Free Hand - a 1* album

Snow Dog wrote: Tubes wrote:  @Snow Dog, that's fine, but you'll not receive my respect in return for the 'favor'. By the way, you might feel more inclined to restrain your enthusiasm for certain albums, if you would take care of what I'll guess is an unfortunate cocaine problem, SNOW Dog. I can be funny when I want.   Believe me, I do not require or need your  respect. Infact with your comment you made here I have nothing but contempt for you and everything you say or write.

Yeah that was a deeply stupid remark; accusing someone of being a drug addict because they say the same things about your opinion you said about an album is puerile;  you write a negative review of a loved record and don't be surprised to have your views ridiculed.   Par for the course.

BTW, "Snowdog" is a Rush reference.   You must know that, yeah?

If someone wishes to give a dearly loved album a 1* review, then that is their bad luck - perhaps they don't have the faculties to discern the album's value - or, they just don't like it.  Big deal. 

Tubes wrote: @Dayvenkirq I'm supporting your proposition that, "having two-three decent moments on an album.." is not exactly redemption for it's numerous faults. I provided an example in the form of a hypothetical question.

For me it's not so much about being a maverick or having your own set of tastes or opinions or anything like that. And on my side, it's not about my favorite album being gored (For clarification, it's not my favorite album). It's about understanding what the ratings mean. 

@Triceratopsoil I'm not utilizing "rating manipulation". I genuinely think it to be a contrived, and half-hearted effort that belies the putative 'creative freedom' that Chrysalis gave them. There's an obvious pop-sensibility to a good lot of Free Hand (this is reason enough for my suspicion of 'executive' pressure), and regardless of how well you feel that worked (in my case, not at all - awfully, in fact), Chrysalis forced an(other) album that was marred by rushed songwriting, stripped arrangements, and general lack of energy.

Tubes wrote: @lucas It was no trouble to write. I'm glad you appreciate my 'audacity'. I should also like to encourage you to give, to paraphrase the old expression, a 'discouraging word' or at least a hundred about some GG albums. I understand why some folks who don't find the band particularly listenable avoid reviewing their releases, ie. they try to be positive people, and avert themselves from spreading negativity. But these guys need to receive a more diverse spectrum of commentary than they do.

LinusW wrote: "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything"  Bullsh*t. Of course that's not an excuse for not putting at least some effort into expressing those misgivings.

I disagree. As I've stated before, ...

Dayvenkirq wrote: ... I'm pretty sure that there are some people on this website that are aware of their inability to appreciate certain things that others see as true merits (and maybe even enjoy the presence of those merits). If I don't understand something about the music on a particular album, that means I'm not going to write a review on it (Hint: The Raven).

To me writing about something I don't understand is just silly.

Tom Ozric wrote: 'Three Friends' is Giant's finest hour for me

Amen, brother! Wish I could do the fancy "shake" with a "dynamite", so instead I'll do 

Edited by Dayvenkirq - April 02 2013 at 13:27

@BrufordFreak, what the hell is with that closing statement, dude? You ARE a freak (just kidding). And to counter your point, I've seen and heard enough GG live stuff to know they suck even worse without the studio. I'm not arguing this with anybody; don't waste my time. You also assert that they "worked hard and were very serious at what they did." Gentle Giant are the least serious and least deliberately committed 'prog' band I have ever heard. Gentle Giant, unlike almost every important classic progressive rock group, has no single magnum opus peice of music, let alone several as there are in many cases. They never made an epic, so to speak. Yes has Awaken and the Gates of Delirium which are about the attainment of immortality upon death, and the Second Advent of Christ, respectively. Very solemn stuff. Genesis has Supper's Ready, inspired by a supernatural experience of Peter Gabriel's and the Book of Revelation. Jethro Tull has at least the My God side of Aqualung, which criticizes organized religion. Even Thick as a Brick, despite it's parodic nature, has a lot to say. They don't sound like they have any self-respect as musicians or writers, wasting so much record space on their 30 minute albums (Average record playing length is 40 minutes, and Genesis consistently delivered upwards of 50 mintutes) with musical comedy. You know what's hilarious? -That Thick as a Brick, which is a commentary on the rubbish that passes for culture, went to No. 1! Could that be more ironic!?! I've never heard Gentle Giant top that.

axeman wrote: For me it's not so much about being a maverick or having your own set of tastes or opinions or anything like that. And on my side, it's not about my favorite album being gored (For clarification, it's not my favorite album). It's about understanding what the ratings mean.

There must have been countless debates on this.

axeman wrote: If you go on to an album with dozens of 4 and 5 star reviews at mark it "Only for completionists" you invalidate your own post (you mean review?). You demonstrate to everybody else that you cannot understand the scheme of the ratings and would rather play ratings hockey.

No, that's not necessarily what it means. It can mean many things.

axeman wrote: You just don't understand that this is about other people and not just about you.

That's not necessarily what it means either.

axeman wrote: If you think that that many people wouldn't like it because you really, really don't, then I can only say that you're really, really not getting the concept.

Unfortunately, I see a lot of that. Some reviewers have this bad habit of using the general "you", which is just wrong.

Dayvenkirq wrote: LinusW wrote: "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything"  Bullsh*t. Of course that's not an excuse for not putting at least some effort into expressing those misgivings. I disagree. As I've stated before, ... Dayvenkirq wrote: ... I'm pretty sure that there are some people on this website that are aware of their inability to appreciate certain things that others see as true merits (and maybe even enjoy the presence of those merits). If I don't understand something about the music on a particular album, that means I'm not going to write a review on it (Hint: The Raven). To me writing about something I don't understand is just silly.

My point is that understanding music of all things is a pitfall. It's just another barrier and something thrown about by people as a defense. You certainly experience it in some way. You can hopefully express what you experience. You find that experience either nice or bad or noisy or lime green or underwhelming or whatever. Not writing a review then effectively muffles a perfectly valid opinion on the basis of some vague concept of not understanding it properly. It's placing the experience of music (which I think is the thing that matters in a review) in an unnecessary theoretical framework.