Trolls scare a band from PA

Dean wrote: Every artist who releases an album says in the press "This is the best thing we've ever done." And I believe they mean that - of course several years (or even months) down the line they'll change their mind (usually just before they release the next one).

Yeah, but there's a difference between "the best thing we've ever done" and "the best thing anyone has ever done." Of course you want to be improving on your previous work and producing the best product you can, but that doesn't mean you are capable of writing revolutionary masterpieces.

But it specifically doesn't mean "one of my most favorite albums." It specifically means "Essential. A masterpiece of progressive rock music." That is the way our ratings system is set up.

Dean wrote: thellama73 wrote: But it specifically doesn't mean "one of my most favorite albums." It specifically means "Essential. A masterpiece of progressive rock music." That is the way our ratings system is set up. Now tell that to everyone who's rated a non-masterpiece album with a 5-star rating. Including all the collabs and fat bottomed girls who rated Still The Waters as a masterpiece

I don't rate my own stuff, but if I did, I'd give StW either a 3 or 4.  I love the compositions but I could have fixed a lot in the recording aspect (which I am [slowly] working on now).  I have not added the album to bandcamp yet for that reason- I am going back and making adjustments.

I genuinely think Refulgence is a solid four.  Which is what I go for.  I don't go for "five star," because I think that is something special that means I made a powerful connection with a listener.  I shoot for "excellent."  Most albums for me?  No amount of fiddling or tweaking will take it from a four to a five.  A five star rating here from me is special- it means the content of the album changed me in some powerful way.

As for those who rated my first album highly, three things:

1. I never expected to see such a reception.  I was skeptical of it myself.  Everyone who reviewed it thusly assured me they were being honest.

2. A flood of scathing reviews came in shortly thereafter.  They were more helpful to me.

3. There are other fat bottomed girls who like my music?  


Edited by Epignosis - November 13 2012 at 19:12

Epignosis wrote: Dean wrote: thellama73 wrote: But it specifically doesn't mean "one of my most favorite albums." It specifically means "Essential. A masterpiece of progressive rock music." That is the way our ratings system is set up. Now tell that to everyone who's rated a non-masterpiece album with a 5-star rating. Including all the collabs and fat bottomed girls who rated Still The Waters as a masterpiece I don't rate my own stuff, but if I did, I'd give StW either a 3 or 4.  I love the compositions but I could have fixed a lot in the recording aspect (which I am [slowly] working on now).  I have not added the album to bandcamp yet for that reason- I am going back and making adjustments. I genuinely think Refulgence is a solid four.  Which is what I go for.  I don't go for "five star," because I think that is something special that means I made a powerful connection with a listener.  I shoot for "excellent."  Most albums for me?  No amount of fiddling or tweaking will take it from a four to a five.  A five star rating here from me is special- it means the content of the album changed me in some powerful way. As for those who rated my first album highly, three things: 1. I never expected to see such a reception.  I was skeptical of it myself.  Everyone who reviewed it thusly assured me they were being honest. 2. A flood of scathing reviews came in shortly thereafter.  They were more helpful to me. 3. There are other fat bottomed girls who like my music?

It wasn't a criticism Rob - just making a point that people give 5-star ratings to albums they like/love for whatever reason regardless of what it says in the rating description/guideline. Those people must have noticed the production and recording and seen past that to the music itself and made that connection to what the music was conveying. Quite a few masterpieces suffer from production flaws that could be fixed, but as we have seen with some remix/remasters and re-recordings, fixing those doesn't necessarily make things better. Errors or weakneses in the composition/structure are something else - a masterpiece is a masterpiece regardless of how well it was recorded - there are good versions and bad versions of Beethoven's 9th but it's still a masterpiece.   Tweeking and fiddling cannot make 4-star album a 5-star album, but rethinking and revising a 4-star tune can make it a 5-star tune - Pink Floyd used to do did this all the time, "Set The Controls", "Saucerful of Secrets", "Becareful With That Axe" became 5-star live tunes after they were recorded in the studio;  "Nothing, Parts 1–24" was worked and reworked live and in the studio before it became a 5-star composition we now know as "Echoes"; "Ravin' an Droolin'" wasn't a 5-star tune but it became one after being reworked as "Sheep"; Rick Wright's "Violent Sequence" originally intended for Zabriski Point became a sublime 5-star tune as "Us And Them". 

thellama73 wrote: Dean wrote: Every artist who releases an album says in the press "This is the best thing we've ever done." And I believe they mean that - of course several years (or even months) down the line they'll change their mind (usually just before they release the next one). Yeah, but there's a difference between "the best thing we've ever done" and "the best thing anyone has ever done." Of course you want to be improving on your previous work and producing the best product you can, but that doesn't mean you are capable of writing revolutionary masterpieces.

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - November 13 2012 at 21:54

Epignosis wrote: I think the primary flaw here lies in an understanding of "masterpiece."  If people would stop using terms like "objective review," we might have a bit more honesty.  There is no "objective masterpiece."  The word "masterpiece" is and always shall be a subjective term.  Even if we're talking about the classical definition, that just means it's a collective opinion.  An artist's masterpiece could theoretically change over the decades as new critics come into play. But in our little context, we (mis?)use "masterpiece" to refer to any album we deem worthy of our highest honor.  I have never had a problem with that.  If the verbiage needs to be changed, fine (I would not advocate only allowing one five star per artist).  I disagree with some of the Pink Floyd pieces you mentioned being five star when reworked.  You love PF- I can make the same claim about Kansas who went through three incarnations and even have two different lineups playing some of the same material.  But you will no doubt disagree and say "Incomudro" or "Greek Structure Sunbeam" are not five star songs. I do take umbrage at those who use ones and fives in a binary way.  By the way, I did not view your comments as a criticism.

Edited by Dean - November 14 2012 at 03:11

Epignosis wrote: 1. The band has a deadline with a record label. 2. The material is meant to simply entertain and not satisfy some artistic measure of achievement. 3. The band are satisfied enough. 4. Some members of the band think its perfect, while others do not. 5. Screwing with something too much can actually make it worse.

I would add 7. You don't think you can do any better, but you still don't think it's a five star record.

I bet if you asked most musicians that we consider legendary, they would not rate their own music as highly as those artists that came before and inspired them.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: IMHO if an artist rates his own album with lets say 3 stars is like saying:   "I could have done a better job"   If the own artist believes this...Why should I buy this album?

Nobody says you should.

^I agree with that for the most part. And many people criticize themselves more harshly than their peers may.

Artists don't hear their music like others do. Their music is something special and sacred, practically an extension of themselves. So it doesn't matter how good the artist "thinks" they did or not.