Reviews discussion

Easy Livin wrote: Logan wrote: I've noticed a number of official reviewer's reviews which basically state that "I don't 'get' the music", or "it's too complex for me."  I think we can expect more from such people.  A good reviewer should not only be able to write well, but also should have a "superior" understanding of music to most reviewers, in my opinion -- a fair justification for superior weightings.  One can expect a reasonably high level of expertise from official reviewers when it comes to evaluating the quality and qualities of music (perhaps music academics/ scholars should be given greater weighting). Anyway, my suggestion would be that if one feels that one can't understand the music, be very careful in the rating, and give it many more spins before reviewing it (some music takes longer to decipher, requires more patience, and more exposure to related music). Oh, and really wish not rating albums was an option when reviewing them.   I understand this point Logan, and can sympathise with it to an extent. I believe however that there can be an element of what I would describe as snobbery when it comes to complexity. There does seem at times to be a belief among some prog fans that complexity = excellence. The more complex the music is, the better it is, automatically. This leads to an assumption that there is a right and a wrong when it comes to appreciating the album. There is of course no such thing.   It is still entirely possible for someone to think a complex album is poor, even after many many listens. If people say they don't get the album, that is a perfectly valid thing to say. All that such comments mean is that they appreciate the album has an appeal for other people, but that appeal is completely lost on them.   As a parallel example, I detest bananas. I understand completely that millions of people love the taste of them. For me though, they will always taste horrible. My opinion is not wrong in that case, it just differs from a lot of others. If I was rating bananas, my rating would be 1 and I would feel fully entitled to say that.

I'm not one of those people who thinks that complexity equals excellence.  Sometimes simplicity is most effective and requires greater discipline (sometimes the simplicity is culled from something more complex, but it's streamlined to the basic necessary elements -- like an equation, and music is very mathematical).

Points taken; and I don't really disagree.  I dislike growling.  I don't think it's because I don't get what the purpose of it is, but it does not appeal.  That said, I would not rate an album by a band which commonly uses growling lower because of the growling.  I would rather compare it to other band's albums that use growling.  I'm not one that thinks that complexity for complexity-sake is necessarily a good thing.  Things can be overly complicated, and in fact, simplification is often considered a good thing.  Some things get over-complicated to the point that it's a mess/ incoherent, but sometimes things that sounds like a mess at first, in fact are very orderly, but it takes a level of musical comprehension to interpret and decipher the music.  I think some are out of their depth when trying to comprehend certain types of music -- they don't have to enjoy it, but at least have some understanding of how well the mechanics work beyond just a subjective opinion.

I can understand not getting the appeal of the music to others (though that shows a too weak understanding of why it could appeal to others), or not feeling it themselves, but sometimes I really think that people cannot decipher the music (due to a lack of familiarity with related music perhaps -- music is a language, and understanding it well, being able to interpret and appreciate disparate modalities, takes time and exposure).

I'll use two Gryphon examples by Gatot that once gave my pause (they are reasonably well-written reviews, and I don't have much issue with them, but just to illustrate sort of what I was getting at):


.................................................................................

http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=121052

This album has been in my collection for couple of years ago – long after this album was ever released. I was not aware at all about the band during my first years with rock music. I purchased it because my prog friends recommended me. I was not quite impressed at all with the music the first time I spun the CD. For me, at that time, the music of this album was just like a collection of bits and pieces without any direction, melody-wise, in which direction the music leads to. I gave up the CD and put it on shelf and never get spun again until recently when it was about time to review this album.

Honestly, until I spun it again this morning, I still don’t get the idea what the band is trying to do, musically. It sounds to me that the melody was not crafted beautifully. One thing for sure, conceptually this was created for depicting a chess match. Considering this intention, this might be enough to say that all emotions, conditions and situations pertaining to any chess match are described or represented here. The next question is why must it be something as dark as this? Chess can be expressed in much more dynamic way by gearing a music which blends multitude of feelings: a feeling of struggle to find the best strategy to win the game, the feeling of accomplishment in conquering the enemy and a feeling of sadness from being conquered by the enemy. The problem with me is the composition of its music that sounds like disjointed parts. Oh yes, I agree that chess match creates emotional challenges to the player as every time we are challenged to decide the best move and anticipating what and how the enemy would react with our move. This is what I clearly do not understand.

I just want to make my point clear here. Yes, this is one of legendary albums of the 70s. Yes, it’s definitely a prog album and it’s not the bad one. The trouble I have is that (I have to honest) it’s very hard for me to digest the music and for sure it’s not the kind of music that fits my taste. My standpoint here is based on my efforts to enjoy this album but failed to give good credits musically. It’s so many disjointed parts that do not connect one another smoothly. So, I conclude that this is for those collectors who appreciate the uniqueness of this album. Therefore I give it a two stars rating for this. Keep on proggin’ ..!

Peace on earth and mercy mild – GW

http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=121053

... The music is as complex and misunderstood as previous album – at least for my personal taste. Some people might be able to fully digest the music. For me personally, I have to force myself to be able to enjoy the music. So, what’s the point? It does not fulfill my principle that “music is emotion”. I’d rather listen to other kind of prog music and leave this album to those of you who like complexity and do not think melody as important part of music. I do not say that this is a bad album – not at all – it’s just not tightly composed, musically (in my opinion)....

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe it's mostly a  matter of taste, but it left me wondering about his understanding of the music. Not the best examples, I admit.  When he says of Raindance, "...leave this album to those of you who like complexity and do not think melody as important part of music" I mean, wow. We do hear with different ears. 

And Gryphon's Red Queen... can be an achingly beautiful album for me -- think of "Lament" -- "not crafted beautifully" okay, to each his/her own (I find the album too formulaic, though... The tracks share too much of the same pattern).  I find his particular chess analysis odd, but he's entitled to it.

Incidentally, it has never occured to me that this was challenging music since Gryphon (along with Focus) got me into Prog as a kid. But as a child, perhaps my mind was more open, in a way, to different forms of expression.

Edited by Logan - October 04 2008 at 20:04

Where did I get it?   From the first sentence of your review, it sounded like you only had the album a few days.  Sorry if I misunderstood. 

A few days ago one of my supposedly best friends gave me as a present a copy of OPETH’S album “Still Life”

But getting away from your review and speaking in general again, I still maintain a fair reviewer gives an album much more than a couple plays to have an informed opinion.  I can't count the number of times I've been initially unimpressed with an album only to warm to it after some exposure.  And the reverse can be true.  Sometimes I'll like something first day and in a few weeks it doesn't hold up.  But hey, fair enough...different strokes as they say!

Logan wrote: I've noticed a number of official reviewer's reviews which basically state that "I don't 'get' the music", or "it's too complex for me."  I think we can expect more from such people.  A good reviewer should not only be able to write well, but also should have a "superior" understanding of music to most reviewers, in my opinion -- a fair justification for superior weightings.  One can expect a reasonably high level of expertise from official reviewers when it comes to evaluating the quality and qualities of music (perhaps music academics/ scholars should be given greater weighting). Anyway, my suggestion would be that if one feels that one can't understand the music, be very careful in the rating, and give it many more spins before reviewing it (some music takes longer to decipher, requires more patience, and more exposure to related music). Oh, and really wish not rating albums was an option when reviewing them.

Easy Livin wrote: Dean wrote: It's the age-old subjective/objective argument and any rating can be justified when explained in the review, which is why I don't take much notice of ratings without reviews....   However reviews without ratings would be something I'd like to see - if a person doesn't like a particular artist or album there is nothing wrong with stating that in a review, but I am of the opinion that it should not be reflected in the rating and if the reviewer cannot bring themselves to give generally accepted 4-star album a high rating, there should be an option not to rate it at all, so the overall average is not affected.... of course that does not mean that unrated = zero stars.   I wouldn't go for that myself Dean. There are some highly rated albums which to my ears are absolute garbage. I feel quite comfortable reflecting that in my rating. I believe having a good cross section of ratings supported by reviews offers the reader the facility to decide for themselves whether the album is likely to appeal to them. I don't believe any album should be immune from adverse ratings if that is the reviewers honest opinion.   Where I do have a concern though is in that some reviewers can be rather superficial in their listening. By definition, prog will often be difficult to appreciate. Listening once simply in order to submit a review does not provide the reviewer with sufficient ammunition to write an informed appraisal. What i would like to see, and it is totally impractial(!), is a note beside each review of how often the reviewer has listened to the album.

I would love the option not to have to rate an album, but I feel it should be the reviewer's choice.  My tendency has been to prefer reviews without ratings (especially when I was most into film reviews).  What I felt was that there could be detailed criteria for rating an album/ film.  One idea would be to have a 30 point system with five different criteria which one divides by six, then rounds to the nearest number (say personal enjoyment, originality/ creativity, technicality, importance or how essential it is to its category, general effectiveness in regards to what it seems to be trying to accomplish, and the Prog factor) -- the second to last one regarding trying to understand what the music is trying to do on its own terms.  Those are just examples, and I'd need to think those out more.  These days I'm okay with more subjective ratings.  If you don't "understand" certain music (perhaps its from an alien-to-you category) then that would be a good case for not rating the music.  Part of the rating should be on its own terms (understanding the intent of the music.  Is it artistically successful in that regard?).  Maybe it's Progginess (while a bit of a vague concept) should be emphasised more than I did in the criteria).  Just an idea.  Because collabs ratings are weighted so much more, I do feel that they should agree to stricter criteria for evaluation.  One notices that collab ratings often differ so much that it may give a negative impression.

I've noticed a number of official reviewer's reviews which basically state that "I don't 'get' the music", or "it's too complex for me."  I think we can expect more from such people.  A good reviewer should not only be able to write well, but also should have a "superior" understanding of music to most reviewers, in my opinion -- a fair justification for superior weightings.  One can expect a reasonably high level of expertise from official reviewers when it comes to evaluating the quality and qualities of music (perhaps music academics/ scholars should be given greater weighting).

Anyway, my suggestion would be that if one feels that one can't understand the music, be very careful in the rating, and give it many more spins before reviewing it (some music takes longer to decipher, requires more patience, and more exposure to related music).
Oh, and really wish not rating albums was an option when reviewing them.


Edited by Logan - October 04 2008 at 15:54

^^

Edited by Chris Stacey - October 04 2008 at 13:28

Dean wrote: It's the age-old subjective/objective argument and any rating can be justified when explained in the review, which is why I don't take much notice of ratings without reviews....   However reviews without ratings would be something I'd like to see - if a person doesn't like a particular artist or album there is nothing wrong with stating that in a review, but I am of the opinion that it should not be reflected in the rating and if the reviewer cannot bring themselves to give generally accepted 4-star album a high rating, there should be an option not to rate it at all, so the overall average is not affected.... of course that does not mean that unrated = zero stars.

It's the age-old subjective/objective argument and any rating can be justified when explained in the review, which is why I don't take much notice of ratings without reviews....

We know about the "Turds" thing, and the Admin had no problem removing the word, if asked (back then..)
But, just like in Joey's case, we're going back to previous years, into reviews that probably don't even characterize as anymore: this Soft Machine review is from 2004!. Joey's review is from 2006.

"Anyway,  people should not review genres frequently which they don't get at all."
More like don't like, as it is my case with Metal, for example. But don't get?! Is there a judge saying what we know or not about something here, that I've missed? Okay, bit extreme, but anyway, I've seen Iván review 3 Metal albums until now, he admitted he's not a fan of Metal, then again Opeth was his first with 2 stars (Symphony X receiving normal applauses instead...) did he not get Prog Metal at all then, or just not Opeth or Opeth's album instead?!?!)

Iván's Opeth review hasn't got anything wrong IMO, if writing negatively suddenly became wrong, while writing positively (and, to add, about the genre you are into most) has become "good", that's just twisted valuing...


Edited by Ricochet - October 04 2008 at 08:52

Ricochet wrote: Anyway, out of all this discussion - maybe an official response from the Admins?

OK, I don't want to sound nasty, but the author of the review in question (who has long dropped off the radar, though he still bears the title of PR) is not known for being subtle in his approach to things he doesn't like or disagrees with. As a matter of fact, he more or less left the site for good when he attacked me over a controversial addition, choosing the wrong moment to do so. I won't go into details now, but what he wrote in his reviews doesn't surprise me at all, knowing his general modus operandi.

That said, I think the rules for reviews are quite clear as regards avoiding derogatory statements such as 'rubbish'. A good reviewer should be able to write a one-star review without resorting to objectionable language - which is difficult indeed, but is also a mark of genuine talent.