The anti-fanboys

Logan wrote: Disclaimer: I don't write music reviews, and those I have done have not been well-written,  If one is not familiar with the musical idiom/ musical modalities, then it's unlikely that one will write a good review (an intelligent and knowledgeable one).  I look to reviews for information and insight that goes beyond preference, and commonly am not particularly interested in whether someone likes something or not (if that's all I want to get, I just look to the rating and ignore the review).  With some I look to the humour in the reviews.I also appreciate honesty.  If someone is unfamiliar with the kind of music, or it's not a preferred style, then I like it if they right out and say it.  I'd rather read a review by someone who I feel really understands the music and is familiar with that musical scene.  The best reviews are illuminating and educational; have great insight and show a musically well-informed individual.

I also like to read a review of someone who is new to the genre. In a way this is objective. Some people know so much about the genre that everything a band does (or seems to do!) is compared with the big collective. This might not always be true, for every band consists of different people with different motives.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: kingfriso wrote: 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?   Isn't that the ultimate goal of a review?   If you bought an album and you hate it, would be dishonest to rate it as a masterpiece.

hmmm...   maybe I'm just silly... or just completely out of touch.

The ultimate goal of a review is to inform the reader about an album... let them know what they might be getting.

It isn't whether one likes it or not..  if we all had the same tastes that might mean something.. since we don't... it means jack sh*t.  I don't care what people like and don't like... I want to know about an album. I would think most people are like that... but again... I might be one of weird ones. I always believed that... but didn't really realize it till I started reading  Raff's reviews for that other site.  Factual.. informative...and educational.  That is the ultimate goal of a review.. not an opinion piece for whether someone with different tastes than me likes an album or not.

ExittheLemming wrote: micky wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: kingfriso wrote: 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?   Isn't that the ultimate goal of a review?   If you bought an album and you hate it, would be dishonest to rate it as a masterpiece.   hmmm...   maybe I'm just silly... or just completely out of touch. The ultimate goal of a review is to inform the reader about an album... let them know what they might be getting. It isn't whether one likes it or not..  if we all had the same tastes that might mean something.. since we don't... it means jack sh*t.  I don't care what people like and don't like... I want to know about an album. I would think most people are like that... but again... I might be one of weird ones. I always believed that... but didn't really realize it till I started reading  Raff's reviews for that other site.  Factual.. informative...and educational.  That is the ultimate goal of a review.. not an opinion piece for whether someone with different tastes than me likes an album or not. No they ain't and I think you realise that already.  of course I realize it.. and it isn't the first time I've said as much.  I just love the sound of my voice I just wonder what ..if anything the readers of reviews get out of them.  Judging by what I read of what others think of the vast majority of  reviews on this site... probably nothing and that is a waste.  Then again.. I've said that more than a few times.. the reviews here for the most part are worthless.  Most here can't review a album if their lives depended on it, all they can do is blabber on about how they love it .. or hate it.  Pffff. I always thought the best thing the site could do on that was protect it's own 'brandname' and reputation and only have collab reviews on the front page.  Lord knows they aren't always things of beauty.. but those people were promoted for a reason... their reviews are judged to be superior to the standard review we see around here. Ok reductio ad absurdum time again: If reviews did comply with the criteria you want to see i.e. factual, informative and educational etc there wouldn't be any more than say, 10 (tops) for any given release ? I suspect you might deem this a good thing (given the deluge of flotsam that passes for reviews at the moment) but I see this as tantamount to stocktaking by a museum curator who claims to be older than the exhibits themselves. that is why I have always called for removing the ratings.. make people write reviews.  Cut the flotsam and let the cream rise to the top. I personally think the loss of a dingbats who gets their rocks off on playing games with the album lists would be offset by better reviews.. and a better reputation as a serious site. Perhaps I'm the weird one here, because I don't read reviews of bands I don't like and no amount of selfless objectivity is ever gonna make me appreciate say, Dream Theatre for what a reviewer can deduce is their importance to a genre that leaves me cold. I just don't get how you can be objective about music that offends your aesthetic values ? e.g. can you describe the taste of chicken to someone if you don't like chicken ? of course you can...   honestly..  it comes down to keeping a thought in mind.  To use your chicken analogy.. it means being mature enough of a listener to understand that just because you don't like Chicken ..it doesn't make Chicken bad.. it just means .. YOU don't like it.  Yes I know, the analogy is not equating 'like with like' but it was the best I could think of after half a bottle of wine kicked into the Lemming nervous system... sounds good... enjoying a day off.. might join you in a bottle of wine myself hahha

ExittheLemming wrote: micky wrote: ExittheLemming wrote: micky wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: [QUOTE=kingfriso] 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?   Isn't that the ultimate goal of a review?   If you bought an album and you hate it, would be dishonest to rate it as a masterpiece.   hmmm...   maybe I'm just silly... or just completely out of touch. The ultimate goal of a review is to inform the reader about an album... let them know what they might be getting. It isn't whether one likes it or not..  if we all had the same tastes that might mean something.. since we don't... it means jack sh*t.  I don't care what people like and don't like... I want to know about an album. I would think most people are like that... but again... I might be one of weird ones. I always believed that... but didn't really realize it till I started reading  Raff's reviews for that other site.  Factual.. informative...and educational.  That is the ultimate goal of a review.. not an opinion piece for whether someone with different tastes than me likes an album or not. No they ain't and I think you realise that already.  of course I realize it.. and it isn't the first time I've said as much.  I just love the sound of my voice I just wonder what ..if anything the readers of reviews get out of them.  Judging by what I read of what others think of the vast majority of  reviews on this site... probably nothing and that is a waste.  Then again.. I've said that more than a few times.. the reviews here for the most part are worthless.  Most here can't review a album if their lives depended on it, all they can do is blabber on about how they love it .. or hate it.  Pffff. I always thought the best thing the site could do on that was protect it's own 'brandname' and reputation and only have collab reviews on the front page.  Lord knows they aren't always things of beauty.. but those people were promoted for a reason... their reviews are judged to be superior to the standard review we see around here. Ok reductio ad absurdum time again: If reviews did comply with the criteria you want to see i.e. factual, informative and educational etc there wouldn't be any more than say, 10 (tops) for any given release ? I suspect you might deem this a good thing (given the deluge of flotsam that passes for reviews at the moment) but I see this as tantamount to stocktaking by a museum curator who claims to be older than the exhibits themselves. that is why I have always called for removing the ratings.. make people write reviews.  Cut the flotsam and let the cream rise to the top. I personally think the loss of a dingbats who gets their rocks off on playing games with the album lists would be offset by better reviews.. and a better reputation as a serious site. Perhaps I'm the weird one here, because I don't read reviews of bands I don't like and no amount of selfless objectivity is ever gonna make me appreciate say, Dream Theatre for what a reviewer can deduce is their importance to a genre that leaves me cold. I just don't get how you can be objective about music that offends your aesthetic values ? e.g. can you describe the taste of chicken to someone if you don't like chicken ? of course you can...   honestly..  it comes down to keeping a thought in mind.  To use your chicken analogy.. it means being mature enough of a listener to understand that just because you don't like Chicken ..it doesn't make Chicken bad.. it just means .. YOU don't like it.  Yes I know, the analogy is not equating 'like with like' but it was the best I could think of after half a bottle of wine kicked into the Lemming nervous system... sounds good... enjoying a day off.. might join you in a bottle of wine myself hahha God this Shiraz is strong stuff (hic) OK I'm fine with (most) of that but I am mature enough (I think) to realise that it's not the chicken that's BAD, it's just that I don't like it but that's not the point I was making People visit this site because they are interested in exploring the types of music covered herein. That act in itself is a subjective value judgement e.g. Britney Spears is not included in PA (at least not yet, but don't hold your breath) and most of us would concur that we do not deem Ms Spears music any sort of fit for any of the available prog categories. Your argument would therefore rest on a democratic premise (just because WE don't think she's prog, does not mean that she ain't for others) Where does this madness end ? This reeks of that post modern malaise where the arts are reduced to the materials in a builders yard and 'if it keeps yer dry anyone can call it a house' Forgive the profanity Mickey, but that's bollocks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_KIzbktgJk

If you don't like the vocals, its fine to say so and award stars accordingly.  On the other hand,  to give 1 star because a song or the album is overplayed is not.  There are reviews of Dark Side of the Moon and may other well known albums where the major beef is the radio play it has received.  That does a disservice to the albums on the site and the people who use it for information. 

I think we're all going way off beam here fellas ? For the sake of clarity, let's agree that we all abhor the sort of slavish/bashing fan boy reviews that tell us nothing whatsoever about the music apart from the reviewer's love/hate for it right ?. Justifying any opinion is clearly a prerequisite to an informative balanced review right ?
Good. We're all happy bunnies on that methinks...THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE AT HAND (oops yelling, sorry)

No matter how informative,balanced,objective,distanced, selfless you strive to make a review, it will always reveal more about the reviewer than what is being reviewed. Please let us not fall into the vainglorious error of pretending we are somehow immune from being forever trapped in metaphor. (It is impossible to describe any phenomenon without reference to another phenomenon - that is what metaphor is - the human medium is the message - objectivity via language is therefore rendered delusional folks - you cannot separate the knower from the known - this should be self evident from the foregoing ?)
The terminology, reference points and words you use, the phrases you choose, the vernacular and slang you employ, the pace and tone of your style etc: all these things do not describe the music, they unwittingly describe you, and (at a pinch) others with similar indigenous cultural values/beliefs

As far as the purpose of the reviews carried by PA, I do agree with Mickey that there are probably a lot of visitors to the site who just want to 'know what they're getting' with regards a particular album and the type of reviewing style he advocates would certainly fulfil that need. However, I tend to empathise with Ivan M here as I like to read well reasoned opinions about music irrespective of their positive or negative orientation. If sincere subjective opinion are deemed both abhorrent and risible to some people, why do they continue to post in the forums with such shrill indifference ?

Lights out, time for bed everyone.

ExittheLemming wrote: I think we're all going way off beam here fellas ? For the sake of clarity, let's agree that we all abhor the sort of slavish/bashing fan boy reviews that tell us nothing whatsoever about the music apart from the reviewer's love/hate for it right ?. Justifying any opinion is clearly a prerequisite to an informative balanced review right ? Good. We're all happy bunnies on that methinks...THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE AT HAND (oops yelling, sorry) No matter how informative,balanced,objective,distanced, selfless you strive to make a review, it will always reveal more about the reviewer than what is being reviewed. Please let us not fall into the vainglorious error of pretending we are somehow immune from being forever trapped in metaphor. (It is impossible to describe any phenomenon without reference to another phenomenon - that is what metaphor is - the human medium is the message - objectivity via language is therefore rendered delusional folks - you cannot separate the knower from the known - this should be self evident from the foregoing ?) The terminology, reference points and words you use, the phrases you choose, the vernacular and slang you employ, the pace and tone of your style etc: all these things do not describe the music, they unwittingly describe you, and (at a pinch) others with similar indigenous cultural values/beliefs As far as the purpose of the reviews carried by PA, I do agree with Mickey that there are probably a lot of visitors to the site who just want to 'know what they're getting' with regards a particular album and the type of reviewing style he advocates would certainly fulfil that need. However, I tend to empathise with Ivan M here as I like to read well reasoned opinions about music irrespective of their positive or negative orientation. If sincere subjective opinion are deemed both abhorrent and risible to some people, why do they continue to post in the forums with such shrill indifference ? Lights out, time for bed everyone.

actually...  I know I posted this somewhere else.. here.. there.. or one of the countless threads we've seen over the years on the subject.

The best of reviews contain both the points you mention...   telling the reader about the album and what it contains... without bias... then telling the reader what you as a listener think of the album itself with a sincere opinion.

Far too many are not sincere in the first place with their opinions... far too few tell me.. the reader what I might get with the album.  There are lots of exceptions... and those are the reviews that reflect well of the site.. and the reviewers themselves.  The best though.. touch on both.   Let someone torch an album.. I could care less... just take a second to tell us about whatever the hell you are torching hahha.




Edited by micky - September 13 2009 at 15:06

progrules wrote: kingfriso wrote: 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?   In this respect: what do you think of my Pawn Hearts review ? I hesitated for quite some time to post it because of the one star rating, NOT because of the review. In my own perspective I think it's fair I posted it in the end because I explained why I didn't like it with valid arguments. And I also (or even mainly) did the review because I feel a controversial album like Pawn Hearts should also get some negative comments because it's not really an album for everyone, is it ?

 

Iván wrote:   Of course that implies to know the reviewer, for example if Mike tells me a Tech. Extreme Metal album is worth 5 stars, I won't buy it anyway, because I know Mike loves Metal but I don't, he probably will dislike albums I love.   But if Gatot or Cerif1ed tell me "I loved X album", and explain their arguments, then I trust them, because I share the love for most of what they like.

someone_else wrote: progrules wrote: kingfriso wrote: 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?   In this respect: what do you think of my Pawn Hearts review ? I hesitated for quite some time to post it because of the one star rating, NOT because of the review. In my own perspective I think it's fair I posted it in the end because I explained why I didn't like it with valid arguments. And I also (or even mainly) did the review because I feel a controversial album like Pawn Hearts should also get some negative comments because it's not really an album for everyone, is it ?   Right. And that's exactly what makes an album controversial. You treated Larks' Tongues in Aspic in a similar way, probably for similar reasons.