Prog based on books?

Hercules wrote: TGM: Orb wrote: The Snow Goose seems most obvious (I haven't read it).  Yet you've reviewed the album! How can you possibly give an informed appraisal if you haven't read the book on which it's based???

Snow Dog wrote: Hercules wrote: TGM: Orb wrote: The Snow Goose seems most obvious (I haven't read it).  Yet you've reviewed the album! How can you possibly give an informed appraisal if you haven't read the book on which it's based??? Quite easily. he listened to the album.

Brilliant!

So you would review the film of Lord of the Rings without reading the trilogy first, would you, thus having no idea whatsoever how well the film interpreted the book?? You could do it, but noone in their right mind would regard your review very seriously. "I enjoyed/didn't enjoy (delete as appropriate) this film even though I had absolutely no idea what it was about and whether the characters were accurately portrayed!" Or Bridehead Revisited. Or Skellig. Or any other great book that has been filmed. You just can't do it credibly.

Without reading Gallico's novella, you can't have a clue about the structure, moods and images Camel portray in their music, which is why many of the reviews of The Snow Goose are frankly so laughable.

Man... You review the film/ the album, not estimate how well it goes together with the book. I wonder how many of us has really read Siddharta and then after that reviewed CttE? They're two different pieces of art with a related theme, that's all. Get over it.

Edited by Passionist - July 05 2009 at 10:51

Naive you are, yes. Obviously.

Anyway. By bo Hansson, to fill up my claim there, there was El-Ahrairah http://www.progarchives.com/album.asp?id=15424 and Music Inspired By Watership Down http://www.progarchives.com/album.asp?id=6642 but I'm not sure of the rest of his compositions. Someone might want to fill that up.

Hercules wrote: Snow Dog wrote: Hercules wrote: Snow Dog wrote: Hercules wrote: TGM: Orb wrote: The Snow Goose seems most obvious (I haven't read it).  Yet you've reviewed the album! How can you possibly give an informed appraisal if you haven't read the book on which it's based??? Quite easily. he listened to the album. Brilliant! So you would review the film of Lord of the Rings without reading the trilogy first, would you, thus having no idea whatsoever how well the film interpreted the book?? You could do it, but noone in their right mind would regard your review very seriously. "I enjoyed/didn't enjoy (delete as appropriate) this film even though I had absolutely no idea what it was about and whether the characters were accurately portrayed!" Or Bridehead Revisited. Or Skellig. Or any other great book that has been filmed. You just can't do it credibly. Without reading Gallico's novella, you can't have a clue about the structure, moods and images Camel portray in their music, which is why many of the reviews of The Snow Goose are frankly so laughable. Yes I would and.yes the review would be credible. You don't need to read a book to review a film. You watch a film to review a film. Thats why its a film review. Do proffesional reviewrs read the book of the film they are reviewing? No  Do people who read magazines like "Empire" regard the reviews seriously? Yes they do. Case closed! Do you SERIOUSLY believe this?? Of course they read the book!!!!!!!! Any who didn't would be utterly discredited professionally. For a professional to review a film based on a book without relating the film to the book is absolutely unthinkable. You obviously don't know any professional film/theatrereviewers (and I know several very well, including my own sister-in-law). Perhaps I'm naive to expect common-sense from everyone on this site.

I'm backing up Snow Dog 100% on this one. When you are reviewing the film, you are reviewing the film and not the book. When you are reviewing music, you are reviewing the MUSIC, not the book it's based on. Leave that to the book reviewers. Of course, comparing it to elements of the book would make the review more interesting to read, but it's not compulsory. Are you saying if the reviewer didn't know that the music is based on a book then he should be disallowed from reviewing it?

Passionist wrote: rosenbach wrote: Bo Hanson: Lord of the rings, obviously based on Tolkien’s book This guy also has an album based on the book "Watership Down" which I've trying to find for long with little success.

That album is AMAZING!
It's quite easy to find in sweden if you know where to look

The Pessimist wrote: Hercules wrote: Snow Dog wrote: Hercules wrote: Snow Dog wrote: Hercules wrote: TGM: Orb wrote: The Snow Goose seems most obvious (I haven't read it).  Yet you've reviewed the album! How can you possibly give an informed appraisal if you haven't read the book on which it's based??? Quite easily. he listened to the album. Brilliant! So you would review the film of Lord of the Rings without reading the trilogy first, would you, thus having no idea whatsoever how well the film interpreted the book?? You could do it, but noone in their right mind would regard your review very seriously. "I enjoyed/didn't enjoy (delete as appropriate) this film even though I had absolutely no idea what it was about and whether the characters were accurately portrayed!" Or Bridehead Revisited. Or Skellig. Or any other great book that has been filmed. You just can't do it credibly. Without reading Gallico's novella, you can't have a clue about the structure, moods and images Camel portray in their music, which is why many of the reviews of The Snow Goose are frankly so laughable. Yes I would and.yes the review would be credible. You don't need to read a book to review a film. You watch a film to review a film. Thats why its a film review. Do proffesional reviewrs read the book of the film they are reviewing? No  Do people who read magazines like "Empire" regard the reviews seriously? Yes they do. Case closed! Do you SERIOUSLY believe this?? Of course they read the book!!!!!!!! Any who didn't would be utterly discredited professionally. For a professional to review a film based on a book without relating the film to the book is absolutely unthinkable. You obviously don't know any professional film/theatrereviewers (and I know several very well, including my own sister-in-law). Perhaps I'm naive to expect common-sense from everyone on this site. I'm backing up Snow Dog 100% on this one. When you are reviewing the film, you are reviewing the film and not the book. When you are reviewing music, you are reviewing the MUSIC, not the book it's based on. Leave that to the book reviewers. Of course, comparing it to elements of the book would make the review more interesting to read, but it's not compulsory. Are you saying if the reviewer didn't know that the music is based on a book then he should be disallowed from reviewing it?

No - what I'm saying is that if someone actually KNOWS the album is based on a book, not to read the book before doing a review so you at least know what the story being told is about or so that you can reflect the way the album interprets the book makes the review much less valid. You yourself concede that including a comparison to the book "would make the review more interesting to read"; on this we agree. I would never dream of reviewing (say) Alan Parson's album Tales of Mystery and Imagination without reading Poe's work first; otherwise how could I judge whether the imagery in The Fall of the House of Usher and other tracks had been interpreted well?

Snow Dog wrote: The Pessimist wrote: Hercules wrote: Snow Dog wrote: Hercules wrote: Snow Dog wrote: Hercules wrote: TGM: Orb wrote: The Snow Goose seems most obvious (I haven't read it).  Yet you've reviewed the album! How can you possibly give an informed appraisal if you haven't read the book on which it's based??? Quite easily. he listened to the album. Brilliant! So you would review the film of Lord of the Rings without reading the trilogy first, would you, thus having no idea whatsoever how well the film interpreted the book?? You could do it, but noone in their right mind would regard your review very seriously. "I enjoyed/didn't enjoy (delete as appropriate) this film even though I had absolutely no idea what it was about and whether the characters were accurately portrayed!" Or Bridehead Revisited. Or Skellig. Or any other great book that has been filmed. You just can't do it credibly. Without reading Gallico's novella, you can't have a clue about the structure, moods and images Camel portray in their music, which is why many of the reviews of The Snow Goose are frankly so laughable. Yes I would and.yes the review would be credible. You don't need to read a book to review a film. You watch a film to review a film. Thats why its a film review. Do proffesional reviewrs read the book of the film they are reviewing? No  Do people who read magazines like "Empire" regard the reviews seriously? Yes they do. Case closed! Do you SERIOUSLY believe this?? Of course they read the book!!!!!!!! Any who didn't would be utterly discredited professionally. For a professional to review a film based on a book without relating the film to the book is absolutely unthinkable. You obviously don't know any professional film/theatrereviewers (and I know several very well, including my own sister-in-law). Perhaps I'm naive to expect common-sense from everyone on this site. I'm backing up Snow Dog 100% on this one. When you are reviewing the film, you are reviewing the film and not the book. When you are reviewing music, you are reviewing the MUSIC, not the book it's based on. Leave that to the book reviewers. Of course, comparing it to elements of the book would make the review more interesting to read, but it's not compulsory. Are you saying if the reviewer didn't know that the music is based on a book then he should be disallowed from reviewing it? Thank you pessimist. Hercules is not only rude but seems to be living in some strange fantasy world of his own. Oh..and he is wrong!

Please call me Alex

Fantasy world, maybe. Inner diktat, definitely.

And Hercules, please. People can do whatever the hell they like. We are not getting paid for it, and it's a freeform reviewing system. The only guidelines are that we show respect for other people. And also, this is a music reviewing site, not a book reviewing site.

I've said all I'm going to say, so you can reply if you'd like. But I really couldn't care less about it.

Hercules wrote: Snow Dog wrote: The Pessimist wrote: Hercules wrote: Snow Dog wrote: Hercules wrote: Snow Dog wrote: Hercules wrote: TGM: Orb wrote: The Snow Goose seems most obvious (I haven't read it).  Yet you've reviewed the album! How can you possibly give an informed appraisal if you haven't read the book on which it's based??? Quite easily. he listened to the album. Brilliant! So you would review the film of Lord of the Rings without reading the trilogy first, would you, thus having no idea whatsoever how well the film interpreted the book?? You could do it, but noone in their right mind would regard your review very seriously. "I enjoyed/didn't enjoy (delete as appropriate) this film even though I had absolutely no idea what it was about and whether the characters were accurately portrayed!" Or Bridehead Revisited. Or Skellig. Or any other great book that has been filmed. You just can't do it credibly. Without reading Gallico's novella, you can't have a clue about the structure, moods and images Camel portray in their music, which is why many of the reviews of The Snow Goose are frankly so laughable. Yes I would and.yes the review would be credible. You don't need to read a book to review a film. You watch a film to review a film. Thats why its a film review. Do proffesional reviewrs read the book of the film they are reviewing? No  Do people who read magazines like "Empire" regard the reviews seriously? Yes they do. Case closed! Do you SERIOUSLY believe this?? Of course they read the book!!!!!!!! Any who didn't would be utterly discredited professionally. For a professional to review a film based on a book without relating the film to the book is absolutely unthinkable. You obviously don't know any professional film/theatrereviewers (and I know several very well, including my own sister-in-law). Perhaps I'm naive to expect common-sense from everyone on this site. I'm backing up Snow Dog 100% on this one. When you are reviewing the film, you are reviewing the film and not the book. When you are reviewing music, you are reviewing the MUSIC, not the book it's based on. Leave that to the book reviewers. Of course, comparing it to elements of the book would make the review more interesting to read, but it's not compulsory. Are you saying if the reviewer didn't know that the music is based on a book then he should be disallowed from reviewing it? Thank you pessimist. Hercules is not only rude but seems to be living in some strange fantasy world of his own. Oh..and he is wrong! So I'm rude for pointing out that you are factually incorrect in your assertion that professional film reviewers would not read a book on which a film is based before reviewing the film? Listen to Mark Kermode on Five Live when he reviews any film based on a book (I expect you will have heard of him) and he always refers to the way the film interprets the book. All professional reviewers do. Perhaps my naivety is expecting professional standards on an amateur site.

Edited by Snow Dog - July 06 2009 at 07:13

Erm...time to sneak in a post between the arguments, I understand that Hugh Hopper's album 1984 is loosely based on and/or inspired by the novel 1984.