lack of metal knowledge in some reviews

true

crimson87 wrote: What , are you describing yourself?   I think that the other guy said it very clearly , progmetal is neither epic , nor rocks.Is like prog´s b*****d son (conceived by a cheap metal whore).   I like  that russian reviews , they are funny.He seems to hate Yes , of course no one is gonna believe him for the things he wrote.Besides I did not say anything offensive (on the last post) I mean , you can criticize ELP or King Crimson anytime you want See...   King Crimson , they sound harder , more innovative and you can do Molok when you hear they last record.They do not need Cheesy covers or Over-the-top singers.

WHAT?

crimson87 wrote:  You should win the nobel prize

would you like to reconsider?

BaldFriede wrote: CCVP wrote: avalanchemaster wrote: I am rather bothered by the fact that this site collectively does not seem to know much about metal at large.  I do not think that Protest The Hero sound anything like System of a Down.... if people knew more about metal than what they are exposed to (by radio or other pop outlets) maybe they would know more about it and be able to make better assertions about metal.  I am not trying to say I know everything about metal, but I am rather insulted by a lot of the opinions of the genre and its subsequent sub-genres.  It seems that many people are content to listen to tip of the iceburg bands in any genre, and then they will claim they know a lot about said genre.  Now I don't claim to know everything about prog, but I know a fair shake, although I am sure a lot of you older more seasoned folks could school me with your expertise.  I guess I am just a little (perhaps neurotically) offended by the lack of knowledge that seems apparent on here.  When I go to the tech metal section/list of bands, I see a lot of one star reviews for bands that are known in the subgenre of metal for being exemplary.  It seems that a lot of old school prog heads or people who DO NOT NORMALLY listen to metal are flexing their prog muscles and sh*tting on certain metal bands because they find no merit in (the music...which is most likely not their "prefered genre)  I find it sad that people are turned off by nuances such as growl vocals or rapid fire playing.  It is all just music and perhaps should be explored at length like any other musical style before severe knee-jerk responses (ad hominem attacks and one star reviews????  get a life.) are put up.  If a band is deemed good enough by the collective to be included in the prog archives, why are we even allowing one star reviews?  I think it unjustly skews any decent reviewing. I am not a vindictive, angry person by nature, so I do not find it necessary to "backlash" against a newly popular band and attack relentlessly with senseless reviews and one star-isms. thank you. Rant over. Agreed man. I have also noted that not only on the extreme pro metal, but on the traditional prog metal and on the experimental prog metal sub-genres. There are people out there who put all his efforts to ruin well written reviews with unnecessary or not deserved 1 star review. Damn, Dream Theater's Scenes from a Memory and Images and Words have more 5 star reviews than Thick as a Brick or Selling England by the Pound or Wish you Where Here and because of these people that keep sabotaging metal these albums have only a 4.20 grade, when they well deserve a bigger grade than that because of the amount of favorable reviews and the amount of good reviews. Very unfair. Let me quote you one more time ad hominem attacks and one star reviews????  get a life. If you think an album deserves 5 stars, fine; write a review and deal them out. But whining because an album "ONLY" has an average rating of 4.20 when you think it deserves 5 stars is, pardon me, simply idiotic. We all have different tastes; I can equally not understand how someone can give Mother Gong's "Fairy Tale" album just 2 stars. But you even complain about an average rating of 4.20, which is quite high; it means that most people gave it 4 stars and some even 5.

I did not said that this sabotage happens only on prog metal . . . .


Edited by CCVP - May 09 2008 at 16:30

" I guess I am just a little (perhaps neurotically) offended by the lack of knowledge that seems apparent on here.  When I go to the tech metal section/list of bands, I see a lot of one star reviews for bands that are known in the subgenre of metal for being exemplary.  It seems that a lot of old school prog heads or people who DO NOT NORMALLY listen to metal are flexing their prog muscles and sh*tting on certain metal bands because they find no merit in (the music...which is most likely not their "prefered genre)  I find it sad that people are turned off by nuances such as growl vocals or rapid fire playing.  It is all just music and perhaps should be explored at length like any other musical style before severe knee-jerk responses (ad hominem attacks and one star reviews????  get a life.) are put up.  If a band is deemed good enough by the collective to be included in the prog archives, why are we even allowing one star reviews?  I think it unjustly skews any decent reviewing."

I may be off base here but I don't think so.  It seems to me that what some of you are hoping for is a totally objective set of criteria to base reviews ands opinions of bands upon.  You get upset when someone doesn't like what you like and says so.  If I interpret correctly it sounds like you want a review system which is totally free from personal opinion.  With a system such as that, if I really don't like Kayo Dot (and I really don't) I would still write my review based on other factors (musicianship, production quality, and others???).

And this is the problems wth such a system.  Exactly what are the criteria you would have me use to judge music?  If I am unable to use subjective criteria "such as growl vocals or rapid fire playing", what am I allowed to use as criteria to judge a release?  If the criteria is to be musicianship who gets to establish the grading scale?  Most of us here with advanced music degrees (and would be by far the most qualified to make these decisions) are not all that fond of Prog Metal.  Will you still trust us to establish a fair baseline for comparison? 

And again, what other factors shall we use to judge?  Remember all the factors we use for your ideal (read fariytale) review world MUST be OBJECTIVE, and not not subjective in order for the reviews to be fair to all.

Anyone with any sense can see that on a site like this this situation is not possible.  Understanding that this is the case, what, exactly do you propose as a solution?  In the absence of a totally objective review system, if I "find no merit in the music" as you say, why should I give a good review?  Likewise if I "find no merit in the music" , why should that disallow me from writing a review?  There are certain to be others who feel the same, and my review might save them the $15 on a bad purchase (If I'd read Mr. T's Kayo Dot review I might not have wasted that cash).  I might actually see it as my duty to those who share my particular view to warn them off.  That is part of how many folks on this site use the reviews.  How is this an abuse of the review system, and again, how do you propose we change it?

Edited by Trademark - May 09 2008 at 16:51

crimson87 wrote: What is said above is true , you cant complain for giving "Images and Words" an average rating of 4.20 when you have truly masterpieces as Lizard (4.00) , Islands (3.74) , In the wake of Poseidon  (3.64).

you do realize every single one of your posts in this thread so far has come off as *forgive the language mods* "f**k you all your opinion's wrong because mine is better and I'm going to bludgeon the fact into your heads until you agree," right?

"What is said above is true , you cant complain for giving "Images and Words" an average rating of 4.20 when you have truly masterpieces as Lizard (4.00) , Islands (3.74) , In the wake of Poseidon  (3.64)."

This has nothing whatsoever to do with what I said.  I've not even hinted at anything like what you've said here.  If you want to apply your statements to my post you'll need to support your claims that the ratings for Kthe KC releases you've mentioned are objectively accurate.  You've given no objective criteria as to why those releases should be considered masterpieces.  What is your totally objective rating standard?  If there is a standard it has to apply to all and if (and its a big if) a standard could be applied it would be likely to hurt some of the favorites of the old guard as well. 

For example, if pure musicianship were to be used as criteria, Steve Howe's sloppy and imprecise guitar playing would certainly place him well behind Petrucci as a part of the musicianship rating of Yes and Dream Theater.  Both tend to ruin songs with excessive "noodling" but that, again is a subjective matter.  Petrucci's noddling is better executed than Howe's and that is an Objecitive observation. I enjoy Yes more, but the musicianship of DT is clearly superior to that of Yes at every instrument (with the possible exception of bass, If  you could hear any bass in DT's recordings sit would be easier to judge), but I still prefer Yes.  This is a totally subjective decision on my part based on my personal taste in music. Objective criteria would change every rating on this site dramatically, but hardly anyone would be happy with the results.


Edited by Trademark - May 10 2008 at 11:27

Trademark wrote: "What is said above is true , you cant complain for giving "Images and Words" an average rating of 4.20 when you have truly masterpieces as Lizard (4.00) , Islands (3.74) , In the wake of Poseidon  (3.64)." This has nothing whatsoever to do with what I said.  I've not even hinted at anything like what you've said here.  If you want to apply your statements to my post you'll need to support your claims that the ratings for Kthe KC releases you've mentioned are objectively accurate.  You've given no objective criteria as to why those releases should be considered masterpieces.  What is your totally objective rating standard?  If there is a standard it has to apply to all and if (and its a big if) a standard could be applied it would be likely to hurt some of the favorites of the old guard as well.  For example, if pure musicianship were to be used as criteria, Steve Howe's sloppy and imprecise guitar playing would certainly place him well behind Petrucci as a part of the musicianship rating of Yes and Dream Theater.  Both tend to ruin songs with excessive "noodling" but that, again is a subjective matter.  Petrucci's noddling is better executed than Howe's and that is an Objecitive observation. I enjoy Yes more, but the musicianship of DT is clearly superior to that of Yes at every instrument (with the possible exception of bass, If  you could hear any bass in DT's recordings sit would be easier to judge), but I still prefer Yes.  This is a totally subjective decision on my part based on my personal taste in music. Objective criteria would change every rating on this site dramatically, but hardly anyone would be happy with the results.

Completely true man. Most ratings (if not all) are given based on subjective criteria (mine included).

PS: Bass lines on DT are insanely difficult also. Just pay attention and you will see (or hear, i don't know. . .), because the bass lines are not very hearable.

CCVP wrote: Trademark wrote: "What is said above is true , you cant complain for giving "Images and Words" an average rating of 4.20 when you have truly masterpieces as Lizard (4.00) , Islands (3.74) , In the wake of Poseidon  (3.64)." This has nothing whatsoever to do with what I said.  I've not even hinted at anything like what you've said here.  If you want to apply your statements to my post you'll need to support your claims that the ratings for Kthe KC releases you've mentioned are objectively accurate.  You've given no objective criteria as to why those releases should be considered masterpieces.  What is your totally objective rating standard?  If there is a standard it has to apply to all and if (and its a big if) a standard could be applied it would be likely to hurt some of the favorites of the old guard as well.  For example, if pure musicianship were to be used as criteria, Steve Howe's sloppy and imprecise guitar playing would certainly place him well behind Petrucci as a part of the musicianship rating of Yes and Dream Theater.  Both tend to ruin songs with excessive "noodling" but that, again is a subjective matter.  Petrucci's noddling is better executed than Howe's and that is an Objecitive observation. I enjoy Yes more, but the musicianship of DT is clearly superior to that of Yes at every instrument (with the possible exception of bass, If  you could hear any bass in DT's recordings sit would be easier to judge), but I still prefer Yes.  This is a totally subjective decision on my part based on my personal taste in music. Objective criteria would change every rating on this site dramatically, but hardly anyone would be happy with the results. Completely true man. Most ratings (if not all) are given based on subjective criteria (mine included). PS: Bass lines on DT are insanely difficult also. Just pay attention and you will see (or hear, i don't know. . .), because the bass lines are not very hearable.

Edited by HughesJB4 - May 10 2008 at 13:10

^Oh and what he said too.

Proletariat wrote: I think that evryone here should get over themselves. It dosn't matter if the review is "objective" or "subjective" because the ratings are avraged democratically. The radical views on ither side of the spectrum will be ballanced out by the majoraty, who hold similar opinions and it will balance to the avrage of what evryone wants. Any revewer can hold any opinion, if you disagree the best you can do is write a review contradicting yours, and nither of you are right and nither wrong and no one gets hurt. THE END.