Since we've beat the argument of Objectivity vs Subjectivity in reviews pretty much to death, I had another thought on the whole "review debate".

Is there value in, is it appropriate to, would you want an air of mystery to a review so as to entice you into giving the music a listen to or do you want the review detailed out so much that you know already what you are about to hear?

You may begin...

I think there's enough magic and mystery in music itself that no review will ever manage to make me know already what I'm about to hear, however hard it may try. Which is good because reviews cannot destroy the magic. Go on reviewing then!

PS: I knew a fellow who studied composition. He seriously thought all relevant information on music is on the score sheet, and he'd enjoy reading the score sheet as much as actually listening to the music. I never bought that. Music is for the ears. But to each their own!

Not being a musician myself I would never presume to know what any musician can hear in their head when looking at a score, but I do know educated musicians/composers who have said they know what it would sound like.

That being said, there is no way they could hear the 'Interpretation' of the composition.

I think in that we agree.

A little from column A, a little from column B. It's all good (until someone loses an eye).

That's certainly what my own experience tells me, but I think of a review as a piece of entertainment as well, so I'd say that it's very fine with some mystery in it, too.

- Which by the way is something I actually try to accomplish with my PA posts in general, and there're some circumstances to help me very much with it.  

I would quote Frank Zappa about "Speaking of music..." 

Even the most possible detailed description of a track can't replace its emotional subjective impact.

So, knowing what to expect doesn't make a big difference

nicely put 

Hi,

I don't know, or am sure what you are requesting. A review, for me, is about the over all picture, however, as in film, there are always too many details that make it worthwhile, or too many things that hurt it. Thus a review, for sure, needs to be fair and see how it can attract folks.

One important factor ... what is the point of criticizing something badly ... instead of ignoring it? If you are mainly jumping on it to debunk fans, that's one thing, but at that point a review is ridiculous anyway, because most fans don't even read these things ... !!! The mentality of "fan", is strongly opposed to the quasi-intellectual point of view that many reviews take.

I'm more comfortable discussing film, that music, more often than not. And the reason why is simple. Film shows you what the camera has done, what the contrasts are, and sometimes, even tells you a story, which these days, is not as important as Hollywood made it out to be for a long time ... just ask Robert Altman!

Too many rock reviews for me, are about how it sounds compared to someone else ... I refuse to do that, because this is about this band (or this film) and not an idea of mine. If you. or I, are criticizing it, many times it is because THEY DID IT, and you and I DIDN'T! That's not an issue for me, although I might have fun with Godard, by asking dumb questions ... why did the camera go left and the folks are on the right ... and you already know his answer ... because they were bored and no audience is interesting in boredom! And you think to yourself ... doesn't make sense ... why make a film and the characters are not important but the camera going out on its walkabout is better, and more interesting ... what film are we seeing anyway?

This, is hard, and not quite seen in rock music, although it is my theory that many of the bands that "think" they are hip, are just putting on an act for the commerciality of it all ... if you were Picasso, or Godard for that matter, why would you bother considering anyone else, when you have more to work with than you can even figure out how to use?

Most rock music, for me, is copy and carbon copy. For me, there is absolutely no reason to review any of that material whatsoever, although many will say I'm being condescending because I was born into a house of literature, and a famous writer, and have an intimate knowledge of "fame" and it's goods and bad stuff. In the end, you know that not all that literature is sh*t, and that is my attitude about a lot of music and the arts, however, copies and carbon copies, is another matter entirely that we refuse to take on, and instead create another sub-division for these things. 

But remember one thing ... music for me, is just another movie in my mind, so something with more "context" is always a preference, and thus a lot of bands fall of the listing s for me very quickly, as they are all (mostly) about the lyrics, that really are not very good, but they sound good! That's not enough for me, specially a well read and educated person ... you always want more, not just the same thing, just like all those books. So if the music has no "fly" in it, I tend to fall off quickly, because most of those singer are not very good about the use of their words ... it may sound fine with their music in the background, but a "soul" or "third dimension" is missing, and it is much more visible than we give it credit for!

Hi,

I don't know ... when I listen to Peter Hammill, I doubt that he is worried about "interpretation" and I would say the same about Roy Harper, and even the late Kevin Ayers. Their words were about how they felt and there is no "interpretation" on them, except what we assign to it. And Roy, specifically, will probably say ... I don't care what it sounds like ... it's what came out when I was doing it! In his case, it was about his visualization/continuity of what he felt in words ... and "interpretation" would be something that were done, IF (AND WHEN) IT WAS WRITTEN ON PAPER and someone else was going to do it. Then, I would say an interpretation would be interesting, as it is for many actors on stage, although the best, after some rehearsals, don't give a damn about interpretation ... it's "who they are" that matters or the audience will fall asleep.

However, that is not to say that "many" interpretations don't work ... heck, we can look at Shakespeare, and see a few films, and to say that Olivier was better than Burton, or Gielgud, or McKellen ... they all did beautifully and it came out great. I sincerely doubt that the very creator of the work will EVER worry about it, although we know that many change their words for many reasons ... Bob Dylan is well known for that, at least was for a long time.

Hi,

Strange. I don't think I have ever seen you doing this when discussing film.

Another comment above is strange to me as well.

 (I would not expect reading the review to take me on the same trip as listening to the album.) ... 

What if the piece of music is THE SNOW GOOSE. Do you not "follow" a sort of imaginary story of the music with it? It's a complete film for me! And well thought out at that!

Logan wrote: ... For instance, in one album I have which contains screams, knowing in advance to expect them and when to expect them would alter the experience (while I don't much like jump scares, if reading a horror film review, I don't want to be told when to expect it).  ...

My time and place was around theater and film that used "screams" as a form of liberation and we can go back to Marlon Brando screaming STTTTTTTTELLLLLLLLLLLLA and a lot of English Theater that also went on to expose a new form of expression in theater, that IMMEDIATELY went to rock music, and the late 60's was full of it. When I heard PH do these, it didn't scare me, it only made it clear that the theatrical/emotional content was even stronger and thus, for an audience, much more intentfull and meaningful. I have a feeling that rock audiences, being "song" and "top hits" oriented could not relate to the depths of theater and film that was around, which became very visible later.

It is a fair point what you say, though, although I am not a great fan of the horror genre, even though I have watched more Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing films than most ... they were both consumate and excellent actors who worked very well together and the contrasts were totally far out to watch ... + and - on the same second and moment!

Logan wrote: ... A general overview of styles and attributes and similar albums, plus I like to know people favourite tracks if appropriate, plus a sprinkling of humour works for me. And I do like those reviews that bring me along for a ride on that reviewers personal journey. Maybe my journey will be very different, but I can still appreciate that ride.

I don't have a favorite track, EVER, because I love the music, not one song more than another. To me these are not songs. They are a life in living, and I don't think that this person or that person is a favorite of mine more than others ... it's not a distinction that I learned from literature, and film, and later, music. And, specially, since I am more attuned to the artistic end of it all, my preference is not for song as much as it is for the completeness of it, and the same goes for a film ... sort of like taking one moment out of it and thinking it is better than the rest of the film ... which, of course, if you take it out, probably makes the film poor. You do that to David Lean and you trash a film. I look at an album the same way ... I don't take out its stomach for being better than its lungs, whatever. 

It's about the whole thing and what it all means to me. The best example I have is my review of ITCOTKC where I made an effort to show how all the pieces of the album were such an incredible SNAPSHOT/PHOTOGRAPH of the late 60's ... but because we are 50+ years removed from it, the quotidian content in it, is taken out and turned the whole thing into songs, that not only don't sit well together, they also confuse the theme and make the title seem bizarre altogether. I was there during that time, and things like Neil Young, CSN&Y, Country Joe, Chicago, Jefferson Airplane, The Doors (specially!!!) and many others were highly meaningful to my view of things ... in fact, after them in the early 70's I went to Europe for music that better explained and detailed how I felt since a lot of these things in America were being killed by a media that we ended up believing and sucking up to (and STILL DO!) with processes and things that they used to make us think that something was right and better, and it showed in sales!

Humor, for me, is different, and I have a hard time, for example, with "high humor" (Moliere in literature) which to me is not funny, and even Shakespeare, that hides so much trashy humor and many times is downright lewd. By the time I saw American TV (was 15 and did not speak English), it was not funny, even as just stand up or just burlesque stuff ... and I could tell right away it was depending on laughs, that were not real to make us think it was funny, because some of the stuff and comments, did NOT FIT the reaction of the actor on the stage/TV at all ... it was obviously fake, and we still think it is funny, and then say that Ernie Kovacs and Jonathan Winters were weird ... when they were actually making fun of the plastic side of the whole thing! As did Tom Lehrer and the music in a lot of cartoons.

Well, sorry to lie. I have one favorite ... I love Marvin the Martian, and Chuck Jones and Spike Milligan are probably the only two "heroes" I have in my life. Of course I love AD2, Can, TD, KS, but while they were vastly influential, they are just a shade below those two ... and the funny thing is the two "comedians" were not just being funny ... they were totally out there ... and it prevented comparisons to anything ... and it is one of the reasons why I do NOT compare films a whole lot, or compare music a whole lot. They all have a single "personality" that is difficult to describe, but beautiful to watch and listen to ... and I will stop here!

With The Snow Goose I know the Paul Gallico story it is based on, if I didn't it would likely not take me on quite the same trip.  And I don't think my trip would be quite the same as another reviewers, of the band, of the writer.

Regarding horror, it is so diverse.  I'm more of a fan of films and novels labelled horror than the genre per se, I might say. I  love folk horror a la The Wicker Man (the original) which I would compare to other folk horror films such as The Apostle, the limited TV series The Third Day, Midsommar etc. and classic British folk horror such as Blood on Satan's Claw and The Witchfinder General.  I have compared at this forum certain aesthetics of the modern horror film Under the Skin with 2001:  A Space Odyssey, and I have compared 2001 with Solaris.  I think I do it quite a lot, but it often does depend on how the conversation goes with others.  Was talking film with my brother the other day and recommending films that I think he might like based on his tastes/ based on specific films that he likes.  I do like it commonly when people tailor their recommendations to an individual's tastes in discussion, but that's taking me to another topic as reviews tend to be aimed at more general audiences (even if niche audiences as I would expect the reviews to be different depending on the kind of crowds you are typically addressing)..

Shrill screams, jump-scares, going from very soft where you turn the music up to sudden loudness are shocks I find in various albums (think the story of Haydn's Surprise Symphony) and maybe some of those should come with warnings, but I don't know that I would want the surprise to be spoiled.  Like in a a review someone writes, "Warning, at three minutes and six seconds in of such-and-such, there is a scream so shrill, so terrifying, that it literally caused me to spill my hot chocolate onto my trousers, and now I have to wash them -- sad face, sad face."  Warnings of gratuitous language and adult themes are helpful, like if one is playing it in polite company and it gratuitously drops the B bomb (Belgium to be precise)* Douglas Adams readers at least will likely know what I am talking about.  I wrote in  a review for Art Zoyd's Haxan something like "my ears my ears" since it got very loud on me and it shocked me (not as much as an electric eel down my trousers might).

Regarding enjoying particular songs or movements or pieces, or even albums in a discography, or films in a filmography or scenes in a film particularly, I can appreciate that different people enjoy and approach music differently, and I like these differences to be expressed across diverse views.  Maybe I should have said if applicable and appropriate (but I meant to speak to a diversity of approaches, and that no one way is THE right way by my thinking).  I often do like reviews to reflect on someone's personality and individual experience.  My experience will not be quite the same when listening, but I can still enjoy the experience they relate often (quite often I can't if I cant relate to it or find it to be a downer, like complaining).  The journey a review takes me on will not be quite the same journey as it takes other one, just as the journey an album takes me on will not be identical to another due to experiential, psychological and other differences.  If I play the same album at another time, i wouldn't expect it to be the same journey.  

I am one who likes to hear about preferred tracks if applicable, with descriptors (other descriptors are more important o me than how much one likes it generally that describe the music) partially as I do often use youtube these days to start with certain tracks rather than from the beginning.  As a teen I made mix tapes too.  With various albums I first got into a song, for instance with Nick Drake it was "River Man" -- that and Fruit Tree remain my faves from the album its off.  With Swans, which is a current favourite, it was "Helpless Child" but now I love all of Soundtracks for the Blind (and The Sound would have done it too).   With Cardiacs it was "Dirty Boy" of Sing to God that worked, then got into the whole album, then started to prefer earlier albums on the whole, especially On Land and in the Sea.  In many cases, it's not about individual tracks but the whole, but there are many albums where I have favourite tracks and many artists where I have favourite albums in the discography.  I don't have to justify that as you don't justify to your history with music, we are all different, and one will find similarities too, and I hope people can respect those differences (not all differences, mind you).  I tend to be quite holistic actually, and even when it comes to posts I rarely like breaking them up or using bits and pieces as I like to appreciate those as a wholeness.  With albums, novels, films, and essays I commonly do treat it as a whole, and more than just the sum of its parts. It depends, maybe I should have started the morning with a coffee rather than a post (same thing I did with that post you quoted from).  Appreciating a track in the context of an album can be considerably different than hearing it in a , say, random shuffle, but both have value to me.  Listening to idiosyncratic songs taken off albums on university radio probably had some effect.

Hi,

The trick is learning to do this without looking or comparing it to something, even if it was the inspiration for it. Without the book, or reading it, the piece of music is even better, and should be called a "Symphony", but we can easily say that rock fans and progressive music fans, don't like the word "Symphony", because (I imagine) that it takes away from the word "progressive", by mentioning something from years back when!

You know what I mean ... the subliminal stuff that makes a progressive music "authority" be more intelligent than everyone else by ignoring music and its history altogether! I wonder what Mozart would do with a blue violin ... probably go get drunk and play it to the girls at the bar and make another fun song? 

I love reading Guldbamsen's reviews and Tszirmay's as well and many others simply because these guys have a personalities on steroids and they are so entertaining. 

Also I started reviewing on here at first just to have my own data base as it were, a reference to turn to and it's great that I can edit reviews here too because my tastes have changed a lot from when I first started here in 2006.

I used to not post my reviews on PA, but Oscar Belio asked me if I would post my review of The Silver Surfer on PA, so I did. Every now and then, someone else would ask if I would post my review here, so I would. It became less every now and then, than simply every, so I stopped waiting, and now I pretty much just post every review here, soon after it has been published at TPA. I realise that my reviews often seem a little out of place on PA, but then, they have been written for a different audience. And though they are published first at TPA, that’s not the audience, either. I still write reviews for me. So, as rewarding as it can be whenever anyone does show appreciation, I’m not unduly concerned if no one pays any attention at all! 🤪