Reviews discussion

Pitifully bad guitarist? Well, this is a textbook case of how some people can mistake opinion for fact.... It is perfectly OK in my book to say that a very technically gifted musician does nothing for you, but to call someone like McLaughlin a hack is just a little bit far-fetched (and that's an understatement).

Easy Money wrote: There are a fair number of educated music lovers out there who don't care for McLaughlin's playing, especially fans of 'old school' jazz playing, but this person, and I mean no disrespect to him as a person, seems very ignorant about music. Unfortunately there are other reviews on this site that are like this. I don't know what can be done on a democratic DIY site like this. Everyone's opinion counts, even those who don't know what they are talking about.

Could it be said that being "ignorant" of the accepted dogma frees a person to see things in a clearer manner ?
In other words, if I don't have a drop of musical theory or education, I might just rate a song on the basis of whether I like it or not, instead of raving about the times signatures, technique, influences, genres, start status, intellectual goal , blah blah blah.
For my own opinion of music should based on whether or not I like it, not what a textbook or theory tells me.

^ agreed... as I said yesterday.. in the wrong context to someone who reported a review.  The site only clamps down on offensive, improper, or reviews that don't meet the 'standards' of the site.  It doesn't judge based on good or bad reviews.  That is up to the individual reader... if someone reads that Torman Mass review and goes out and buys it (for example) based on it. .the fool gets what they deserve.  And if that review above.. calling McLaughlin a hack...   it comes back to a simple PA's axiom.. we all the right here to be stupid.. just never expect to be taken seriously.

I just found this old post buried in an ancient thread.  Bravo Sean.  This post should be PM'd to every new member that joins the site....

Sean Trane Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Special Collaborator Prog-Folk Specialist Joined: 29 April 2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 8524

Post Options Post Reply Quote Sean Trane Report Post    Quote  Reply Posted: 10 June 2005 at 09:05

Actually , this has been a discussion since day one, but the general feeling is that an album should first be compared to the rest of the artist's catalogue and in general terms against all other prog albums , certainly by genre but the whole of prog also. This would seem logical in sense of perspective and for not mis-leading others. Most ProgReviewers (IMHO) have that more or less in mind when choosing a rating. However the casual reviewers do not seem to follow any rules and may not be aware of this because clear guidelines are not set and I believe because the admins choose to keep it so! Gnosis2000 is a closed circle of reviewers with strict guidelines for rating (on a almost linear scale of 15) and this is why I consider them the safest rating website around . Written review section is rather thin and divided in two sections. A new album cannot receive more than 11 out of 15 until a few months after its release. This given on the Archives, Octavarium would not get more than 4* because it is new and reviews are based on enthusiasm instead of clear tought-over opinions. I believe I am not the only one thinking so! I think historically important album , such as The Nice's debut or Marillion's script should get even a higher rating just because they were influential album. A bit like Beach Boys 's Pet Sounds (not listed) influenced a lot of album and pushed the Beatles to outdo them with Sergeant Pepper's, some prog albums managed to be highly influential but have not been heard by many but the artist who based their works on those.  But in general , five stars album are just too many , although before the latest DT album , the over-rating was less than it used to. IMHO, 5* rating should only concern the top 5% of your albums, the rest of those you love being on the 4* status. remember that 3* is still a very good rating (some people would consider disgraceful to rate an album they like 3* , but this is still good but non-essential meaning that there are better albums to investigate both for a given artist but in the genre also). Two star rating means average (therefore for fans only)and normally average would concern some 50% of all prog albums around.

Trane wrote: Actually , this has been a discussion since day one, but the general feeling is that an album should first be compared to the rest of the artist's catalogue and in general terms against all other prog albums , certainly by genre but the whole of prog also. This would seem logical in sense of perspective and for not mis-leading others. Most ProgReviewers (IMHO) have that more or less in mind when choosing a rating. Not a reviewer myself, and I've never considered an album's rating comparatively with their other works (or other pieces in general. This is partly because I'm never going to hear everything before I rate an album (e.g. I get album X - Group 1 and albums Y and Z - group 2. I like albums X and Z equally, but I think album Y is better. Should I rate album Z (just as good as X) lower because I've heard Y. I do tend to put in whether I think an album is a good introduction or representative of a band, though. Alternatively, I have two equally liked albums. One is the low point of a very good artist, the other the high point of a bad artist. Do I rate them differently? Not really saying don't use comparative reviewing in general, but it's unfair to give a band a masterpiece limit or judge it against its own output with the ratings. As Peter keeps saying, it's art. You can have both CTTE and Tales From Topographic Oceans. However the casual reviewers do not seem to follow any rules and may not be aware of this because clear guidelines are not set and I believe because the admins choose to keep it so! Gnosis2000 is a closed circle of reviewers with strict guidelines for rating (on a almost linear scale of 15) and this is why I consider them the safest rating website around . Written review section is rather thin and divided in two sections. A new album cannot receive more than 11 out of 15 until a few months after its release. This given on the Archives, Octavarium would not get more than 4* because it is new and reviews are based on enthusiasm instead of clear tought-over opinions. I believe I am not the only one thinking so! That is definitely interesting, even if it would make it harder to differentiate the quality of new releases. If I think something is a masterpiece, then I'll have to wait, not support it and not give it publicity, or give it the same press as I would an album I simply thought was very good. And, though it's more common, it's no worse than not giving a classic proper listening time. Also, our most-voted-for album of the week would always end up being a classic, which does sort of remove the point of that feature. I think historically important album , such as The Nice's debut or Marillion's script should get even a higher rating just because they were influential album. A bit like Beach Boys 's Pet Sounds (not listed) influenced a lot of album and pushed the Beatles to outdo them with Sergeant Pepper's, some prog albums managed to be highly influential but have not been heard by many but the artist who based their works on those. I disagree. Script is left trailing in the dust by Clutching At Straws, for example. Just because it was popular at the time doesn't make it any better for a listener now. Also, that's a little unfair on modern albums, whose influence cannot yet be measured. Besides which, if you want to talk about influence, you've got the review to do that. But in general , five stars album are just too many , although before the latest DT album , the over-rating was less than it used to. IMHO, 5* rating should only concern the top 5% of your albums, the rest of those you love being on the 4* status. remember that 3* is still a very good rating (some people would consider disgraceful to rate an album they like 3* , but this is still good but non-essential meaning that there are better albums to investigate both for a given artist but in the genre also). I have to admit that I'm an overly generous reviewer sometimes, and I should work on tightening up my ratings a little. Unfortunately, it's sometimes difficult to decide on a rating. I think Caress of Steel is far from the best Rush album, for the average listener, but it's definitely my favourite, and will almost-certainly remain my favourite Rush album even when I pad out my collection. Two star rating means average (therefore for fans only)and normally average would concern some 50% of all prog albums around. I expect to like, at least in some notable parts, the 'average' album I get. A dilemma, if the rating system says 'poor', am I going to put an album I mostly enjoy listening to, like Works 2, in there (even if I think it's only really for a fan)?

Anyway, fair enough, in general, but the PA rating system is vague enough that I accept that people are going to judge albums with different levels of harshness. I'm an essentially generous rater, unlike, say, Lappy. As long as this is applied consistently, and backed up with a decent review, I don't see the problem.

Edited by TGM: Orb - May 25 2008 at 17:34

I say we let the elite dictate our tastes, so as to free us proles for cruder purposes. Like genuflecting at the feet of a person whose tastes may not match mine, whose enthusiasm for a song/album/band/genre, or lack thereof ,  may colour their review just as much as a supposedly lesser qualified music fan.
Please, some reviewers do carry more weight with some of us because we have come to see similarities in what we like. I've read reviews on Gnosis. Many are well written. But there are more than a few of my favourite groups that I would never have gotten into if I took their word as being "it" . The same goes for some groups that enjoy almost idolized status that really is not shared by most average listeners.
My point is that the review itself is what is important. Yes, the more experienced & knowledgeable figures here (reviewers,collabs,admin) carry more heft. But I've discovered a few groups due to "neophyte" music fans because of their enthusiasm for the band, and their ability to give me a description that moves me to go out & get the album.
Example  - Irish Coffee & May Blitz : frankly out of all these two groups have put out, only May Blitz comes up with two songs I like. Both highly rated by some of PA's "leaders". Now check out Night Sun's Mournin'. Unless there's been one lately, the reviews are from us plebes. And said reviews are why I went out & got the album, and find it to be one of the best "discoveries" that I've made through PA.
So please, it is easy to generalize that because a certain number of non-experts write inane or poor reviews that they should be completely disregarded. But make the effort, and I'm sure you can find some PA reviewers/collabs/admin et al that have written or generally write reviews that are pure tripe, or worse, go into so much useless detail that you have to read it a number of times just to see if an actual opinion ( I like it because, or I don't like it)has been expressed instead of a series of "facts", comparisons, and best of all "music theory.
Let the people speak. If you choose to disregard certain groups, feel free to do so. Allow the rest of us, or should I say, at least show a bit of respect for the possibility that the rest of can intelligently do the same (i.e. separate the wheat from the chaff). After all, we are ALL music fans with a certain enthusiasm for prog music, whatever our individual definition of it might be.

P.S. My anger is not due to the lack of due respect and adulation not conferred upon Klaatu & Ange. It is because neither of them is in a top 100.

debrewguy wrote: I say we let the elite dictate our tastes, so as to free us proles for cruder purposes. Like genuflecting at the feet of a person whose tastes may not match mine, whose enthusiasm for a song/album/band/genre, or lack thereof , may colour their review just as much as a supposedly lesser qualified music fan.Please, some reviewers do carry more weight with some of us because we have come to see similarities in what we like. I've read reviews on Gnosis. Many are well written. But there are more than a few of my favourite groups that I would never have gotten into if I took their word as being "it" . The same goes for some groups that enjoy almost idolized status that really is not shared by most average listeners.My point is that the review itself is what is important. Yes, the more experienced & knowledgeable figures here (reviewers,collabs,admin) carry more heft. But I've discovered a few groups due to "neophyte" music fans because of their enthusiasm for the band, and their ability to give me a description that moves me to go out & get the album. Example - Irish Coffee & May Blitz : frankly out of all these two groups have put out, only May Blitz comes up with two songs I like. Both highly rated by some of PA's "leaders". Now check out Night Sun's Mournin'. Unless there's been one lately, the reviews are from us plebes. And said reviews are why I went out & got the album, and find it to be one of the best "discoveries" that I've made through PA.So please, it is easy to generalize that because a certain number of non-experts write inane or poor reviews that they should be completely disregarded. But make the effort, and I'm sure you can find some PA reviewers/collabs/admin et al that have written or generally write reviews that are pure tripe, or worse, go into so much useless detail that you have to read it a number of times just to see if an actual opinion ( I like it because, or I don't like it)has been expressed instead of a series of "facts", comparisons, and best of all "music theory. Let the people speak. If you choose to disregard certain groups, feel free to do so. Allow the rest of us, or should I say, at least show a bit of respect for the possibility that the rest of can intelligently do the same (i.e. separate the wheat from the chaff). After all, we are ALL music fans with a certain enthusiasm for prog music, whatever our individual definition of it might be. P.S. My anger is not due to the lack of due respect and adulation not conferred upon Klaatu & Ange. It is because neither of them is in a top 100.

That's true. and obvious ;P you could have reviewed them both in the time you spent writing this =P

PS, coming from the writer of the infamous Residents "perhaps this'll work for you if you like drugs", this indictment of actual prog reviewers only has so much sway value

debrewguy wrote: laplace wrote: debrewguy wrote: I say we let the elite dictate our tastes, so as to free us proles for cruder purposes. Like genuflecting at the feet of a person whose tastes may not match mine, whose enthusiasm for a song/album/band/genre, or lack thereof , may colour their review just as much as a supposedly lesser qualified music fan.Please, some reviewers do carry more weight with some of us because we have come to see similarities in what we like. I've read reviews on Gnosis. Many are well written. But there are more than a few of my favourite groups that I would never have gotten into if I took their word as being "it" . The same goes for some groups that enjoy almost idolized status that really is not shared by most average listeners.My point is that the review itself is what is important. Yes, the more experienced & knowledgeable figures here (reviewers,collabs,admin) carry more heft. But I've discovered a few groups due to "neophyte" music fans because of their enthusiasm for the band, and their ability to give me a description that moves me to go out & get the album. Example - Irish Coffee & May Blitz : frankly out of all these two groups have put out, only May Blitz comes up with two songs I like. Both highly rated by some of PA's "leaders". Now check out Night Sun's Mournin'. Unless there's been one lately, the reviews are from us plebes. And said reviews are why I went out & got the album, and find it to be one of the best "discoveries" that I've made through PA.So please, it is easy to generalize that because a certain number of non-experts write inane or poor reviews that they should be completely disregarded. But make the effort, and I'm sure you can find some PA reviewers/collabs/admin et al that have written or generally write reviews that are pure tripe, or worse, go into so much useless detail that you have to read it a number of times just to see if an actual opinion ( I like it because, or I don't like it)has been expressed instead of a series of "facts", comparisons, and best of all "music theory. Let the people speak. If you choose to disregard certain groups, feel free to do so. Allow the rest of us, or should I say, at least show a bit of respect for the possibility that the rest of can intelligently do the same (i.e. separate the wheat from the chaff). After all, we are ALL music fans with a certain enthusiasm for prog music, whatever our individual definition of it might be. P.S. My anger is not due to the lack of due respect and adulation not conferred upon Klaatu & Ange. It is because neither of them is in a top 100. That's true. and obvious ;P you could have reviewed them both in the time you spent writing this =P DB - I did. Under my previous pseudonym - Pantacruelgruel (i think they listed my old email address when I asked to strike that name out) PS, coming from the writer of the infamous Residents "perhaps this'll work for you if you like drugs", this indictment of actual prog reviewers only has so much sway value DB - that comment on my part was a bit much. I do wish I had found a way to better express my opinion. But I did find it to be like watching Devo videos slowed down to a molasses pouring type speed. I am still curious about their other recorded work, due to the reputation they have, and the fact that they've managed to keep it going tis far. But the video in question does make me wonder about the state of mind of the creators at the time of filming.

DB once more - Actually just thought up a good remark re : the Residents DVD. It is a line from a recent Rex Murphy (CBC) column - to paraphrase - why bother watching this DVD when there are surely gallons of wet paint drying out there in the world ...

On a more positive note, I just saw

This review from Chicapah

Which was truly excellent and interesting. I'm not the greatest fan of that album, or at least haven't been, but feel compelled to give it another listen with that in mind. Great review

Easy Money wrote: Someone named MrMan 2000 is filling the front page with Queensryche reviews. It makes us look like ... well you know.

Like the SUi generis suite of overviews ? It's not unusual to see a reviewer post a series in one bunch. That this person is concentrating on Queensryche is maybe just an indication as to his starting point, after which he/she may go on to other groups.