As awful as it sounds (and no only sounds,'cause it is awful period) I've found myself reading columns and reviews from time to time just looking for poorly written articles. Mostly, the enjoyment comes from the hilarious, though admittedly crude/mean, comments of the other readers. Though I realize my posts are by no means perfect , my proofreading and research has left a bit to be desired in the past, there are some simple things people can do to make it better.
(Though I'm not sure how many will read this blog, I wasn't sure of the validity on adding this to columns and I'm sure it's already in the forums, so it' just my views on some common mistakes.)
1. Plan out and strategize. Make sure you have some fundamental idea of what you're going to say (or at least know what you're talking about). Think about your ideas and research. If it's a review, scrutinize the product and note what's good/bad, what you enjoyed/what you didn't, and anything else you think is important.
2. Type out the basic points and rate objectively as you see fair. Get a rough outline down under the guidelines that UG offers. as you progress you can add more, but start with the essential points that have to be made. Rate fairly (Cream's Disraeli Gears is one of my favorite albums, but it's not worth a perfect 10). Continue to work out the tough spots and develop a thesis. Stick with the basic idea of your thesis and critique as needed.
3. Proofread. Anything that is misspelled, fix. If it's a fragmented sentence, fix it as well. If your section on the album's ound is short, spice it up a little bit. Use dictionary.com to find words to make the review more interesting to read (but don't flaunt you'r vocabulary and make it too complicated). This will keep the review at least a little different. On the same note, however, don't make the review laborious to read. Don't overstate things and don't repeat more than needed.
4. Take the criticism of the commenters. Even the ass holes may have a completely legitimate point, so take it all at face value. Admit your mistakes and be ready to fix them. The more experience you get, the easier posting will become.
(Check the forum for a far more complete post on writing, and ignore MY grammar and spelling mistakes , as I didn't feel like proofreading. Hypocrite much?)
In 1965 Leo Fender sold his guitar company, Fender guitars. After the sale he and George Fullerton started another company, G&L guitars. G&L would go on to design instruments of excellent quality and guitars that Leo would later claim, "were the best I ever made."
I own both a Fender 50's Strat and an ASAT "Broadcaster" G&L. Unfortunately, they're difficult to compare, as the ASAT is closer to the Telecaster and the G&L equivalent of the Strat is Comanche. I have played both of those however, and with certainty can state that the G&L guitars are much better to play. Without using complicated words malapropitically (irony in that), I found that my ASAT has a far nicer tone that the Tele. I've always found the Tele to have a very thin tone, which was probably the aim of the designers. The ASAT however, can go from a thin treble tone to a tone that rivals anything I've ever played as far as it's thick sound. Never had any problem with the guitar at all. Obviously, I would never go so far as to sell my beautiful Strat, and as price is a huge factor, that two grand plus price tag of my G&L makes the Fender a little more attractive. Overall, however, G&L's are excellent guitars that deserve more mainstream attention and are worth the price for their play.