Now I know who NOT to listen to.

 

I doubt its worth 2 stars from what i have read though

 

Atomic Scott is my name

 

The major issues with reviews is ... what are these reviewers telling you?

 

If you can tell what they are saying, the rest is easy.

 

So if you read the reviews in USA Today, you know that you can puke more often than not. Because the reviews are imaginary and love to compare things to an invisible idea and concept that no one can define or understand ... and the end result is ... you know nothing about the music, or the reviewer. Check that ... you know that particular reviewer is a fan and kisser ... might as well be called a groupie!

 

In general, the majority of reviews in PA are not bad, and I would say that 95% of them rank above 66%. The only ones I have an issue with is when someone states that it is not progressive enough, or will say that this is too much sounding like King Crimson, and ... you lose the ability to listen to that band on its own. I like Anekdotten and such, and everytime I sit there and listen to it, I don't hear King Crimson. I hear a much more concise band and much more interested in their expression than King Crimson, that for all their work, all in all, they were not cohesive and their adventurousness and work varied tremendously and that was more related to the individual personalities and styles than it was about "King Crimson" ... which means that I would never use that comparison!  Anekdotten is actually much closer sounding to the styles of a lot of music in their area, that are inspired by keyboards, classical music and a guitar! And KC never even showed the classical element out front, and I think that was intentional. But, no one can discuss the experimental side of KC very well either, and even comment on a process for it!

 

It's not easy. I have reviews for a lot of music, but I am actually afraid to share them here. Why? Because my reviews are about the music, and how I feel about that music, and from that you can decide if you want to hear it or not. Some of you might like to be told that it is neo-prog and you are going to check it out ... I don't! ... neo-prog and any other "description" is an oxymoron, specially when at least two of those styles are simply an effect or two used on the instrumentation! And the other reason is that this board is afraid to discuss other music that fits the "progressive" area, but is not "popular" ... so we can talk Rush, ELP. KC, Genesis all day, but no one is big enough to discuss Egberto Gismonti! Or almost any artist in the ECM label, most of which are so experimental and different as to defy the description of "creativity" ... but some will just dismiss it as "jazz" and never hear any of it! Most of it is not even jazz! It's music!

 

Another example ... describing Guru Guru ... and trying to compare it to ... Rush? Yeah ... or some other rock trio out there.

 

In general, the stuff that is on the edge is always difficult for most reviewers. I tend to use a lot of the quotidian (really big word too!) elements around the music, the artist and the time, and that is something that is sorely missed in the definition of "progressive" that would actually explain the music a lot better than otherwise ... it's sort of a culmination of the desire in the arts from the hippied days, without the drugs (not necessarily of course!) ... but we have to create a separation so hard that we can not even conceive of The Doors as progressive, or The (early) Grateful Dead as progressive, and in so many cases , these were major influences to so many out there. And so many others.

 

Depends on how you read things ... are you reading because you enjoy the music ... or because you are bored with "prog metal"? ... or because you are no longer satisfied with Dream Theater ... see the problem? ... it's not about the music anymore, then. And reviews won't satisfy you because you are looking for something that you like ... not someone else necessarily!