The anti-fanboys

kingfriso wrote: Sometimes when I'm busy reading reviews of album-pages or specific users my attention gets drawn to one and two star series. Some people hate everything Peter Hammelish and they are willing to listen to the whole VdGG discography and rate in one or two stars because of the 'awful vocals'. Some people just don't like some bands, but is it justified to rate a record low because it isn't your style or your kind of music or you don't know what to do with it? Opinions?

hahha.. since when has justification ever been more than a passing thought to anyone awarding 1 star to DT.. or 5 stars to PT.  That is why ratings are a joke.. always have been.. always will be.

the only true criteria for being allowed to post a review is that you have listened to the album. If you think someone would intentionally inflict music that they hate on themselves, then sit back & enjoy the glorious pain that they've put up with ... 

The main thing about all this is that, no matter how we try to deal with that, music is art and art should be judged by taste. Critics are always criticized because they try to judge art by other values, and the common man is only concerned with his level of enjoyment.

Mr ProgFreak wrote: Raff wrote: I have reviewed 188 albums for this site, and I have given 1 star to two albums only - both by Deep Purple, one of my favourite bands ever. One of the reasons I did so was to prove I could steer clear of any suspicion of fanboyism. I would give the same rating to any album by a favourite band or artist of mine which I found poor or disappointing.That said, in the three months I have been reviewing for another site I have learned a lot about being as objective as possible when rating an album. First of all, though we rate albums on that site as well, the main focus is the actual review, which is always rather detailed, and somewhat longer than what most people would post here. Then since we review albums the bands or artists send to us, we are exposed to a very varied range of stuff, some of which we would never buy on our own accord - so far it is from our personal tastes. However, this is where objectivity comes into play - we listen to an album with an open mind, and try to look for its strong points, not just for its weaknesses. I have given relatively high ratings to CDs that are not precisely my cup of tea, just because I have learned to recognise those strengths. Very true ... it depends a lot on the review and on how you put it. I don't mind someone giving low ratings to albums I love, what annoys me is when people start to disrespect the musicians involved.Example for a - IMHO - bad, condescending review:http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=61487Example for a - IMHO - good review with which I don't agree, but which I can respect:http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=132342

Yes I recognisize this! Not only bashing the music but even the people who might listen to it whaha! You must truly dislike it to do such a strange, puzzling think .

akin wrote: The main thing about all this is that, no matter how we try to deal with that, music is art and art should be judged by taste. Critics are always criticized because they try to judge art by other values, and the common man is only concerned with his level of enjoyment.   For a common man, it doesn´t matter which techniques Picasso, Van Gogh or his neighboor used when painting. For a common man, it doesn´t matter if the song is a simple 4/4 intro/verse/chorus/verse/chorus affair or if it is a symphony with 3 distinct movements using different time signatures, key changes, unusual chord progressions, Dorian or Phrygian modes, etc. For a common man, it doesn´t matter if the film maker used revolutionary photography and edition methods or if the movie is an ordinary romantic comedy, with the same actors and the same base arguments.   When we review, we must be true to our tastes and reasonable, only that. If a person hates a band, he has the right to review everything with one star and he has the right to complain about the vocals, for example, in every album. When you are reading a review, you have the understanding that the reviewer dislikes the vocals and that is all. I think it is better to say that you hate high speed guitar solos than to say that the production is amateurish or the drummer is not very skilled, because the last explain less about the reviewer´s taste than the first. Which excerpt is more clear to describe a death metal band to a person interested:   "I dislike this album because I hate growling, ultradistorted guitars that sound like a drone and fast and repetitive drumming. It is not suited for my taste and only good to people who likes this kind of music."   or   "The vocals are not much varied, the musicianship is technical, but it doesn´t have a lot of feeling. Most of the chord progressions are not elaborated (I-IV-V or alikes). All the songs use common time signatures, so I don´t think it is very progressive and I don´t recommend this album to a prog fan."   I really prefer the first, because I know exactly which what kind of sound I will be dealing with.

Going by paragraph: 'music is art and art should be judged by taste. Critics are always criticized because they try to judge art by other values, and the common man is only concerned with his level of enjoyment.'...

1. Art should be critiqued by whether it achieves what you think it means to achieve, what you think it should achieve and its context. If you can't justify or explain your opinions beyond 'I like/don't like this', I don't think that the resulting reviews would be any use to anyone who didn't share your tastes to the letter.

@Paragraph 2. The common man might not consciously look for those techniques, but nonetheless the way in which something is painted, filmed or written affects the emotive quality of the end product vastly... this is why people actually practice at arts rather than just picking up a pen and paper once and submitting the result to galleries. The difference between the 'common man' and the critic, in my opinion, is only that the critic articulates their views a bit better and possibly has the technical know-how to do so, not that the 'common man' doesn't care about techniques.

@Paragraph 3... I'd disagree, I think we need to explain our tastes... truly why we dislike an album. To be honest, it tells me nothing if someone doesn't like James Labrie's voice or thinks it's 'bad' unless they can tell me what they don't like about it. The only times I really take issue with reviews is when it's clear a reviewer plainly doesn't like an album and they fail to move beyond very general and abstract reasons for not liking something...

Now, at the two examples,
1. only tells me about the perceived sound (honestly, I feel with death metal, people tend to see one element and assume all the others are automatically there as well... the same with AOR and so forth) and whether the reviewer likes that sound in general... if I actually like that sort of sound, it tells me nothing about whether or not I should get that album... it tells me nothing about the content of that album... 2. is at least tailored to the album in question.

Toaster Mantis wrote: It could also be that they used to like the album but now have changed mind, or borrowed it from a friend/heard it at the friend's house, grew up with their parents listening to it et cetera. You know, there's other reasons for disliking a classic album than having an axe to grind or just being a big blue meanie who thinks everything sucks. Okay, that's sometimes the case I'll admit that much, but hey, this is rock'n'roll, man... it's supposed to be all about not holding anything sacred and thinking outside the box, emphasis on the last thing when we're dealing with the progressive kind. I think this essay by music reviewer Jim Derogatis says it better than I can.

npjnpj wrote: If someone dislikes the output of an artist then the reviews should reflect that, as long as the arguments against are substantial, even if it does mean that all VdGG reviews get a low star rating. In the end it's all a matter of taste.

Well, if it's all a matter of taste - which is also my opinion - then you don't need to substantiate anything in a review ... sometimes we just intuitively like or dislike something. I won't mind a 1 star review of an album which I would give 5 stars to which just says "I hate this album - I can't explain why". It's honest, and the reader can decide what to make of it. Of course more details are helpful ... for example, the reviewer could elaborate what he/she hates the most about the album. Then the reader has some points of reference to decide whether the review can be helpful.

^ I think that the ultimate goal (or purpose) of a review or rating is to help others who don't know the album decide whether they should check it out or not. The most important factor to achieve that goal is - in my humble opinion:

Honesty

As long as a review is - or at least appears to be - honest, I don't have any problem with it at all.

TGM: Orb wrote: akin wrote: The main thing about all this is that, no matter how we try to deal with that, music is art and art should be judged by taste. Critics are always criticized because they try to judge art by other values, and the common man is only concerned with his level of enjoyment.   For a common man, it doesn´t matter which techniques Picasso, Van Gogh or his neighboor used when painting. For a common man, it doesn´t matter if the song is a simple 4/4 intro/verse/chorus/verse/chorus affair or if it is a symphony with 3 distinct movements using different time signatures, key changes, unusual chord progressions, Dorian or Phrygian modes, etc. For a common man, it doesn´t matter if the film maker used revolutionary photography and edition methods or if the movie is an ordinary romantic comedy, with the same actors and the same base arguments.   When we review, we must be true to our tastes and reasonable, only that. If a person hates a band, he has the right to review everything with one star and he has the right to complain about the vocals, for example, in every album. When you are reading a review, you have the understanding that the reviewer dislikes the vocals and that is all. I think it is better to say that you hate high speed guitar solos than to say that the production is amateurish or the drummer is not very skilled, because the last explain less about the reviewer´s taste than the first. Which excerpt is more clear to describe a death metal band to a person interested:   "I dislike this album because I hate growling, ultradistorted guitars that sound like a drone and fast and repetitive drumming. It is not suited for my taste and only good to people who likes this kind of music."   or   "The vocals are not much varied, the musicianship is technical, but it doesn´t have a lot of feeling. Most of the chord progressions are not elaborated (I-IV-V or alikes). All the songs use common time signatures, so I don´t think it is very progressive and I don´t recommend this album to a prog fan."   I really prefer the first, because I know exactly which what kind of sound I will be dealing with. Going by paragraph: 'music is art and art should be judged by taste. Critics are always criticized because they try to judge art by other values, and the common man is only concerned with his level of enjoyment.'... 1. Art should be critiqued by whether it achieves what you think it means to achieve, what you think it should achieve and its context. If you can't justify or explain your opinions beyond 'I like/don't like this', I don't think that the resulting reviews would be any use to anyone who didn't share your tastes to the letter. @Paragraph 2. The common man might not consciously look for those techniques, but nonetheless the way in which something is painted, filmed or written affects the emotive quality of the end product vastly... this is why people actually practice at arts rather than just picking up a pen and paper once and submitting the result to galleries. The difference between the 'common man' and the critic, in my opinion, is only that the critic articulates their views a bit better and possibly has the technical know-how to do so, not that the 'common man' doesn't care about techniques. @Paragraph 3... I'd disagree, I think we need to explain our tastes... truly why we dislike an album. To be honest, it tells me nothing if someone doesn't like James Labrie's voice or thinks it's 'bad' unless they can tell me what they don't like about it. The only times I really take issue with reviews is when it's clear a reviewer plainly doesn't like an album and they fail to move beyond very general and abstract reasons for not liking something... Now, at the two examples, 1. only tells me about the perceived sound (honestly, I feel with death metal, people tend to see one element and assume all the others are automatically there as well... the same with AOR and so forth) and whether the reviewer likes that sound in general... if I actually like that sort of sound, it tells me nothing about whether or not I should get that album... it tells me nothing about the content of that album... 2. is at least tailored to the album in question.

Basicly the important thing is that the reviewer make it clear, when are we talking about the music on an objective level, comparing it with similar albums ect ect