Free Hand - a 1* album

Dayvenkirq wrote: LinusW wrote: Dayvenkirq wrote: LinusW wrote: 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. 1) A pitfall? A barrier? Used as defense? How? 2) I don't hold experience and opinion as criteria reflective of the PA rating system. 1) If you refuse to review based on this lack of understanding, it's a form of self-censorship. Of the bad kind. I'm not saying you're using it as a defense, but that it's often used as a form of defense (a bit strongly worded, perhaps) by people who find their favourites challenged. It turns into a flippant and easy counterargument - "you just don't understand it". But most people do, they just understand things differently. 2) Really? How do you get around words like essential, masterpiece, good and poor in that case? And even if you base your ratings on an abstract median proghead as the ideal for the fuzzy rating system here, how do you decide if something is only for completists, is non-essential, is a masterpiece or for fans only? Surely both experience and opinion comes into play even then. 1) I think I can see your angle now. Some people may see something while others can't and perceive certain aspects as not very straightforward. 2)  A. I can always put my own spin on those words. I will use them in a context in such a fashion so that the reader will understand what is my idea of what is "good", what is "poor", tra-la-la-la-la. Now, if I remember correctly, Rogerthat emphasized a number of times that he sees a difference between "essential" and "a masterpiece", and I concur. Since I have to use 5-star ratings sparingly (according to the guidelines), I will probably go with "essential", now that I see it occurring rather less frequently than "masterpieces". God only knows how many masterpieces I know. B. I've no idea what is "abstract median proghead". An average proghead? Who is this person? (I believe we have a whole thread on that.)  The bottom line is, even if you think that some readers will think that you didn't do something "right" in your review, then still do the best you can.

1)...and some people can see (or more accurately hear) the same thing and experience it wildly different. That experience is still valid. In turn, it's not valid for all readers, but for some. And that's the whole point of having this huge collection of reviews (and reviews with dissenting opinions), isn't it? To offer a wide range of opinions and experiences from different listeners to an audience of very different readers in order for them to pick up on reviewers who either share their taste or express themselves in a way that the reader can understand and associate to, regardless of the rating. Otherwise it's all just opinions in space, hopelessly shouted about on the Internet. Which is fair enough, I guess.

2) A: "I can always put my own spin on those words. I will use them in a context in such a fashion so that the reader will understand what is my idea of what is "good", what is "poor", tra-la-la-la-la." - that sounds like experience and opinion to me

B: Just a way to try and demonstrate that even if you disregarded your own personal rating and focused on a pseudo-objective "this is my favourite prog album evah but it's not essential. 3 stars" you base that non-essentiality (erm...) on how you perceive the prog community at large. Opinion/experience blabla...

Anyway, this has moved on beyond my initial complaint. I'm out!

Oh, and yay quote pyramid!



Edited by LinusW - April 02 2013 at 15:59

Snow Dog wrote: So far ten PA users think Free hand is a one star album. I find that rather depressing.

You shouldn't be, you should found comfort that not all of them feel the need to express that in a review.

Dayvenkirq wrote: 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.

Sure a five-star system can mean many things, but when you're given specific meanings right by the review box, and those are the meanings in the color bars, I find it hard not to believe that any of those many things are as clear as those express meanings.

Dayvenkirq wrote: LinusW wrote: 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. 1) A pitfall? A barrier? Used as defense? How? 2) I don't hold experience and opinion as criteria reflective of the PA rating system.

1) If you refuse to review based on this lack of understanding, it's a form of self-censorship. Of the bad kind. I'm not saying you're using it as a defense, but that it's often used as a form of defense (a bit strongly worded, perhaps) by people who find their favourites challenged. It turns into a flippant and easy counterargument - "you just don't understand it". But most people do, they just understand things differently.

2) Really? How do you get around words like essential, masterpiece, good and poor in that case? And even if you base your ratings on an abstract median proghead as the ideal for the fuzzy rating system here, how do you decide if something is only for completists, is non-essential, is a masterpiece or for fans only? Surely both experience and opinion comes into play even then.

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.

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.

@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.

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

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.

@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.