Four listens in one day? That's enough?

The ratings range from 3 stars to 5 stars.

The recipients of these will usually be Prog Reviewers or Collaborators on the site.

I always, btw, state whether an artist has sent me a piece of work to review. I like to think that my reviews are not influenced by this, but that is for others to judge. I am far more selective these days about what I accept, and they tend to be from artists I like or know.

I'm constantly discovering "new stuff" from half a century ago, such as Druid's two 5-star Symphonic Prog albums from the mid-1970's, which I heard for the first time this morning. 

Hi,

I think it depends. For many of us that have been writing reviews of many kinds for many years, the majority of stuff these days (film included with the influx of Netf___, Hulabalu, Amazon and many others) being a lot of 2nd rate material that while neat and pretty and colorful, DOES NOT stand up to the great film makers, or their history.

The same for a lot of "progressive" music. I have been following the addition of many folks to the PA database, and the main reason for my asking to NOT ADD a band until they have a 2nd album for folks to listen to, because it looks like we are just adding bands left and right, and most of them do not have the quality or material to show for what they did. For me, even as a first listen, and there are many that I listen to again, the material did not really pick up as much as you and I would have expected, SPECIALLY WHEN COMPARED to the old days, when the material was simply blowing our ears off, and I don't mean the loud crap!

I'm betting that a good 50% of the stuff added and "reviewed" (another story!!! since mostly this is done by fans, not reviewers!!!) is not worth a 2nd listen and a one day review is probably all that the music deserves. The scary part is when someone over rates it and gives you more value than is really there, thus, in the end, I think they are not helping the band get better by being honest!

I have reviewed a couple of things that I kept under the radar because I did not feel comfortable saying something that was not meant as bad, within a public forum. In the one particular example, the music itself was very good, but sadly horribly augmented by a drummer that did not know how to do anything else except once every 32 measures (so to speak) he would bang the snare drum to get the band back on the "theme" and prevent them from flying away which they appeared very capable of doing. In this case, for me, that drummer has got to go, and find a Chuck Berry band, not a progressive band!

All in all, I don't specifically like to criticize my peers in their reviews, as long as they are clear as to how they got to their thoughts. Too many reviews are just overdone and overripened opinions that are really poor and end up not showing the band's talent a whole lot. The same for film. It's ok to have favorites, but separate them when you are discussing the artistic merits ... favoritism is NOT an artistic merit!

At times though, a few well placed words make it seem better than before ... but in general, I am an intuitive writer that "does it" right away, at the very moment of its inception, and reviews for me are not a painting that takes 30 days ... they are an immediate response, and I tend to write a review off that thought and process. It is an honest appraisal, and as long as it works off the technical merits I'm OK with it, but the moment that it's just a like or dislike on my part, I guarantee you that review will be trashed by the end of the day!

 

One of the things that I have noted from discussions about whether or not to add a particular artist to the PA database is that quality is NOT one of the criteria used to make the decision.

 

Too many people don't listen to an album critically either because they don't know how or their listening is based upon their current likes and dislikes in music.  If you can do this correctly, then your reviews count whenever you do them.  But, it does take more than one listen even if it's the first day of the release.  You can tell from the review whether the writer is reviewing an album critically or off of personal taste.  For that reason, there are certain reviewers that their first day reviews are worthless.  You, Steve, are not one of them.  Personally, I respect your reviews, so, yes, they count.  

Most music (be it progressive or not) is relatively generic in structure, choice of notes/scales, and production values. Unless it´s something very special and difficult to describe, most releases are fairly easy to write about if you have a combination of writing routine, research methods in place, and knowledge/history of the genre/artist you are writing about.

To me the research part may sometimes take hours, while the actual review takes 10 minutes to scribble down. People work differently just as they write differently, and the same goes for how many times they need to listen to an album to be able to form an opinion about it. I don´t think there is a formula for that.

Back in 2000 I bought Radiohead's Kid A on the exact day of release, and then listened through it 3 or 4 times on the same day, to try and make any sense of it. It took some time to really appreciate it, so I am glad I didn't attempt some sort of review back then. Had it been a more straight forward album, I might have been able to write a meaningful review.

Many groundbreaking albums get a mixed reception upon their initial release - for the very same reason.

Hi,

Kinda hard to admit this, but I don't listen with the thoughts or ideas that I picked up from all those albums. However, the listening does take a turn, when the music you are listening to is not exactly very original, and/or immediately follows a pattern that fits pop music a lot more than it does ... progressive music. 

So yeah, there would be no reason to listen to it again, but we have to be careful here ... the minute we think that, the band throws a curve ball and it hits the ground and you struck out. But, in general, just like film (for me!!!), I don't have to see it twice to get an idea for a review, which in my case often starts doing the actual playing of the music or seeing the film. Ex: You don't have to see all of FITZCARRALDO to realize how much of it is ad-lib and total improvisation, you can immediately see the camera trying hard to keep up with KK ... and if you want to review centering on how he did this for almost all of the film, you have something to work on, but the rest of the film? You can't leave it behind.

For me, too much of the "new" progressive music is cookie cutter stuff and few bands have grabbed my ears strongly. And one of the things that bothers me is ... it all stops, so the guitar can do a solo! I'm done listening at that point, at least with attention, since the originality of the whole thing is gone ... it's now about how clever that solo is and how good it is sounding, and that's the music we are reviewing? 

Progressive, for me, was not about the solos, it was about the ability of all the musicians to come together and create something special. But hearing the "same song" over and over gets kinda ... yeah, you know!

Yep, exactly my approach, too.

Hi,

I disagree.

It didn't take but ONE LISTEN to know that KC's first album was really special 50 years ago. It did not take but ONE LISTEN to know that YES had something special with CTTE some 50 years ago. It did not take but ONE LISTEN to know that Jethro Tull had created some outstanding pieces in TAAB and APP some 48 or 49 years ago (have to recheck now!)

Nowadays, though, very few things that are showing up do actually stand out just as huge and blow your brains to smithereens, and I don't mean that it is too loud and non-stop thrashing or equivalent, and then because it has 17 chords and 493 notes, it is thought to be "progressive". 

I don't think it matters what kind of music it is/was ... the first time you heard it, your ears went completely out of whack wondering and thinking ... wow ... I just heard something different and far out! 

I have only heard, in the past 6 months, one band whose album stood out, and it was a FINNISH (is that correct for Finland?) band, but when I listened to the previous album, it was not half as good or half as polished and defined to make it better. Almost all the rest I have hear, and this includes a few Japanese groups, which I make a point of listening to everyone of them that DamoX posts on the board, are not exactly totally special, but some make it through. I remember MONO, standing out. I remember GHOST (Japan's) standing out. I remember COPPE standing out on Space Pirate Radio as well.

On the Italian posting, there were also some nice things, maybe two or three that stood out and the others you could easily find the impressions of a lot of other bands, but the best ones, you got the feeling of a "band" really working well together to create good music. Reminded me (not in style!) of the early Banco/Pfm stuff that had the same kind of far out attraction because they were really good and very well defined musicians knowing what they were doing. And Banco got even better. 

Listening is, for me, a sort of discipline, but one thing I like to do these days, is turn on the 2nd machine and play WoW (for example) and on the other machine the new band is playing out loud ... and you KNOW RIGHT AWAY when it is good, when you have to go look to find out the name of the piece and what exactly they are playing. At that point you know that it is good, and you will hear it again!

Few bands have come back, years later, and I started appreciating them. One of the weirdest ones was FLOH DE COLOGNE that a long time ago, was too bizarre and weird, despite some wonderful musical sections. The whole spoken side and what appears to be politics did not work in my ears. Hearing it today, played on Space Pirate Radio ... I go ... wow ... what was that? Only to find it was Floh de Cologne. Time to get their works now, which I passed on in those days! 

The big issue here on many of these listens, is that we heard a lot of the early stuff from a lot of places all over the world, thus not a lot of them are "surprising" and some of the new music does not seem to bring up a feeling of ... a new country ... a new language ... a new sound ... something that turns your ears and your mind inside out to listen to again ... and again!

I once read an essay by Steve Lake about his work for Sounds. I remember that he mentioned that one of the first things he had to learn was that (given the number and the other things to do) one starts writing a review when the album starts playing and should be finished when the album finishes.

Another thing he wrote is that he lived for some time with Robert Fripp (at some point between Red and Discipline), and what a total freak Fripp was (not meant in a positive way). But I'm digressing...

Meu deus!

(BTW, welcome to the forum)

I'm not sure that you are seeing this from a perspective of some listeners that are very well versed in music, and in its history. Again, there are way too many albums I did not have to listen to twice, or three times, because it's grand nature and strengths are all there. 

My main concern is that waiting for something to stew in your head, is merely making sure you are comfortable with something that is a bit different for your tastes and you are not sure how to say it. I can tell you that some of the most experienced reviewers here on PA and myself (over 500 Foreign Film reviews) that it is not really necessary to live with something for a week ... let's see ... that's 51 or 52 reviews a year ... and I think that many of us could do more than that if it called for, however (mostly) it is not necessary.

The other thing, that is harder for newer folks to relate to, and review, is how many of us have been at this for 50 years, and came from a time that none of this actually existed and we were fortunate enough to see a massive historic moment in the arts from the 60's and the 70's, which is something that most younger folks have not been lucky enough to experience, specially now with the media saturating everyone's mind with their own special band ... and making it look like they are the sugar of all progressive music! It is REALLY DIFFICULT for today's listeners to find something special unlike the old days, where there was no word or anything about anything, and you heard it, or your friend did, and you got your mind blown out to pieces, better than any drug. Today, this feeling is non-existent by comparison, specially with music being so cookie cutter minded and not different.

Heck, so you know ... here's my 1972 for you!!!

Nektar, Genesis, Pink Floyd (was on it already for 2 years), Amon Duul 2, Can, Tangerine Dream, Klaus Schulze, Edgar Broughton Band, Pfm, Banco, Egberto Gismonti, Airto and Flora Purim, Hawkwind (saw the Space Ritual original tour with Stacia), Babe Ruth and a listing that is hard to remember in one shot. The immediate thing is how DIFFERENT each and everyone of these bands are, and how special their material was ... something that few folks can get their ears and ideas around, these days!

Music Reviews are about how well "centered" (my word) your views and ideas in music are. And when you have that, the things you want to review are the odd ones that you found were so different than the rest of the material out there ... and TODAY ... not having this variable is a huge issue ... yeah you might have to live with it, until you can figure out what it is all about ... well, I tell you, if you have to sit and figure out what ITCOTCK (KC) is all about, your review is over, and some folks wrote some really bad reviews based on their "preferences", and absolutely nothing to do with the album and its music, not to mention the precious social commentary at the time ... which most reviewers conveniently agree to be more popular with the social media average of nothing!

Learn about the history and the Picasso's, the Monet's, the Dali's, the Miro's ... and the huge number of folks that changed the scenery in the arts, and your appreciation for a lot of things will improve, and let me tell you that band XYZ may be nice, but I'm not going to write a review ... seems like everyone's darling and they are average at best, despite a long cut or two!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(BTW, welcome to the forum)"

A bit unfitting but ok, thx lol.

Anyway, like I said: "it doesn't need to be specifically like that, just getting familiar with it and noticing things you couldn't really pay attention on first listens is enough", so, if you can get familiar with it (or should I say, make sense of it), in 2 listens or whatever it's perfectly understable, I was just saying that I personally prefer to listen to this amount of time to decide (or just appreciate it, sometimes I just get addicted to the album lol).

"The other thing, that is harder for newer folks to relate to, and review, is how many of us have been at this for 50 years, and came from a time that none of this actually existed and we were fortunate enough to see a massive historic moment in the arts from the 60's and the 70's, which is something that most younger folks have not been lucky enough to experience, specially now with the media saturating everyone's mind with their own special band ... and making it look like they are the sugar of all progressive music! It is REALLY DIFFICULT for today's listeners to find something special unlike the old days, where there was no word or anything about anything, and you heard it, or your friend did, and you got your mind blown out to pieces, better than any drug. Today, this feeling is non-existent by comparison, specially with music being so cookie cutter minded and not different."

Yeah, I noticed that sad reality and sometimes I wished I could have had the experience of back then.

"if you have to sit and figure out what ITCOTCK (KC) is all about, your review is over"

Chico Nóia wrote: ... "and let me tell you that band XYZ may be nice, but I'm not going to write a review ... seems like everyone's darling and they are average at best, despite a long cut or two!" Heard of it but never listened to, like a lot of other ones lol, I've been listening to prog for just one year or something.

-------------
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com

Yeah, ik there's a historical context, what I was really asking is what you meant by my review being over.

moshkito wrote: I just used XYZ for fun, and the idea that so many bands out there "sound" the same, and they have nothing to show for it, except one more chord or one more note kind of thing ... it wasn't aimed at any band, although I really think that many of the "it" bands that some folks discuss here, are (somewhat) 2nd rate for my tastes and not "original" ... which is what I look for.

Kinda imagined that but wasn't sure cuz of the way you talk lol.

moshkito wrote: If you want to get your ears around something really hard and totally insane ... try the French band GRAND SBAM" which is some sort of insanity that blends 200 Motels (Frank Zappa) and Magma ... into what I am calling 300 Motels! Quite amazing and insane at the same time, but it is so far away from "popular music" that most folks will hate it, like they did FZ for a long time, and then some folks still dislike Magma because it is not a pop music band!

In general, I agree. Without careful attention, one cannot know the music they rate, and people who rate a lot of music tend to rate on superficial aspects or qualities without actually letting themselves understand the music they're rating. 

I now feel ready to review them. I could have done it earlier, but I wanted to see if my initial impression that they were both absolute masterpieces would fade.

It hasn't.

I normally never review until I've listened to the album at least 10 times, but I make the odd exception if the album is so unbearably bad that I can't listen to it ever again.

Hi,

After collecting music for more than 50 years, I think I have learned that my "inner attention" does not require several listens to something to get a nice view and understanding of it. Some bits and pieces might take longer to pick up, but that is more about one's own inner attention, than it is about the music itself. 

Thus, I would imagine that one might have the idea that a different mood tomorrow after no sex tonight, will make me listen to it differently, and it can't ... the same music is still there, and the main DIFFERENCE is just me and possibly my moods, which have never interfered with the listening  of music, to the point that one girlfriend got mad and said that she could not compete with any music!!!!!

That was tough, but it suggested that I listened to things with a depth that I was not using with my own girlfriend, and I had to fix that.

In one of my reviews of the ITCOTCK I spelled out if I felt any difference between the original (still have the album!) and the redone version, and the answer was NO, I didn't. In fact, I felt that the new version, although it seemed cleaner, mostly tried to change the volumes of various instruments to give you the idea that this was more important at a certain moment and something else was at another moment. To me, that did not change the original "vision" and "thoughts" about the music at all. 

Same thing for a lot of classical music. See if you can find one piece conducted by three or four different maestros, and you will find, that despite the various points of emphasis the feeling about the whole of the music is still there very much in one piece.

My question to myself is ... if we are so used to one form only of music, to the point that hearing something different (like with no time keeping devices or drummers) will simply jar our imaginations ... all it might be  happening would be that we are not sure how to interpret that ... since in general, most people do not do well at all with music that has no rhyme, no meter, and no beat! And to boot, the whole of the 20th century has been about breaking the mold of all the rhyme, meter and beat ... we sometimes I wonder if all we have done is go backwards and tie ourselves more and more to the "familiar" in the arts, for the sake of all the commerciality out there!

Hi,

Agreed.

There are some things that kinda turn me off some music, not that it does not happen in classical music, let's say, but in rock music, many bands have a really pretty start, and then they get on to the song ... and that opening theme is never used again, or worked into the music. A bit weird for me, as a literary person, since it throws you "off" the track of the work, and in rock music, this has always been weird for me to enjoy. In some cases, it made me think ... what the heck are the keyboards for? For me the completeness of the work is missing something. 

But I would not wish to compare that to Stravinsky, since he would turn over in his grave and tell us that all of rock music is weird?