Bad? or really just not your thing?
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Site News, Newbies, Help and Improvements
Forum Name: Help us improve the site
Forum Description: Help us improve the forums, and the site as a whole
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=37289
Printed Date: November 23 2024 at 02:16
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Bad? or really just not your thing?
Posted By: altaeria
Subject: Bad? or really just not your thing?
Date Posted: April 26 2007 at 10:29
|
I understand that reviews are Subjective in nature...
but I find it silly when somebody trashes legitimately quality material.
We DO realize the difference between an actual BAD album
and one that just doesn't fit our tastes, DON'T WE?
Take, for instance, the 2-star reviews for "Sgt. Pepper's" ...
or those reviewers who simply dislike bands like VDGG or KC or ELP
and proceed to rate ALL their albums with 1 or 2 stars.
I get it. You don't like them ... but 1 star for "Brain Salad Surgery"?
Am I supposed to respect your reviews after that...on a Prog site??
It's just difficult to take that seriously--and I want to respect all reviewers.
So how could this sort of thing be sorted out ideally?
I think, in most cases, the problem lies with general GENRE preferences.
So maybe the ratings system could include extra selection buttons (besides the stars)
that look something like this:
O This is not my cup of tea ... I prefer Zeuhl
O This is not my cup of tea ... I prefer Symphonic
O This is not my cup of tea ... I prefer Progressive Metal
O This is not my cup of tea ... I prefer Post Rock
... etc.
and each album's page could show a total of the these responses. Now, what would this accomplish?
First off --- It might help give readers an indication of
whether or not an album's style suits them before they even look at any reviews.
If a reader prefers ProgFolk ...
and the page shows that 17 other ProgFolk fans already checked that this album "wasn't their cup of tea"
it gives a pretty good indication that this will probably NOT be to the reader's liking either.
Second --- It could help keep some reviewers from looking downright silly.
I don't know about anybody else...
but I tend to NOT respect (and ultimately ignore) reviewers who bash top-notch stuff.
It's one thing to respectfully say that "Relayer" is litle busy or maybe disjointed, even for a Yes fan...
but it's hard for me to take you serious when you give it a "for collectors only" rating
(because, deep down, you prefer blues-based Psychedelia). "For collectors only" ?? Collectors of what? We're still talking about Prog, right?
Wouldn't it make more sense to just check off the "I prefer Psychedelic" rating and move on.
Of course, I realize that this isn't even close to a perfect system...
but it could help keep unwarranted LOW ratings to a minimum.
Not that I expect anything to change, though. I don't even know why I really care.
It must be my mild autism acting up again.
 |
Replies:
Posted By: Wilcey
Date Posted: April 26 2007 at 10:42
|
ok Altaeria,
this is one of my main bug bears..... people calling an album "rubbish" because they don't like it. it's been discussed and argued about over and over and over....... that's not to say it doesn't warrant a HUGE amount of discussion from time to time..... Good old fashioned courtesy seems to be out moded, if somone doesn't like my fav band thats perfectly fine..... I don't happen to get along with King Crimson, I have tried but it's not my bag...... if they say my fav band is rubbish, or an album is poorly executed just becuase they don't like it I get snarly....... but that achieves nothing. Taste is objective, different likes and dislikes are what make us interesting..... but it's immature and pointless to write off what we don't like. pet subject really...... still I don't think we'll ever change things.......!!! |
Posted By: Mellotron Storm
Date Posted: April 26 2007 at 10:49
|
I couldn't agree more with what you just said. If i give a 3 star rating to something that has a lot of 5 star ratings,i have to explain why,sometimes it's the genre that's not one of my favourites,or it might not fit my tastes.I do feel i have to give my opinion and review it though.On the other hand, how can you give a classic album 1 or 2 stars is beyond me. ------------- "The wind is slowly tearing her apart" "Sad Rain" ANEKDOTEN |
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: April 26 2007 at 11:03
|
There's no such thing as a bad album, there's just ones you like and ones you don't like.
I guess really discordant music could be described as "bad", e.g. if you gave a chimpanzee a violin and recorded it for an hour, but even then someone would probably like it.
|
Posted By: Wilcey
Date Posted: April 26 2007 at 11:17
I do hope you're not being chimpist Chopper.......I might get snarly if you 'dis' the chimps!!! 
|
chopper wrote:Posted By: FruMp
Date Posted: April 26 2007 at 11:27
|
I think things balance out really, the truly classic albums will have less haters than the great or just good albums. the proportion of 1 and 2 star reviews compared to the total reviewing population is almost a way to measure quality in itself, you couldn't find many haters of close to the edge. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: April 26 2007 at 11:39
 The last thing I want to see is the average ratings for albums go upwards. I want low ratings (with reviews) to be numerous!!! This is the only way to tell an excellent album from a good album
They are already way too high, because fans rate what they adore and not what they dislike. There are some absurdly high rated albums. This is especially true for new prog: there are people giving 5* to DT albums while not having listened to it fully once.
Ratings for new albums should not be allowed before two or three months after their releases.
And still that wouldn't stop the lack of credibility. Albums should be rated according/compared to the whole genre really with historical implications. I realize this would disadvantage most new albums, but in 20 years' time, how will MTV, TOOL, TFK or Opeth rate? Not nearly quite as high as they are today.
I think I only rated three 06 albums (and none before four or five months after their releases) and I rated only one 07 album (the Real Time live album of VdGG, of which I've known everysong for at least 10 years bar the two from the 04 album Present)
Would everyone be doing that, I think that the average ratings would gain a lot of credibility.
Until then............. ------------- let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: April 26 2007 at 11:48
|
The ratings system here is quite unique - some find it hard to adjust to a system where we're not awarding "points out of 5". Obviously, much of a review will be based on taste - and it's difficult, if not impossible to be completely objective about music. On the whole, Prog fans are intelligent enough to understand how this site rates albums, and some just excercise their own freedom of choice to ignore it and do their own thing.
The body of the review is always the giveaway: I tend to ignore blatant bashings or drooling fanboys because I'm most interested in the music itself: Thoughtfully written reviews are always best - not necessarily those done by an "expert" - as they provide useful information into why someone likes or dislikes a certain piece or album.
It's been recently proven that, out of a group of expert farmers, not one was able to guess the exact weight of a bull at an auction.
I think that says something about experts - and bull... ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: clarke2001
Date Posted: April 26 2007 at 11:51
|
Hm-mm.. Hm. The albums "Close To The Edge" and "Dark Side Of The Moon", recognised as masterpieces by many, mean nothing to me. I just don't like them, I think they are way too overrated etc etc... and I could live happily ever after without listening to them ever again. However, I would not rate them with one star - because I can hear, feel and analyse a certain story/skill/atmosphere going there - millions of fans can't be (that) wrong. These albums will get three stars from me, or two in the worst case. They're not rubbish, they're just not my cup of tea, and I respect that certain artism presented there - regardless of my disliking for it. Speaking of rubbish...on the other hand... If some album is so bad that, in my opinion, deserves one star, and basically it's rubbish, why should I hesitate to call it rubbish? I'm a big fan of ELP, Zeppelin, Queen...and if someone rate "Love Beach", "In Through The Out Door" or "Hot Space" with one star and explicitly call it "rubbish", "junk" or use a phrase like "it sucks", I - as a fan - won't get offended. These albums are below all standards, and although I would personally rate them with two/three stars, I could understand why are they "junk" to someone. So, I'm wond'ring again, why should I hesitate to call a really bad album "rubbish"? To be respectful to the musicians? Even some artist/band made statements like "that album of ours is rubbish...it was a mistake...we did it only for money...we wish we never published that". There are numerous examples in the history of rock. No matter how harsh I might be while reviewing something (and I'm not that harsh), no matter how hard I try to imply that a certain album is "rubbish", it will always remain just my personal opinion. So, if someone want to rate "Brain Salad Surgery" (5 star in my book) with one star, or to label it as "rubbish", so be it. Progressive rock represents such a wide variety of styles, and human beings (even only within the realm of prog fans) have such a wide tastes, that I can easily imagine there's a person (prog fan!) who think BSS is rubbish worth one star (although the reasons why that person dislikes it are beyond my perception). In conclusion: When we have a childish attempt to bash one band, giving one star rating to all of the band's albums, the usual reaction is "(s)he is entitled to his/her opinion...let's delete the ranting reviews and leave the ratings". No!!! Let's delete rating without reviews and leave those reviews if they are good enough to justify an opinion. If you think ELP, Tarkus, Trilogy and BSS are all rubbish, fine. Say it. But tell us why. ------------- |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 26 2007 at 12:10
|
I have a problem with people calling Queen - Hot Space "rubbish" (just an aribtrarily chosen example) ... reason: There are far worse albums than that one. It deserves at least 2 stars by any standard, given that 1 star is the lowest rating available in the archives.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to: 
|
Posted By: mystic fred
Date Posted: April 26 2007 at 12:24
No Prog here i hope!..."The worst album in the world... ever!Competition was intense, but Simon Le Bon and co have won pop's least coveted titleBy Anthony Barnes, Arts and Media CorrespondentPublished: 26 March 2006It may have sounded like a winning formula at the time: a chart-topping band covering some of the most iconic songs of the past 30 years. But Duran Duran's 1995 release Thank You, in which they paid tribute to the bands that had inspired them, has been given the dubious honour of being branded the worst album of all time. With 12 tracks, including Lou Reed's "Perfect Day", Bob Dylan's "Lay Lady Lay", Elvis Costello's "Watching the Detectives" and The Doors' "Crystal Ship" - none of which was suited to their style of glossy pop - it is 54 minutes and 29 seconds of pure hell, according to music experts at Q magazine. The track that prompted the most hoots of derision was their decision to tackle Public Enemy's "911 is a Joke" - originally an angry diatribe by militant rappers about the treatment of the black underclass in the US, which lost its power when performed by a group of middle-class white boys from Birmingham. Other horrors that made Q's hall of shame included every solo Spice Girls album, given equal footing at number two in the chart. Chief among them must have been Victoria Beckham's attempts at pop credibility, one of many attempts at career resurrection. Another that makes the list is Naomi Campbell's recording debut Baby Woman. The album was created by credible producers, including Youth and Tim Simenon, but even their input didn't get it into the top 75. The deputy editor of Q, Gareth Grundy, said: "The list is a mixture of the unspeakable and those ridiculous acts of hubris, although we tried not to pick on the obvious soft targets. "Duran Duran was the one that united everyone in agreement. We put it on in the office to remind ourselves how bad it was. Sometimes these things are redeemed by some sort of kitsch or novelty value, but it didn't even have that. It's not funny for even a split second and not even the sort of thing that you would put on for a laugh if you were drunk. "It is abysmal on every level, as befits an album where you have Simon Le Bon trying to cover Public Enemy." Even the studio engineer who worked on the Duran Duran project, Ken Scott, thought the worst-album accolade was a fair assessment. "I think it turned out pretty badly," he admitted. Afterwards, the band described the album, which went to number 12 and clocked up a pitiful three weeks in the charts, as "commercial suicide". As a result their next effort did not get an official release in the UK. Cover versions are a common theme in Q's top 10. It also includes Urban Renewal, a collection of Phil Collins songs performed by credible hip-hop acts, and Westlife's attempt to cover some of Frank Sinatra's hits. TOP 10 WORST Duran Duran Thank You "DOWNRIGHT INSULTING" Spice Girls Any of their solo albums "WRETCHED" Various Artists Urban Renewal "WORSE THAN THE ORIGINAL" Lou Reed Metal Machine Music "TOSS" Billy Idol Cyberpunk "RISIBLE" Naomi Campbell Baby Woman "GOBSMACKING HUBRIS" Kevin Rowland My Beauty "HIDEOUSLY MAWKISH" Mick Jagger Primitive Cool "SOULLESS FUNK-ROCK" Westlife Allow Us to Be Frank "AN UNCALLED-FOR MAULING" Tin Machine Tin Machine II "A DISASTER" AND OTHERS... DJ MARK RADCLIFFE nominates Metal Machine Music, by Lou Reed: "I would say William Shatner's album, but that's almost so bad it comes out the other side. Metal Machine Music is not one, but two albums of unlistenable noise, so technically it's twice as bad. I think Lou Reed would be quite proud of it being the worst album ever."  -------------  Prog Archives Tour Van 
|
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: April 26 2007 at 13:13
There is no such thing as legitimately quality material.  The fact that some people trash something that you think is legitimately quality material is proof enough. Obviously, in their opinion, the album they're trashing is not legitimately quality material. Just leave people's opinions alone, if you don't like some of them, ignore them.  |
Posted By: Yontar
Date Posted: April 26 2007 at 13:17
i think there are some albums that don't fit my tastes, and i give those albums a two or three. But certain bands i just don't like all that much. Like pink floyd for example, most prog fans would say im nuts but i only gave them a two. Why? Because i don't think they are all that great. Not because they weren't influential or good musicians. Mostly just because i don't really like em alot. I mean personal preference is the sole purpose of reviewing. Just because a band did something innovative or big for a genre doesn't mean that you MUST listen to that band. Flat out, your personal rating for an album is a reflection of your perception of the album, not some prog biased run down conformist opinion.
|
Posted By: coleio
Date Posted: April 26 2007 at 13:31
|
If you don't like what an album has been rated, do a review yourself and put your own opinion in there (about the album, no ranting at another reviewer). If you haven't heard an album, but it's by your favourite band and it gets some bad reviews, so what? Buy the album yourself an have a listen to it, then again come post your own review and opinion. Simple no? You don't like someones opinion then that's your own problem, it's entirely up to them. Free speech for everyone right? There is no definitely good music, I don't like a lot of 'classic' albums, doesn't mean I think everyone else should think they're bad and likewise with bands I do like. ------------- Eat heartily at breakfast, for tonight, we dine in Hell!! |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 26 2007 at 13:59
Some albums have very many reviews ... and the resulting average rating can be a good indication of the quality of an album. Of course people are free to disagree ... but IMO it's ridiculous to submit a 1 star review for an album with more than 50 ratings/reviews and a resulting average rating of more than 4 and to go on in the review about how the album is "obviously bad" and that the rating is only due to "fanboys" etc. etc. ... people who do so simply risk not to be taken seriously anymore. They represent a small minority and should IMO remember that when they write their review ... like it says in the Adrian Monk theme: "I may be wrong ... but I don't think so!". Even if you are very sure that you're right and all the others are wrong, you can still admit that you *might* be wrong. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: tuxon
Date Posted: April 26 2007 at 15:05
|
A review or rating can't be wrong.
And one need not take into account how others will apreciate an album. ------------- I'm always almost unlucky _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Id5ZcnjXSZaSMFMC Id5LM2q2jfqz3YxT |
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: April 26 2007 at 15:25
Blimey, you've scared me now p-c. Do you think if you gave an infinite number of chimps an infinite number of violins they would eventually write a violin concerto? |
Posted By: Sasquamo
Date Posted: April 26 2007 at 16:39
| If I don't like an album, then it's bad. What's the problem? |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: April 26 2007 at 16:47
Transformed Man is a work of genius - it takes a special kind of appreciation.
 ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 26 2007 at 16:48
|
^ remember what happened to me when I mentioned the words "genius" and "Jon Bon Jovi" in the same sentence?
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Wilcey
Date Posted: April 26 2007 at 16:52
No....... but the violins would get a lovely cuppa tea at the end of it all 
|
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: April 26 2007 at 16:52
let's not go there....
 |
Posted By: salmacis
Date Posted: April 26 2007 at 17:06
|
I don't really tend to review genres I strongly dislike (luckily there aren't many in my case, but there are still one or two), the review will ultimately reveal your personal bias against a genre and render the review fairly uninteresting to an interested party. The one example of this kind of thing in one of my reviews was an Enid anthology. The band are not to my taste, but I would have given it 3 stars which I think is a balanced view (I gave it 2 because the CD was so poorly encoded and didn't match up with the tracklisting). It might be seen as a cop-out, but that way you avoid offending people who love their music as in no way did I find it inherently 'bad'. However, I tire of these frequently iconoclastic reviews which have a personal agenda, trashing a much beloved and long-considered-classic in order to boost egos and get a cheap laugh. Likewise, the idea that some prog albums are 'straight up crap' is an generalisation and it is certainly not factual that any album is automatically 'crap'. I could think of many albums which aren't too well regarded which I personally love, usually because they aren't always prog albums by prog bands.
I do tend to disregard many reviews of newly released albums here, though. How anybody can doll out 5 star reviews (some are being posted before the album has officially been released, for starters) in so short a time is beyond me. I tend to use other sites for new release reviews because, imho, SOME reviews (definitely not all) of new albums occasionally have the unbearable tone/flavour of the 'fanboy'.
I remember that Q list- what delighted me was that, for such an image conscious and self-proclaimed 'trendy' magazine, not one prog album was featured.
|
Posted By: cuncuna
Date Posted: April 26 2007 at 17:22
|
No, it is bad; I'm sure.
I'm not prolific regarding reviews. The few ones I've written are possibly unclear, it was a couple years ago and I had even less vocabulary that now. Anyway, it is rather impossible to be fair if you don't like something, but, leaving your preferences at rest for a minute sometimes allows you to see good things in something that you woulnd't normally listen. As for "review", listening to tons of music doesn't qualify anyone to make a meaning coment on the artistry. Fr that, one should gather a lot of info about art as a manifestation, in orther to be able to produce a concise analisis of the thing, and I won't. ------------- ¡Beware of the Bee! |
Posted By: cuncuna
Date Posted: April 26 2007 at 17:24
A Prog-chick from United Kingdom using Celia Cruz as avatar...  it must be time to go to bed for me, then... ------------- ¡Beware of the Bee! |
Posted By: Sir Hogweed
Date Posted: April 26 2007 at 19:05
|
I think all reviews should be honest. If a reviewer hates a classic album I would like him/her to be honest and subjective about it. That gives you, the reader, an indication about that reviewer's musical tastes and how they match with your own tastes. That way you know which reviews to ignore safely. The same goes for ultra-positive reviews on albums that still have to be recorded ;-)
|
Posted By: Bupie
Date Posted: April 27 2007 at 03:49
Right. I think the only important think is to be honest with our reviews ... which in my case means to listen to the record entirely several times before writing, especially when it is a record that I don't like.
I read many times that people should not review albums that they don't like but I don't get why. I join with Sean Trane on that point (which is not often the case with his reviews
) : you need bad reviews to get this site useful to listeners. The only thing is to keep a minimum respect for the bands because we should not forget that they create and we just criticise. |
Posted By: FruMp
Date Posted: April 27 2007 at 04:28
Definately prog related... -------------
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: April 27 2007 at 04:32
|
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: April 27 2007 at 05:36
I think you temporarily lost your sanity on that occasion!  ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: April 27 2007 at 06:08
Oops - you did it again.
"Transformed Man" is a work of genius though, and I don't mean in an accidentally and fashionably humourous-in-a-bad-way type of genius. It took me a while to get it because I was laughing too much at Shatner - then I realised that Shatner was laughing himself... Genius. ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 27 2007 at 06:29
^ so being "self-ironic" is automatically genius, but writing really clever hooklines and grooves isn't? I guess it lies in the ear of the belistener (woops, *that* was genius!).
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: tuxon
Date Posted: April 27 2007 at 06:58
|
Bon Jovi is a genius though, as is Shatner, we are surrounded by geniussis and we don't even recognise it. ------------- I'm always almost unlucky _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Id5ZcnjXSZaSMFMC Id5LM2q2jfqz3YxT |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: April 27 2007 at 07:04
Jon Bon Jovi. Yep, got that.
Genius.
 Yep, I understand the meaning.Jon Bon Jovi is a genius ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 27 2007 at 07:10
Face it ... we're all genius!
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: April 27 2007 at 07:15
I'm not! ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 27 2007 at 07:20
|
^ reminds me of the old Monty Python joke (from Life of Brian): "You're all different!" -> "I'm not!".
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: April 27 2007 at 07:25
Thats why I said it Mike! *needs smacks palm on head emoticon*------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Epitath
Date Posted: April 27 2007 at 07:38
|
not my cup of tea
------------- 
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: April 27 2007 at 07:47
|
Tea culpa? ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 27 2007 at 08:08
Ok, so I'm not *that* smart. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: April 27 2007 at 08:18
Yeah..YOU are Mike, after all, you did get the Monty Python connection. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Fassbinder
Date Posted: April 27 2007 at 08:19
  |
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: April 27 2007 at 08:30
I believe the correct quote is "You're all individuals".
 |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: April 27 2007 at 08:37
Smartarse! ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 27 2007 at 09:12
Yo ... Ness! Actually he first says "You're all individuals", then a little pause, then "You're all different". BTW: I'm really not smart ... I googled it! ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Yontar
Date Posted: April 27 2007 at 09:22
exactly... i wouldnt say bad though, i would just say its not your style or not quality material in your opinion. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 27 2007 at 09:52
There's a subtle difference. "I don't like the album" is less absolute than "the album is bad". The latter suggests that the album is bad by "objective" standards. But of course it also depends on the readers ... some may treat these two statements equally, while others might take offense. Personally I consider it nit-picking ... ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: April 28 2007 at 13:27
|
There are plenty of albums I like that I know aren't particularly wonderful music - and I wouldn't expect anyone to like them as much as I do - it's a personal thing.
I like the music of Didier Squiban - but it's nothing special, just second-rate coffee-bar piano music with a pallid jazz complexion and Gallic Celtic hints. Rather beige really - but nice background for when I don't want my ears to do any work.
But who's even heard of Didier Squiban outside of France?
But there are also plenty of albums I detest that I know are well-composed and very popular: If it's popular, then how can it be bad?
Who is one person to say an album is bad if 30,000,000 people disagree?
I'm thinking here of any Prince or U2 album you happen to name - I can't stand either, and don't think much of their compositional skills .
So obviously, they're bad...  ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: April 28 2007 at 16:24
who's even heard of him in France? ------------- let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: April 28 2007 at 17:19
|
------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 28 2007 at 19:10
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Rocktopus
Date Posted: April 28 2007 at 19:33
Come on, Chopper. Deep inside I know you don't believe that yourself. This PC attitude can't be healthy for your mental health. This Is not just an album I don't like. Its a really bad, no a crap album. An insult. I know I'm right, and everyone who disagrees with me are wrong.  ------------- Over land and under ashes In the sunlight, see - it flashes Find a fly and eat his eye But don't believe in me Don't believe in me Don't believe in me |
Posted By: tuxon
Date Posted: April 29 2007 at 00:30
And that's why I love these individuals ------------- I'm always almost unlucky _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Id5ZcnjXSZaSMFMC Id5LM2q2jfqz3YxT |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: April 29 2007 at 03:57
I disagree - I think the lone voice of dissent is like the child in the crowd who couldn't see the emporer's new clothes.
Without any statistics proving the probability of the usefulness, either could be right - but while sometimes the odd one seems to say "this is rubbish" for the hell of it, others seem able to point out weaknesses that you can't help but agree with - even though the majority don't spot them.
Only if it's helpful, or interesting, or serving a purpose, or we just want to.
Otherwise, no.
------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: April 29 2007 at 18:26
I must say that there are certain things that no matter what you say I just can't think of ONE good feature about them (reggaeton music) but hey, somebody could say me that that music helps them dance and get their partner excited, so even that music would be of some USE to somebody else, thus being good for that person's needs. There are millions and billions (yes) of people that hear music not because of chord progressions or form or time signatures or whatever, and even if we could categorize some of the music they hear as "bad", it's "bad" for us because it doesn't satisfy our needs, which in this case are very different than from other people. But let's say this: if somebody wants to dance (which I abhorr anyway ), what's good music, King Crimson or some simple, repetitive, "vulgar" some may say, dance music? Believe me, as much as we could try to explian that Fripp was a genius and that the harmonies are great, that music SUCKS for the purpose intended, hence it's BAD for that particular listener. As there's no "higher authority" in tastes and needs, a person could say that some music may be "simpler" or, hell, even "worse" than other kinds or pieces of music from a purely scientifical point of view. But music is just... music. It doesn't change the world, nor was it created to do it. So something that's really not THAT important in the big scope of things shouldn't be an excuse for arrogance or feelings of superiority. ...
it's just music... bad for you, good for me. Or viceversa.
And if you disagree with everything I said,
you just don't get it. ------------- 
|
Posted By: laplace
Date Posted: April 29 2007 at 18:37
good post, Rocktopus, I'm glad to see people making assertions like this instead of mincing around people's feelings. no wonder people get endlessly lost in genres of minute difference - they're not decisive enough to judge an album on its overt musical quality alone. ;) ------------- FREEDOM OF SPEECH GO TO HELL |
Posted By: erik neuteboom
Date Posted: April 29 2007 at 18:39
|
Music is a matter of taste is perhaps the most used cliche but it's true: The Beatles got a lot of positive reviews here on this site but if I propose to add The Stranglers and The Tubes in a thread, lots of progheads are very eager to nail this proposal while in my opinon The Stranglers and The Tubes made way more interesting progressive pop/rock in the late Seventies and the early Eighties than The Beatles ever made in their entire history |
.. but that's just my opinion, it's all so emotional and so personal, who is right and who is wrong 
Nonetheless, despite my doubts about The Beatles their popularity on this site, I rated all famous The Bealtes albums with at least 3 stars because I respect their music.Posted By: The T
Date Posted: April 29 2007 at 18:51
And what happens if those persons don't have the same superior musical knowledge that you have? Does that mean the music they hear is inferior just because of that?
-------------
|
Posted By: laplace
Date Posted: April 29 2007 at 18:54
Yes, and who cares about them anyway? NO COMPROMISES =P ------------- FREEDOM OF SPEECH GO TO HELL |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: April 29 2007 at 18:58
... Yes, who cares about them? They're only 80% of this site....... -------------
|
Posted By: timesignature
Date Posted: April 29 2007 at 18:59
|
An album is only bad when it is not an original idea and a knock off of someone else's work. ------------- i luv prog |
Posted By: laplace
Date Posted: April 29 2007 at 19:02
Precisely ;P every time someone asserts that Magma make better music than DJ Dance this ridiculous kerfuffle starts up again. it's regressive, and nothing ever gets said that could possibly burrow a fraction's length into anyone else's mind. so I've decided to be brusque and ignore the silly debate altogether. DJ Dance sucks ------------- FREEDOM OF SPEECH GO TO HELL |
Posted By: chamberry
Date Posted: April 29 2007 at 19:05
And even so a plagiarist work can be good. ------------- 
|
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: April 29 2007 at 19:06
Not a bad decision... but the debate is not silly in itself... It's just that it's un-winnable by any of the two sides.... -------------
|
Posted By: darkmatter
Date Posted: April 29 2007 at 19:06
Well, some bands take influences from other bands. I guess that wouldn't be an original idea, but that doesn't make the album automatically bad. |
Posted By: chamberry
Date Posted: April 29 2007 at 19:09
|
I can listen to Ligeti's Lux Aeterna and love it, but if I give it to one of my music teachers who listens to Mozart and such would hate it to death. It's all about taste. -------------
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: May 01 2007 at 09:00
|
^Can't say I'm a big fan of Ligeti either - Penderecki's more my thing when it comes to modern choral music; his St. Luke Passion is amazing - and as for the legendary "Threnody to the Victims of Hiroshima"...
...I also love Mozart ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: 1800iareyay
Date Posted: May 13 2007 at 18:04
| the problem with getting mad at low reviews for "classics" is that it pigeon-holes perceived callsics as well as the great misses (Love Beach being the album I love to hate). I don't mind a one star review for CTTE but I hate when the review is stuff like "this r the worst tihng ive evar heared." I understand English is not everyone's first language, but nearly all of these gramatically atrocious and pointless reviews come from US and UK reviewers while those who might actually have an excuse post coherent opinions. |
Posted By: debrewguy
Date Posted: May 17 2007 at 18:01
Maybe their grasp of grammar is as good as their understanding of good music. I believe in the guidelines it does mention to verify spelling and such as it may impair the impact of the review. For me, if I think the reviewer is english, I just see it as an easy way to dismiss the rating. I mean, unless I know that their spell check isnt woking porply. Bt tat iz kainda inposibel. ------------- "Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case. |