Read the RA review /
John Digweed - Transitions 4

I am a bit confused. A few weeks ago this CD was reviewed by (I don't remember who the reviewer was), and it got a bad rating. That review was removed and now there is a more favorable one. What gives?

Hey i like delicious cake just as much as anybody, but this one is just... tasteless

The mystery thickens...

Come on fellas, what's going on here?

really like it
awesome!!!!!!!

The day I picked up this disk, I did not have to stick to the tradition of listening to it a few times. I loved it on the first try. This man has a lot of intense energy that throws you off into a dark dimension!

Trickery!

is it just me or wasn't a negative review of this album posted a couple weeks ago and then taken down?

anyone in charge care to clarify what exactly happened and why?...just curious

someone's spelled transitions wrong

C'mon now, Renaissance didn't get after you guys, did they? Or perhaps an infight b/w the staff?

yeah, what gives? i read the old review. went on about how throughout this mix, digweed made all the tracks sound very digweedian. it got a 2.5, or 3, or 3.5. something quite marginal compared to this new resounding endorsement. care to explain RA?

money matters?...

It's a tricky one. While we recognise a good review needs to be critical, there are times when this can go over the top. A reviewers' opinion is nothing more than that. However, a review should also not be entirely dependent on tastes or leanings, but a balanced assessment of the album, single, party or DJ in question.

So, to demonstrate that no dark hand of censorship is looming over RA towers, we're publishing the original review here:

quote:

---

Meet the new super-producers of prog: Kabale und Liebe, Jörg Burger and Claude VonStroke. I reckon there are two types of DJs in the world: those like the Wighnomy Brothers, who change their sound depending on their mood, or how drunk they are (aren’t they playing deep house these days?), and those like Diggers, who somehow manage to make every record they purchase sound exactly the same. The Wighnomys are inclined to take an unusual record off the decks, hold it up to the dancers, and ask everyone to give its producer a round of applause. Digweed, on the other hand, seems to only select records that sound Digweedian; he’s not too fussed about the names on the tins (I once heard him spin an Avus track on his radio show and then ask callers to email him if they knew who it was by.) In the end, I suspect this is the difference between journeymen DJs and stars: with the former, you clap the records, with the latter, you clap the DJ himself. Like Richie Hawtin, Sasha and other stars, the signature sound comes first. And it doesn’t matter if the tracks themselves are mediocre—and there are plenty of mediocre tracks on Transitions 4—because after you’ve put them through the Maven or your Allen & Heath and layered them over the top of each other and such like, they’re often unrecognisable anyway. On Transitions 4, Kabale und Liebe, Burger and VonStroke don’t sound like themselves; they sound like Digweed.

Now whether that is a good or bad thing depends entirely on your perspective. To fans, Digweed’s sound is the epitome of prog virtues: drawn out, dramatic, heads down, with a slight undercurrent of menace which occasionally wells up into whooshing, filtered peaks designed quite blatantly to trigger your E-moment. And when it works, it works, but the problem, of course, is that like ecstasy, the prog formula is never quite as good as it was the first time around. Even today, message boards are filled with fanboys obsessing over the genre’s undiluted moments from the late nineties, while simultaneously dismissing any non-prog move their heroes make today. It’s a rigidly codified formula, and a rigidly codified culture, and in the end you’ve got to feel sorry for Digweed, because when he does experiment with different stuff, such as spinning Kompakt on Fabric 20 (two related flavours which blended nicely), or electro house on Transitions Vol. 1 (bad move, electro house was always too zany for prog), the Digweed faithful are disappointed. For fans, the proggier it is, the better it is.

Which is why I suspect that, for fans, Transitions Vol. 4 will be manna from heaven. It’s heavy, it’s swooshy, and it peaks and troughs in all the right places. This time there are no concessions to other genres, be they electro house (Vol. 1) or Vath-flavoured ravey techno (Vol. 3) – this is definitely Digweed’s proggiest Transitions yet. If you like progressive, and you like Digweed’s take on it, I’m sure this will press your buttons. Unbelieving heathens, however (and I include myself in this group), should save their cash. Personally, I’m more in the Wighnomy camp myself; I care not for the “zone” or the “journey”, but more for the sound of the records themselves. And out of the twenty-one tracks here, I’m sad to say that there is only one worth holding up to the dancers and applauding: Sian’s atmopheric sci-fi droner ‘Wear Your Scars Like Medals’.
- Jeremy Armitage

---

Let us know what you think.

I agreed with the sentiments of the original review. I also think its a bit harsh and antagonistic.

We got the same kind of comments in the RA.100 Richie Hawtin thread - sometime people love seamless mixes where all the tracks fall into one - others don't.

An active forum is brilliant too. No one view prevails. The requirements for a forum where everyone can share their point of view is a little different to a review.

Just read both reviews again, and while both are fairly well written i have to side in with the older one.

Just for the sake of it being more review-esque, i don't really like reading more than a paragraph's worth of text that tries to explain the record instead of reviewing it (as the new one does)


PS. The Sian track is definitely the brightest moment on the disc.

A review should be as objective as possible, obviously very difficult as we are all subjective beings, but if a review is so obviously biased (either positively or negatively) then you might as well just drag someone in off the street to write them as they'll carry just as much weight.

Well done for listening and addressing issues that have become all too apparent in several recent reviews - less emotional hyperbole and more structured considered opinion please.

galmond: the reviewer sits down, listens to a recording, and starts writing. they describe the recording so the listener has some context, and then they gives their opinions/criticisms/praise of the recording.

nothing in that process is "objective". a reviewer is not quantifying or measuring anything or ascribing universally communicable ideas, he's giving his impressions. which is highly subjective.

i do agree though, the original review was overtly negative and antagonistic.

all reviews are inherently subjective; in a way that's the definition of a review: a particular individual's judgment of or opinion on a certain piece of art.

the notion that a review should be objective as possible is not only impossible (how can one "summarize" an album? even declarations of melodies, track changes, or what's going on at any given time depend upon the way the listener perceives the music, an experience that is unique for each individual) but also undesirable from a purely aesthetic perspective. take, for instance, the realm of film in which the reader has the option of perusing a plot synopsis or a subjective review. as a general rule a particular individual's judgment of a movie (whether or not the reader agrees with it) provides the reader with a unique insight and understanding of the film that one cannot find in any kind of traditional, "objective" summary.

the unique role and importance of the critic should also be taken into account in regard to galmond's claim that unless a review is "objective" editors "might as well just drag someone in off the street." what distinguishes the art critic from the common person or fan is not only that he or she is highly educated with regards to a particular artistic sphere or style but also that he or she both understands and is able to discern the the given cultural, historical, and social circumstances in which a given piece of art is produced. reviewers thus differentiate themselves from "someone in off the street" by their ability to adequately and eloquently (at least in well-written reviews) place an album within these aforementioned contexts while simultaneously providing the reader with an insightful and personal analysis of the piece of art itself.

seems to me that this whole debacle was just kind of an editing mistake in which an allegedly unfairly harsh review was published, deemed excessively harsh and then subsequently retracted. the question then becomes two-fold 1) why was the article published in the first place and 2) why was it replaced by a review that is nearly opposite in content? in other words, why this particular review to replace it and not just a slightly less disparaging one?

this last part to me raises important questions about the nature of reviews and criticism and perhaps the interesting possibility/experiment of having multiple reviewers (with distinct and differing tastes) critique the same album. if we are provided with two contrasting perspectives as opposed to a singular analysis, how would this change our role as readers of reviews? in a way it seems to invite engagement and participation on behalf of the reader.

sorry for the length of this post, i just think that this particular incident (also miniscule in reality) raises a lot of important questions about the role of the critic, the editor, and the reader him or herself.

@ nedsonnenschein: I second that!

Both reviews should've been published together and I think I could even find myself in both of them: I only have to look back at (oh yes, here it comes again) Hawtin's podcast. Sometimes I enjoy being surprised, or to hear a track being allowed it's full development, instead of everything being mashed into a kind of monotonous substance (I'm reminded of babyfood here). However, at other times, that 'monotony' with its subtle changes in melody & bassline will be exactly what I'm looking for...be it whilst partying OR chilling.

If I had to review these types of mixes my reviews would probably turned out very different each time, it just depends on the mood I'm in.

quote:

---

Posted by RA
It's a tricky one. While we recognise a good review needs to be critical, there are times when this can go over the top. A reviewers' opinion is nothing more than that. However, a review should also not be entirely dependent on tastes or leanings, but a balanced assessment of the album, single, party or DJ in question.

So, to demonstrate that no dark hand of censorship is looming over towers, we're publishing the original review here:

quote:

---

Meet the new super-producers of prog: Kabale und Liebe, Jörg Burger and Claude VonStroke.

---

---

I'm sure if this had happened a couple of years ago the first review would just have been yanked, all discussion of that fact in the forums deleted and threads locked - since that was a time when "the dark hand of censorship loomed over Towers". It was one of the reasons I stopped posting here.

In that context the decision to show both reviews, albeit with the second as RA's "official" one is progress. I'm also wondering whether the decisoin to show the first review at all was only due to who the author was.

Anyway, well done to for starting to editorially "grow up". Debate can be a good thing. In fact whereas I would normally ignore Digweed comps, I will probably now snag this for a listen - although given the first reviewer is Jeremy and the second Robbie - I'm pretty sure I'll find myself agreeing with the first review.

Ona side-note, if you're reading J - I did chuckle at the "new super-producers of prog" comment.


@ the mods: I think you should merge the 2 discussion threads, as well as showing both reviews together.

To answer people's questions, the decision to replace this review has been taken not by the editors of but by Nick Sabine and Paul Clement, the founders of the site who commented above.

The decision was based on the fact that Renaissance is a longterm advertising client of and the sales department felt that the review would cost them their advertising contract.

As a result of this decision taken without the consent of the editors, both myself (Tami Fenwick, ed-in-chief) and Jeremy Armitage (managing-ed), have resigned. A sad day for all concerned, indeed.

quote:

---

Posted by tokyoshockgrrl
To answer people's questions, the decision to replace this review has been taken not by the editors of but by Nick Sabine and Paul Clement, the founders of the site who commented above.

The decision was based on the fact that Renaissance is a longterm advertising client of and the sales department felt that the review would cost them their advertising contract.

As a result of this decision taken without the consent of the editors, both myself (Tami Fenwick, ed-in-chief) and Jeremy Armitage (managing-ed), have resigned. A sad day for all concerned, indeed.

---

Certainly makes you wonder about the other reviews, all dressed-up nonsense for a few bucks.

quote:

---

Posted by tokyoshockgrrl
To answer people's questions, the decision to replace this review has been taken not by the editors of but by Nick Sabine and Paul Clement, the founders of the site who commented above.

The decision was based on the fact that Renaissance is a longterm advertising client of and the sales department felt that the review would cost them their advertising contract.

As a result of this decision taken without the consent of the editors, both myself (Tami Fenwick, ed-in-chief) and Jeremy Armitage (managing-ed), have resigned. A sad day for all concerned, indeed.

---

Oh dear this isn't good at all.

Holy shit

this is bad news.

stunned...

/jawdrop

so.. what now?

damn. i don't know if I can trust ra's reviews anymore!!

thread locking in 3, 2, 1...

quote:

---

Posted by tokyoshockgrrl
To answer people's questions, the decision to replace this review has been taken not by the editors of but by Nick Sabine and Paul Clement, the founders of the site who commented above.

The decision was based on the fact that Renaissance is a longterm advertising client of and the sales department felt that the review would cost them their advertising contract.

---

Not wishing to air dirty laundry in public, but this is just factually incorrect.

The sales team has NO say in editorial, never has, and never will. Renaissance, over the years, have had both good & bad reviews, and never questioned RA's writers opinions. This review is no different. It was pulled on content, not on score.

You only need to browse the review section to realise that the reviews are 100% subjective, and based on merit, and nothing else.

Look at Renaissance's previous 5 reviews and the range of scores for example:

Seaman Masters Disc - 2.5/5
Lawler - Viva London - 2/5
Ibiza - Sound of Ren - 3/5
Falcon - The Dig - 3/5
Solaris Heights - No Trace - 3.5/5

Our writing team are based all over the world, and have no visibility as to who is, and isn't, advertising - nor do they care - so to suggest it has anything to do with that is nonsense.

quote:

---

Posted by red

quote:

---

Posted by tokyoshockgrrl
To answer people's questions, the decision to replace this review has been taken not by the editors of but by Nick Sabine and Paul Clement, the founders of the site who commented above.

The decision was based on the fact that Renaissance is a longterm advertising client of and the sales department felt that the review would cost them their advertising contract.

---

Not wishing to air dirty laundry in public, but this is just factually incorrect.

The sales team has NO say in editorial, never has, and never will. Renaissance, over the years, have had both good & bad reviews, and never questioned RA's writers opinions. This review is no different. It was pulled on content, not on score.

You only need to browse the review section to realise that the reviews are 100% objective, based on merit, and nothing else.

Look at Renaissance's previous 5 reviews and the range of scores for example:

Seaman Masters Disc - 2.5/5
Lawler - Viva London - 2/5
Ibiza - Sound of Ren - 3/5
Falcon - The Dig - 3/5
Solaris Heights - No Trace - 3.5/5

Our writing team are based all over the world, and have no visibility as to who is, and isn't, advertising - nor do they care - so to suggest it has anything to do with that is nonsense.

---

Well at least the reviews are objective

Still doesn't explain the resignations.

quote:

---

Posted by red

The sales team has NO say in editorial, never has, and never will. Renaissance, over the years, have had both good & bad reviews, and never questioned RA's writers opinions. This review is no different. It was pulled on content, not on score.

You only need to browse the review section to realise that the reviews are 100% objective, based on merit, and nothing else.

Look at Renaissance's previous 5 reviews and the range of scores for example:

Seaman Masters Disc - 2.5/5
Lawler - Viva London - 2/5
Ibiza - Sound of Ren - 3/5
Falcon - The Dig - 3/5
Solaris Heights - No Trace - 3.5/5

Our writing team are based all over the world, and have no visibility as to who is, and isn't, advertising - nor do they care - so to suggest it has anything to do with that is nonsense.

---

and yet people have resigned over it..?

digweed being a slightly bigger name for renaissance than any of the above...

*casual speculation*

I've often seen banners on for releases, and then read the reviews to see what they are like, only for them to suggest the release isn't all that.

quote:

---

Posted by Murry_Walker
I've often seen banners on for releases, and then read the reviews to see what they are like, only for them to suggest the release isn't all that.

---

exactly right. and let me add that this review for renaissance is the only reviews out of the last 8 reviews to receive a 4 or above. so that pretty much dismisses this ridiculous 'theory'.

one more thing, i fully support the decision to take the original review down. some of the generalisations in the review are patronising, and not what i expect from someone like jeremy.

robbie y

soooooo yeeeah what does everyone else think about transitions vol. 4

robbie y

quote:

---

Posted by robbie y
soooooo yeeeah what does everyone else think about transitions vol. 4

robbie y

---

Said it before really, it's a cake, but tastes much like those generic cakes in the supermarket freezer.. sweet but somehow lacking

come to think of it, that's exactly what the problem with prog always was anyway (damnit! i was trying to avoid patronising generalisations. honest! )

@ uber_user: come on, his GU LA mix was great! And every genre is suffering from the 'problem' of generic mixes. I mean, how many of the minimal, deep house, techno, etc cd's are really worth buying?

Today the problem with the progressive is that prog djs dont play prog

i don't get it, what makes this album a 'prog' album?? luciano's new fabric has a chymmera tune on it - can i now call him a prog DJ?

i just wish people didn't analyse what genre a dj is playing or what genre an album is, and instead just listened to an album on its merits. it was a point i was trying to get out in my review.

robbie y

quote:

---

Posted by RA
It's a tricky one. While we recognise a good review needs to be critical, there are times when this can go over the top. A reviewers' opinion is nothing more than that. However, a review should also not be entirely dependent on tastes or leanings, but a balanced assessment of the album, single, party or DJ in question.

So, to demonstrate that no dark hand of censorship is looming over towers, we're publishing the original review here:

quote:

---

Meet the new super-producers of prog: Kabale und Liebe, Jörg Burger and Claude VonStroke. I reckon there are two types of DJs in the world: those like the Wighnomy Brothers, who change their sound depending on their mood, or how drunk they are (aren’t they playing deep house these days?), and those like Diggers, who somehow manage to make every record they purchase sound exactly the same. The Wighnomys are inclined to take an unusual record off the decks, hold it up to the dancers, and ask everyone to give its producer a round of applause. Digweed, on the other hand, seems to only select records that sound Digweedian; he’s not too fussed about the names on the tins (I once heard him spin an Avus track on his radio show and then ask callers to email him if they knew who it was by.) In the end, I suspect this is the difference between journeymen DJs and stars: with the former, you clap the records, with the latter, you clap the DJ himself. Like Richie Hawtin, Sasha and other stars, the signature sound comes first. And it doesn’t matter if the tracks themselves are mediocre—and there are plenty of mediocre tracks on Transitions 4—because after you’ve put them through the Maven or your Allen & Heath and layered them over the top of each other and such like, they’re often unrecognisable anyway. On Transitions 4, Kabale und Liebe, Burger and VonStroke don’t sound like themselves; they sound like Digweed.

Now whether that is a good or bad thing depends entirely on your perspective. To fans, Digweed’s sound is the epitome of prog virtues: drawn out, dramatic, heads down, with a slight undercurrent of menace which occasionally wells up into whooshing, filtered peaks designed quite blatantly to trigger your E-moment. And when it works, it works, but the problem, of course, is that like ecstasy, the prog formula is never quite as good as it was the first time around. Even today, message boards are filled with fanboys obsessing over the genre’s undiluted moments from the late nineties, while simultaneously dismissing any non-prog move their heroes make today. It’s a rigidly codified formula, and a rigidly codified culture, and in the end you’ve got to feel sorry for Digweed, because when he does experiment with different stuff, such as spinning Kompakt on Fabric 20 (two related flavours which blended nicely), or electro house on Transitions Vol. 1 (bad move, electro house was always too zany for prog), the Digweed faithful are disappointed. For fans, the proggier it is, the better it is.

Which is why I suspect that, for fans, Transitions Vol. 4 will be manna from heaven. It’s heavy, it’s swooshy, and it peaks and troughs in all the right places. This time there are no concessions to other genres, be they electro house (Vol. 1) or Vath-flavoured ravey techno (Vol. 3) – this is definitely Digweed’s proggiest Transitions yet. If you like progressive, and you like Digweed’s take on it, I’m sure this will press your buttons. Unbelieving heathens, however (and I include myself in this group), should save their cash. Personally, I’m more in the Wighnomy camp myself; I care not for the “zone” or the “journey”, but more for the sound of the records themselves. And out of the twenty-one tracks here, I’m sad to say that there is only one worth holding up to the dancers and applauding: Sian’s atmopheric sci-fi droner ‘Wear Your Scars Like Medals’.
- Jeremy Armitage

---

Let us know what you think.

---

I think the review is fine until the last few lines where he goes of on one about the kind of set he likes, which is ok, but not on a review of a certain mix. The reviewer or critic should try and keep his words as objective as possible, which i think he does well, he is correct on the fact that Digweed has taken tracks and layered them to make them Digweedian (great word)Apart from the rant at the end i think its spot on.

I do hope that isnt influenced by big buck labels who decide how good the review is. That wont do any party any good. People will mistrust RA's great reviews and the labels will be able to throw any old rubbish out.

the things that don't sit right with me on jeremy's review are the generalisations. i mean why is it assumed that fans of john digweed didn't like fabric 20 or transitions vol.1? where are these forums that he states that are filled with "fanboys obsessing over the genre’s undiluted moments from the late nineties".

i mean apart from the ridiculous sweeping generalisations, why is this even necessary in the review?

but he did get one thing spot on: "I suspect this is the difference between journeymen DJs and stars: with the former, you clap the records, with the latter, you clap the DJ himself"

i don't disagree here. if i buy an album by digweed, or any other dj be it luciano, lee burridge, i expect the dj to do the work. i expect the dj to be creative, to make the tracks more then they are, and to make a mix that is more then a 14 or so tracks mixed together. fuck it, if i wanted to clap the records ill buy them my fucking self from beatport, mix it at home and clap them when i put it back in my cd wallet

robbie y

quote:

---

Posted by Ulterior
Today the problem with the progressive is that prog djs dont play prog

---

I don't think thats a problem, its a good thing.

Variation throughout a DJs set/Album makes for a more interesting performance and so if a DJ that was playing something linear in the 90's is now playing house, techno, tech-house, minimal etc etc and making it work, then i think thats a positive step.

My favourite podcasts for example are from the guys that have musically jumped all over the place, and yet made it work very well.

@robbie: I tend to like reading your comments and reviews as you generally avoid hyperbole and over-analysis and usually stick to being objective (gasp!) when getting your points across, so I'd like to know your opinion - is everything stated above by 'tokyoshockgrrl' bullshit? It's a matter of trust you see...

As for the mix, I think it's pretty good, looking forward to the third review.

quote:

---

Posted by robbie y
soooooo yeeeah what does everyone else think about transitions vol. 4

robbie y

---

nice distraction tactics there...

quote:

---

I've often seen banners on for releases, and then read the reviews to see what they are like, only for them to suggest the release isn't all that.

---

surely that's beside the point? nobody's suggesting that all reviews are affected by the marketing department, but since the principle is the important thing, it only takes one move like this or one allegation like this that isn't sufficiently cleared up to damage people's trust in the site.

quote:

---

Posted by robbie y
luciano's new fabric has a chymmera tune on it - can i now call him a prog DJ?

---

His Fabric cd also has a tune from Defected on it. And yes I am starting to call him a funky house dj now.

very very sad.

Some moments call for Milton:
“There is no art that hath been more canker’d in her principles, more soyl’d, and slubber’d with aphorisming pedandtry then the art of policie.”
Advertising policy too.

The key word is....TRUST

People read the music and CD reviews because deep down inside we "trust" that the music reviewers will give an honest review on the material selected.

People visit the site to read reviews about parties that take place around the world because we "trust" that the party review will be honest as well. If the DJ takes the stage and plays a recorded CD for an entire hour and just "tweaks" the mixer to applause and screams from the attendees, then I want to know that the DJ was a "fake".

"Fake" is how I describe the new review of John Digweed's Transitions 4. Even though the original reviewer did not like or prefer progressive house, I still respect his review for the simple fact that HE HAS listened to every genre on electronic music and HAS DEVELOPED his ear to know the difference between good mixing and bad mixing.

"Fake" is how I describe a large number of people involved in electronic dance today from producers to the supporters. For example.....if you love RH, cool. However if RH is trainwrecking all over the place during his set, then how can you pay $45.00 and leave out saying...."RH's set was hot as hell."

"Trust" was found in the original review. It was also found when people from across globe chimed in the slam and/or support LG's track "Back to My Roots". The review was not pulled.......it remained.....and people discussed the track.

Why waste your money on music that is horrible? It is no different than buying a stereo and/or speakers......you read the reviews to find out the good and bad of the equipment before the purchase.....likewise with a car, steak, fish, condoms, clothing, controlled substances and so on.

Demanding a tracklist is insane...why ....what if the DJ trainwrecks every mix...you are now pissed. Same with the John Digweed album, if he does nothing stellar when it comes to mixing or record selection, then tell me...tell us.

There is a somewhat logical progression in this mix: it seems to all come together from first beat to the last, and while a cynic may see this as predictable, I see it as how a mix should be delivered. One of John’s strengths when mixing compilations is his ability to turn a handful of tracks into one giant adventure. That’s why we pick kup mix compilations by our favourite DJs. Anyone can mix a handful of productions, few can turn them into a great mix.......taken from review

"Fake"......not just anyone can mix a handful of productions and then turn into a great mix.

"Trust"......trust me that if we put LG's new podcast against John Digweed's Transitions 4....LG would beat his ass hands down. Both are progessive to a certain degree....but LG's mix is a real mix that took us on a "giant adventure" right to the last track.

Keeping advertising dollars in pocket....just killed RA.

The Butcher
www.detroitfightclub313.com
Understands that "trust" has been compromised......

quote:

---

Posted by TheButcher

"Fake" is how I describe the new review of John Digweed's Transitions 4. Even though the original reviewer did not like or prefer progressive house, I still respect his review for the simple fact that HE HAS listened to every genre on electronic music and HAS DEVELOPED his ear to know the difference between good mixing and bad mixing.

---

I agree to certain extent to some of what you say but by saying this you imply that the new reviewer isn't knowledgable, hasn't listened to every genre and hasn't developed his ear, this is simply not true. The review is not a fake however strange the situation it has arisen from.

Butcher what the hell are you talking about? There is nothing fake at all about the new review - it just has a different opinion from the original. So why does this make it 'fake'?

quote:

---

Posted by TheButcher
Even though the original reviewer did not like or prefer progressive house, I still respect his review for the simple fact that HE HAS listened to every genre on electronic music and HAS DEVELOPED his ear to know the difference between good mixing and bad mixing.

---

How do you know this and how can you claim that the original reviewer is more qualified than robbie y?

i still love you no matter what RA!