Reviews discussion

Rogerthat: I'm sorry that I can't respond to your points really at the moment; too many distractions.  I would be sparing with the five stars.  I love Scheherazade... (my favourite Renaissance album being Live at Carnegie Hall), but could not give it five stars due to the lack of originality (best themes lifted from other greater composers).  Of course the use of themes from academic music in Prog is not uncommon (obviously ELP did it, Focus did it, and others, and often bands did not credit the composers).  One problem I have with Renaissance though is that, reportedly, they haven't always properly credited other composer's they've borrowed from.  When I first got into them I couldn't help but notice that I'd heard several of the more amazing piano pieces before.

Their albums are chock full, of references to other composers.  Now it may be that they had no intention of not citing their musical sources (likely it was an omission that is not attributable to them), but a good amount of their best themes were composed by others greater than they....  So they lose some marks due to their lack of originality.  Now many great Prog artists explored themes by other composers, but with Renaissance they incorporated it into their songs too note-for-note.  The pianist sure can play!

For instance, the wonderful "Running Hard" piano intro is from the lesser-known 20th Century composer Jehain Alain...  Now of course Scheherazade... deliberately references Rimsky-Korsakov, but too much they base themes on others work for me (which makes them hacks to an extent, but talented ones, especially the pianist.  I'm not altogether keen on Haslam's voice. I prefer the more operatic voices, as well as quirkier ones such as Dagmar Krause).

If we had a more detailed rating system (as iI mention in an earlier post), I would have originality as one explicit factor.

Bob: As I said, Gatot's reviews were not the best examples, but they were ones that I recalled, particularly because of his lines, " I still don’t get the idea what the band is trying to do, musically" (of course I don't want to take it out of context), "So, I conclude that this is for those collectors who appreciate the uniqueness of this album", "The music is as complex and misunderstood as previous album", "I’d rather listen to other kind of prog music and leave this album to those of you who like complexity and do not think melody as important part of music."  I was using it to illustrate what I meant by "getting" the music and the understanding the compositional intent.  It also relates to what I said about the inconsistency of ratings amongst collabs (amongst collabs, he is in the minority).  Perhaps if we adopted a different rating system, as I suggested, which all collabs agreed on, we might find more consistency.

Edited by Logan - October 05 2008 at 13:27

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Finnforest wrote: People who like to spend alot of time listening before writing are not "reviewing for real?"   Seriously?   Of course it would be better to listen an album 100times before reviewing it, but I would ask you something:   How many albums have you heard more than 20 or 30 times in your life?  LOTS, many many, but I might be alot older than you, and I can listen to CDs on the job.    In my case, very few because:   I work an average of 10 hours Sleep an average of 6 hour Eat more or less 1 hour. Running 1.5 miles and bath time 1 more hour Family time, at least 3 hours This leaves me 3 hours to be in Internet and listen music. I have more than 1,000 CD's and 200 DVD's (Not counting my 2,000 LPs and several hours in cassettes and MP3 legally bought), with an average of 60  minutes each means that I would need 24,000 days (of three hours) to listen all my complete collection once (65 years and 9 months), taking the Saturdays, Sundays anf holydays, maybe 60 years. In order to listen 30 times an album I would need 16 days of using all my listening and INTERNET time  (Well, I use part of my office time when I have no clients to join Internet, 90% of the times Prog Archives), and as a team we don't have that kind of time, because there's no day in which we don't have at least three bands to add or albums to rate.   So I doubt that except Foxtrot, Nursery Cryme, Hybris, Leftoverture and a couple more, I heard any album of my collection more than 10 times.   No proffesional critic can afford 16 days to listen one album (We're ionly amateitrs, but we have at least the same work charge here), mainly if they need to review 2 or 3 albums a week.   As a fact one of my friends is a proffesional reviewer, and he has to write an article after 2 or 3 listens if too much, and he's a very good one.   It's a matter of numbers.   Iván

I never said 100 times Ivan. Only that more than a couple plays are required to be fair and informed IMO. 
I am really amazed that this view has been controversial.    


Edited by Finnforest - October 05 2008 at 13:56

What is great about this site is that everyone is in fact given the chance to voice their opinion, if they have listened to an album once, twice of three hundred times, and in an easy manner.

And unlike people who review music to a deadline, the people in here can review at their own leisure; and use whatever time they want in getting to know a release.

I would oppose, violently if needs be, any criterias involving people reviewing here having to listen to an album a set number of times. It's their choice how much (or not) they want to get to know a release.

As far as negative reviews go - we need them. A negative review will focus on the weak aspects of a release, or aspects of the music that particular reviewer doesn't like. This is useful information for a potential buyer - in many cases more useful than a review singing the praises of a particular album.

Finnforest wrote: People who like to spend alot of time listening before writing are not "reviewing for real?"   Seriously?

People who like to spend alot of time writing before listening are not "reviewing for real?"

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Finnforest wrote: The part I don't like is that he states right off the top he has only heard the album for a few days, a few plays, something like that.  I think before a SC writes about a highly-beloved piece of music by so many people, it deserves to be given a few weeks or months to be appreciated, not a weekend.       a few days is a formula that could mean two weeks and even a month

Finnforest wrote: I'm not trying to force a "set" number of listens on anyone, Windhawk and debrew.  Just trying to point out that it is good to be fair to the artist by giving each album a reasonable shot.  A good PR will know how many that is for him or her, but clearly the site feels it is more than 2 ideally.  Surely we can all agree on that.  For goodness sake I hope so.  And of course I agree about negative review...that we need them.  Yes.  So long as they are informed.  Who rants about 5 star ratings abuse more than I do?  No one does.

I agree that more than a couple of listens would be required to evaluate the album unless the listener's comprehension capacity is so high that he should know the album inside out with just one listen.   Ok, ok, I am not denying that theoretical possibility but I haven't at least met anybody who could do that.  As for the question of days, I think that is a purely relative issue and the reviewer should understand his own capabilities and limitations when he sets out to write a review. For instance, I almost never end up liking an album that I ruminate over for a long time, trying in vain to break through and see the point.  The albums that I love the most are almost always the ones I liked right away. In these cases, I usually follow up such an album with subsequent listens in quick succession so that in a matter of few days - said phrase used to intend the same thing as you did and not Ivan - I would know the album inside out and would clearly be able to pick out my favourite moments from each song and clearly spell out what exactly it was that fascinated me about the album.  Should I then -for the sake of it - let the review hibernate a month or two - even a year p'haps - so that I get the 'true' picture of the album? I don't think so because my opinion on an album hasn't altered after my appreciation of it peaked at some stage.  Some albums may reveal additional facets with time but perhaps these albums will exhibit this tendency for my lifetime and in that case, I would never be in a position to write the review.   In reality all that is required is for the review to give a reliable description of what the album is like with its pros and cons weighed with reasonable clarity.



 










Edited by rogerthat - October 06 2008 at 04:32

rogerthat wrote: Logan: Indeed you are too distracted because as I mentioned, my own rating for Scheherazade was only four stars though I am rather keen on Haslam's vocals.  I guess after listening to the nth symphonic metal band with operatic vocals, I craved for a more natural style of singing and Haslam answered the inner calling.  Of course, something really quirky like the soprano vocals in Magma's Kohntarkosz is always wonderful to my ears.  Anyway, my point was that the rating should not involve any favouritism, which with the listmania prevalent in the internet is an unrealistic expectation though with long experience of reviewing - on another website - , I practice it assidiously.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I did read and understand your post.  Sorry for not expressing myself more clearly/ giving the wrong impression which led to your assumption (I actually have very poor communicative skills these days due to various factors, so don't feel bad about your misunderstanding).  I just had too many distractions to properly respond to your points at the time -- I did apologise in advance for that (I would have liked to come up with a generous, thorough response).  When I'm posting, I am often taking care of two rambunctious young children at the same time, which affects my ability to respond in a thoughtful manner more than my ability to comprehend what others say.  I was giving my reasons why I would not rate it four stars, while recognising that you rated it four (I can see why you would make the assumption that I had somehow missed that), and also saying that I, too, would be sparing with five stars, whereas some give them out very easily.  I tend to respond in a more general manner, anyway, but use other posts as a springboard for my own (some thing I'm doing in this post too).

I haven't reviewed much, but I gave one of my favourite albums of the time, Pascal Duffard's Dieu est Fou, four stars.  Incidentally, there are beloved by many classics such as Close to the Edge which might deserve  a five for its place in Prog that I could not give five stars to, and would be reluctant to give four stars to -- not that I would bother rating and reviewing it.  If I were to review albums, I'd rather concentrate on the lesser-known ones.  I keep on meaning to do one for Jean-Paul Prat's Masal.

I actually don't think a certain amount of favouritism in the rating is bad at all -- part objective, and part subjective. I don't want to just see others parrot how others rate albums.  In a way, I prefer it when they do reflect the tastes of the individual.  I've used various member's ratings (from the profile) as an easy guide since I know they have very similar tastes to my own.  The other problem is that the same albums will always be the highest rated ones if people just follow the norm (what has been generally accepted).  If I think an album is altogether excellent, according to my tastes, then I would rate it higher than a "classic" that I don't find that good.  As the number of ratings also affects its placement, one won't find, say, Bubu's Anabelas or Hellebore's Il y a des Jours overtaking Close to the Edge and Selling England by the Pound, but I would rate Bubu's and Hellebore's higher -- ratings do reflect taste, but at the same time, they should reflect more than that, in my opinion. EDIT: Actually, I'd be fine if they were all just subjective ratings, but people are not consistent in how they rate.  The reviews themselves are more important, but the ratings can provide a handy guide.

Regarding another comment: If I'm not at least intrigued/ quite enjoy an album on the first spin, I don't grow to really like it, and I never force myself (edit: that's not true, I have evaluated music that I really dislike, forced myself to listen carefully, for PA as I'm part of a  team, and try to listen to suggestions for various categories to help with placement, or just to acknowledge a suggestion and try to help -- but in regards to music for my own pleasure and musical expansion... at least not nearly so much).  I have a good idea on the first spin, but that appreciation may deepen or lessen over time.  Some take more time to fully absorb than others, and depends on circumstances.  I often prefer to let an album wash over me on first spin, and really listen the second time -- when I feel like it.  Sometimes I skip through looking for that track, or moment, that automatically clicks.  I used to get so many albums that I wouldn't give them much attention on first spin.  Some I'd put away, and then some days later I'd have this strong urge to listen again (might even have certain passages playing over and over in my head).


Edited by Logan - October 06 2008 at 14:23

Edited by Easy Livin - October 07 2008 at 03:12

Logan wrote: [When I'm posting, I am often taking care of two rambunctious young children at the same time, which affects my ability to respond in a thoughtful manner more than my ability to comprehend what others say.  I was giving my reasons why I would not rate it four stars, while recognising that you rated it four (I can see why you would make the assumption that I had somehow missed that), and also saying that I, too, would be sparing with five stars, whereas some give them out very easily.  I tend to respond in a more general manner, anyway, but use other posts as a springboard for my own (some thing I'm doing in this post too). I haven't reviewed much, but I gave one of my favourite albums of the time, Pascal Duffard's Dieu est Fou, four stars.  Incidentally, there are beloved by many classics such as Close to the Edge which might deserve  a five for its place in Prog that I could not give five stars to, and would be reluctant to give four stars to -- not that I would bother rating and reviewing it.

Oh, sorry .  Well, should I say, thanks for having carefully read my earlier post.   I would probably give  a higher rating for CTTE than Scheherazade, so seeing as you wouldn't give four stars to either, that's fair enough, in any case it's the rating you see fit, that's all.    Coming back to ratings, obviously one has personal preferences but I object to the phenomenon on the net of jacking up ratings to get one's favourite albums higher in the lists or to drag down supposedly undeserving bands.  It's not possible beyond a point to streamline the rating process because the user will click whatever option he sees fit. But what can be done is to separate the reviewing process from the rating process so that the reviewer gives his honest views unhindered by the general consensus and perceptions of the album on the forum.