Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/The Evolution of Modern Music
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Sog1970 08:55, July 18, 2010 (UTC)
For a bumming session with Noel Fielding
I'll review this, for now enjoy Noel with this free coupon.--11:41, July 20, 2010 (UTC)
|Humour:||8||Very amusing throughout and a nice mash up of songs. These work well. One thing that seems to be a bit of a problem is that you seem to be talking about modern popular classic rock music, not really the various other genres, such as dance. This is a bit of a niggle since you are in fact wholly focused on that genre of modern music excluding others - obviously you toy a little with Disco
I like the mash up particularly the early eras of music, which you parody well; I especially like the pink Floyd variants. Again it’s somewhat disjointed historically which makes it somewhat more random than you are intending I think. The high amount of parody songs throughout is less preferable. It feels like collection of parody songs interspersed with some text roughly explaining why they are there. I would shorten these, as they are too prominent in the article.
I would say thats its amusing, but I don't feel a hernia coming on in this article. I think that it’s a little too broad for its own good. For it to really work, I think you would need to make it a lot longer to cover quite vast areas of interest. It's an awkward topic to handle in this way. I think that splitting it up into the genres that define modern music or taking several on in each section would be the best bet. It might, however sacrilegious, be fair to point out that none of the artists you mention are that modern, although all of them remain highly influential. The eras where you are focused also had other influential acts; similarly you pretty much leave everything after 1985 – this I would argue is narrow and not really a parody of modern music, but only a very thin slice of it. Basically I would like to see a bigger slice of cake on my plate
I don’t think that a lot of stands out a well, I think maybe fewer song parodies would help as the exceptionally good ones will stand out as opposed to being swamped by each other. I would also make each example shorter as they consume a larger area. Again, this is just tightening it up. Its never quite solid on whether you want to talk about music though history, or whether o want to talk about history though music. I think it might be an idea to write more fully on with one of these.
|Concept:||6.7||Risky territory, I think you've tried to cover quite a lot in one article. I also think that mixing history with song lyrics is innovative an original in an article. It sadly makes these elements of the article less accessible as often the evolution element of the title is often vague and you have more of a very clever rewriting of the lyrics. I would look at the title and focus more on that than anything else, as that seem to be problem. You can be quite random, but you have always referred back to your original concept.|
|Prose and formatting:||7||Well written throughout and o complaints on that score. You are a very capable writer so this is not a big problem ever in your articles. I mentioned before that the large sections of parody songs were a bit of a drag, they are often too long and can seem more clever than funny, this is not something to worry about. Some of them are very good. I dislike the Clash so I won't comment on the last one;)
It would be nice to some of the house or dance music come in or a more expansive element of new wave music. Shockingly, Punk is absent. The list goes on and the article will be very long indeed. Condensing and playing around with it might be an idea o gets more in there.
Not really wikipedia formatting, I tend to notice this and often feel that articles benefit a lot from looking 'real' - this can ad a lot to the humour levels if its written with a half assed attempt to remain serious. Overall no major complaints though. I think that it’s a lot more a case of getting more in there, and shortening what’s maybe a bit lengthy and unneeded.
|Images:||9||All of these look good, and well formatted within the article. No complaints here, I would not changes these|
|Miscellaneous:||8.8||Nice article, would be nice to see more added, and slightly tidier formatting.|
|Final Score:||39.5||If you have any comment or quires just leave a comment on my talkpage:-)|
|Reviewer:||--12:28, July 20, 2010 (UTC)|