Reviews discussion

Well, you can read one of his reviews: http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=73669 

All you had to do was click on alphabetical to get them in a different order.

I raised the issue of drain-o a while back and was assured by a collaborator that s/he was legit and lived on some isolated island in the Atlantic. (No, I'm not talking about Great Britain.)

Alberto Muñoz wrote: AtomicCrimsonRush wrote: Dean wrote: Well, you can read one of his reviews: http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=73669    ...and when you've made head or tail of it, perhaps a 1000 word summary would aid others.   I need an interpreter to understand anything he has said   He has rated heaps of albums but no reviews!   Well that's his decision don't you think?   No review could mean he has not even heard the album.   I wouldn't say an statement like this, maybe he have no time to write about and only put ratings, he have that right to do you know?   I review all the albums I rate here because it has more creedence than a mere rating. If the review is nonsensical it is not worth reading and in fact means nothing - even reviews with lots of typos are annoying enough to turn me off trusting the reviewer.   Well that's your call and i respect that, but what all the fuzz with that guy? If he rant all the albums and no reviews, well i see that he have his reasons of not doing and i really would matter of that, really i have many cd's to hear than worrying about a guy who only rant  and no review, i'm not his big brother.

Hmm...thanks all.
What I wanted to say about drain-o is he might be one of a progressive rock experts with REALLY listening to much plenty of albums, even if he's only a "rater".

Thanks to Dean...I searched and searched for this damn thread and couldn't find it.

LiquidEternity wrote: Chris S wrote: Look as the years roll by youngsters  will be lining up to slam WYWH. No association with the album and no idea about relevance to the era. This actually brings up an important line of thought and distinction I've been struggling with when I write reviews (okay, so it's been months since I've written anything, so what?): musical quality vs. historical importance. No one can deny just how important The Moody Blues's Days of Future Passed was in the development and popularity of prog. However, do reviewers today look at it for that, rate it five stars because of how essential a piece in the history it is, or give it three stars because it's really not that catching, even not compared to other Moody Blues albums? There has to be a level of fairness to all the albums being reviewed. If Conor got on and blathered on and on about how great it is because of how great it was viewed as being, what does that say for his opinion? Nothing. His opinion is a fresh look at a classic. What he hears is what he hears. Just some thoughts. Mostly incoherent, and difficult to type, because I've been lifting and now my arms are quite twitchy.

I just wanted to say that historical importance for me is a small factor in terms of rating albums.  I realize that when one grew up with an album, especially during teenage years, that album is ingrained in the subconscious as it were, in such a way that one is inclined to call it a masterpiece.

I am much younger, so I feel I have something of an advantage in terms of stepping back and judging the music for the music's sake, all but abandoning whatever historical import a given album or band may have.  In other words, if the album were made today, what score would I give it based on its own merits (rather than it being released at the right time and place).

Hence, I have given both In the Court of the Crimson King and Wish You Were Here three stars.  The former could have easily gotten more, but I find nine minutes of nonsense ("Moonchild") unforgivable (sorry for those who find it brilliant- I never will), and I think the latter consists of two long jams that aren't really progressive (and one other song that's a lovely acoustic piece, but also not prog).

That said, I hope my reviews show respect for those who do think highly of these albums and give reasons for why I feel the way I do about them.

I agree with Robert here. Just because an album is considered groundbreaking ( or a classic if you will) don´t mean that it´s great in the eyes of everybody. Historical importance is only important if you know that history. I write reviews and rate albums after what I think those albums deserve ( if I happen to know a bit about their historical importance I will put that in my review but very seldom will it affect my rating).  My own reviews and ratings are based purely on my subjective opinion about the music on the album. It would be wrong for me ( personally) to consider what everybody else thinks of that album before writing my review and giving my rating. I think that´s the most honest way of making reviews. Why ever would I rate an album I dislike/ don´t find interesting with a high rating just because it was groundbreaking when it was released? If we should rate considering historical importance I would like to see some really high ratings in the tech/ extreme genre of albums that are considered groundbreaking classics in that genre by reviewers who don´t actually enjoy the music or don´t know the history of the genre ( does anyone see my point?). My point here is that you can´t assume that every member of PA who review albums know the history of every album they review and even if they do I don´t think you can force people to make favourable reviews just because an album is generally considered a classic. IMO people should rate out of personal taste. Hopefully they will not just rate and review their favorite albums but stretch a bit over various genres and artists and make a lot of honest reviews.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that aspect, my friends.  Taste is important yes, but so is history and context.  This is one debate that's raged since I arrived, and it will never be settled.  That's OK, it doesn't have to be.  Cheers!

Atavachron wrote: Epignosis wrote: UMUR wrote: I agree with Robert here. Just because an album is considered groundbreaking ( or a classic if you will) don´t mean that it´s great in the eyes of everybody. Historical importance is only important if you know that history. I write reviews and rate albums after what I think those albums deserve ( if I happen to know a bit about their historical importance I will put that in my review but very seldom will it affect my rating).  My own reviews and ratings are based purely on my subjective opinion about the music on the album. It would be wrong for me ( personally) to consider what everybody else thinks of that album before writing my review and giving my rating. I think that´s the most honest way of making reviews. Why ever would I rate an album I dislike/ don´t find interesting with a high rating just because it was groundbreaking when it was released? If we should rate considering historical importance I would like to see some really high ratings in the tech/ extreme genre of albums that are considered groundbreaking classics in that genre by reviewers who don´t actually enjoy the music or don´t know the history of the genre ( does anyone see my point?). My point here is that you can´t assume that every member of PA who review albums know the history of every album they review and even if they do I don´t think you can force people to make favourable reviews just because an album is generally considered a classic. IMO people should rate out of personal taste. Hopefully they will not just rate and review their favorite albums but stretch a bit over various genres and artists and make a lot of honest reviews. Well said. I'll make one more point: I use the ratings and reviews as a way to determine what I might like to purchase next with my limited funds.  An album may have great historical import, but that doesn't mean I will necessarily want to listen to it (or spend money on it)...in that respect, a person who gives an album five stars mainly for historical importance is almost unhelpful to me. I have to disagree with this as well-- the importance of an album is often connected to the quality of the music, not just the historical impact itself, example;  Iron Maiden's debut was important because of the high quality of the music not just because of its impact on metal and progressive metal.. same goes for Revolver, Dark Side, Zeppelin ll, on and on...

Historical importance is usually a matter of chance, really- think about it: How much BETTER (or worse) would prog be if, say, instead of bands AB&C getting the attention, XY&Z did?  It's a matter of being in the right place, knowing the right people, at the right time. 

That's why I choose to review albums on their own merits- as music, not as something that "changed things" somehow.  Because frankly (and I say this as a young git), I don't give a damn about how an album was influential (at least not when it comes to reviewing albums).

^ History and influence counts for a lot....sorry to those that disagree. I pay due consideration to those artists because of their status i.e Bach, Beethoven or even say Procul Harum. I know I may not necessarily like the music and therefore rate them accordingly as well as my assessment of the music ( ie.prog artists relevant to this site).