Reviews discussion

Just pointing out Seltzer's reviews, which are currently at the top of the front page.

prog-chick wrote: ARENA — The Visitor Review by digdug This is a good Marillion album......not as good as 'Script For a Jesters Tear' but probably better than 'Clutching at Straws'......ooooh....wait a minute....this isn't a Marillion album?? Sure sounds like one...... There are some extra musical bits that are not a total rip off of Marillion....so I can't give this two stars.....I actually don't mind listening to the album...when in the mood for something that is not too complex..... but it is too derivative for me to give a rating any higher than 3 stars. If you are a Marillion fan.....and wish that Fish never left.....you will probably enjoy this.... Report this review (#165091) | Posted Wednesday, March 26, 2008, 22:06 EST

Edited by Mandrakeroot - April 06 2008 at 04:44

Taken from the reviews abuse thread

AShowOfHands wrote: It's only a minor point but is it really fair to call someone retarded for not liking Kansas, check it out here:   http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=166347

I'd like some opinions on the evaluation of Arena Rock...

spookytooth wrote: Sad that people assume that Kansas is yet another throwaway late 70's early 80's arena rock band simply because their huge hit Carry on Wayward Son was hard rocking and appealed to fans of arena rock (even though if you look deeper, Carry On IS a prog song). {I thought of this as a proggy Arena rock (aka Anthemic rock) song myself} These people who assumed this are either: A. retarded {I admit to musical retardation} B. haven't listened to other Kansas material C. Didn't realize that they made Dust In the Wind which is far, far away from arena rock {I hadn't thought ballads uncommon to Arena rock bands} ... Leftoverture is not only the best Kansas album, but in the top five of the best prog albums I've ever listened to. It's sad to see this album is fading away from the public eye, people need to get over the arena rock assumptions. Arena Rock is an idiotic statement, anyway. If it were a true genre, wouldn't the Beatles or the Rolling Stones be considered this because they played in arenas? {I thought they were considered early, to use this site's terminology, proto, versions of arena rock bands, but since sound as well as concerts are integral...}  Completely idiotic. {100% iidiotic?} Anyway, Kansas (along with Thin Lizzy) may be one of the most underrated {hmm} rock bands ever. Definitely a must buy, especially if you are a prog fan {is this a fact? And is it less so for those who like Arena Rock?} Every track is flawless, and they flow seamlessly through and they fit as if it were a theatrical production (as I stated earlier). Get this album NOW! No excuses...  {except we have different tastes and priorities}

The wikipedia entry fit my understanding of Arena rock http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arena_rock

Wikipedia wrote: Arena rock, also called stadium rock or anthem rock, is a loosely-defined term describing an era of rock music. It spawned from heavy metal, hard rock, and progressive rock in the 70s by bands such as Styx and Queen.[ Arena rock takes its sound from hard rock, heavy metal, and progressive rock.[1] Arena rock is "heavy",[1] but it is not as hard and is "more commercially oriented" than other subgenres of hard rock and heavy metal.[1] Songs are often linked by concept albums,[1] a trait inherited from progressive rock. Other features include "slick productions",[2] an emphasis on the verses,[1] and an "unnatural emphasis on big, anthemic hooks and choruses",[1] the last trait "set[ting it] apart from its influences".[1] Arena rock is not only defined by its sound, it is also defined by its concerts. ... Arena rock's origins can be traced to the late 1960s, with bands such as The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin and The Who. Those bands "set the stage for massive live performances in stadiums and arenas around the globe."[4] The genre itself, though, was created by bands such as Boston, Styx, Foreigner, Journey, Queen, Peter Frampton, and (Phil Collins-era) Genesis. Those bands would go on to "sell-out the world’s largest venues throughout most of (the 70s) and beyond" [4] and help make arena rock popular in the 80s.

I had thought of The Rolling Stones and The Beatles 60's output as sort of Proto-Arena Rock (as genre), but thought that it wasn't just that bands played in arenas but took an approach to making music.  And since Arena rock is supposed to be influenced by Prog (Kansas being considered a Prog and Arena Rock band), I don't see why having a prog song on it would exclude it from being Arena Rock?

I'm not an expert, but what are your thoughts on this album in an Arena rock context?  Since Arena Rock peaked in the 80's, is the arena rock labeling for this album off (was this album largely pre-Kansas arena rock stage? Or is most of it not Arena rock style music?)  I'm hardly an expert on Kansas or the style, so I'm genuinely curious.

Seems a bit fanboyish to me, and makes subjective statements as if they are fact, and calls others idiotic who would make different claims.  How right is he with his claims?

 




Edited by Logan - April 12 2008 at 16:55

^ indeed, Atavachron.


Incidentally, *side note*, some people find the terms Progressive Rock and AOR idiotic too.  I think some might say that Kansas is more AOR/ Prog in the 70's and didn't come into its own as a full-fledged Arena Rock band until the early '80s. 

Note: I do tend to be turned off by reviews which state things like "Get this album NOW! No excuses..." especially given the context of the rest of the review (I don't think the reviewer has presented certain arguments thoughtfully-enough for me to wish to follow the command).

Just want to generally point out his ratings (which follows canon, generally, and shows variety, and I'd say indicates fairness of ratings... Note his other Kansas review has but three stars):


GENESIS - Nursery Cryme
HENRY COW - Western Culture
KANSAS - Leftoverture
GENESIS - Duke
RUSH - Hemispheres
KANSAS - Audio-Visions
WAKEMAN, RICK - The Myths and Legends of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table
GENESIS - From Genesis To Revelation




Edited by Logan - April 12 2008 at 17:45

well, to sum the reasons for reporting this

1. the last time Y reviewed something was February 24th (a rate for Animals). so thank God there's some music in this world which to totally disgust you and make you review it, with disgust.

2. no one's saying "don't review negatively", but I merely find this creative writing as a "very negative review"

3. I'm not judging Y's humour, in fact I know some of his reviews and posts are humorous. And other reviews and posts of him are humorous.

(4. Yes, laplace, I know you hate Ayreon's album too, but I think your 1-star review was much more interesting, well-written, motivated etc. etc. )

5. As I'm not judging Y's humour (though the Pope thing is pretty bad, I watched, as a non-Catholic, the news about John Paul II dying - or about his funeral - praying and feeling sad, no way did I stop to observe his...nostrils...or whatever), I'm obviously judging the writing.
  a. first off, a total lack of telling directly what's the point/the opinion. Instead: "metaphors", creative writing, puns and free sentences. I know it's bit of Y's style, but, again, kinda leaving you stunned this time.
  b. second off, a moment of complete incoherence, at least for me:" Unfortunately this shocker couldn't give a randy, over-endowed rhinoceros who hadn't had it for a good few months and had been fed solely on moth larvae and dandelion leaves for the whole spring and had been humping mounds of mud for eternity and had just been let hitherto into the 'barely-legal-and-all-you- can-eat-and-drink-for-a-fiver Rhino-pen-of-Heaven' the horn."
...
...
what?


Edited by Ricochet - April 14 2008 at 15:18

I don't mind the "open mind" comment in it, but the don't rate if you don't like it comment has been removed.

saying that Clearligh'ts symphony is a "repetitive easy listening music" or that is "the kind of music you hear when entering a shopping mall" and I should stay calm. Moreover you must admit that he serves no arguments at all to defend his position. 

philippe wrote: This review is totally out of place, I'm sure that our friend has never listened to the album. If this album is not progressive I wonder where he finds his prog, refering to his profile surely that Metallica or Slayer have better arguments to convince   http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=155243

So one must not question an album's "progginess" in order to post a review at PA ? WHOA ! And one must not question the quality of a highly rated album in their review at PA ? WHOA WHOA ! Also , one must not have "tastes" that would somehow supposedly prejudice their opinion of the album in question ? WHOA WHOA WHOA ! 
Maybe one should seek help with one's over touchiness with their (I'm assuming something here) favourite album or act being mauled in a review ?
I.E. I completely disagree with the frequent dismissal of Klaatu as being a pop group with a somewhat occasional prog bent. Especially when it is meant to indicate that the music itself is not worthy of a progger's attention. But it is an opinion that I have the opportunity to rebute, debate & discuss. And I also have the necessary intelligence and self esteem to accept that it isn't an attack on my own person. Just a person's opinion on the music at hand, whether they are right or wrong; or even that I might be either.
Exception - Ange's Emile Jacotey. That one really makes me question mankind's IQ.
Oh, and Split Enz' Time & Tide. How this does not rate among the top ten here is a crime, or ought to be.
Oh, and O.K. , I do firmly & fanatically believe that Klaatu's 3:47 E.S.T. & Hope belong in the same league as DTSOM, WYWH,Aqaulung,Camel, and many other 70s progmeisterworks.
I could be wrong, though. But my bet is that I'm right.

Noted Zitro, response soon.

As one proof on the subject you can see that all the reviews before Sunday, April 27, 2008 have been wiped off!

Edited by torman - May 02 2008 at 03:09