Reviews discussion

Epignosis wrote: Dean wrote: ^ of course you probably wouldn't be reviewing a 30 year old album if it wasn't significant in someway either then or now (or both). For older albums that generally means "influential" Throw me a bit of credibility, Dean. Sure I review albums that are popular, but I also seek out many that get almost no attention.

Epignosis wrote: Dean wrote: Epignosis wrote: Dean wrote: ^ of course you probably wouldn't be reviewing a 30 year old album if it wasn't significant in someway either then or now (or both). For older albums that generally means "influential" Throw me a bit of credibility, Dean. Sure I review albums that are popular, but I also seek out many that get almost no attention. Never said nuffink about "popular"  - my point was that the influential albums are thus so for a reason. In fact without them we wouldn't be reviewing any albums of 30 years ago, so for that they must have special significance above just their content. But I think you're missing my point.  These albums were only influential because they were popular.  Otherwise, I don't think artists at the time would be "influenced" (because they never would have heard them).

I guess I should put it this way: Name an influential album that sold less than 2000 copies.

Dean wrote: Epignosis wrote: Dean wrote: Epignosis wrote: Dean wrote: Epignosis wrote: Dean wrote: ^ of course you probably wouldn't be reviewing a 30 year old album if it wasn't significant in someway either then or now (or both). For older albums that generally means "influential" Throw me a bit of credibility, Dean. Sure I review albums that are popular, but I also seek out many that get almost no attention. Never said nuffink about "popular"  - my point was that the influential albums are thus so for a reason. In fact without them we wouldn't be reviewing any albums of 30 years ago, so for that they must have special significance above just their content. But I think you're missing my point.  These albums were only influential because they were popular.  Otherwise, I don't think artists at the time would be "influenced" (because they never would have heard them). I do hope that isn't true because that would imply that their influence was purely commercial and nothing to do with music. Very well...let's have an example.  Which Pink Floyd album was more influential on music: Piper at the Gates of Dawn or Dark Side of the Moon?  Why? Depends on who was being influenced - musically they're not of the same subgenre, PatGoD's influence is probably hardest to guage as it was more specific, its influence was more like a stack of dominos from one band to the next, whereas DSotM has a broader influence, but probably not as deep so is easier to see at first glance.

Then "influence" is a nebulous concept, yes?  Under that former description, my album could be amazingly influential.

Epignosis wrote: I guess I should put it this way: Name an influential album that sold less than 2000 copies.

UMUR wrote: Why ever would I rate an album I dislike/ don´t find interesting with a high rating just because it was groundbreaking when it was released?

It's very simple: there's a reason why some albums are influential. This status is not "added" to the album but it comes from inside it. It's called creativity. The degree of creativity put into something original and fresh and soon to become influential is much higher than the degree of creativity put into something very accomplished, but accomplished inside the patterns and structures defined by someone else. IMO a good review should identify and put into balance both the innovative creativity (which produces the musical ideas) and the level of accomplishment
of those ideas into a masterwork.

Let me give you an example. To me, "The Piper At The Gates Of Dawn" is one of the best examples of very strong innovative creativity put into rock music. I would rate the creativity of Barrett & Co five stars easily. However I find the level of accomplishment on this album much lower than the level of creativity, and I would rate it three stars. Putting both into balance would result into a four stars rating for this album. It's clear that the level of artistic accomplishment for Pink Floyd went to five stars during, for example, recording "Dark Side Of The Moon". But we must keep in mind that what stirs competition and emulation is not as much the artistic accomplishment of a musical work but the degree of innovative, creative ideas; they are taken by the others and sometimes developed further or accomplished even better. Therefore we must always ask ourselves why is an album groundbreaking and/or influential, because we'll usually find a lot of extra creativity in that music, that something special which we won't find somewhere else. That has to be taken into consideration when reviewing (as it regards the music in itself).

you people are silly. People's opinions don't change just because you write an essay at them on the interwebz

King By-Tor wrote: you people are silly. People's opinions don't change just because you write an essay at them on the interwebz

it's not about changing other's opinions as much as expressing your own pompous and overblown ones, and here's one now; 

I gave Pekka Pohjola's debut [Pihkasilma kaarnakorva] 5 stars.  Now-- I did that mostly cause I think it's a brilliant album, both in my opinion and as per PA's 5 star definition.  But as I state in my write-up, I don't give it 5 stars only because it's a masterpiece of prog but also cause in 1972 it was clearly a masterwork of prog/fusion relative even to the other great music at the time, and certainly compared to most other popular music forms.

my pompous and overblown opinion is that you're all wasting your time

King By-Tor wrote: my pompous and overblown opinion is that you're all wasting your time

Well what are you doing here, you Vietnamese-Canadian?