Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/UnTunes:Oo Aa Iiee
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Since "editing" this "article" would involve hours of rerecording/remixing/remastering etc., what I'm looking for is comments and criticism I can apply to the next Untune I do. User:Tooltroll/sig 21:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Hahaha! Well as for comment I can say for myself that it made me smile =) Almost laughed out loud! Took me a few seconds to get the title and why you chose the song to go "Oo Aa Iiee.." but then Im not Captain Obvious. Maybe felt a bit long but so does the original but thats all the criticism I've to give. Both thumbs up! --kit 16:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Got it. --Mnbvcxz 01:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
|Concept:||6||Its funny, but a bit cliche and vulgar. The subject matter of the article basically dams it from ever being featured, most voters on VFH are generally opposed to featuring vulgar articles such as this one.|
Overall, the song is funny, but there are times when its hard to follow because of a lack of information given. This is also a common problem in poetry and some format jokes. Its due to the fact that inserting clarifications is difficult in such a format. Also, sometimes, the author assumes the readers "knows" the same thing as he does.
There are also times when I can't hear the vocals well, specifically in the section starting with "In the gob that you eat with, baybeh". Since this is dependent on the vulgar vocals,
|Prose and Formatting:||6.5||I don't see any formatting problems, but you might want to add links and a see also section. Also, some of the tabbing is a bit off. For example, the tabs in the section below should have been inverted.
Finally, you might want to add some more categories to this page, and possibly change the title so the reader will know what it is about.
|Images:||5.5||Nobody really wants to look a picture of a penis. (Ok, besides gay users) Granted, it is appropriate, and it is in the mist of vulgar content, but its a bit eye raping. Maybe something that looks like the face of man while getting a blow job would work better.|
|Humour:||7||Since this is audio, the humor standards are a bit different than for text articles. As the rule, the more media you have, the more outlandishness you can get away with. For example, having the female vomit due to swallowing your sperm was funny in audio, but probably wouldn't have worked in a poem. In fact, it this was a poem, I probably would have given it a much lower score.|
One thing though, your voice starts off a bit too raspy. This gives it a "starting too strong feeling" for some reason. It just causes me to think that the singer thinks vulgarity is a substitute for humor at that moment.
Also, you want want to have some mention of the vomiting sound in the text, just so it follows the audio closer.
|Improvability Score:||6.3||Averaged. I normally would give an improvability score here. However, like you said, you can't really fix this article, besides some text formatting corrections.|
Regarding future articles, I'd suggest that you put on pee review with just the lyrics. If you do that, a link to the song you're parodying would help the reviewer. Finally, I'd suggest you consider doing songs on less vulgar topics.
|Final Score:||31.3||Overall, I'd say it was funny, but vulgar.|
|Reviewer:||--Mnbvcxz 02:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)|
Well, certainly, it's vulgar. As was pointed out elsewhere, it's basically a poetic portrayal of a blowjob (actually, a hummer, to be precise :D) so the gag revolves around, well, someone gagging while singing. I agree that it will probably never be featured, even if I hired the Berlin Philharmonic to play it and got David Foster to produce. I VFHed it to elicit some criticism. . . It's been my experience in the past that Pee Review just doesn't get results. Things have obviously changed in the time I've been too busy with life to do more than check my TP every so often, and your review tickles me pink, actually. In future, I'll allow more time for Peeing.
- 1 - You say, in places it's "hard to follow because of a lack of information given." Am I using some obscure references? Could you give me an example or two?
- 2 - Dou you really find the tabbing distracting? I did it that way to emphasize that section as the, well, climax, of the song, which is also why the vocals are different in that section. (As well as altering the musical structure: bass from Do Wah Diddy, Organ from 96 Tears, and guitar from In A Gadda Da Vida. I didn't want the vocals to obscure the riff mixing.)
- 3 - You really find the graphic unsettling? I used a drawing of a penis specifically because I didn't want to go for graphic shock value. . . all veins n' things. . . I'm not completely without taste. :D
Links & Cats, yeah I've a tendency to procrastinate on them. I think I might append (The Blowjob Song) or something similar to the title, as you suggest. I may, at some point, re-record some (or all) of this track, and the vocals are high on the list. Had a bit of a cold. Mostly, though, that's just my "bull-moose in rut" bellow that came stock with this body.
Thanks for your time and input! I really mean that. User:Tooltroll/sig 05:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Quick answers:
- 1. Its not to the point where I don't know what is going on. However, due to the high amount of slag, and possibly ambiguous words, I could see some listeners having some trouble getting the meaning in places. Not the over-arching theme, but exactly what is going on. When doing a song, it never hurts to bit a little repetitive and redundant.
- 2. No really, I'm just a formatting Nazi, its a habit I picked up from doing too many pee reviews. Since this is an UnTunes, the text formatting doesn't matter that much.
- 3. For the song, it isn't that bad; however, most users don't like looking at pictures of a penis. --Mnbvcxz 15:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)