Reviews discussion

Tony R wrote: micky wrote: Granted I don't have a large fan club that eagerly awaits my album reviews... a sad lot they would be hahahha....    Personal opinion time folks..   Yeah, I am eagerly awaiting your Rush reviews....bought a baseball bat just for that very job...       If all the reviews were similar in style they would quickly become redundant.I think Mickey's review is unusual, kinda similar in some ways to one of Cert's recent ones which in itself was different from the usual fare we get here.

But wouldn't that be consistent with giving a lower rating to an album you love, doesn't this logic go both ways? For example my highest possible rating for any Zeppelin album for this site would be a maximum 4 stars (provided the progressive excellence; only Houses of the Holy, Physical Graffiti and the live DVD would get the four stars), despite the fact any kilobyte of their official or unofficial discography is at least a 5 stars experience for me... On the other way round, there are albums that I would rate 3 stars If I were to only measure the pleasure they give me, but finally I'd give them one extra-star (or even two, maybe, but I can't remember any album right now for which I'd do this) because of what makes them
-masterpieces that I can't like, but can accept
-highly influential from a historical perspective
-essential definitions of the (sub)genre they represent.
The "problem" with Micky's rating is the BIG difference between his own personal experience of the music and his objective thoughts on the albums musical and not only musical qualities. He went from one star to five stars. IMO, the rating guidelines (rate both music quality and progressiveness and also express by your rating the degree in which prog collections need that album) allow Micky's take on rating an album; the one star-five stars difference may rise doubts on his honesty, I think many people will think "he just did that to look open-minded in the eyes of prog-metal fans". Maybe he should explain more in detail why he thinks the album is a masterpiece of progressive metal, and If so then I think everything would be OK with everybody.

*** bows ***  

micky wrote: Easy Livin wrote: I don't think it needs deleting Micky. I was jsut observing that you are in a minority not applying a rating which reflects your own opinion of the contents.   I can't think of anyone else who would give a 5 star review to an album he didn't like. as I told Raff last year Bob... you'll never meet anyone else like me

andu wrote: The "problem" with Micky's rating is the BIG difference between his own personal experience of the music and his objective thoughts on the albums musical and not only musical qualities. He went from one star to five stars. IMO, the rating guidelines (rate both music quality and progressiveness and also express by your rating the degree in which prog collections need that album) allow Micky's take on rating an album; the one star-five stars difference may rise doubts on his honesty, I think many people will think "he just did that to look open-minded in the eyes of prog-metal fans". Maybe he should explain more in detail why he thinks the album is a masterpiece of progressive metal, and If so then I think everything would be OK with everybody.

as promised.. my final thoughts on this review...  you all I hope have better things to worry about...

Prog-metal fans are under NO such illusion as to my open-mindedness....
nor have I given them any reason to....

 As I stated in a PM to the reviews admin.... I was hard.. but fair...  to give it one star based on what I .. a confirmed prog-metal hater would not be fair. I just don't get what it is about.. that doesn't take away from the perceived 'greatness' of the album for fans of the genre

that should sum it up.... 

You told your wife about Micky, Guigo?

I just noticed that the DT review was written by Micky.

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - April 07 2007 at 17:36

The T wrote: This is so ridiculous.... I'm the DT fanboy here, and, with the exception of the "acne" bit, I'm the only one that hasn't said anything against the review!!

http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=22135

Not exactly much wrong with this, but a few things to note:

Karl Jenkins was not on this record, so therefore his rating is most likely incorrect, because he believes he is.  Also it is known when it was recorded, he should have done his research beforehand.

Plus the review is a bit short and doesn't say much.

Any ideas?


Edited by Geck0 - April 09 2007 at 13:58

Geck0 wrote: http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=22135 Not exactly much wrong with this, but a few things to note: Karl Jenkins was not on this record, so therefore his rating is most likely incorrect, because he believes he is.  Also it is known when it was recorded, he should have done his research beforehand. Plus the review is a bit short and doesn't say much. Any ideas?