Bad? or really just not your thing?

1800iareyay wrote: the problem with getting mad at low reviews for "classics" is that it pigeon-holes perceived callsics as well as the great misses (Love Beach being the album I love to hate). I don't mind a one star review for CTTE but I hate when the review is stuff like "this r the worst tihng ive evar heared." I understand English is not everyone's first language, but nearly all of these gramatically atrocious and pointless reviews come from US and UK reviewers while those who might actually have an excuse post coherent opinions.

Maybe their grasp of grammar is as good as their understanding of good music. I believe in the guidelines it does mention to verify spelling and such as it may impair the impact of the review. For me, if I think the reviewer is english, I just see it as an easy way to dismiss the rating. I mean, unless I know that their spell check isnt woking porply. Bt tat iz kainda inposibel.

^Can't say I'm a big fan of Ligeti either - Penderecki's more my thing when it comes to modern choral music; his St. Luke Passion is amazing - and as for the legendary "Threnody to the Victims of Hiroshima"...

timesignature wrote: An album is only bad when it is not an original idea and a knock off of someone else's work.

Well, some bands take influences from other bands.  I guess that wouldn't be an original idea, but that doesn't make the album automatically bad. 

timesignature wrote: An album is only bad when it is not an original idea and a knock off of someone else's work.

And even so a plagiarist work can be good.

An album is only bad when it is not an original idea and a knock off of someone else's work.

The T wrote: laplace wrote: good post, Rocktopus, I'm glad to see people making assertions like this instead of mincing around people's feelings. no wonder people get endlessly lost in genres of minute difference - they're not decisive enough to judge an album on its overt musical quality alone. ;)   And what happens if those persons don't have the same superior musical knowledge that you have? Does that mean the music they hear is inferior just because of that?

Yes, and who cares about them anyway? NO COMPROMISES =P

Music is a matter of taste is perhaps the most used cliche but it's true: The Beatles got a lot of positive reviews here on this site but if I propose to add The Stranglers and The Tubes in a thread, lots of progheads are very eager to nail this proposal while in my opinon The Stranglers and The Tubes made way more interesting progressive pop/rock in the late Seventies and the early Eighties than The Beatles ever made in their entire history  .. but that's just my opinion, it's all so emotional and so personal, who is right and who is wrong  Nonetheless, despite my doubts about The Beatles their popularity on this site, I rated all famous The Bealtes albums with at least 3 stars because I respect their music.

Edited by erik neuteboom - April 29 2007 at 18:48

I must say that there are certain things that no matter what you say I just can't think of ONE good feature about them (reggaeton music) but hey, somebody could say me that that music helps them dance and get their partner excited, so even that music would be of some USE to somebody else, thus being good for that person's needs. There are millions and billions (yes) of people that hear music not because of chord progressions or form or time signatures or whatever, and even if we could categorize some of the music they hear as "bad", it's "bad" for us because it doesn't satisfy our needs, which in this case are very different than from other people. But let's say this: if somebody wants to dance (which I abhorr anyway), what's good music, King Crimson or some simple, repetitive, "vulgar" some may say, dance music? Believe me, as much as we could try to explian that Fripp was a genius and that the harmonies are great, that music SUCKS for the purpose intended, hence it's BAD for that particular listener. As there's no "higher authority" in tastes and needs, a person could say that some music may be "simpler" or, hell, even "worse" than other kinds or pieces of music from a purely scientifical point of view. But music is just... music. It doesn't change the world, nor was it created to do it. So something that's really not THAT important in the big scope of things shouldn't be an excuse for arrogance or feelings of superiority. ...

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Certif1ed wrote:   Who is one person to say an album is bad if 30,000,000 people disagree? That person is a very small minority ... which doesn't mean that this person's opinion is any less valid than that of the other people. But it's simply less probable that this person's opinion about an album will be useful to another (randomly chosen) person.   I'm thinking here of any Prince or U2 album you happen to name - I can't stand either, and don't think much of their compositional skills . I don't particularly like Prince ... but you should try the album "Chaos and Disorder" ... it rocks! So obviously, they're bad... Do we always have to draw conclusions from the subjective to the objective?

Certif1ed wrote:   Who is one person to say an album is bad if 30,000,000 people disagree? That person is a very small minority ... which doesn't mean that this person's opinion is any less valid than that of the other people. But it's simply less probable that this person's opinion about an album will be useful to another (randomly chosen) person.   I'm thinking here of any Prince or U2 album you happen to name - I can't stand either, and don't think much of their compositional skills . I don't particularly like Prince ... but you should try the album "Chaos and Disorder" ... it rocks! So obviously, they're bad... Do we always have to draw conclusions from the subjective to the objective?