"Sub-Grading" Prog Music ...

^ I get your point(s).

In a nutshell what you're saying in the first two paragraphs is that musicianship in not as important to you as songwriting. Well, let's add Songwriting as a separate criterium then!

Regarding the "over analyzing": Surely I'm guilty of that. But: I can submit ratings for something and still be able to just listen to music without analyzing it. On my website you only need to submit three pieces of information: rating, main genre and prog level ... anything else is entirely optional.

grahawk wrote: Aspiring hope wrote: Then what sort of criteria do you base your ratings/reviews on? MikeEnRegalia wrote: @grahawk: musicianship is no guide to quality? Well, maybe for *some* people. I guess what you like is generally subjective so more subjective categories are fine. But you can be objective. I don't get Richard Thompson's solo stuff much, although I do like a few of his songs with Fairport Convention and those done by The Albion Band. But objectively I see him as one of the greatest singer songwriters. I see much greater value in poorer musicians producing effective results than great musicians burbling away to no great effect. Working within your limitations can produce better results. There are plenty of examples in good songs getting lost in over complication. Keith Moon is one of my favourite drummers but technically he doesn't stand up to the prog greats. However how he played is far more extraordinary and innovative. The other thing to say - are you not over analyzing things. Music gets to us at a more spiritual and personal level which cant necessarily just be scored.

I understand what you're trying to say, but just for the record, it's something of a no-no to say one appreciates art objectively, given that it is neither science nor dogma (and even those are prone to change, in values, only showing that subjectivity is infact ubiquitous). We all have different standards to base our judgement of bands in, and even random events determine what we emphasize more or less or what we perceive and/or conclude in such music that possibly, in different situations, we wouldn't realize - a good example would be the quality of recording in some other version or the sound systems used to play it, in the sense that sometimes, certain details and sounds are not immediately or as easily heard.
But I think what you really mean by that is that there's an indisputable fondness, dislike or even apathy for some artist or song that one innevitably feels at first impression and, yes, rather than placing those primary impressions in higher consideration, one should try to put his/her feelings aside and decide in such way wether or not the object of review is quality work, in order to try and rate it in a just fashion.
And yes, it IS at some level unavoidable to leave out the personal and spiritual aspect of our own feelings towards music, but that doesn't mean we can't analyze the music itself or why we like/hate it; infact, it might bring us closer to it by granting yet another level of interest or challenge to our conscious interpretation.

Not sure if I got my point well expressed back there, but you also used one of Mike's suggested sub-grades, when talking about your views on Keith Moon: you didn't choose to emphasize much on the technical (in this case, it's probably emcompassed by complexity) sub-grade and rather highlighted creativity and innovation, which is - at least in this case - more important to you than the first, but still acknowledged that while technique won't get your highest score, creativity makes up for it and raises the bar, so to speak. It also goes for Richard Thompson: you don't appreciate him globally, but apparently the composition sub-grade would get some positive feedback from you.

You see, these conclusions and views occur at all times, naturally, when you're appreciating music (or any other form of art, under its own standards) and what Mike is proposing is nothing more than a more or less concrete and tangible plane of our more abstract notions. At some point, they'd ease the process by taking place as a clear reference mark of what we're thinking or trying to come up with.


Edited by Aspiring hope - May 30 2008 at 15:46

I agree that the two terms are quite close and may even overlap ... I'll try to come up with a solution. I thought of composition as a theoretical, almost mechanical thing ... there are certain composition techniques which musicians use to "implement" their musical ideas. Maybe a good way of putting it is that IMO songwriting creates the "essence" of the tracks - the melodies/motifs - while composition is the process of turning these ideas into fully fledged "compositions".

Of course I see the problem here - this distinction may be too complex for most users, and even among those who are "with me" here many would see it as nit picking. I'll see if I can come up with a better solution!

Nah, it seems like work. I'll leave myself open to being called simple, but I don't really break down compositions to this sort of analysis.
I have three (sometimes a fourth) chord rockers that move me, and I have multi-part suites that do the same.
I just don't sit back & go , "wow, I love this this because xxxx!
I'm the type that can play the Sex Pistols "EMI', then go onto Yes' Siberian Khatru, and move on to Aeorsmith's Walk This Way, 'cause the guitar riff in both is pretty much the same try it out, the main guitar theme is close) .
Music, for me, is an emotional response. You feel it. Even the "supposedly" most intellectual genres attract me because of that same response.
If I need to provide an analytical review, then obviously the artist has missed something. Not that I mind others enjoying it. To each their own. But whether it's Mahavishnu, or AC/DC, it either hits the spot or it doesn't. Some you give time, cause something is piquing your interest; some hit you right away.
But I have a limited time on this planet, so why spend it making mathematical evaluations of music meant to entertain (no matter the genre or musical act, that is the eventual goal, right).

Aspiring hope wrote: You see, these conclusions and views occur at all times, naturally, when you're appreciating music (or any other form of art, under its own standards) and what Mike is proposing is nothing more than a more or less concrete and tangible plane of our more abstract notions. At some point, they'd ease the process by taking place as a clear reference mark of what we're thinking or trying to come up with.

Nicely put - that's exactly what it's about. I want the website to be able to understand some of the statements we would normally put in a review. For example, if you write in your review "this album has a tremendous production", anyone who reads the review would understand, but there's no way the server software could extract that information. If there was a way to enter a grade for production (0-10), which was displayed along with your review, you wouldn't need to state it in the review ... and the information would be available for the system - for example it could generate a list of albums with top production.

^ yes, I agree. I just added musicianship and production to the album tag editor, they seem to be quite stable.

Hm.
I'm not sure about spontaneity. It doesn't really seem quite in place. The rest are quite easy to define (and in each case, a better individual rating would automatically contribute to a more enjoyable album as a whole), but spontaneity could mean a number of things,

If we're talking about quality of improvisation, for 95% of pieces I won't definitively know if something's been improvised. Hence, largely useless. Also, if some people don't enjoy improv/jamming, this rating's not going to be useful.

If we're talking about whether it's got a spontaneous feel, then I don't necessarily think that a spontaneous feel is a good thing. Something like Close To The Edge benefits from being carefully constructed, and is better off without that spontaneous feel.

Thought of another good criterium:

"Substance"

It might actually be a good replacement for "Songwriting".

http://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=Category:212_Subgrading_and_Shouldering

"This grading item, consisting of two classes, is used only for grading incidental to the construction of pavements on improvements that have been graded under a previous contract. This item is provided in addition to the required item of subgrade compaction. It provides for the fine grading and shaping necessary to complete the finished roadway. The quantity is measured along the centerline of pavement and includes both shoulders. Divided lane improvements require double quantities."
Wikithingypediopod

"Am I asleep
Or am I fast
You every race
You first, you last
Roads girdle the globe
We all safe in your concrete robe
Hail mother motor
Hail piston rotor
Hail wheel
Roads girdle the globe
Am I tied in
Or do I turn
Your sacred incense
You tyre burn..."
XTC





Edited by Slartibartfast - June 03 2008 at 22:01