Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/User:John Lydon/Monkey
User:John Lydon/Monkey[edit source]
This was originally done for PLS judging prior to it being removed for completion outside of the dates listed for PLS. I'm adding it in here as it is a complete review, and may give some ideas on how to improve it along the way. Nominally Humane! some time
- Well, it was actually ineligible as John Lydon is a judge too. —Sir Socky
(talk) (stalk)
GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 11:00, 1 February 2011
- Ineligible is ineligible. If we really want to continue rationalizing it I'm sure we can make it even more Ineligible as the song itself is fairly well polished and sounds as though it took more than a fortnight to put together, some of the riffs I recognized from elsewhere (but can't quite put my finger on) so it's not original, and Godzilla sounds like Gorilla, which is an ape and not a monkey, and Godzilla is a lizard that attacks Tokyo, not monkeys from outer space who attack small towns by the sea, so it's too innacurate. But if it weren't for these minor technicalities it would be a sure fire also ran. Nominally Humane! some time
| Prose | Concept | Humour | Images | Misc | Score |
Prose and Formatting:[edit source]
How good does it look and how well does it read? 9
As always the standard question in relationship to peeing on an UnTune - how the hell am I supposed to review this using a standard template?
So given that it is a near impossible thing to accomplish, I'm going to for the most part ignore what the template is asking me to do and focus instead on what I can comment on. So while we usually use this to comment on a visual and coding level, as well ad the inevitable grammar and spelling stuff, I will focus on the actual music itself. So given this is a major part of the article, the score here will be out of 14, and the remaining areas out of 9. If anyone wants to argue with that, get stuffed - I be judge here.
Okay, so the intro lead me into a sense of false security - it sounded like a balladic Nirvana circa nevermind, so I was feeling lulled into expecting a softer rock feel to the song that was destroyed as it blew into the chorus, which sounded more like a frenzied nursery rhyme on acid. The mixing was very garage band, which is understandable, but the sound levels complimented each other so there was no struggle to discern one instrument over another.
The only issue with the frenzied aspect is when I was listening I couldn't read lyrics, and some of the coherence faded due to the speed and ferocity that they were thrown out in. This isn't an issue with standard rock/neo-punk, but given that this is a comedic song the lyrical content has to be foremost to deliver the impact.
I mentioned Nirvana before so swinging back there a second I'm thinking about Weird Al's "Smells like Nirvana". He has taken a song that is incomprehensible in it's original version and rewritten the vocals and produced them in a way that it stays true to the feel of the original but has the clarity that is needed in a comedic song.
Also seemed to lose a little with poo in my eye as poo is not the easiest lyric to get in there. I would probably have used shit or crap in it's place ad you're then ending with a hard consonant rather than a softer vowel sound that slides into the next word with no clear definition between them. Of course, I'm not a singer, as anyone here who has heard my own attempts will attest to.
All that said, it is a good sound and a track that I am going to steal and add to my mp3 player - gotta love royalty free music.
Concept[edit source]
How good an idea is behind the article? 5.4
Simple concept but a little confused. I'm assuming it may be related to another article that I'm not familiar with. What I would like to see is various explanations of the meaning a la Hotel California.
(Side note: I once saw an interview with a couple of the members of the Eagles. They were asked about the Satanic references in the song and their explanation was that it was just that they had gotten to California and started to make it big, staying in hotels and chasing Californian girls, and they wrote a song about that. They actually seemed embarrassed by the controversy and dismissive of it.)
There is more that can be done around the song to make this a good stand-alone without the song. Normally I'd say a 6, but given the leaning toward the song I'm reducing it by 10%.
Humour[edit source]
How funny is it? Why is it funny? How can it be funnier? 6.7
I'm not a fan of superrandom humour. The song itself has an inherit - although odd - logic to it, but the remainder of the prose goes in a different direction. I'm being nice and mostly ignoring the prose and focusing on the song itself, because the song is very funny. However it's like storing top shelf rum in a coke bottle - the content may be great, but the container lets it down.
Hmmm... Rum.
Images[edit source]
How are the images? Are they relevant, with good quality and formatting? 5.4
Okay, but not astounding. I do like the chopping that has been done, but it doesn't make me giggle in and of itself. I'd actually like to see photos of the "band members" live.
Miscellaneous[edit source]
The article's overall quality - that indefinable something. 7.2
Great song, but a step or two away from from being an exceptional article. Happy to see this nommed for FA once competition is closed.
Final score[edit source]
| Prose 9 |
Concept 5.4 |
Humour 6.7 |
Images 5.4 |
Misc 7.2 |
Final Score 33.7 |
|---|