Pertinent views or personal views?

OK, this is gonna be a tricky thread if it heats up. I am just a bit concerned about some things that have been expressed in some reviews I've read lately (two of which are in the following quote):

Peter Rideout, in his review of DT's "Scenes (etc.)":

     What really stops me from giving this concept album a higher rating, is, as with Marillion's BRAVE (see my review), the theme of its lyrics. The story centers around a murder-suicide, and the motif is made more "real" with the disturbing sounds of gunshots and the screams of the young female victim. I know that modern American society is very troubled with gun-related violence, and I can turn to American TV news or magazines any time I feel the need to "get my fill" of such depressing, tragic gore. I don't need, or want, to hear this stuff set to music as well! As with BRAVE's suicide theme, I find the concept of "SCENES" to be simply unworthy of my time, and certainly not something that I want to subject my wife or children to. I believe that there is a fine line -- perhaps crossed here -- between examining violence, and obsessing upon and/or "celebrating" it. Furthermore (as a former highschool teacher), I sincerely question the ability of many younger listeners to differentiate between the two.

he summarizes this point in the next parargraph: "Overall, I greatly prefer to be uplifted and/or moved by my music collection, instead of being "brought down" by it."

With all due respect, I have serious doubts as to the usefulness of these statements in a review of music, unless it be for a 'parents watchdog'-type publication.

A long-standing debate in the history of aesthetics revolves around what constitutes artistic beauty; certainly a pretty picture of a pretty house is pleasant to look at, but if it is done poorly is obviously inferior to a talented artist's rendering of, for instance, a building destroyed by fire. Music in general has a long tradition of storytelling, and progressive rock specifically tends to revolve around a narrative...and a compelling story is always preferable to a lackluster tale.

I don't think there's much doubt that the majority of fans of progressive rock are people who are not generally satisfied by music that is 'easy on the ears'. In fact, it's not a stretch to assert that prog people are specifically looking for more artistic and creative expression, and as such are willing to be 'challenged' by a piece of music. Unfortunately, as in any genre-specific group, there are still a surprising number of folks who are not receptive to elements that fall outside the usual attributes of the music. With prog, the fantasy, mystical, and sci-fi themes in the lyrics are common ground, but we are also pretty used to hearing lyrics concerning more prosaic human emotions- love songs, of course, but also themes of alienation, lust, frustration, rage, and even simple joy. To this end, why would violence and suicide be an unfit subject? Shakespeare certainly didn't flinch from including them in his works....

Of course, there is always a combination of personal opinion and objectivity inherent in an aesthetic experience, and I'm sure we've all seen (or written) the reviews are variations of "this rocks! the album kicks butt! u're stupid if u dont like it", or even the more articulate "i never liked stuff about space" or "i just don't get zappa's humor" etc. etc. Personally, I am guilty on more than one occasion of rating a band less highly because I think they overdo the dramatic aspect- this has been a constant cause of concern in the often theatrical progressive genre, and one that several people have 'called me on'. To that end, I have tried to be more objective when I encounter something that I am usually predjudiced against, and I think Peter has done the same, to an extent. However, the ratio of objectivity to pure personal opinion in both the DT and MARILLION reviews definitely puts it in the 'op-ed' category rather than the music review section.

There's a big difference, of course, between promoting behavior and artistically portraying behavior. Hip-hop has always come under fire for the violence and misogyny. Without a direct statistical correlation between cause and effect (which either side of a debate will be always be happy to provide you with) one must keep in mind that limiting the 'acceptable' themes of art is essentially leading towards censorship.

The internet is full of message boards which provide an adequate venue to vent; this forum is a better example than most, with an impressive number of articulate people with varied, reasoned opinions. It's too much to ask that the "this band sux/ this band rulez" type postings stop- it's a necessary evil given the open nature of the website- but for the more dedicated, perhaps there should be a discussion about what constitues a valid review and what is just personal agenda?

Just to make a point: major works of progressive rock include "The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway" (castration), "The Wall" (violent rage), "Lucky Man" (personal death), "Cross-eyed Mary" (child prostitution), et cetera. Anal themes are constantly used in Zappa's songs, and one of the finest bands I discovered here, Mezquita, has an incredible song called "El Suicidio"- there's little doubt what that deals with.

I would like to hear the other reviewers' thoughts on this- as long as it doesn't devolve into a "suicide is bad because..." type of discussion. I suppose there's little hope of coaxing Peter out of his self-imposed exile, but I'm sure the rest of us can generate an interesting (if not definitive) discussion.

James-Lee

P.S. Peter- I don't think I have to remind you that the satanic, violent and/or gothic imagery you cite as parts of the metal/ horror genre you have outgrown are more related to the 'escapist' urge of fantasy and science fiction than they are to actual beliefs or the daily violence portrayed in the news.

I guess there's some grey area between an objective appraisal and a personal listening experience- that's funny, I didn't even question that part of it, I do the same thing sometimes- I'll bump up the rating if I know that something has been influential or generates a big response.

Hmmm...what are the ingredients for an ideal review?

I have to agree with what has been said in this thread to date. Peter is absolutely right in that the pleasure derived from an album by an individual can be influenced by the subject matter. I find for example that if there is a lot of overt swearing on an album I find it somewhat distracting, to the extent that it can spoil my enjoyment. I find the "parental warning" stickers on albums useful as they tell me to avoid them.  

My son however seems to see them as a recomendation.

It's interesting to note the criticism in some of the reviews (and indeed the forum) of Neal Morse' "Testimony" album because he chose his religious "awakening" as the subject matter. This seemed to matter more to some people that the quality of the music. In my review, i suggested that people should put their preconceptions aside, and enjoy the music.

Did I just contradict myself there?

James:

I want to comment on one of your statements.  You said, "I'm sure if I read a review with religious or political overtones I'd have much less chance to get something worthwhile out of it."

You are, of course, entitled to your personal "filters."  However, your statement is interesting in that the opposite can also be true: that some visitors/members may in fact get more out of a review that contains such "overtones."  (I go back to my oft-used quotation: "one man's meat is another man's poison".)  Additionally, while those "overtones" may well steer you away from an album, those same "overtones" might make another person want even more to hear it.

This is why it is well-nigh impossible to have any logical "resolution" to your original concern.

Ultimately, it is up to the individual reader to take from a review what they will.  If they feel that the reviewer is unnecessarily "editorial," so be it.  As noted, someone else will find such "editorializing" helpful.

Peace.

Firstly, I've read the revised review by Peter Rideout and think it is better than his first version. Informative, clearly argued and no 'sitting on the fence'.

Secondly, his revised review prompted me to listen to the album - I had never heard it before - and I will review it at some point as I find the subject interesting. This shows that a negative review can be just as useful and interesting as a positive review.

wow, what a great topic, and a tricky one... i believe that music is the only thing on earth that pleases everyone, and with those premisses, i think that his personal opinion about the WHOLE thing surrounding the review of dream theater is perfectly vaild... i've seen a similar topic beacuse of a very harsh review on a genesis album, and let me tell you: in here i have seen enough people to fill a stadium that hates Marillion, but, that doesn't stop me or newcommers to hear, listen and buy records of this band, is the same... the only thing that i like and respect is the very complete and researched review of the record, i think that we must review records that deep, with a conscious mind and with a serious commitment to pursue a valid voice in here that inspire us.

peace

Cesar- thanks for the tip. If you can find a girl who is turned on by prog, clone her...we need more!

maani- good points (your name and that phrase just go together in my mind now!)

If something is written that is the subject of a bias or belief system, it can be obvious (a lot of reviews contain the good old 'in my opinion') but as you point out, it can be more subtle. The news media is an excellent source of examples...word choice, context, subtext, all sorts of things can be utilized to put the 'slant' on what seems to be objective statements.

My journalism hero, Dr. Hunter S. Thompson, asserted that there was no objectivity and we shouldn't even aim for it...but I think we're trying to be helpful to others in our reviews, so I'll avoid veering off into hallucinatory anecdotes when discussing albums :)

How often do you think that biases are so ingrained and subconscious that a person is unaware that they are clouding the reason...or when do they stop being biases and start being 'instinct'?