SR VI: Incident Free since 2008

James wrote: Epignosis wrote: Sorry folks, but I'm fairly certain two is the ceiling for that album. It's mostly pop for crying out loud, and has a "prog" side that is worse than the pop side. What's wrong with pop (when it's done well)? That's why I like some Muse and Queens of the Stone Age sometimes.  Good pop.

I wouldn't call Muse & Queens of the Stone Age "pop", though

Epignosis wrote: James wrote: Ricochet wrote: While not related to the above discussion (just an idea splintered out of it), if "5 stars" would really mean spotless, perfect(issimo) and flawless, I'd probably award it to no more than 15-20 albums out of everything I've ever reviewed and listened to. So 5 stars doesn't imply it's perfection embodied. But it does imply something highly valorous, yes - and quite on the road to flawlessness, yes. And masterlinessness, of course. Yes. That's how I interpret it.  That is how I rate 5-star albums. Some of the albums I would rate 5-star here would in actuality be about 4.8 or so but as we don't have decimal ratings and 4 is too low, I usually round up. But STILL a 4.5-5 rating is still mostly, if not entirely flawless. Rob (I shall save a post and answer you in this one instead), the voting criteria indeed does not say anything about what a 5-star album consists of. However, your logic is flawed and (as nice as I can say it), is also the worst idea I've ever heard.  It seems preposterous to me that one should rate an album the way you do.  It makes no sense whatsoever. So you can seriously say that you can give an album that quite clearly has flaws (and which you have openly admitted has flaws) is worthy of a 5-star rating when another album which has barely, if at all, any flaws (and which you also openly agree on) also is worthy of a 5-star? That is saying therefore than an unmitigated music gem of an album is rated equally (by the same rater) as an album that is in actuality, deserving of much less favour. Tarkus (the track on its own) is only a 3 for me but combined with the rest of the superfluous and worthless w**kery and pretentious drivvle on that album; I would rate the whole album as a 2. I do not rate an album solely on one amazing track (which Tarkus is not anyhow). James, you mentioned Vonnegut earlier, so I'll assume you know how to read. I never said "Shallow" and "Halo" were flaws- I said I didn't like them (at least at first).  There's a difference there. Do try and pay attention. Which I guess raises a counter-question... Do you know when something is a "flaw" and when something is something you just don't like?  If so, how?

A flaw goes hand-in-hand with "not liking", for me.

If I do not like a track on an album, yet the album is otherwise a masterpiece.  I consider that a flaw.  The album isn't flawed but that one track is a flaw and would bring my rating of the album down a notch (or two).

Therefore your not (initially) liking a couple of tracks may indeed constitute them being flaws in relation to the whole album.  So miraculously you somehow have made yourself like these tracks and now the album stands out as a 5-star album despite the fact you openly admitted you would have give it a 5 even though you initially disliked 2 tracks.

I am fully paying attention, thank you very much.  Now what was it Vonnegut's character H. Lowe Crosby called those such as yourself?

Ah yes, "a pissant".


Edited by James - September 20 2009 at 15:58

and the battle rages on in here....

James wrote: Oooh, Battles. I must play their album again soon.  Thanks for the reminder, Pablo.

I was quoting Deep Purple

I would personally prefer it if you were honest with your ratings and if that means lowering your ratings for VdGG or HC albums, then that does not bother me in the slightest.

10 minutes on a 45 minute album is a lot.  That would affect my rating.  Even 5 minutes of poor music would.  Maybe an annoying 30 second outtro would be ignored but if an album generally has poor tracks (and they are poor if I don't like them), then I would lower my rating accordingly.


Edited by James - September 20 2009 at 16:07

stonebeard wrote: Wait a minute...you gave Hounds of Love  WHAT rating!?!?! *Intense furystorm of rageosity*

That's Rob being generous.

Woooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oh Babushka Babushka aye aye...

TGM: Orb wrote: James wrote: TGM: Orb wrote: What part of Tarkus side 2 is either pretentious drivel or worthless w**kery? I mean, there are a few criticisms that can be reasonably levelled at it, but neither of those is one of them. @James, stop being a berk about people's standards of judgement. I was being polite. Tarkus (the track) is everything you just said.  The rest of the album is just drivel.  Not necessarily pretentious but still drivel.  Oh and worthless too.  The w**kery is in Tarkus. Yawn; that wasn't the original statement. Can't be bothered to argue with your suppositions about worth.

I know what my initial statement was and I was correcting it to actually say what I meant to.

Therefore I am agreeing with you.

So there is no argument required.  Don't be such a git.

James wrote: Epignosis wrote: James wrote: I would personally prefer it if you were honest with your ratings and if that means lowering your ratings for VdGG or HC albums, then that does not bother me in the slightest. 10 minutes on a 45 minute album is a lot.  That would affect my rating.  Even 5 minutes of poor music would.  Maybe an annoying 30 second outtro would be ignored but if an album generally has poor tracks (and they are poor of I don't like them), then I would lower my rating accordingly. So now you are lacking in math are you? I said 45 minutes of 5 star music and 10 minutes of 2 star music.  That equals 55 minutes of music.  So you call me a pissant and now you call me dishonest with my ratings. I can see there's no reasoning with you at all. I am lacking in mathematics, yes.  It's never been my strong point.  No, you're not dishonest with your ratings, as such.  If anything, you probably rate too highly with albums you do not really like that much. My statement still stands though. 10 minutes of crap (i.e. music I do not like) on a 55 minute album, would still affect my rating.  It makes no difference. You still somehow fail to get my point.  Oh well.

Oh for God's sake...

I also never said 10 minutes of crap.  I specifically said "ten minutes of 2 star music" would "probably not affect my opinion of the overall package."

Ten minutes of crap (i.e., one star music) probably would.

There are exceptions to both of these "probablies."

I see all is well in here.