Trolls scare a band from PA

Dean wrote: thellama73 wrote: I agree that if a band can recognize flaws and know how to fix them, they should do so. I don't think a lack of flaws is enough to warrant five stars though, no do I think the existence of flaws precludes a five star rating. The first Boston album doesn't have any flaws to my ears, but it's not a five star record because it doesn't do much the absolutely blows me away. Rush's 2112 is riddled with flaws, but I still think it's a five star album. And I agree, I do not think a perfect album is enough to warrant five stars and moreover I don't expect the whole world to award 5-stars to a perfect album either - my comment was whether the band thought that their latest album deserved 5-stars. I think most artists are duly proud of what they've just produced are regardless of whether the rest of the world regard it as an actual bonefide masterpiece - Of course we tend to be over-critical of our own works but that does not stop us thinking that it deserves 5-stars in our estimation - there is a thin line between being humble and false modesty.

I agree that if a band can recognize flaws and know how to fix them, they should do so. I don't think a lack of flaws is enough to warrant five stars though, no do I think the existence of flaws precludes a five star rating. The first Boston album doesn't have any flaws to my ears, but it's not a five star record because it doesn't do much the absolutely blows me away. Rush's 2112 is riddled with flaws, but I still think it's a five star album.

Dean wrote: Epignosis wrote: Dean wrote: thellama73 wrote: I just think the contention that every one is capable of producing a five star album if they put enough time and effort into it is wrong. You keep saying that if an artist rates his own album below five stars it means it's unfinished or he could have done better. In most cases, no matter how many years you spend making something it is not going to have that magic that sets five star albums apart from ones that are just very good. I don't think I am saying that at all (I'm sure I'm not and I'm sure I haven't). I'm saying that if an artist can recognise faults in his work then he should fix them - I don't like the "Oh, it'll do" philosophy even if it seems to be the prevelant philosophy just about everywhere now (this was the central point of my Please Self-Release Me, Let me Go blog) - for me, "it's good enough", is not good enough therefore it's not finished - it's not a question of doing it better, but doing it right. I'm not talking about that indefinable and wholly subjective magic you speak of, but about an artist knowning that something has flaws and releasing it anyway. That's how I read this. Dean wrote: Iván has a very valid point - if a band does not think their lastest album is a masterpiece then why bother releasing it? I recall making a point similar to this in a blog about self-released albums - if a band cannot make an effort to do the best they can then why should I expend any energy in listening to it.   But then you say "best they can," and I think that is not synonymous with thinking one's work is a masterpiece. Yes, and sometimes taking everything people say as being literal gets exceedingly tiresome, especially when the hyperbole of common informal usage is tempered by further explanation. A forum is conversation al English, not a bleedin' essay.

Yes, and you'll recall that I got reamed not too long ago in another thread because my wording wasn't right on the "money." 

Dean wrote: thellama73 wrote: I just think the contention that every one is capable of producing a five star album if they put enough time and effort into it is wrong. You keep saying that if an artist rates his own album below five stars it means it's unfinished or he could have done better. In most cases, no matter how many years you spend making something it is not going to have that magic that sets five star albums apart from ones that are just very good. I don't think I am saying that at all (I'm sure I'm not and I'm sure I haven't). I'm saying that if an artist can recognise faults in his work then he should fix them - I don't like the "Oh, it'll do" philosophy even if it seems to be the prevelant philosophy just about everywhere now (this was the central point of my Please Self-Release Me, Let me Go blog) - for me, "it's good enough", is not good enough therefore it's not finished - it's not a question of doing it better, but doing it right. I'm not talking about that indefinable and wholly subjective magic you speak of, but about an artist knowning that something has flaws and releasing it anyway.

That's how I read this.

Dean wrote: Iván has a very valid point - if a band does not think their lastest album is a masterpiece then why bother releasing it? I recall making a point similar to this in a blog about self-released albums - if a band cannot make an effort to do the best they can then why should I expend any energy in listening to it.

But then you say "best they can," and I think that is not synonymous with thinking one's work is a masterpiece.

thellama73 wrote: I just think the contention that every one is capable of producing a five star album if they put enough time and effort into it is wrong. You keep saying that if an artist rates his own album below five stars it means it's unfinished or he could have done better. In most cases, no matter how many years you spend making something it is not going to have that magic that sets five star albums apart from ones that are just very good.

I don't think I am saying that at all (I'm sure I'm not and I'm sure I haven't). I'm saying that if an artist can recognise faults in his work then he should fix them - I don't like the "Oh, it'll do" philosophy even if it seems to be the prevelant philosophy just about everywhere now (this was the central point of my Please Self-Release Me, Let me Go blog) - for me, "it's good enough", is not good enough therefore it's not finished - it's not a question of doing it better, but doing it right. I'm not talking about that indefinable and wholly subjective magic you speak of, but about an artist knowning that something has flaws and releasing it anyway.

Edited by Dean - November 14 2012 at 19:18

Artists don't hear their music like others do. Their music is something special and sacred, practically an extension of themselves. So it doesn't matter how good the artist "thinks" they did or not.

^I agree with that for the most part. And many people criticize themselves more harshly than their peers may.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: IMHO if an artist rates his own album with lets say 3 stars is like saying:   "I could have done a better job"   If the own artist believes this...Why should I buy this album?

Nobody says you should.

Epignosis wrote: 1. The band has a deadline with a record label. 2. The material is meant to simply entertain and not satisfy some artistic measure of achievement. 3. The band are satisfied enough. 4. Some members of the band think its perfect, while others do not. 5. Screwing with something too much can actually make it worse.

I would add 7. You don't think you can do any better, but you still don't think it's a five star record.

I bet if you asked most musicians that we consider legendary, they would not rate their own music as highly as those artists that came before and inspired them.

Epignosis wrote: I think the primary flaw here lies in an understanding of "masterpiece."  If people would stop using terms like "objective review," we might have a bit more honesty.  There is no "objective masterpiece."  The word "masterpiece" is and always shall be a subjective term.  Even if we're talking about the classical definition, that just means it's a collective opinion.  An artist's masterpiece could theoretically change over the decades as new critics come into play. But in our little context, we (mis?)use "masterpiece" to refer to any album we deem worthy of our highest honor.  I have never had a problem with that.  If the verbiage needs to be changed, fine (I would not advocate only allowing one five star per artist).  I disagree with some of the Pink Floyd pieces you mentioned being five star when reworked.  You love PF- I can make the same claim about Kansas who went through three incarnations and even have two different lineups playing some of the same material.  But you will no doubt disagree and say "Incomudro" or "Greek Structure Sunbeam" are not five star songs. I do take umbrage at those who use ones and fives in a binary way.  By the way, I did not view your comments as a criticism.

Edited by Dean - November 14 2012 at 03:11