Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Milton Babbitt

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

Milton Babbitt

A high-concept article for s late, great mathematician/composer/robot. The article you see is just a front for a much deeper criminal organization.

T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 03:49, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

Humour:	2	To me at least, the humour is completely based in the cleverness of rearranging a sentence in various ways, melding it with music ideas such as (or perhaps?¿?¿) polyphony, perhaps a fugue and or cannon, inversion, mirroring, scales etc. It is clever, but unfortunately I didn't laugh. I would have found this funnier but I have already read the article fugue which, while not the same as your article, is still similar in many ways. The reason why I laughed at the fugue article is, first, the actual paragraph is stated in its full (so I know for sure what the paragraph is) and then through various means (colour, bold etc...) a fugue is interwoven in more and more complex ways and becoming more and more absurd, to me, making it funny. But even that is a one note gag. Your article is indeed very clever, but I just don´t see it as funny, and if you are parodying something, I'm not sure what it is. Maybe humour or parody wasn't the concept, but then, what is it?
Concept:	2	And so, I wrap it up in the concept. Are you making the text seem like a canon, an inverted work of music, sonata form? something post modern. I'm not sure, its not clear to me. Whats clear is that you are playing with a sentence, disjointing it and replacing the words in many clever forms, as well as with musical notation and that it is a mirror image. More than that, and with musical training, I'm not sure what you are doing. Especially using the word understanding with the music staff. IS that meant to be ironic? Is this post modern? Are you parodying post modern triteness? As for Milton Babbit, are you referring to him (his electronic music, his "who cares if you listen" if that's the case it should be a LOT clearer. Link the page to the wikipedia article so people might get the joke.
Prose and formatting:	10	Ill give you a 10 for this cause it must have been a lot of work and its impeccably done.
Images:	2	There are no images except the staff so I cant give you more than a 2.
Miscellaneous:	5	A bonus for 5 cause this does have creativity (if you have not seen the fugue piece before I give you more points). Summing this up VERY MUCH in a "in my humble opinion" kind of way, this is clever to me, but not that funny and if its a parody i don't see why it is one. The fugue article to me seems to do a more amusing job because not only is it clear what is happening, the article concept is based on its own topic. Perhaps making it clearer what the joke/parody/idea is, then all of this might come out more clearly.
Final Score:	21	Ofcourse, this is all in my humble opinion. Maybe there is something obvious that im not getting. That all being said, it is pretty cool what you did.
Reviewer:	--ShabiDOO 18:30, March 11, 2011 (UTC)

So I take it you didn't read the talk page. That's okay because, really, it would completely ruin the point if I advertised in bright shiny letters "THERE ARE ACTUALLY TWO OTHER ARTICLES INSIDE THIS ARTICLE" because that would go against Babbitt's philosophy of appealing to the common ear. Nevertheless, for the sake of pee review, there are actually two other articles inside this article. There's also one final joke in the edit history of the main page. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 18:33, March 11, 2011 (UTC)

No I didnt read the talk page, sorry Ive never done that before reading the article. Maybe you could put a link in the article to the talk page. I went over it again and I dont think I would change anything in the pee review. I simply don´t get it. Sorry. I would either suggest putting in more clues and or making the concept clearer, or being happy with the clever feat that you have accomplished for those who are clever enough to get it :) --ShabiDOO 18:55, March 11, 2011 (UTC)

Pee reviews for the other two pages given individually. Uncyclopedia:Pee_Review/Talk:Milton_Babbitt Uncyclopedia:Pee_Review/Milton_Babbitt/rewrite

--ShabiDOO 07:58, March 15, 2011 (UTC)