Forum Home Forum Home > Site News, Newbies, Help and Improvements > Report abuse here
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Trolls scare a band from PA
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedTrolls scare a band from PA

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 678
Author
Message
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 14 2012 at 19:16
Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

I just think the contention that every one is capable of producing a five star album if they put enough time and effort into it is wrong. You keep saying that if an artist rates his own album below five stars it means it's unfinished or he could have done better. In most cases, no matter how many years you spend making something it is not going to have that magic that sets five star albums apart from ones that are just very good.
I don't think I am saying that at all (I'm sure I'm not and I'm sure I haven't). I'm saying that if an artist can recognise faults in his work then he should fix them - I don't like the "Oh, it'll do" philosophy even if it seems to be the prevelant philosophy just about everywhere now (this was the central point of my Please Self-Release Me, Let me Go blog) - for me, "it's good enough", is not good enough therefore it's not finished - it's not a question of doing it better, but doing it right. I'm not talking about that indefinable and wholly subjective magic you speak of, but about an artist knowning that something has flaws and releasing it anyway.

Edited by Dean - November 14 2012 at 19:18
What?
Back to Top
Finnforest View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 03 2007
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 16913
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 15 2012 at 16:13
Originally posted by HolyMoly HolyMoly wrote:

I think it's healthy for an artist to be humble enough to recognize his own shortcomings.  (If being less than perfect can be considered a shortcoming).  Even "unfinished" art has its place -- it's a building block towards a certain goal or vision.  What would it have been like if The Pink Floyd held off on releasing any music until Dark Side of the Moon?  DSOTM couldn't have happened if not for those crucial early albums.  In fact, I find them a lot more fascinating than the "perfection" of DSOTM.

I realize we're off topic here, but I'd been waiting for the right words to chime in..


Right Steve.  Remember the guys were less than enamored with Atom Heart, and for many people that's a huge floyd album. 



Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32477
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 15 2012 at 16:19
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

I just think the contention that every one is capable of producing a five star album if they put enough time and effort into it is wrong. You keep saying that if an artist rates his own album below five stars it means it's unfinished or he could have done better. In most cases, no matter how many years you spend making something it is not going to have that magic that sets five star albums apart from ones that are just very good.
I don't think I am saying that at all (I'm sure I'm not and I'm sure I haven't). I'm saying that if an artist can recognise faults in his work then he should fix them - I don't like the "Oh, it'll do" philosophy even if it seems to be the prevelant philosophy just about everywhere now (this was the central point of my Please Self-Release Me, Let me Go blog) - for me, "it's good enough", is not good enough therefore it's not finished - it's not a question of doing it better, but doing it right. I'm not talking about that indefinable and wholly subjective magic you speak of, but about an artist knowning that something has flaws and releasing it anyway.


That's how I read this.

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Iván has a very valid point - if a band does not think their lastest album is a masterpiece then why bother releasing it? I recall making a point similar to this in a blog about self-released albums - if a band cannot make an effort to do the best they can then why should I expend any energy in listening to it.
 


But then you say "best they can," and I think that is not synonymous with thinking one's work is a masterpiece.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 15 2012 at 16:28
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

I just think the contention that every one is capable of producing a five star album if they put enough time and effort into it is wrong. You keep saying that if an artist rates his own album below five stars it means it's unfinished or he could have done better. In most cases, no matter how many years you spend making something it is not going to have that magic that sets five star albums apart from ones that are just very good.
I don't think I am saying that at all (I'm sure I'm not and I'm sure I haven't). I'm saying that if an artist can recognise faults in his work then he should fix them - I don't like the "Oh, it'll do" philosophy even if it seems to be the prevelant philosophy just about everywhere now (this was the central point of my Please Self-Release Me, Let me Go blog) - for me, "it's good enough", is not good enough therefore it's not finished - it's not a question of doing it better, but doing it right. I'm not talking about that indefinable and wholly subjective magic you speak of, but about an artist knowning that something has flaws and releasing it anyway.


That's how I read this.

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Iván has a very valid point - if a band does not think their lastest album is a masterpiece then why bother releasing it? I recall making a point similar to this in a blog about self-released albums - if a band cannot make an effort to do the best they can then why should I expend any energy in listening to it.
 


But then you say "best they can," and I think that is not synonymous with thinking one's work is a masterpiece.
Yes, and sometimes taking everything people say as being literal gets exceedingly tiresome, especially when the hyperbole of common informal usage is tempered by further explanation. A forum is conversation al English, not a bleedin' essay.
What?
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32477
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 15 2012 at 16:30
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

I just think the contention that every one is capable of producing a five star album if they put enough time and effort into it is wrong. You keep saying that if an artist rates his own album below five stars it means it's unfinished or he could have done better. In most cases, no matter how many years you spend making something it is not going to have that magic that sets five star albums apart from ones that are just very good.
I don't think I am saying that at all (I'm sure I'm not and I'm sure I haven't). I'm saying that if an artist can recognise faults in his work then he should fix them - I don't like the "Oh, it'll do" philosophy even if it seems to be the prevelant philosophy just about everywhere now (this was the central point of my Please Self-Release Me, Let me Go blog) - for me, "it's good enough", is not good enough therefore it's not finished - it's not a question of doing it better, but doing it right. I'm not talking about that indefinable and wholly subjective magic you speak of, but about an artist knowning that something has flaws and releasing it anyway.


That's how I read this.

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Iván has a very valid point - if a band does not think their lastest album is a masterpiece then why bother releasing it? I recall making a point similar to this in a blog about self-released albums - if a band cannot make an effort to do the best they can then why should I expend any energy in listening to it.
 


But then you say "best they can," and I think that is not synonymous with thinking one's work is a masterpiece.
Yes, and sometimes taking everything people say as being literal gets exceedingly tiresome, especially when the hyperbole of common informal usage is tempered by further explanation. A forum is conversation al English, not a bleedin' essay.


Yes, and you'll recall that I got reamed not too long ago in another thread because my wording wasn't right on the "money."  Tongue
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 15 2012 at 16:35
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:


Yes, and you'll recall that I got reamed not too long ago in another thread because my wording wasn't right on the "money."  Tongue
Heads I win; Tails you lose. Approve
What?
Back to Top
thellama73 View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 15 2012 at 23:15
I agree that if a band can recognize flaws and know how to fix them, they should do so. I don't think a lack of flaws is enough to warrant five stars though, no do I think the existence of flaws precludes a five star rating. The first Boston album doesn't have any flaws to my ears, but it's not a five star record because it doesn't do much the absolutely blows me away. Rush's 2112 is riddled with flaws, but I still think it's a five star album.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 16 2012 at 02:13
Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

I agree that if a band can recognize flaws and know how to fix them, they should do so. I don't think a lack of flaws is enough to warrant five stars though, no do I think the existence of flaws precludes a five star rating. The first Boston album doesn't have any flaws to my ears, but it's not a five star record because it doesn't do much the absolutely blows me away. Rush's 2112 is riddled with flaws, but I still think it's a five star album.
And I agree, I do not think a perfect album is enough to warrant five stars and moreover I don't expect the whole world to award 5-stars to a perfect album either - my comment was whether the band thought that their latest album deserved 5-stars. I think most artists are duly proud of what they've just produced are regardless of whether the rest of the world regard it as an actual bonefide masterpiece - Of course we tend to be over-critical of our own works but that does not stop us thinking that it deserves 5-stars in our estimation - there is a thin line between being humble and false modesty.
What?
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 16 2012 at 09:32
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

I agree that if a band can recognize flaws and know how to fix them, they should do so. I don't think a lack of flaws is enough to warrant five stars though, no do I think the existence of flaws precludes a five star rating. The first Boston album doesn't have any flaws to my ears, but it's not a five star record because it doesn't do much the absolutely blows me away. Rush's 2112 is riddled with flaws, but I still think it's a five star album.
And I agree, I do not think a perfect album is enough to warrant five stars and moreover I don't expect the whole world to award 5-stars to a perfect album either - my comment was whether the band thought that their latest album deserved 5-stars. I think most artists are duly proud of what they've just produced are regardless of whether the rest of the world regard it as an actual bonefide masterpiece - Of course we tend to be over-critical of our own works but that does not stop us thinking that it deserves 5-stars in our estimation - there is a thin line between being humble and false modesty.

I absolutely agree


            
Back to Top
Logan View Drop Down
Forum & Site Admin Group
Forum & Site Admin Group
Avatar
Site Admin

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: @ wicker man
Status: Offline
Points: 32685
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 17 2012 at 14:30
I'd be uncomfortable rating my own work with a five, or rating it at all.  I don't think it's false modesty to abstain from rating, and I don't think it's really good publicity being seen to toot-one's own-horn; however, sometimes you have to blow that thing since no else will even if it leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

Bit of trivia: Sir Winston Churchill is quoted as saying that he found [Horatio] Hornblower "admirable".

If one is rating one's own works highly while rating other contemporary works lowly, then that could breed suspicion even if the works are artistically dissimilar.
Just a fanboy passin' through.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 678

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.207 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.