SR VI: Incident Free since 2008

James wrote: How can you have a Hammill and a Prog rating? That's just silly. I doesn't matter if it's prog or not... it still gets the same rating. Besides, I actually think Thin Air is quite proggy in places. There's no way an Indie album is that proggy (and I know this is not what you're saying, 'cause you rated them as Indie albums).  It would be fairer if you rated them as just albums and not as albums of a genre.

I balance how good the album is with how notable it is in the year's prog chart.

The rating does not reflect how much prog it is. Because it is prog. So are those albums that got E, at the bottom of the list. It reflects where Thin Air stands.

It's better to count the indie albums just as I've said they are: extras. Bringing them to the argument is not a valid point. In their cases, only how good the music is counts. It would have been absurd to give them 1 or 2 for not being prog/

Don't do that.

Rate it as how you like it.  Not how it stands amongst other 2009 releases.  Jean Louis's self-titled is a 5-star in any year, not just 2009.

Anyhow, what was your rating for Trisector?


Edited by James - August 19 2009 at 17:25

Ricochet wrote: Epignosis wrote: Ricochet wrote: A lot of albums in this world would be four stars, if that sums up "good" and all its nuances. Just good never passes 3.5 for me. TA is "good" for Hammill, but "just good" for this year's prog. Speaking of this year, how are you finding what you are currently listening to? Doomsday Afternoon was two years ago.

Shows how well I know Phideaux, doesn't it? 

I just found your 2008 list.

Well Thin Air is definitely better than Trisector.  I think I'd give Trisector a 3.

It's interesting that you feel both are Cs though.

Ricochet wrote: James wrote: Don't do that. Rate it as how you like it.  Not how it stands amongst other 2009 releases. Anyhow, what was your rating for Trisector? I don't rate solely on pleasure. That's Rob.  I'm more critical. An album can be perfectly good, but not stand out at all in the prog echequer.

Solely on pleasure?

Initially I wanted to tell you to piss off, but then I realized, "Hell yes, for pleasure."

Sure someone can play 320 bpm gutiar solos or 12 keyboards at the same time, but that doesn't mean hearing it doesn't make me want to throw myself off a cliff.

So be pedantic in reviewing if you want (some people use the term "objective," which I find completely laughable when talking about opinions of all things), but if music isn't ultimately enjoyable and memorable, I'm going to rate it low.  Hammill's Thin Air was pleasant but did not move me and still does not, hence it got a two.  I only ever pass out ones to those records which will almost certainly never be heard by me again.

Indeed.  It's most certainly about enjoying the music first and foremost.

I just happen to enjoy Thin Air.  More so than Part the Second.

It also happens to be a better album as well.

James wrote: Indeed.  It's most certainly about enjoying the music first and foremost. I just happen to enjoy Thin Air.  More so than Part the Second. It also happens to be a better album as well.

Ok, a solid point, music-pleasure-wise. So explain what makes Thin Air a better album than Part The Second, without refering to enjoying the music.

Examples of how I enjoy some less good albums more than good albums.

I prefer Starless and Bible Black over Red yet Red is the better album.
I prefer La Villa Strangiato over all other Rush but I know other Rush is mostly better than La Villa Strangiato.
I like some AC/DC when I am fully aware pretty much all of their music sucks.

Epignosis wrote: See, calling something a better album is just banking on the opinion as well.  You cannot escape making an opinion when rating an album.  That's what a rating is. Objective observation: Wakeman plays piano at 4:55 on the fourth track. Subjective observation: Wakeman's piano playing is exquisite. See?  Easy, right?  It's all about pleasure (ultimately).  An artist's composition, technique, skill, charisma, etc etc are all just reasons for our pleasure (i.e., how we say why we like something more than something else).

No. While fairly logical that I call good something I like/something that impresses me, and something bad gets a rejected emotions from me, I refuse to call albums good or bad simply on how well it made me feel or how much it made me yawn and scratch my belly for dust.

You call Thin Air boring because it bored you. You can perfectly cloak under "subjective 100% observations", but calling it a bad album just because it's boring can actually be a right viewpoint.

I just add significance to the way I see things. And I'm bit more critical than usual with what I like and how.

But it is recorded better...

Enthralling lyrics (at times -- even Hammill has his bad moments).  Ones that emotionally hit me more than those on Part the Second (yes, I realise this is preference but I don't always prefer emotional lyrics)
A vocalist with more range and emotion
Compositions that are both more memorable to the ear and not overly long.
The recording of Thin Air is very well done.  Hammill plays all instruments and has mixed the album himself.  Not an easy task.  Plus the vocals on Part the Second are a little quiet at times, meaning I find the lyrics often hard to ingest.


Edited by James - August 19 2009 at 18:08