and a bass"--like the repetition. You leave out some of the greats of alternative, but that's OK with your "b-word" joke. I like words that start with B.
Tiny Tim?--caught me by surprise. (As to Pink Floyd, I'm a huge fan, but personally prefer their professive rock years, but that doesn't matter for your article. I don't know if you want to add a possibly side tracking comment about Pink Floyd: Live at Pompeii, which I found pretty dull stone cold sober).
I generally like how you take real facts about Rock and roll, and twist them. The problem I see is that by now the descriptions are rather repetitious.
I was thinking the "writer" of this article could really insult Punk Rock, and that's what happened--good. Although you might want to through in a reference to Sex Pistols.
Star Trek fans and Grunge--is this a real connection? Just curious. (I happen to like both).
"no reason to go on with this drivel"--like you cutting out of the article, especially because I don't know if anybody could keep a joke running through 95 subgenres. And I like the distinctions you make between symphonies, opera, etc.
Fundamentals of a Rock Band
Your description here is again a twist on reality, which I like.
The rock mentality
"...circus sideshow freaks cannibalized each other...."--I found this very colorful, but maybe a little over the top in comparison with the rest of the article. Perhaps you could have more of a build, where the "writer" starts out disliking R&R while trying to make some pretence of being objecting, then expresses more dislike, then spews hate, and then eats up sounding borderline (or not borderline) homocidal. I think the article could use more comic build.
The History of Rock & Roll
Again, this seems a bit repetitious, dealing with themes that have already been handled.
You mention The Doors, but not the Beatles or The Rolling Stones? Actually, I think that works. Ignore my previous suggestion about linking to The Rolling Stones.
Ah, there's the missing Beatles reference. So you talk about the Beatles and The Rolling Stones without talking about them--like it.
Also you mention why you left out Beck from Grunge--good. (I'm guessing you're really a Beck fan).
I like Wikipedia deleting this article.
The humour I liked was great. The score is lower because I'd like to see more of it. Maybe you could explore the moral issues, how rock led to sexual immorality and teen pregnancy and single mothers and no spanking meaning no discipline and and anti-war protests and gang violence and rape and drive-by shootings or something. Right now it's largely "rock music is too loud and it sucks."
I like the Jimmy Page image and the KLOS. The other ones I found OK and little small. I like Rock Band being in there. I think you could use one of Beck.
Average of above plus just a bit because I think this article's potential is much higher than where it is now.
I think this could be a very fine article, but needs work. But I guess you agree which is why you put it up for Pee Review. Again, I'd like more variety and more comic build. Definitely let me know on my talk page if you edit this.
Last minute addition: Thank you very much for doing this rewrite--I don't usually check history as I'm reviewing what is and not what was, but I like your version much, much better than what came before. Thank you. Also my review came in at exactly 24 hours later.