SR VI: Incident Free since 2008

Black Holes and Revelations isn't crappy pop music though.

Are you saying it's worse than Britney, Christina, Girls Aloud, Beyoncé, Justin Trousersnake and Simon Railton?


Edited by James - September 20 2009 at 14:44

James wrote: And I'm sorry but Deadwing is not remotely good.

Yup.

But I think I'll soon analyse if The Incident is any better than Deadwing. Arriving Somewhere But Not Here I actually like. From the new album, nothing stood out.


Edited by Ricochet - September 20 2009 at 14:48

James wrote: Black Holes and Revelations isn't crappy pop music though. Are you saying it's worse than Britney, Christina, Girls Aloud, Beyoncé, Justin Trousersnake and Simon Railton?

I'd rank the Muse album down there with that lot (maybe a tad higher).

And Simon Railton isn't pop.

I was very close to write a review on Railton these last days. 

Epignosis wrote: James wrote: Black Holes and Revelations isn't crappy pop music though. Are you saying it's worse than Britney, Christina, Girls Aloud, Beyoncé, Justin Trousersnake and Simon Railton? I'd rank the Muse album down there with that lot (maybe a tad higher). Madness. Sure, Supermassive Black Hole was used in Twilight (and badly) and thus has become madly annoying but the album is still fairly good.  I'd much rather listen to it than anything by Britney, Christina &c. And Simon Railton isn't pop.

Yes I know.  I inserted his name in just because I could.

Epignosis wrote: Granted, "Shallow" and "Halo" are my least favorite songs on the album- those two I had to learn to like in the course of enjoying the whole album, which I did.

oh and






Dude, with all due respect, you never force yourself to like something that you quite clearly do not like.  Don't be such a nincompoop.

Like what you like and dislike what you dislike.

I also demand.

Yes.  DEMAND.

That you lower your rating for Deadwing accordingly, in light of this flawed logic.

James wrote: Epignosis wrote: Granted, "Shallow" and "Halo" are my least favorite songs on the album- those two I had to learn to like in the course of enjoying the whole album, which I did. Dude, with all due respect, you never force yourself to like something that you quite clearly do not like.  Don't be such a nincompoop. Like what you like and dislike what you dislike. I also demand. Yes.  DEMAND. That you lower your rating for Deadwing accordingly, in light of this flawed logic.

I misspoke.  I did not mean to say that "I had to learn to like."

What I meant was "I learned to like them" in the course of listening to the whole album (and by the way, I had, even before liking those tracks, planned on giving Deadwing five stars in accounting for its many other merits).

Epignosis wrote: I misspoke.  I did not mean to say that "I had to learn to like." What I meant was "I learned to like them" in the course of listening to the whole album (and by the way, I had, even before liking those tracks, planned on giving Deadwing five stars in accounting for its many other merits).

That's even worse.

A 5-star album has no flaws whatsoever.

You've given an album 5-stars (or were prepared to) even though you clearly said you thought Shallow and Halo were the two worst tracks.

A 5-star album does not feature worst tracks.  It's either flawless or it's got flaws.

An album with flaws does not mean it should receive 5-stars.

And you don't "learn to like" tracks either.

I actually did like Deadwing and then with further listens and a few years of musical adventures; I found I no longer felt the same way.  Wilson's voice is annoying.  I have always felt this way but listening to Halo and Shallow 3 or 4 years later, really put me off PT.

While not related to the above discussion (just an idea splintered out of it), if "5 stars" would really mean spotless, perfect(issimo) and flawless, I'd probably award it to no more than 15-20 albums out of everything I've ever reviewed and listened to.

So 5 stars doesn't imply it's perfection embodied. But it does imply something highly valorous, yes - and quite on the road to flawlessness, yes.

And masterlinessness, of course.
Yes.

Ricochet wrote: While not related to the above discussion (just an idea splintered out of it), if "5 stars" would really mean spotless, perfect(issimo) and flawless, I'd probably award it to no more than 15-20 albums out of everything I've ever reviewed and listened to. So 5 stars doesn't imply it's perfection embodied. But it does imply something highly valorous, yes - and quite on the road to flawlessness, yes. And masterlinessness, of course. Yes.

That's how I interpret it.  That is how I rate 5-star albums.

Some of the albums I would rate 5-star here would in actuality be about 4.8 or so but as we don't have decimal ratings and 4 is too low, I usually round up.

But STILL a 4.5-5 rating is still mostly, if not entirely flawless.

Rob (I shall save a post and answer you in this one instead), the voting criteria indeed does not say anything about what a 5-star album consists of.

However, your logic is flawed and (as nice as I can say it), is also the worst idea I've ever heard.  It seems preposterous to me that one should rate an album the way you do.  It makes no sense whatsoever.

So you can seriously say that you can give an album that quite clearly has flaws (and which you have openly admitted has flaws) is worthy of a 5-star rating when another album which has barely, if at all, any flaws (and which you also openly agree on) also is worthy of a 5-star?

That is saying therefore than an unmitigated musical gem is rated equally (by the same rater) as an album that is in actuality, deserving of much less favour.

Tarkus (the track on its own) is only a 3 for me but combined with the rest of the superfluous and worthless w**kery and pretentious drivel on that album; I would rate the whole album as a 2.

I do not rate an album solely on one amazing track (which Tarkus is not anyhow).


Edited by James - September 20 2009 at 15:32