Talk:Stephen Thomas Erlewine

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Michigan Low‑importance

	Michigan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MichiganWikipedia:WikiProject MichiganTemplate:WikiProject MichiganMichigan articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rock music Low‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dissenting Opinions (highly subjective)

He is also known by the worst and most absurd review in the entire All Music Guide site: Rammstein - Sehncucht. In this review STE commits several mistakes. First, he calls Rammstein a Prog Metal band what is completely wrong. Then, he states that the singer has "operatic vocals" what is also wrong. In third place, we have the most unbelievable mistake in the entire review. He claims that Rammstein are a Black Metal band (in contradition of what was previous written by himself about Rammstein being a Prog Metal band) what makes many people wonder if this reviewer really knew what Black Metal was or what he was talking about at all. But, it doesn't end up here. We have also a mistake about the band's nacionality, because Rammstein are obviously from Germany and not an american band. To end the "great" review, STE writes that Rammstein are Gothic Metal (the third sub-genre that he puts the band into) what is, again, a huge lapse. SeamusBonneus 02:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yep ive noticed that too, there was countless mistakes through a guns n roses review i read that he wrote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.250.34 (talk) 06:56, 16 December 2006

ah im glad to see im not the only one thinking this guy sucks. he really does not know most of the stuff her writes about... — Preceding unsigned comment added by HDS (talk • contribs) 20:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i just chanced upon this article after reading his stupid review of Use your Illusion I. This guy blows ass! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.92.240 (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2006

I don't think he's up to much either, but in his defence he does the black metal reference isn't direct. "No other black metal band sounds like Rammstein, nor does any American metal group" By mentioning the American, when at the start of the article he calls them German, he shows that the comparison wasn't between bands of the same genre and nationality as Rammstein, but others.

But yeah, it's no surprise that his uncle set up the thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colmfinito (talk • contribs) 15:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah i read his use your illusion article and was so pissed off, why does he write thousands of articles on bands, when he actually only knows about so many bands, how can you review a band you dont know about and dont research on! --77.97.131.5 11:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And if he's dodgy on his facts, then he's downright spastic on his opinions. Take his reviews of Lisa Loeb's first two records. Of the first (Tails) he writes, "Surprisingly, ["Stay"] didn't fade away, becoming a hit with adult alternative radio stations and listeners. That's because Tails delivers on the promise of "Stay." But concerning her very next record he writes, "Lisa Loeb's debut, Tails, failed to deliver on the promise of her first single, "Stay," drifting into generic alt-pop territory when it should have played up her lilting, melodic soft side." I used to work as a music reviewer and I can't think of another guy who is worse at it. Anyone know a good source that shreds his credibility? Monkey Bounce (talk) 07:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He made a similarly poor review on 30 seconds to mars, does anyone acctually like this guy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AJ182 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow

I don't think the guy should be chastised for... A) Not being a metalhead and knowing all of the ridiculous rules and divisions between subgenres and B) Having his own opinion.

I didn't find anything objectionable about either review. I didn't see any mention of the term "black metal" at all in the Rammstein article and describing their sound as gothic or as prog metal isn't necessarily wrong. Maybe to simple metalhead conventions sure, but there are other meanings. Semantics have nothing to do with quality judgements. What were the errors in the G'n'R review? Seems right on target to me.

The guy's background, knowledge, and taste in music is actually quite broad and detailed and judging the man based on something so completely subjective is ludicrous. Jonas.E.B. 07:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Revising Subjective Language/Superlatives

The opening paragraph has far too much subjective language and superlatives.

I'm not arguing the fact that is important, highly praised, or a prolific writer, but this needs to be toned down, as it sounds like fan-speak. So I'm going I'm reverting to the previous version. and perhaps that will address some the complaints on this talk page.

Regarding the previous discussions, he may or may not actually be a good reviewer- but such an opinion is of no importance to Wikipedia- regardless of what any one person thinks, he is in fact a highly praised and respected critic. If any metal fans/critics/authors have actually published complaints about Stephen Erlewine or noted factual mistakes, then something could be mentioned about that. But this talk page is not the place to air your grievances with the man.

This article also lacks references/sources, for the VH1 comment or to support the statement that he is highly praised. This article should cite sources to back these claims, but I didn't write this article, so I don't know what the sources would be. -Canjecricketer 17:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Insults

He is a third rate nobody. Why does he still have a page here but Mark Prindle who is a much more well-known reviewer gets kicked off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.190.89.247 (talk) 03:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This guy just writes because he has to fill column. Reviewing VERTU poorly shows his lack of knowledge and talent. He also doesn't Like Bob Marley or Jimmy Hendrix!? CASE CLOSED —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.190.89.247 (talk) 03:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.10.102.201 (talk) [reply]

From the amount of times this guy gets quoted on Wikipedia, you'd think he's Lester Bangs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.82.178 (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nickname, also known as, etc

The subject is known for his work on Allmusic. His byline there is Stephen Thomas Erlewine. Unless proven with a reliable source that he goes by another name, no other name(s) should be provided. --CutOffTies (talk) 15:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He should be called the "Epiphany man" or "Epiphanous man" for his constant use of that word. It even permeates Wikipedia. I guess its a inside joke to leave his mark. But,its annoying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.116.55 (talk) 10:50, 24 March 2013

File:Steven Thomas Erlewine.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Steven Thomas Erlewine.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations

What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT the HELL? Does AllMusic OWN Wikimedia?

This is an article about an AllMusic employee, with ONLY AllMusic and their published books cited as sources!

This man is not truly NOTABLE. He's an Internet rock critic! And I'll bet my very privilege to edit Wikipedia that this "band" of his is going absolutely nowhere.

AllMusic is badly overused as a source, and VERY frequently has its facts wrong. I can't tell you HOW much bullshit I've removed from articles related to Pink Floyd, The Cars, and others, things I knew to be clearly false, or strictly opinion, originating ONLY from AllMusic.

Bad enough we overuse AllMusic, worse that we write an ARTICLE ABOUT AllMusic. But to give the actual reviewers their own articles? WHAT EVIL IS THIS?

--Ben Culture (talk) 00:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So why does Wiki suck this losers dick so hard?

Worst reviews, dumbest oppinions. He is the epitome of "failed musician turned critic without a clue" stereotype. 2003:ED:2F20:BD19:E88A:F985:CBEC:BEF1 (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]