Questões de Inglês

Reflections on being a critic

Recently, I was seriously criticized in the comments section of my blog for being careless in some

of my criticisms of a mid 70s Mingus release, Changes One (I actually like the record, by the way).

This made me wonder why I bother being critical of anything.

If you go on Amazon.com and look at how the critics are rated, the top 100 critics are the ones

[5]  who give positive reviews 99% of the time. It’s human nature that if you praise something to the

skies, and someone likes that something too, they will find your review “helpful”. On the other

hand, even if you give a mild criticism of something that’s thought to be a classic, you run the risk

of being given a beat down, not to mention losing the popularity contest which, let’s face it, is what

success on the Internet is all about.

[10]  Actually, I like nothing better than to rave about music and I prefer to write raves because: 1)

they’re easier to write, 2) they result in links to my site, 3) readers like them and comment on

them and, last but not least, 4) my major purpose in writing reviews is to steer my readers to

music that I love.

So why write negative or mildly critical reviews at all? Well, I’d be the first to admit that guys like

[15]  Charles Mingus, Miles Davis, John McLaughlin and John Coltrane are master jazz musicians. In

fact, they are my heroes. But that doesn’t mean that every note they played was equally great.

In my opinion, each one of these giants has put out lousy albums. So what? Everyone has an off

day now and then, or even an off album... So, I’m just hoping to guide readers to the best records

of these giants first, and if they love these guys so much that they want to be completists like me,

[20]  that’s their call.

Which brings up another subject. How do I judge how many stars to give a recording? Am I

comparing each musician to the greats? If I am reviewing one of the greats, like Mingus, am I only

comparing him to his greatest accomplishments? How about my personal taste? It’s certainly

possible for a recording to be technically excellent, but I just don’t like it for some reason.

[25]  Well, first of all, I have to be honest enough to admit that I am the one listening to the recording,

bringing my personal history and prejudices to my criticism. If I personally don’t enjoy something,

I’m not going to rate it five stars, no matter how good it is. Of course, it’s my responsibility to point

out the discrepancy between the technical excellence of the recording and my personal taste in

that case.

[30]  And second of all, any and all of the criteria discussed in this article might come into play when

rating a date. You might say that results in me comparing apples to oranges, and you’d be right.

For example, how could I possibly justify that a seriously flawed John McLaughlin album like

Floating Point and a consistently good Mingus album like Changes One both rate three stars?

I don’t know what to tell you except to read both reviews. I hope that by reading the reviews,

[35]  looking at the star ratings, and listening to the samples, and factoring in your own taste, you can

come to some reasonable conclusion for yourself. That conclusion might be that I’m off my rocker

and that you can depend on me to pan recordings that you love, in which case you might want to

pay special attention to things I pan. Or it may be that you agree with me a lot of the time. Or it may

be that you find my criticism completely inconsistent and worthless, in which case you probably

won’t be visiting this site very often. Whichever conclusion you come to is fine with me.

Michael Kydonieus jazzbonotes.com 

Reflections on being a critic

Recently, I was seriously criticized in the comments section of my blog for being careless in some

of my criticisms of a mid 70s Mingus release, Changes One (I actually like the record, by the way).

This made me wonder why I bother being critical of anything.

If you go on Amazon.com and look at how the critics are rated, the top 100 critics are the ones

[5]  who give positive reviews 99% of the time. It’s human nature that if you praise something to the

skies, and someone likes that something too, they will find your review “helpful”. On the other

hand, even if you give a mild criticism of something that’s thought to be a classic, you run the risk

of being given a beat down, not to mention losing the popularity contest which, let’s face it, is what

success on the Internet is all about.

[10]  Actually, I like nothing better than to rave about music and I prefer to write raves because: 1)

they’re easier to write, 2) they result in links to my site, 3) readers like them and comment on

them and, last but not least, 4) my major purpose in writing reviews is to steer my readers to

music that I love.

So why write negative or mildly critical reviews at all? Well, I’d be the first to admit that guys like

[15]  Charles Mingus, Miles Davis, John McLaughlin and John Coltrane are master jazz musicians. In

fact, they are my heroes. But that doesn’t mean that every note they played was equally great.

In my opinion, each one of these giants has put out lousy albums. So what? Everyone has an off

day now and then, or even an off album... So, I’m just hoping to guide readers to the best records

of these giants first, and if they love these guys so much that they want to be completists like me,

[20]  that’s their call.

Which brings up another subject. How do I judge how many stars to give a recording? Am I

comparing each musician to the greats? If I am reviewing one of the greats, like Mingus, am I only

comparing him to his greatest accomplishments? How about my personal taste? It’s certainly

possible for a recording to be technically excellent, but I just don’t like it for some reason.

[25]  Well, first of all, I have to be honest enough to admit that I am the one listening to the recording,

bringing my personal history and prejudices to my criticism. If I personally don’t enjoy something,

I’m not going to rate it five stars, no matter how good it is. Of course, it’s my responsibility to point

out the discrepancy between the technical excellence of the recording and my personal taste in

that case.

[30]  And second of all, any and all of the criteria discussed in this article might come into play when

rating a date. You might say that results in me comparing apples to oranges, and you’d be right.

For example, how could I possibly justify that a seriously flawed John McLaughlin album like

Floating Point and a consistently good Mingus album like Changes One both rate three stars?

I don’t know what to tell you except to read both reviews. I hope that by reading the reviews,

[35]  looking at the star ratings, and listening to the samples, and factoring in your own taste, you can

come to some reasonable conclusion for yourself. That conclusion might be that I’m off my rocker

and that you can depend on me to pan recordings that you love, in which case you might want to

pay special attention to things I pan. Or it may be that you agree with me a lot of the time. Or it may

be that you find my criticism completely inconsistent and worthless, in which case you probably

won’t be visiting this site very often. Whichever conclusion you come to is fine with me.

Michael Kydonieus jazzbonotes.com 

Reflections on being a critic

Recently, I was seriously criticized in the comments section of my blog for being careless in some

of my criticisms of a mid 70s Mingus release, Changes One (I actually like the record, by the way).

This made me wonder why I bother being critical of anything.

If you go on Amazon.com and look at how the critics are rated, the top 100 critics are the ones

[5]  who give positive reviews 99% of the time. It’s human nature that if you praise something to the

skies, and someone likes that something too, they will find your review “helpful”. On the other

hand, even if you give a mild criticism of something that’s thought to be a classic, you run the risk

of being given a beat down, not to mention losing the popularity contest which, let’s face it, is what

success on the Internet is all about.

[10]  Actually, I like nothing better than to rave about music and I prefer to write raves because: 1)

they’re easier to write, 2) they result in links to my site, 3) readers like them and comment on

them and, last but not least, 4) my major purpose in writing reviews is to steer my readers to

music that I love.

So why write negative or mildly critical reviews at all? Well, I’d be the first to admit that guys like

[15]  Charles Mingus, Miles Davis, John McLaughlin and John Coltrane are master jazz musicians. In

fact, they are my heroes. But that doesn’t mean that every note they played was equally great.

In my opinion, each one of these giants has put out lousy albums. So what? Everyone has an off

day now and then, or even an off album... So, I’m just hoping to guide readers to the best records

of these giants first, and if they love these guys so much that they want to be completists like me,

[20]  that’s their call.

Which brings up another subject. How do I judge how many stars to give a recording? Am I

comparing each musician to the greats? If I am reviewing one of the greats, like Mingus, am I only

comparing him to his greatest accomplishments? How about my personal taste? It’s certainly

possible for a recording to be technically excellent, but I just don’t like it for some reason.

[25]  Well, first of all, I have to be honest enough to admit that I am the one listening to the recording,

bringing my personal history and prejudices to my criticism. If I personally don’t enjoy something,

I’m not going to rate it five stars, no matter how good it is. Of course, it’s my responsibility to point

out the discrepancy between the technical excellence of the recording and my personal taste in

that case.

[30]  And second of all, any and all of the criteria discussed in this article might come into play when

rating a date. You might say that results in me comparing apples to oranges, and you’d be right.

For example, how could I possibly justify that a seriously flawed John McLaughlin album like

Floating Point and a consistently good Mingus album like Changes One both rate three stars?

I don’t know what to tell you except to read both reviews. I hope that by reading the reviews,

[35]  looking at the star ratings, and listening to the samples, and factoring in your own taste, you can

come to some reasonable conclusion for yourself. That conclusion might be that I’m off my rocker

and that you can depend on me to pan recordings that you love, in which case you might want to

pay special attention to things I pan. Or it may be that you agree with me a lot of the time. Or it may

be that you find my criticism completely inconsistent and worthless, in which case you probably

won’t be visiting this site very often. Whichever conclusion you come to is fine with me.

Michael Kydonieus jazzbonotes.com 

Reflections on being a critic

Recently, I was seriously criticized in the comments section of my blog for being careless in some

of my criticisms of a mid 70s Mingus release, Changes One (I actually like the record, by the way).

This made me wonder why I bother being critical of anything.

If you go on Amazon.com and look at how the critics are rated, the top 100 critics are the ones

[5]  who give positive reviews 99% of the time. It’s human nature that if you praise something to the

skies, and someone likes that something too, they will find your review “helpful”. On the other

hand, even if you give a mild criticism of something that’s thought to be a classic, you run the risk

of being given a beat down, not to mention losing the popularity contest which, let’s face it, is what

success on the Internet is all about.

[10]  Actually, I like nothing better than to rave about music and I prefer to write raves because: 1)

they’re easier to write, 2) they result in links to my site, 3) readers like them and comment on

them and, last but not least, 4) my major purpose in writing reviews is to steer my readers to

music that I love.

So why write negative or mildly critical reviews at all? Well, I’d be the first to admit that guys like

[15]  Charles Mingus, Miles Davis, John McLaughlin and John Coltrane are master jazz musicians. In

fact, they are my heroes. But that doesn’t mean that every note they played was equally great.

In my opinion, each one of these giants has put out lousy albums. So what? Everyone has an off

day now and then, or even an off album... So, I’m just hoping to guide readers to the best records

of these giants first, and if they love these guys so much that they want to be completists like me,

[20]  that’s their call.

Which brings up another subject. How do I judge how many stars to give a recording? Am I

comparing each musician to the greats? If I am reviewing one of the greats, like Mingus, am I only

comparing him to his greatest accomplishments? How about my personal taste? It’s certainly

possible for a recording to be technically excellent, but I just don’t like it for some reason.

[25]  Well, first of all, I have to be honest enough to admit that I am the one listening to the recording,

bringing my personal history and prejudices to my criticism. If I personally don’t enjoy something,

I’m not going to rate it five stars, no matter how good it is. Of course, it’s my responsibility to point

out the discrepancy between the technical excellence of the recording and my personal taste in

that case.

[30]  And second of all, any and all of the criteria discussed in this article might come into play when

rating a date. You might say that results in me comparing apples to oranges, and you’d be right.

For example, how could I possibly justify that a seriously flawed John McLaughlin album like

Floating Point and a consistently good Mingus album like Changes One both rate three stars?

I don’t know what to tell you except to read both reviews. I hope that by reading the reviews,

[35]  looking at the star ratings, and listening to the samples, and factoring in your own taste, you can

come to some reasonable conclusion for yourself. That conclusion might be that I’m off my rocker

and that you can depend on me to pan recordings that you love, in which case you might want to

pay special attention to things I pan. Or it may be that you agree with me a lot of the time. Or it may

be that you find my criticism completely inconsistent and worthless, in which case you probably

won’t be visiting this site very often. Whichever conclusion you come to is fine with me.

Michael Kydonieus jazzbonotes.com 

Teen Googles his way to new cancer testing method

  Fifteen-year-old high school student Jack Andraka likes to kayak and watch the US television show Glee. And when time permits, he also likes to do advanced research in one of the most respected cancer laboratories in the world. 

 Jack Andraka took home top science fair honours this year for the development of a cancer-testing method found to be 168 times faster, 26,000 times cheaper and 400 times more sensitive than the current gold-medal standard. His work was impressive enough to earn the Maryland high school student a total of $100,500 in grants and prizes at the 2012 Intel Science Fair.

  Even more impressive is the source he credits for much of his success: Google. "I definitely could not have done this research and project without the use of the internet", Andraka told BBC News in an interview published this week. "I basically went to Google and was looking up cancer statistics, also looking at a bunch of different documents on like, single-walled carbon nanotubes and pancreatic cancer biology", he told the BBC. He also said that the method he created detects “pancreatic cancer, ovarian cancer and lung cancer all in their early stages, where you have possibly a 50pc survival rate”.

  Andraka was able to find enough information using search engines and free online science papers to invent his procedure, which is now being hailed as "revolutionary" by the American Cancer Society and science publications around the world. The test uses a method similar to that of a diabetic testing strip, with a dipstick sensor that can test either blood or urine for the presence of mesothelin in the body – a chemical known to be a biomarker for early-stage pancreatic cancer. As Forbes reports, this method could also affect how other types of cancer are diagnosed and treated in the future.

  Andraka has filed for a patent for his work with the help of lawyers from Johns Hopkins University, where he conducted his tests for the project. Pathology professor Dr. Anirban Maitra was the only doctor out of 200 that Andraka had contacted to give the eager young student lab access at Johns Hopkins to conduct his science fair project. "You're going to read about him a lot in the years to come", Dr. Maitra told the Baltimore Sun in May. "What I tell my lab is, 'Think of Thomas Edison and the light bulb'. This kid is the Edison of our times. There are going to be a lot of light bulbs coming from him".

(Adapted from and )

Teen Googles his way to new cancer testing method

  Fifteen-year-old high school student Jack Andraka likes to kayak and watch the US television show Glee. And when time permits, he also likes to do advanced research in one of the most respected cancer laboratories in the world. 

 Jack Andraka took home top science fair honours this year for the development of a cancer-testing method found to be 168 times faster, 26,000 times cheaper and 400 times more sensitive than the current gold-medal standard. His work was impressive enough to earn the Maryland high school student a total of $100,500 in grants and prizes at the 2012 Intel Science Fair.

  Even more impressive is the source he credits for much of his success: Google. "I definitely could not have done this research and project without the use of the internet", Andraka told BBC News in an interview published this week. "I basically went to Google and was looking up cancer statistics, also looking at a bunch of different documents on like, single-walled carbon nanotubes and pancreatic cancer biology", he told the BBC. He also said that the method he created detects “pancreatic cancer, ovarian cancer and lung cancer all in their early stages, where you have possibly a 50pc survival rate”.

  Andraka was able to find enough information using search engines and free online science papers to invent his procedure, which is now being hailed as "revolutionary" by the American Cancer Society and science publications around the world. The test uses a method similar to that of a diabetic testing strip, with a dipstick sensor that can test either blood or urine for the presence of mesothelin in the body – a chemical known to be a biomarker for early-stage pancreatic cancer. As Forbes reports, this method could also affect how other types of cancer are diagnosed and treated in the future.

  Andraka has filed for a patent for his work with the help of lawyers from Johns Hopkins University, where he conducted his tests for the project. Pathology professor Dr. Anirban Maitra was the only doctor out of 200 that Andraka had contacted to give the eager young student lab access at Johns Hopkins to conduct his science fair project. "You're going to read about him a lot in the years to come", Dr. Maitra told the Baltimore Sun in May. "What I tell my lab is, 'Think of Thomas Edison and the light bulb'. This kid is the Edison of our times. There are going to be a lot of light bulbs coming from him".

(Adapted from and )