Talk:Good Times Roll

Biased selection of quotes -- and why does Allmusic matter, anyway?
I quote from the article as it currently stands:

The song begins with electronic drums and a guitar riff, soon joined by Ocasek's lead vocals and synthesizers by keyboardist Greg Hawkes. Despite the up-tempo-sounding title, "Good Times Roll" is a mid-tempo song, with a beat described as "languid," "psychedelic" and "creepy." The lyrics are similarly described as "withering" and Ocasek's vocal style as "clinical."

Really? Are we really doing our best to not inject a little POV into our selection of adjectives?? Are we sure about that?!? Why do I have this terrible feeling that, if I actually open up and read that Allmusic review (and a word about Allmusic, in a moment), I'm going to find that the guy thinks this is a great fucking song and said so, and that, in context, these adjectives actually don't torpedo the tune?!?!?

If I haven't fixed the article myself by the time you read this -- should I? Or, would you like to??

Now, about Allmusic: Is it really such a great source for opinions? Do we really need to inject them into articles? The reason why I ask is, well, first of all, I've never heard of these reviewers before. The Cars and most of their successive albums were reviewed by the greats, y'know, your Creem and Rolling Stone guys, so why are we quoting this "Donald A. Guarisco"? Because he's on an easily-accessible website, is that all it takes? Why exactly does his opinion matter? Can't we find reviews from the album's own era -- wouldn't that be more relevant, how the song was percieved in its day? Because, secondly, these Allmusic guys aren't very smart. I've seen woeful misunderstandings of this band's "I'm Not the One" and Pink Floyd's "Dogs" get published on allmusic.com, and it makes me sick to think the reviewer - probably this Donald dude - got paid actual money to misunderstand great songs, when so many of us can understand and write well about them for free!

But I care more about the cherry-picking of adjectives. I have seen this sort of subtle disrespect in a few different Cars-related articles. --Ben Culture (talk) 02:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Biased selection of quotes revisited
It's been about 7 years since the above criticism of this article was written, and I am also a little put-off with the adjectives used to describe what I consider to be one of the many masterpieces of its era. The music is pretty much the opposite of the song's title, and very accurately conveys this message with an obviously ominous composition, with lyrics that describe the roller coaster ride of being a rock band. There is nothing "lumbering”, “languid”, or “creepy” about this above average song, which has been around since 1978. I would say that these descriptions used in the article are a bit biased on the negative side. C'mon, this song ain't the Beer Barrel Polka, nor is it the traditional funeral march, Frederic Chopin’s Piano Sonata No. 2 in B-flat minor Opus 35 - (3) Marche Funebre that fits the descriptors “lumbering”, “languid”, and “creepy” quite well. It is in its own genre of a few other period songs written to make a point, such as Belinda Carlisle’s “Circle in the Sand”, and Foreigner’s “Head Games” (one might use “creepy” as part of Foreigner’s song’s description, yet it is still a masterpiece of rather accurate observation), some songs ironically named and some most definitely not. “Good Times Roll” is perhaps in its own genre, and there is nothing wrong with that. Linstrum (talk) 05:22, 28 July 2019 (UTC)