Two opinions

Sorry for gettin yer panties in a bunch maani. My ears picked out a lot of Hatfield, Softs, and KC in the jazzy parts of the Tangent. Maybe I was wrong. You have my sincere apoloigies. Your reviews are inciteful and persuasive.

As far as the "boring" issue, I've noticed quite a few reviews from one person who seems to "over use" that description and not just to music you deem (my music). Most of the reviews I read are more along the lines of music I haven't heard and it doesn't serve the reading to see the label "boring" used quite sooooo much. Ambient sounds and textures can be fascinating, not exactly boring.    

Anyway, enough of this chatter, let's rock!!!

Danbo:

Since I am the one who uses the word "jazzy" in my review of The Tangent, I must assume your comments are directed at me.  Note that I take no personal offense, so what I am about to say is given in simple response.

Peter's most recent comment is a good preface here.  He notes that he is not a musician, and tends to focus more heavily on the lyrics.  I am slightly opposite; though my knowledge of English and lyrics is pretty good, I am a musician who has been trained since age 5: I had over 14 years of continuous music theory, as well as piano, drums and vocal instruction for over 15 years each.  Thus, I approach most of my reviewing from a fairly "critical" music angle.  That said, my personal style has always been to try to find something (sometimes anything) good to say, even if I don't like an album as a whole.

Re The Tangent, I stand by my position re its "jazziness" for the following reason.  First, while I will admit I am not an expert on the Canterbury scene,  neither am I a novice regarding it.  And I know and understand the influences on it.  However, there is a huge difference in the type of "jazz" influence in the Canterbury genre and the type of "jazz" I am talking about in my review.  I am using a much "stricter" definition of the term "jazz," vis-a-vis my knowledge of jazz history and some of the "lines" between jazz and rock (a debate which may deserve another thread, but should probably not be undertaken here).  The "jazz" influence on The Tangent's album is far more akin to "true" jazz - as that term is understood by academics, jazz historians and experts - than to the type of "jazziness" one finds in some Canterbury scene music.  I can assure you that if my college jazz professor (John Lewis, pianist and composer for the Modern Jazz Quartet) heard The Tangent, he would make the same comment.  As would my ethnomusicology professor.

I apologize if all of this sounds hopelessly "erudite."  However, this is "where I come from" as a musician and music listener (and reviewer).  I cannot "help" hearing music the way I do - in a "historical" and "academic" (i.e., based in music theory, composition, and arrangement) context.  It is certainly not the only way that I listen (or the only criterion I use), but it is an important one.

As for "not asking advice from a proctologist for a dental problem," I know you were being tongue-in-cheek (though I realize that your underlying sentiment was sincere), but the parallel is not quite the same.  As a matter of fact, I believe the administrators had something like this in mind, at least basically.  Before I was brought on board as an "official" reviewer, I was asked which genres I was most familiar with.  I noted "roots" prog (the "seminal" bands), symphonic prog and Italian symphonic prog.  Although they did not state so, when I was made an "official" reviewer, I made the assumption that these were the areas that they expected me to "focus" on (though not, perhaps, to the exclusion of all others).  And, at first, I did: my first reviews were on "classic" albums by Floyd, Crimson, Genesis, Gentle Giant, Yes, and Italian prog bands like Deus ex Machina and Il Balletto di Bronzo.  In fact, Max always included at least one (and often more than one) Italian prog album in the "downloads" that "official" reviewers are provided on occasion, and I assumed that this was so that I had something within my immediate purview to review.

However, as one who believes he is reasonably knowledgeable about (and very much "into") music - and particularly progressive rock - I did not see why I should be limited to what I listen to or review.  Indeed, you will find that, in my reviews of albums by bands whose oeuvres I am not familiar with, I always state that as a caveat: that I am not familiar with their oeuvre, and am therefore taking that particular album "on its own merits."

I must agree with Corbet that some - perhaps even many - people may be "annoyed" at some "official" reviewers (and others) largely because those reviewers "trashed" something they really like (or love).  (I'm not saying you're one of those people.)  While I think Peter and Corbet would agree that not every "official" reviewer writes cogent reviews (or is even necessarily a good writer), I believe - from what I have seen - that most of us make an attempt to be honest and, if possible, incisive, based on our knowledge of music or prog or a particular group or some other factor, or some combination of factors.  Corbet points to my near-pan of Yes' "Relayer" as an example of my willingness to "trash" something that I know that many, many people like, love, even revere.  I trust that no one thinks that I did this simply to "piss people off."  That's not my style - or, as far as I can tell, the "style" of any other "official" reviewer.  In the case of "Relayer," I felt that I was on extremely solid ground based on (i) my deep knowledge of Yes' entire oeuvre, and (ii) my "approach," as noted above (i.e., from the perspective of a "trained" musical ear).  However, as Corbet and others note, no matter how much "foundation" I had for my review, it nevertheless must ultimately be seen as "subjective."

In the end, I believe it would be a mistake for the administrators to limit any reviewer's "area."  Anyone and everyone should be free to review any album they listen to, if they are moved to do so.  And, as Corbet notes, if they trash an album that someone else loves, that someone else simply has to accept that the reviewer does not share their views and/or tastes.  It's not personal.

Finally, I again urge you - or anyone - to let Max know (either publicly or privately) if any of the "official" reviewers are truly "out of line" in any regard.  Again, not simply because you disagree with their tastes, but because their reviews are uninformative, unhelpful, capricious, unintelligible, poorly written, or any combination of those.  Because, as I stated earlier, the "official" reviewers are essentially "representatives" of the site, and thus should - indeed, must - be held to a higher standard if they are going to represent the site in the best light possible for all those who visit it.

I love this site, I enjoy and respect all of you, and I want nothing more than to represent this site in a good light, making whatever contributions I can via reviews, and participation in these threads.

Peace.

Would it be too much ask the POWERS THAT BE, at Progarchives, to have reviewers handle specific genres they are familiar with, rather than all styles.

Surely one would not ask advice from a Proctologist for a dental problem. Would you?  

 Thanks for the clarification and positive feedback, Danbo.

Yes, some "official" reviews leave much to be desired re details.

(We won't even mention the quality/coherence of the writing itself!)

I'm not a musician, so when I review I tend to draw comparisons with other, more-familiar music, and (as an English teacher and life-long lover of language) to focus heavily on the lyrics. I may not be able to tell, for example, if a singer is off key, but could compare the singing to "the caterwauling of an aged, inebriated, laryngitis-afflicted tomcat in heat," or, as I read in a Rush review back in the 70s, to the scream of "a rat caught in a wringer washer." Ha!

All:

First, Corbet's comments are well taken (given?).  However, at the risk of seeming "snooty," if the comment some of your friends made about Holdsworth was "he's not that fast," then not only are their criteria misprioritized, but they are clearly not musically "knowledgeable."  By that I mean - and this was my original intent re my comment in this regard - that anyone with sufficient musical "training" (i.e., real knowledge of music theory, composition, technique, etc.) would agree on the "objective" merits of a particular musician or singer: i.e., there would be little or no argument about that person's "abilities."  I maintain this viewpoint.

Second, re Danbo's comments, I feel that I must concur with much of Peter's reply - not because I feel that I have any "obligation" to support him as a "colleague" - but because he makes good points.

I am not, and never was, a "professional" reviewer.  Like Peter, I stumbled upon this site and was - for reasons that were never expressed to me (or, I'm betting, to many, most or all of the "prog reviewers") chosen by the administrators to be an "official" reviewer.  I consider it an honor, and try my best to provide cogent, interesting, informative, insightful and/or well-written reviews.  If and when I "fail," it is a personal failure, and I take full "blame" for that failure.  If and when I succeed, I am happy to have done so, and to have been a good "representative" for the site.

Like Peter, I believe that the administrators of the site would like to know - indeed, would very much appreciate knowing - which "official" reviewers are posting "drivel," and, perhaps more importantly, whose reviews (or which reviews) may be deemed "uneven" or just plain "bad" - not because you disagree with them, but because either the writing is bad, or the "approach" is unhelpful or "put-offish."  After all, every "official" reviewer is essentially an official "representative" of the site - not only for all the regular visitors, but also for the thousands of others who visit on occasion.  Thus, if our writing is unhelpful, uninformative, uninteresting, badly written, or otherwise "bad," we are not representing the site correctly, and we should be "chastised."

Also, like Peter, I am totally open to constructive criticism: in fact, I welcome it whole-heartedly: after all, how am I to "grow" and "progress" (...) as a reviewer if I am not aware that my reviews are either unhelpful or badly written?

Finally, it occurs to me that perhaps some of you would like to say something in this regard, but feel uncomfortable doing so "in public."  If so, you can always write a "private message" to Max and share your views about any of the "official" reviewers.  However, if you are not "shy," I, for one, would not feel personally attacked if someone felt strongly about commenting on my reviewing style, approach, or writing - as long as your comments are not offered as personal attack.

All comments or discussion in this regard is welcome.

Peace.

danbo wrote: Joren wrote: You see? That's what I mean! So: IS THERE ANYONE OUT THERE WHO CAN DEFINE GOOD MUSIC? Unfortunately, No. Just look at some of the drivel posted by some PROFESSIONAL REVIEWERS. Not all know there stuff and no two really agree on anything but high water marks. Even then it's an arguement over Moraz, Wakeman, Emerson and whoever........ Make up your OWN mind. Keep the good stuff, discard the rest.

 Danbo, I feel moved to reply to that. With the possible exception of the "Special Collaborators," none of us (to my knowledge) are "professional" writers or reviewers. The only "payment" we receive for our reviews is in the form of downloads of (very limited numbers of) the CDs listed, so that we might review them. I myself simply stumbled upon this site, and offered my services. I guess that the site's owners liked my writing enough to give me a "job" here, but this is just a hobby for people like Maani, Corbet and I.

Re the "drivel posted by some" of the site's reviewers, I would appreciate more detail. If you mean that sometimes you strongly disagree with a reviewer's opinion, that's to be expected, as one's reaction to art is a personal thing.

If, however, you are referring to the, shall we say, uneven quality of the writing done by the Archives' reviewers, I think that such remarks could be truly valuable if they were more specific in nature (i.e., whose writing, which review, and what section?), and offered in the form of constructive criticism. I for one am open to suggestions re how to improve my writing, and I know from experience that Max and Ron welcome input as to ways to improve the Archives.

Re our seeming inability to "agree on anything but high water marks," why should we, as independent music fans (who have never even met each other) be expected to agree on a piece of music any more than anyone else? I still think that it can be informative and interesting to hear more than one opinion on a disc/band, but agree that in the end you simply have to decide for yourself. We merely try to help you decide, and provoke interest in the albums we review. 

Sincerely and respectfully,

Peter

Inexplicably, even the objective appraisal of a musician's technical ability can be difficult to establish among varying listeners.  For example, I've played Holdsworth for a few acquaintances whom I knew had an interest in guitar, and some of the responses bewildered me.  Setting aside the issue of whether anyone actually enjoyed the music, on a "respect for ability" level, I've witnessed reactions such as "He's not that fast."  Even if you don't care for what fans would ascribe as Holdsworth's finer attributes (emotion, lyricism, harmonic genius, etc.), I always assumed it was an "objective" reality that the guy can play damned fast!  Anyway, food for thought.

And swmyg0d0fmusic, regarding my previous post on this topic -- I was kidding!  I guess it wasn't as obvious as I thought it was.  I need to start using those smiley things...

Corbet

Joren wrote: You see? That's what I mean! So: IS THERE ANYONE OUT THERE WHO CAN DEFINE GOOD MUSIC?

Unfortunately, No. Just look at some of the drivel posted by some PROFESSIONAL REVIEWERS. Not all know there stuff and no two really agree on anything but high water marks. Even then it's an arguement over Moraz, Wakeman, Emerson and whoever........

Make up your OWN mind. Keep the good stuff, discard the rest.  

The point is, everyone has their own opinion on what they like, but at the same time, the respect for the person or bands abilities. Some stuff you "grow" to love and some..........NOT.

To each his own.