Prog artists need us to promote their music.

I don't believe a one star album is worth reviewing and I've become more, ugh, conservative about dishing out the fivers

AtomicCrimsonRush wrote: Gerinski wrote: For sure sites like PA with its reviews, ratings and forums are influential, I have no idea how much quantitatively, but they are. I have purchased quite some albums because of what I read about them. I am just one name in PA but there are more invisible people behind me, all of my prog friends are not good at english so they do not directly read and participate in PA, but they get information from me and they also buy albums because of what I share with them.   (Good) musicians and bands undoubtedly can benefit from this promotion, it's another miracle of the net, as long as the work is good the public will do the marketing for them, mouth to mouth, all over the world, and it will not cost them a penny. In this respect I don't want to talk about the complaints about the harm of file sharing...   But as others have said, we have to be careful with the thing of reviews and ratings. I guess we all have our "personal little masterpieces", albums we love and which for some reason are not widely recognized, either they are unknown, ignored, or people miss to find the right "click" with them which we did. If we would just have followed the mass opinion ("mass" in prog context means always a small minority anyway) we would have probably never discovered them. So we have to think the same towards unknown albums, the opinion of other people can be a helpful guideline but it is no guarantee that you will not love the album in question. Trust only your own brain.   Somehow related to this is the status of 3-star albums. If we purchase albums based on PA ratings, people would probably concentrate on 4 & 5 star albums. I myself have to frequently remind myself that 3-star albums I do not know are very probably GOOD albums, and if I feel that they may fit my taste I will likely not regret my purchase. I have purchased 4 and 5-star albums which were not really my cup of tea, while I'm sure that I would have enjoyed much more many 3 (or even 2?) -star albums fitting my taste.       Thats a good point about 3 star albums being still worth a listen and not forgotten. I myself have a ratings system that i stick to and i would bet most reviewers are similar, if not identical.   1 stars are easy to find. These are the prog stinkers. That's the albums that have no redeeming values whatsoever, or are universally panned, 1 small song that is good will still not be enough for more than 1 star rating. Many of these are obsolete compilations of the best of a band. Useless albums that will not be necessary to the prog addict. The albums will become known as disasters, and the reviews are usually cynically hilarious and worth reading. Many in this category become the talking points of forums and raise their ugly heads constantly as in joke. eg: St Anger, Love Beach, In The Hot Seat, The Final Cut, Q2K, See Ya Round.   2 stars are marginally better and not a complete waste of time but are disappointing. There are redeeming values, perhaps 3 good songs, and they are collectors items. They gather dust but during a year certain tracks will be played, if not the whole album. eg: Radio-Activity, In Search of the Lost Chord, Journey to the Centre of the Earth, 90125, Crisis? What Crisis? Atom Heart Mother, The Aerosol grey Machine.   3 stars are the hardest choice for me. They are half good albums, half mediocre. I guess they are good enough for a listen, worthwhile but not albums you will likely return to over and over. But a once a year listen will not hurt. Debut albus often come under the 3 star category, the best is yet to come. If an album has some shining moments but are still a bit disappointing I rate them a 3 but its always a tough choice. eg: The Snow Goose, Future Days, The Crane Wife, Faust IV, Trespass, War Child, Autobahn.   4 stars are the most rated category I noted. Not quite masterpeices but still look great in any collection. The albums have everything the discerning music connoiseur loves. It delivers a whole album of great tracks, with a few medicore moments stopping the masterpeice rating. Some rough edges may be enough to lessen its rating but they are not to be missed. The albums are highly recommended and are likely to stay in the CD player on repeat. The albums grow on you over time and become fan favourites. Some eventually reach masterpeice rating over a period of time. eg: Hybris, Tarkus, Moonmadness, Octavarium, Nadir's Big Chance, Angel's Egg.     5 stars are also easy to find as they are the ones that have an immediate impact on the listener. Ther eis no doubt that the album is one of the greatest you have heard. The masterpiece is not to be taken lightly, and there are not that many of them, especially for a debut artist, but they are out there and are universally celebrated. They are well known in the prog community, become legendary in their own tight, and are definitive essential purposes, often being at the top of music fans all time greatest albums lists. eg: Dark Side of the Moon, Foxtrot, The Human Equation, Pawn Hearts, Close to the Edge, Thick as a Brick, In the Court of the Crimson King, Brain Salad Surgery, Moving Pictures, Frequency, The Weirding.

That\s your opinion/ bias.

I think a better system is something like:

5 stars: I really love this album
4 stars: I love this album
3 stars: I enjoy this
2: seems kind of weak to me, but not that bad
1. I really don't like this album

It doesn't need saying, but ratings are ultimately subjective.  What is a masterpiece to one might be a stinker to another.  Atom heart Mother is my favourite album that Pink Floyd worked on (I really respect Geeson's work on the suite).  Dark Side of the Moon I like, but do not enjoy as much so I would not rate it as highly.  What bothers me with reviews is when people act like they're being objective, that their opinion holds some universal truth.  I don't try to promote music, but I like to share my enthusiasm for music (in my case through the fora).  I would not rate something high just because it's commonly held to be excellent or important, or vice versa -- the ratings are a reflection of my taste. The Final Cut is not universally panned.  A good review is insightful, of course, and should show good knowledge of the style.  What I dislike is when reviews make claims in an objective manner that are really subjective, and when they come off as self-important.

Sticking with Floyd, and I'm not saying you should not express your opinion (though i think making certain claims about others is unfair), but I genuinely like A Saucerful of Secrets very much -- I prefer it to most Floyd albums.  You gave it a two and wrote at the end of your review

"Contrary to popular belief, not everything Floyd touched was pure gold, in fact some of their early material stinks like yesterday's diapers, and unless you were stoned to the hilt, you would have thought this album was a yawnfest. People pretend to understand it, but there is no thread of reason throughout. I realise Floydians will gush over this album, simply because it is iconic Floyd with the legend in his own mind, Barrett in all his insane glory, but just because it is iconic and from the psychedelic 60s does not necessarily mean the actual music is any good. Well, now I have released all that anguish I can move on to a better album from Floyd; take your pick, this effort is a bottom of the barrel doped up Saucerful of Secretions!

Collectors Only!"

Not a yawnfest to me and I avoid narcotics, nor do I pretend to understand the album, I just like it very much.

I don't give ratings heed unless it''s by people with very similar tastes to myself, and there are quite a few with overall fairly mediocre ratings that I love.

Edited by Logan - February 25 2011 at 12:02

lazland wrote: There are people on the site who I know I have little in common with as far as musical tastes are concerned, so I generally will not decide on their reviews alone.

The description of the music from a review that happens to be negative can be useful too, it happened to me to pick up albums based on negative but fair reviews from people here who I know what they like, what they don't, any why.

A lot of the music on PA that interests me has little following and sometimes I'm lucky if there is one review for the album at all, so in time I developed the ability to see "through" the reviewers tastes and whims and extract the actual information.

lazland wrote: Logan wrote: AtomicCrimsonRush wrote: Gerinski wrote: For sure sites like PA with its reviews, ratings and forums are influential, I have no idea how much quantitatively, but they are. I have purchased quite some albums because of what I read about them. I am just one name in PA but there are more invisible people behind me, all of my prog friends are not good at english so they do not directly read and participate in PA, but they get information from me and they also buy albums because of what I share with them.   (Good) musicians and bands undoubtedly can benefit from this promotion, it's another miracle of the net, as long as the work is good the public will do the marketing for them, mouth to mouth, all over the world, and it will not cost them a penny. In this respect I don't want to talk about the complaints about the harm of file sharing...   But as others have said, we have to be careful with the thing of reviews and ratings. I guess we all have our "personal little masterpieces", albums we love and which for some reason are not widely recognized, either they are unknown, ignored, or people miss to find the right "click" with them which we did. If we would just have followed the mass opinion ("mass" in prog context means always a small minority anyway) we would have probably never discovered them. So we have to think the same towards unknown albums, the opinion of other people can be a helpful guideline but it is no guarantee that you will not love the album in question. Trust only your own brain.   Somehow related to this is the status of 3-star albums. If we purchase albums based on PA ratings, people would probably concentrate on 4 & 5 star albums. I myself have to frequently remind myself that 3-star albums I do not know are very probably GOOD albums, and if I feel that they may fit my taste I will likely not regret my purchase. I have purchased 4 and 5-star albums which were not really my cup of tea, while I'm sure that I would have enjoyed much more many 3 (or even 2?) -star albums fitting my taste.       Thats a good point about 3 star albums being still worth a listen and not forgotten. I myself have a ratings system that i stick to and i would bet most reviewers are similar, if not identical.   1 stars are easy to find. These are the prog stinkers. That's the albums that have no redeeming values whatsoever, or are universally panned, 1 small song that is good will still not be enough for more than 1 star rating. Many of these are obsolete compilations of the best of a band. Useless albums that will not be necessary to the prog addict. The albums will become known as disasters, and the reviews are usually cynically hilarious and worth reading. Many in this category become the talking points of forums and raise their ugly heads constantly as in joke. eg: St Anger, Love Beach, In The Hot Seat, The Final Cut, Q2K, See Ya Round.   2 stars are marginally better and not a complete waste of time but are disappointing. There are redeeming values, perhaps 3 good songs, and they are collectors items. They gather dust but during a year certain tracks will be played, if not the whole album. eg: Radio-Activity, In Search of the Lost Chord, Journey to the Centre of the Earth, 90125, Crisis? What Crisis? Atom Heart Mother, The Aerosol grey Machine.   3 stars are the hardest choice for me. They are half good albums, half mediocre. I guess they are good enough for a listen, worthwhile but not albums you will likely return to over and over. But a once a year listen will not hurt. Debut albus often come under the 3 star category, the best is yet to come. If an album has some shining moments but are still a bit disappointing I rate them a 3 but its always a tough choice. eg: The Snow Goose, Future Days, The Crane Wife, Faust IV, Trespass, War Child, Autobahn.   4 stars are the most rated category I noted. Not quite masterpeices but still look great in any collection. The albums have everything the discerning music connoiseur loves. It delivers a whole album of great tracks, with a few medicore moments stopping the masterpeice rating. Some rough edges may be enough to lessen its rating but they are not to be missed. The albums are highly recommended and are likely to stay in the CD player on repeat. The albums grow on you over time and become fan favourites. Some eventually reach masterpeice rating over a period of time. eg: Hybris, Tarkus, Moonmadness, Octavarium, Nadir's Big Chance, Angel's Egg.     5 stars are also easy to find as they are the ones that have an immediate impact on the listener. Ther eis no doubt that the album is one of the greatest you have heard. The masterpiece is not to be taken lightly, and there are not that many of them, especially for a debut artist, but they are out there and are universally celebrated. They are well known in the prog community, become legendary in their own tight, and are definitive essential purposes, often being at the top of music fans all time greatest albums lists. eg: Dark Side of the Moon, Foxtrot, The Human Equation, Pawn Hearts, Close to the Edge, Thick as a Brick, In the Court of the Crimson King, Brain Salad Surgery, Moving Pictures, Frequency, The Weirding. That\s your opinion/ bias. I think a better system is something like: 5 stars: I really love this album 4 stars: I love this album 3 stars: I enjoy this 2: seems kind of weak to me, but not that bad 1. I really don't like this album It doesn't need saying, but ratings are ultimately subjective.  What is a masterpiece to one might be a stinker to another.  Atom heart Mother is my favourite album that Pink Floyd worked on (I really respect Geeson's work on the suite).  Dark Side of the Moon I like, but do not enjoy as much so I would not rate it as highly.  What bothers me with reviews is when people act like they're being objective, that their opinion holds some universal truth.  I don't try to promote music, but I like to share my enthusiasm for music (in my case through the fora).  I would not rate something high just because it's commonly held to be excellent or important, or vice versa -- the ratings are a reflection of my taste. The Final Cut is not universally panned.  A good review is insightful, of course, and should show good knowledge of the style.  What I dislike is when reviews make claims in an objective manner that are really subjective, and when they come off as self-important. Sticking with Floyd, and I'm not saying you should not express your opinion, but I genuinely like A Sacuerful of Secrets very much -- I prefer it to most Floyd albums.  You gave it a two and wrote at the end of your review "Contrary to popular belief, not everything Floyd touched was pure gold, in fact some of their early material stinks like yesterday's diapers, and unless you were stoned to the hilt, you would have thought this album was a yawnfest. People pretend to understand it, but there is no thread of reason throughout. I realise Floydians will gush over this album, simply because it is iconic Floyd with the legend in his own mind, Barrett in all his insane glory, but just because it is iconic and from the psychedelic 60s does not necessarily mean the actual music is any good. Well, now I have released all that anguish I can move on to a better album from Floyd; take your pick, this effort is a bottom of the barrel doped up Saucerful of Secretions! Collectors Only!" Not a yawnfest to me and I avoid narcotics. I don't give ratings heed unless it''s by people with very similar tastes to myself, and there are quite a few with overall fairly mediocre ratings that I love. I think that's the key, and I am very similar. There are people on the site who I know I have little in common with as far as musical tastes are concerned, so I generally will not decide on their reviews alone. Those whose tastes match mine well and who I respect as a reviewer, I will take notice of. And, yes, as subjective as we all try to be, the fact is that all reviews are a reflection of the opinion of the reviewer, i.e. objective. It is difficult to avoid really, even amongst professionals in the press. as a good example, Geoff Barton did a review of Blackmore's Night a few years ago in Classic Rock magazine. I forget which album it was, but the entire review was basically a rant as to how much he hated Blackmore's music since ditching Purple, and how he wished he would become "The Man In Black" again. I happen to like the Blackmore's Night albums, but if I had not heard any of them, to be honest, all I would have got from that particular review was a huge amount of bile, which is not the point of a review. I do think it is possible to express a personal opinion in a way that people reading will learn and respect.

Good post. Just expanding on with related ideas: respect is really important for me when taking opinions into account.  I have taken into account reviews by people whose tastes I know to be quite different from mine if I respected the way they put themselves across, both in reviews and knowing them from the fora.  I've been reading your reviews and enjoying them, but then I respect you from the fora because i appreciate your attitude and thoughts.  Not to get side-tracked, but thanks to a review of yours I\ve been really enjoying an old fave of mine, Who's Next?  If I\ve been looking to expand my music al horizons, and they are always expanding and my tastes are malleable (different flavours of the day that interest me), it\s important to me that I feel that person has an appreciation for/ considerable knowledge of the category that the album is in that they are reviewing. It'\s also important to me that I feel that the person has strong grasp on the album (too often people review after one listen without giving much consideration). Though I may find them entertaining, I discount bashing reviews.  There are those ones that try to sound cynically hip that don\t do it for me.  And those that have biased to what they want expectations of music that bash can be really terrible.  One should try to review an album on its own merits, and not like in the case of that Blackmore=s Night reviewer, rant about what style that person should have stuck in the reviewer's opinion to.  One thing that makes me discount a review is when a person makes claims that are not accurate,  expresses a lot of hyperbole, is dismissive of others who appreciate it (disrespectful), and acts as if they know better than others, and tells other people what they should think of the album.  I want to trust that that person "gets" the album, and has a good understanding of music, and  a decent understanding of music theory and the style if trying to be objective about the qualities of the music.  Absolutist statements such as, "this is not music", this lacks melody and harmony et cetera often indicates ignorance about musical forms (as well as terminology).  If people recognise their own ignoirance about musical form in reviews instead of making dubious/false claims, and resorting to hyperbole, I\m much more forgiving.

lazland wrote: Logan wrote: lazland wrote: Logan wrote: AtomicCrimsonRush wrote: Gerinski wrote: For sure sites like PA with its reviews, ratings and forums are influential, I have no idea how much quantitatively, but they are. I have purchased quite some albums because of what I read about them. I am just one name in PA but there are more invisible people behind me, all of my prog friends are not good at english so they do not directly read and participate in PA, but they get information from me and they also buy albums because of what I share with them.   (Good) musicians and bands undoubtedly can benefit from this promotion, it's another miracle of the net, as long as the work is good the public will do the marketing for them, mouth to mouth, all over the world, and it will not cost them a penny. In this respect I don't want to talk about the complaints about the harm of file sharing...   But as others have said, we have to be careful with the thing of reviews and ratings. I guess we all have our "personal little masterpieces", albums we love and which for some reason are not widely recognized, either they are unknown, ignored, or people miss to find the right "click" with them which we did. If we would just have followed the mass opinion ("mass" in prog context means always a small minority anyway) we would have probably never discovered them. So we have to think the same towards unknown albums, the opinion of other people can be a helpful guideline but it is no guarantee that you will not love the album in question. Trust only your own brain.   Somehow related to this is the status of 3-star albums. If we purchase albums based on PA ratings, people would probably concentrate on 4 & 5 star albums. I myself have to frequently remind myself that 3-star albums I do not know are very probably GOOD albums, and if I feel that they may fit my taste I will likely not regret my purchase. I have purchased 4 and 5-star albums which were not really my cup of tea, while I'm sure that I would have enjoyed much more many 3 (or even 2?) -star albums fitting my taste.       Thats a good point about 3 star albums being still worth a listen and not forgotten. I myself have a ratings system that i stick to and i would bet most reviewers are similar, if not identical.   1 stars are easy to find. These are the prog stinkers. That's the albums that have no redeeming values whatsoever, or are universally panned, 1 small song that is good will still not be enough for more than 1 star rating. Many of these are obsolete compilations of the best of a band. Useless albums that will not be necessary to the prog addict. The albums will become known as disasters, and the reviews are usually cynically hilarious and worth reading. Many in this category become the talking points of forums and raise their ugly heads constantly as in joke. eg: St Anger, Love Beach, In The Hot Seat, The Final Cut, Q2K, See Ya Round.   2 stars are marginally better and not a complete waste of time but are disappointing. There are redeeming values, perhaps 3 good songs, and they are collectors items. They gather dust but during a year certain tracks will be played, if not the whole album. eg: Radio-Activity, In Search of the Lost Chord, Journey to the Centre of the Earth, 90125, Crisis? What Crisis? Atom Heart Mother, The Aerosol grey Machine.   3 stars are the hardest choice for me. They are half good albums, half mediocre. I guess they are good enough for a listen, worthwhile but not albums you will likely return to over and over. But a once a year listen will not hurt. Debut albus often come under the 3 star category, the best is yet to come. If an album has some shining moments but are still a bit disappointing I rate them a 3 but its always a tough choice. eg: The Snow Goose, Future Days, The Crane Wife, Faust IV, Trespass, War Child, Autobahn.   4 stars are the most rated category I noted. Not quite masterpeices but still look great in any collection. The albums have everything the discerning music connoiseur loves. It delivers a whole album of great tracks, with a few medicore moments stopping the masterpeice rating. Some rough edges may be enough to lessen its rating but they are not to be missed. The albums are highly recommended and are likely to stay in the CD player on repeat. The albums grow on you over time and become fan favourites. Some eventually reach masterpeice rating over a period of time. eg: Hybris, Tarkus, Moonmadness, Octavarium, Nadir's Big Chance, Angel's Egg.     5 stars are also easy to find as they are the ones that have an immediate impact on the listener. Ther eis no doubt that the album is one of the greatest you have heard. The masterpiece is not to be taken lightly, and there are not that many of them, especially for a debut artist, but they are out there and are universally celebrated. They are well known in the prog community, become legendary in their own tight, and are definitive essential purposes, often being at the top of music fans all time greatest albums lists. eg: Dark Side of the Moon, Foxtrot, The Human Equation, Pawn Hearts, Close to the Edge, Thick as a Brick, In the Court of the Crimson King, Brain Salad Surgery, Moving Pictures, Frequency, The Weirding. That\s your opinion/ bias. I think a better system is something like: 5 stars: I really love this album 4 stars: I love this album 3 stars: I enjoy this 2: seems kind of weak to me, but not that bad 1. I really don't like this album It doesn't need saying, but ratings are ultimately subjective.  What is a masterpiece to one might be a stinker to another.  Atom heart Mother is my favourite album that Pink Floyd worked on (I really respect Geeson's work on the suite).  Dark Side of the Moon I like, but do not enjoy as much so I would not rate it as highly.  What bothers me with reviews is when people act like they're being objective, that their opinion holds some universal truth.  I don't try to promote music, but I like to share my enthusiasm for music (in my case through the fora).  I would not rate something high just because it's commonly held to be excellent or important, or vice versa -- the ratings are a reflection of my taste. The Final Cut is not universally panned.  A good review is insightful, of course, and should show good knowledge of the style.  What I dislike is when reviews make claims in an objective manner that are really subjective, and when they come off as self-important. Sticking with Floyd, and I'm not saying you should not express your opinion, but I genuinely like A Sacuerful of Secrets very much -- I prefer it to most Floyd albums.  You gave it a two and wrote at the end of your review "Contrary to popular belief, not everything Floyd touched was pure gold, in fact some of their early material stinks like yesterday's diapers, and unless you were stoned to the hilt, you would have thought this album was a yawnfest. People pretend to understand it, but there is no thread of reason throughout. I realise Floydians will gush over this album, simply because it is iconic Floyd with the legend in his own mind, Barrett in all his insane glory, but just because it is iconic and from the psychedelic 60s does not necessarily mean the actual music is any good. Well, now I have released all that anguish I can move on to a better album from Floyd; take your pick, this effort is a bottom of the barrel doped up Saucerful of Secretions! Collectors Only!" Not a yawnfest to me and I avoid narcotics. I don't give ratings heed unless it''s by people with very similar tastes to myself, and there are quite a few with overall fairly mediocre ratings that I love. I think that's the key, and I am very similar. There are people on the site who I know I have little in common with as far as musical tastes are concerned, so I generally will not decide on their reviews alone. Those whose tastes match mine well and who I respect as a reviewer, I will take notice of. And, yes, as subjective as we all try to be, the fact is that all reviews are a reflection of the opinion of the reviewer, i.e. objective. It is difficult to avoid really, even amongst professionals in the press. as a good example, Geoff Barton did a review of Blackmore's Night a few years ago in Classic Rock magazine. I forget which album it was, but the entire review was basically a rant as to how much he hated Blackmore's music since ditching Purple, and how he wished he would become "The Man In Black" again. I happen to like the Blackmore's Night albums, but if I had not heard any of them, to be honest, all I would have got from that particular review was a huge amount of bile, which is not the point of a review. I do think it is possible to express a personal opinion in a way that people reading will learn and respect. Good post. Just expanding on with related ideas: respect is really important for me when taking opinions into account.  I have taken into account reviews by people whose tastes I know to be quite different from mine if I respected the way they put themselves across, both in reviews and knowing them from the fora.  I've been reading your reviews and enjoying them, but then I respect you from the fora because i appreciate your attitude and thoughts.  Not to get side-tracked, but thanks to a review of yours I\ve been really enjoying an old fave of mine, Who's Next?  If I\ve been looking to expand my music al horizons, and they are always expanding and my tastes are malleable (different flavours of the day that interest me), it\s important to me that I feel that person has an appreciation for/ considerable knowledge of the category that the album is in that they are reviewing. It'\s also important to me that I feel that the person has strong grasp on the album (too often people review after one listen without giving much consideration). Though I may find them entertaining, I discount bashing reviews.  There are those ones that try to sound cynically hip that don\t do it for me.  And those that have biased to what they want expectations of music that bash can be really terrible.  One should try to review an album on its own merits, and not like in the case of that Blackmore=s Night reviewer, rant about what style that person should have stuck in the reviewer's opinion to.  One thing that makes me discount a review is when a person makes claims that are not accurate,  expresses a lot of hyperbole, is dismissive of others who appreciate it (disrespectful), and acts as if they know better than others, and tells other people what they should think of the album.  I want to trust that that person "gets" the album, and has a good understanding of music, and  a decent understanding of music theory and the style if trying to be objective about the qualities of the music.  Absolutist statements such as, "this is not music", this lacks melody and harmony et cetera often indicates ignorance about musical forms (as well as terminology).  If people recognise their own ignoirance about musical form in reviews instead of making dubious/false claims, and resorting to hyperbole, I\m much more forgiving. Thanks Greg - I really appreciate those comments

Some excellent posts there for sure. Music is objective, subjective, and you come to it with a certain bias depending on our experience or musical knowledge, or lack thereof. I feel the reviews I have written or read about so called stinkers are rather amusing and say for instance an hour readng reviews of 'Love Beach' or 'St Anger' are rather entertaining and are written with a certain cynical edge and that should be expected. All the reviews I read in magazines about bad albums are always edgey with broad sweeping statements and full blown cyncisim; thats the fun of writing reviews about bad movies or bad albums; that cynical attitude.