Reviews discussion

Henry Plainview wrote: Hahahaha, oh Steve Wilson, how can you constantly complain about the music industry and then defend mainstream music critics? And Lester Bangs, of all people!   Here's the link if anyone's interested.

He's just mad that I haven't reviewed any of his albums on my my insanely popular music blog. What does he want? I went to one of his stupid concerts (but only to see Robert Fripp open.)

Henry Plainview wrote: Hahahaha, oh Steve Wilson, how can you constantly complain about the music industry and then defend mainstream music critics? And Lester Bangs, of all people!   Here's the link if anyone's interested.

Just like news opinion, the Internet gives every idiot with an ISP the chance to be heard, for better or worse.  But he sells sites like this short, there are plenty of great reviews on user driven sites.  People that use these sites quickly develop the skills to ignore the lame reviews and laser in on the reviewers who offer a wide knowledge base and good writing skills. 

And he worries too much about the others.  He no doubt has a net-benefit result from online reviewing, I'm sure he has picked up MANY fans from sites like ours, many more than he has lost because of hatchet reviews.

Chill Steve.  You're successful bud.  If we could turn back the clock to 1967, vaporize Ipods and cell phones, I'd join you.  But we can't.  We're stuck in the modern era of blabber and endless noise. 

TheGazzardian wrote: DisgruntledPorcupine wrote: My newest reviews. Feel free to give constructive criticism. And no complaining if you don't like the rating in the first one. http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=296997 http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=298059 I like your format, you get your thoughts across, summarise nicely, tell who you recommend it to, all quite succinctly. I disagree with your opinion on Close to the Edge but you explained yourself in a way that makes sense, so while I am far too much of a Yes-head to be swayed (), I respect what it is you said.

DisgruntledPorcupine wrote: My newest reviews. Feel free to give constructive criticism. And no complaining if you don't like the rating in the first one. http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=296997 http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=298059

Steve Wilson hates us Part 66:

If you ask me which musical project I’m involved with that people are most likely to have heard of, it would be Porcupine Tree. Of course, we’re still a long way from being a household name, but we have a loyal underground fan base. However, enter the words “Porcupine Tree review” into a popular web search engine, and it will return more than half a million results That’s a lot of reviews, opinions, and critiques written about one relatively off-the-radar rock band. So I’m asking myself: Are these really reviews or just an endless noise of opinions—and is there a difference? I’ve spoken before about how inexpensive technology and online tools have given rise to a wealth of home-grown music production; the flip side is that those same tools have created a blossoming of home-grown music criticism. But could one call this a renaissance? Sadly, no. Much of what I read are variations on the heated arguments that used to take place between friends at a bar. Albums are praised one minute as an artist’s best, then trashed a minute later by someone else as the worst—both opinions expressed as irrefutable truth. The quality of writing rarely rises above comparisons to other bands and liberally applied superlatives. Only now, these so-called reviews are broadcast the world over, giving influence to their authors no matter how narrow their frame of reference or biased their agenda. As a musician, it’s hard to look away. We artists are a sensitive bunch, so even though we shouldn’t care what a 15-year-old Metallica fan writing from his bedroom in Utah thinks about our music, a lot of us do. It’s human nature to care what even one dissenting voice has to say. Yet among music fans, it’s often the most shrill and snide writing—not the most thoughtful or insightful—that attracts eyeballs. That doesn’t make it proper music journalism, and I worry that really engaging music writing is being lost among all of this garbage. Great music journalism is an art in its own right. It places music in a historical and cultural context while revealing the passion and personality of the musicians that made it. It reaches out beyond the music to the core of the human condition, just like the music it is about. In the introduction to Psychotic Reactions and Carburetor Dung, a compilation of rock critic Lester Bangs’ work, Greil Marcus wrote, “What this book demands from a reader is the willingness to accept that the best writer in America could write almost nothing but record reviews.” In other words, he considers quality music writing to be on a par with the very highest literary achievements. There are certainly those that bear this grand claim out—David Fricke, Paul Morley, Nick Kent, and Bangs—who not only wrote (or still write) about music, but lived and toured with their subjects, understanding implicitly the nature of the muse. At its best, their work sent you on voyages of discovery to hunt down the music they wrote about, or find new depths to music you thought you already knew. If you were a music lover, these guys were your teachers. Recently, many of the old lions who defined music criticism for a generation have left their posts—some by choice, others by necessity. The good news is that there are a decent number of serious and respectable online publications that are more than happy to go on publishing thoughtful and literate music writing (for example, check out Anil Prasad’s writing on his Innerviews website, or Tobias Fischer on tokafi.com). The bad news, though, is that those sites aren’t nearly as numerous or popular as those that traffic in gossip, pointless best-of lists, and the “this sucks” / “this rules” approach to reviewing. The celebrated rock journalists acted as curators, with enough expertise, depth of knowledge, and wit to intelligently offer us some kind of insight to help us make up our own minds. You didn’t have to take their opinions as gospel, but they sure as hell made it entertaining while they argued their point. And you might even learn something along the way.

Edited by Tony R - September 15 2010 at 18:48

Easy Money wrote: ExittheLemming wrote: This issue has been discussed somewhat tentatively before but...can you review an album to which you openly admit to performing on ?http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=297584It's a very well balanced and objective appraisal certainly and I wouldn't for a second suggest the reviewer is being disingenuous in any shape or form but surely 'vested interest' must stretch to include a party with a performance credit ? Yes we do allow band members to review their own discs. If we don't allow it, then we get reviews that are obvious attempts to conceal that they are band members, such reviews are even more embarrassing. I enjoyed reading between the lines on this one, I get the feeling the author felt that the decision to over-dub some of his vocals with someone else was not the way to go, ha ha.

Yep, it's a 'significantly lesser' of two evils that does make sense once I thought it through properly.

ExittheLemming wrote: This issue has been discussed somewhat tentatively before but...can you review an album to which you openly admit to performing on ?http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=297584It's a very well balanced and objective appraisal certainly and I wouldn't for a second suggest the reviewer is being disingenuous in any shape or form but surely 'vested interest' must stretch to include a party with a performance credit ?

Yes we do allow band members to review their own discs. If we don't allow it, then we get reviews that are obvious attempts to conceal that they are band members, such reviews are even more embarrassing.
I enjoyed reading between the lines on this one, I get the feeling the author felt that the decision to over-dub some of his vocals with someone else was not the way to go, ha ha.

Edited by Easy Money - September 06 2010 at 06:14

Glad I'm not the only one that called you "Alt-uh-ear"
Assassin's Creed!

^ yeah empowering change is one thing, Admin should delete the offensive reviews now.

Okay, Mr. ACR, I would simply like to say that your review of ELP's latest dupe on their fans so Greg Lake can afford to buy more friggin donuts was simply splendid.  You obliterate all of my reviews in terms of professional wording and grammer and you provide an in-depth analysis of all the aspects of this album that a casual fan such as myself  would care to know.  Really, just the sheer professionalism shown in the way you phrase things is great, you have a nice flow and everything.

My favorite part of the review is that you tackle BOTH the pros and the cons of this lousy cash grabber. You could just be saying that the whole compilation sucks and that it's a total rehash of a greatest hits album but those sneaky b*stards made it a 'washed-up reunion tour' live album so "hardcore" fans HAVE to buy it but nope. You tell us that the buyer gets a complete medley of the Pictures at the Exhibition live segment (completely with the more or less, aptly titled "Nut Rocker") and doesn't need to actually buy the album it's featured on if he or she buys this. You also say that all the music is in full form and not butchered and other positive qualities of the comp even if it truly only deserves two stars. Just putting an emphasis on both the good and bad sides of an abysmal album in a review is what really wins me over because many reviewers today only aim to trash dreck like this.

Phew, this is my first critique btw, and I  hope I analyzed enough of your review. You are truly worthy of your 'pro' prog reviewing status and I'll certainly read up on more of yours. Tomorrow, I'll go over your other review.