Way to reduce # of 5 star ratings
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Site News, Newbies, Help and Improvements
Forum Name: Help us improve the site
Forum Description: Help us improve the forums, and the site as a whole
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=30202
Printed Date: July 19 2025 at 13:06
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Way to reduce # of 5 star ratings
Posted By: OpethGuitarist
Subject: Way to reduce # of 5 star ratings
Date Posted: October 22 2006 at 23:01
|
Well I will probably be alone in this topic but here goes. There is a lack of balance in some reviewers rankings. Not necessarily the collabs, who generally do a good job of keeping a balance. But there are many instances where reviewers will just give 5 stars to everything they rate, having 12 5-star rated albums and having rated no other albums, which really makes their ratings null and void in my opinion, as their is obviously no difference in their opinion between any albums. Theirs no weight to a rating if you think everything is extremely superb. Maybe the site could incorporate some kind of balancing system, say to where only 50% of your ratings can be for 5 stars. That'd be a huge step in balancing things in my opinion. All of these reviews are valued, as they help improve the site, but some judgements of where to draw the line should be made. Surely not everything can be essential to progressive music in one's mind. I know this would be nearly impossible to account for, but it was just a thought, as I've almost come to see the current ranking system virtually useless due to the extreme amount of 5's that are given for everything. (yes, i know rankings don't matter) ------------- back from the dead, i will begin posting reviews again and musing through the forums |
Replies:
Posted By: Australian
Date Posted: October 23 2006 at 02:05
|
I agree, I see many reviewers who have a vast majority of their reviews five stars. I try to keep mine fair and weighted, I hope that they are in your eyes. ------------- 
|
Posted By: OpethGuitarist
Date Posted: October 23 2006 at 02:34
|
most definitely Australian, me i have about 10% of mine as 5 stars and I'm hoping to keep it around that way. I think it helps cause it serves to actually give value and purpose to your ratings, rather than having everything you've reviewed/listened to be a perfect album, which obviously is not the case, barring that an individual has some sense of preference
------------- back from the dead, i will begin posting reviews again and musing through the forums |
Posted By: Trickster F.
Date Posted: October 23 2006 at 04:29
|
People don't think "everything is awesome", it's just many of us, myself included, prefer to rate albums they actually really like (and if you remember that people also prefer to listen to the music they enjoy, it becomes even clearer). ------------- sig |
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: October 23 2006 at 04:46
|
I agree with you OG, and I think it was a good move to bring up this topic for discussion in its own thread. The true masterpieces of Prog are few in comparison to the vast amount of albums on this site, and hence the five star ratings should be relatively few aswell. A way to avoid the problem would be to limit the ability to review albums to members with a Prog Reviewer or other collaborator/admin rank, as they often are the most knowledgeable (an opinion I've reached by comparing collaborator reviews to guest reviews). I can see the problems with this system, but I think it would work better. Personally, I'm willing to sacrifice my reviews and my ability to review albums to get some order and sense in the ratings. |
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: October 23 2006 at 04:47
|
I agree Iván. I don't think I have a "bad" album in my entire collection, but I do have albums that I'd rate around 3/5, but none lower than that. I don't buy music I'm unlikely to like. Also, even bad albums (mostly), have some good elements, so I don't think giving an album a 1 is a good decision. I am not a huge fan of Dream Theater, but if I listened to an album of theirs in full, I'm sure I'd find merits and it's obvious they're talented musicians, so I couldn't give a DT album a 1. due to those reasons. I am currently lacking reviews and that is due to mainly me being somewhat of a perfectionist when it comes to writing reviews and also due to ratings. I want to rate virtually all Van der Graaf Generator albums as a 5, but at the same time, I feel this is the wrong thing to do... I also have a few albums in my collection that are 4/5 star albums, but they get more plays than a lot of 5/5 albums. I prefer some 4/5 albums over 5/5 albums. An example of the above is "Starless and Bible Black". It's not as good an album as "Red", but I personally prefer it to it. -------------   
|
Posted By: Rocktopus
Date Posted: October 23 2006 at 04:53
Yep. I've probably rated 30% a five star here. That does not mean I think 30% of the albums in the Archives are masterpieces. I could spend a day and give about 500-600 albums a three star, but I guess I won't bother. Besides, it would be easier to give lower ratings if halfs was possible. ------------- Over land and under ashes In the sunlight, see - it flashes Find a fly and eat his eye But don't believe in me Don't believe in me Don't believe in me |
Trickster F. wrote:Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: October 23 2006 at 04:57
|
That's the other problem Rocktopus. A lot of albums in my collection are 4.5/5 and my own personal feeling is that I should round up to a 5, rather than down to a 4. It's mainly personal choice on my behalf. Some 4.5's are 4's and some are 5's. My Astrid Proll review shows that I rated it a 4/5, but I personally think it's a 4.5, but in this particular situation, I've rounded it down to a 4, as it's a debut album by a relatively unknown band (in which I have been promoting). If others start to rate it a 5/5, then maybe I'll change my ranking, but I don't want to set a precedence with a new album. -------------
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 23 2006 at 05:06
The problem is that there are huge differences in the selection of albums of each reviewer ... some choose to only review their favorite albums, some review randomly selected albums, some review their masterpieces + the albums which they think extremely suck (to warn others) ... ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to: 
|
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: October 23 2006 at 05:13
To avoid any complications, let me just clarify that this post isn't aimed at anyone in particular and that it isn't supposed to sound negative in any way.  Personally, I think that the only "bad" rating is one star. An album rated two stars, according to how the site defines that rating (Collectors/fans only), might not be very enjoyable for a person who is only a casual fan or a person who is new to the band in question, but for a fan of the band it will be a good album. I rated Gentle Giant's debut two stars, but like I said in my review I don't think it's a bad album at all. As I am a fan of GG, I like it, and I listen to it every now and then. The reason I gave it two stars is because in my opinion it isn't the best GG has to offer, and it's not the best album to start with if one is new to GG (again, in my opinion that is). |
Posted By: Neil
Date Posted: October 23 2006 at 05:18
|
I think that Mike has highlighted the problem. If many people only choose to rate the albums that they like or are interested in then there will be a bias towards good ratings.
One suggestion I have would be to nominate albums and then ask members of the site to listen to them and then post a review. That way you would get comments both good and bad and therefore a more balanced view. I know that it isn't quite that simple to organise this but it may lead someone to come up with another better idea.
Neil. ------------- When people get lost in thought it's often because it's unfamiliar territory. |
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: October 23 2006 at 05:22
| That's a good idea, Heavyfreight! It surprises me that nobody has thought about it yet. |
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: October 23 2006 at 05:28
|
I can't see it working though. People are biased with tastes, so someone who dislikes a certain style of prog, will have a biased view when it comes to ranking. Maybe we can ask people to rank and review some of those albums that have little, to no reviews at all? There are many bands in the archives that don't have a single review. They should take priority over big bands. -------------
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 23 2006 at 05:35
|
Personally I prefer an absolutely free approach to rating: No guidelines, suggestions etc.. You have a certain scale (0-5, 1-5, 1-10, 1-20 etc) and then you assign a rating to an album just with the simple rule in mind that the rating should be higher than ratings of albums which you like less, and lower than ratings of albums which you like more. I hope you understand what I'm trying to say ... I'm sure that there is no such thing as *one* perfect rating system. So why try to enforce it ... people won't listen and develop their own set of rules anyway. So by assigning deeper meanings to certain steps (like "2 stars = for fans only") all you achieve is to create misunderstandings. 2/5 means "bad", no matter how well you explain the meaning, people percieve it as "below par" intuitively. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: bhikkhu
Date Posted: October 23 2006 at 08:52
|
What if you only want to review the albums you like the most? I agree with the other statements about not owning bad albums. I don't purchase on a whim like I used to. There is enough information now to get an idea of something before you buy it. This site alone can guide you the right way.
This is why I am actually more suspicious of one star ratings. There was the issue of the person who gave every Beatles album one star. Do you really think he gave each album a thorough evaluation? ------------- a.k.a. H.T. http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com |
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: October 23 2006 at 11:14
|
except an abuse, we can't deal with the people's choice, even if they don't take seriously the balance of the scales from 1 to 5. of course there aren't too many albums of genuine 5 stars and there aren't too many artists having many 5 stars albums (and I understand you view, Opeth, since you yourself give 5 stars very reticently). but we can't just force a so-called or so-wanted correctitude. and neither to change things because of those who seems fishy (as you said, many people act balanced).
------------- 
|
Posted By: OpethGuitarist
Date Posted: October 23 2006 at 12:49
|
it's ok guys, I perfectly understand your point of view just some thoughts i had wandering around in my head ------------- back from the dead, i will begin posting reviews again and musing through the forums |
Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: October 23 2006 at 14:32
|
One thing I have asked mailto:M@X - M@X to look at doing is to show for each reviewer (on their own page) the spread of their ratings. This would look the same as the bar chart shown on each album page. This may help to highlight to some reviewers that they are not using the full range of ratings available effectively enough.
I agree with those who have already pointed out that most reviewers will focus on the albums they love first, so reviewers with only a few reviews will proabbly have an overall higher average of their ratings than those who have reviewed many.
If any particular reviewer does seem to be over generous with 4 and 5 star ratings, feel free to highlight it in the Reviews Discussion thread. It would not be considered a personal attack of any sort to civilly suggest that they are being over generous.
 |
Posted By: Trickster F.
Date Posted: October 23 2006 at 15:52
I wouldn't agree with that: I used to give lower ratings more often before I became a Prog Reviewer(and obviously I was less experienced at the time), whereas now I feel the necessity to cover more obscure albums I would like to recommend rather than make attempts on criticising music I simply do not comprehend(wish I hadn't posted that TFK review). ------------- sig |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: October 24 2006 at 13:34
|
I agree that this is a problem. Of my 47ish reviews, I believe I've given 5 ***** ratings and 1 * rating. The rest range from 2-4, and **s aren't necessarily bad.
For instance, I rated a Tool album, and my review was essentially this:
It's clearly good, and hear's why: reasons
But I don't like it, so I'll give it a 2.
|
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: October 24 2006 at 13:42
|
Actually, the reason why I do this is that if an album gets 5 stars from me, it is exactly the same as any other 5 star album. A masterpiece is a masterpiece, you can't have a *better* masterpiece, because that implies some imperfection, which is not the case in a true masterpiece. The same goes for a one star rating. If it's deserving of 1 star, it has no redeeming qualities, and is therefore just as bad as any other album without any merits.
The only problem this creates is that my Under Wraps review (an album I intensely dislike) gets two stars because 3 of the songs are listenable (thus giving it some redemption). At the same time, Ummagumma (an album I enjoy a lot) is really only for collector's/fans. I could boost it to 3 stars, but that doesn't accurately convey that it's only for collectors.
This is the only dilemna this rating system creates. If we had a ten point scale, I could give Under Wraps the 2 it deserves, and Ummagumma the 4 it deserves. The real problem is that there aren't enough choices for ratings. The way it is set up now, about 90% of the albums should be three stars (good, but non-essential), with small portions of each band's work being excellent/masterpiece or collectors/completionists only.
This is exemplified by SeanTrane, who for half of his reviews adds a half star. A 10 star system would take care of this, I feel.
|
Posted By: Atkingani
Date Posted: October 24 2006 at 21:26
|
Very interesting, OG. This issue was raised in the Admin Zone in October, 6. Here is my starting post for the thread.
Professional reviewers (websites, magazines, newspapers, etc) deal not only with material they like but also with material ceded by the media owners or labels or artists. Consequently, the share of their reviews show a much more distributed ratings from, say, 1 to 5 stars. In many occasions, they have to review stuff they don't like!
Amateur reviewers (99% of PA reviewers) deal generally only with stuff they like. No one will run to the shops to buy a CD not preferred and even borrowing from friends, they'll ask for something they believe is closer to their taste. Consequently, their ratings will show an unbalanced distribution, with 3 to 5 stars dominating.
The question is: Can we persuade our reviewers (collabs or not) to review a CD or an album of a band they don't like or disdain? In this case, how? The rating profile for each band and each album could be more fair??? ------------- Guigo ~~~~~~ |
Posted By: OpethGuitarist
Date Posted: October 25 2006 at 00:06
|
Another major problem, at least in my eyes, is the backlash received here by fans if you rate something here poorly. For my own case I've had several occassions where I was more or less yelled at and abused because I rated a particular album poorly. You also will lose a lot of friends if you attempt to be fair here. That's another issue, as I think some members here have some growing up to do. I'm going to keep doing things the way I'm doing them, leading the cause for balanced rating systems at PA. ------------- back from the dead, i will begin posting reviews again and musing through the forums |
Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: October 25 2006 at 02:17
This old topic again, eh? Sigh.
Who's going to buy those albums which I probably won't like for me? You? Max or Ron? (Certainly not me!)
 Or should I illegally download them, then spend lots of my limited leisure time listening to music I don't care for? Why? Where is my motivation to do that?
Tricky & Guigo hit it on the head, above
 (and I've said much the same several times, & long before): we are NOT paid reviewers, getting sent random albums to review by our employers or record companies. Rather, we are volunteer music fans and collectors, and thus we tend to own/buy stuff we either already know we like, or stuff that we can reasonably expect to like. We make INFORMED purchases with our limited music dollars. So I, likely you, and almost all of us own mostly stuff we like, thus that stuff gets a high rating (rightly so).Perhaps some of our younger members who are still in school have more ready access to other people's (friends) collections, but I sure don't. I also think a younger person is more likely to buy "on spec" -- that is, on the strength of a review or ten -- and then write a review that says "this supposed classic is way overrated." (Perhaps because we oldsters, in our enthusiasm, led them to expect some "life-changing" experience -- but Close to the Edge was mindblowing in its 73 context -- much less so now.)
I know what I like -- and that's what I buy/own.
No way around that basic fact.
 And, BTW, select albums to review en masse HAS been thought of -- and done -- here before, but that practice (MP3 copies of albums, for Collabs to review) was found to be of dubious legality (despite PA being based in Canada, where file sharing laws are much more liberal), and soon stopped, lest the beastly record companies descend upon us in their wrath. Loose lips sank that ship.
By now, you probably know what I don't like, so send me some of that headbangin' stuff you call "prog," and I'll gleefully savage it for you.
But would that be an improvement? It would be a trifle biased, no?
Bottom line: reviews on a site where the reviews are fan-generated will ALWAYS be weighted toward the upper end of the spectrum.
(And in my experience, most of the really negative reviews come from silly kids seeking to manipulate the rankings. How is it that they know so many supposedly crap albums so well, anyway? Are they masochists, or just too stupid to turn off/stop buying stuff they don't like? ) ------------- "And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy. |
|||||||||||
http://www.progarchives.com/forum/new_reply_form.asp?PID=2229913&PN=2&TR=24">
Posted: October 23 2006 at 05:18
IP Logged
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 25 2006 at 02:40
|
Usually I don't like reviewing albums I don't like, because it means that fans of the band/album will be disappointed when reading the review. But sometimes it's necessary ... and after all these reviews tell more about a reviewer than the 1001st review of Close to the Edge. I guess that the most effective way to write interesting reviews is to simply focus on albums which you see differently than the "public opinion" - works both ways (negative/positive). ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: October 25 2006 at 08:44
| 3 ***** reviews, actually... |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 25 2006 at 09:01
somehow I think that your post lacks context. 
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: October 25 2006 at 13:31
You won't have to listen to them and review them. The admins or specialist teams choose a couple of albums, and you can choose wheter you want to review them or not. At least that's the way I'd like it to work. Forcing people to listen to albums against their will is not a good idea. |
Posted By: progaeopteryx
Date Posted: November 03 2006 at 18:38
|
How about redesigning the algorithm to include the number of reviews a reviewer has made? For instance, a reviewer who only reviews 10 albums will have a smaller effect on any given album's total rating score than a reviewer who has reviewed 100 albums. The more albums you review, the more of an impact you will have on the rating score of any given album. The effect of consistently doing more and more reviews would also retrospectively increase the impact on previous albums the reviewer has reviewed. In addition, some checking on score spreads, as noted previously, would lower the impact if a reviewer gives everything five stars or one star and has done it to say a couple hundred titles. I believe something similar to this is used at rateyourmusic.com. I don't know if such an idea is statistically helpful as I'm not a statistician. But at the very least, I think it's worth discussing. |
Posted By: moreitsythanyou
Date Posted: November 03 2006 at 18:44
|
My idea is add .5 stars. A lot of 5 star albums will become 4.5 star albums which is probably a better rating.
Also who ever said in a fan based will tend to have higher ratings is absolutely correct -------------  <font color=white>butts, lol[/COLOR] |
Posted By: OpethGuitarist
Date Posted: November 07 2006 at 16:32
Not a bad idea. Only problem is SeanTrane would rule everything lol. ------------- back from the dead, i will begin posting reviews again and musing through the forums |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: November 07 2006 at 16:41
 to OGI do not think this would work, however, unless the reviewers who review more write better, more thought out reviews, which might well be the case. What we would do to keep ST from ruling out everything is to say that everyone over 1000 reviews gets the same influence. That way, ST would still have the most influence (until someone else gets up there), but not so much more that it would create a problem. It certainly could work.
I do think we could also limit people to only 50% of their reviews being 5 stars after they've written, say, 20 reviews, as anyone who has heard that many five star albums is a lucky man indeed. I know a lot of prog, and only 6 albums, maybe 7, and a very slight possibility of 8, but only 6 albums have definitely earned 5 stars. I have written 60 odd reviews, with about 50 more that I will write as soon as I get a chance. Not one of those 50 is a five star album.
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: November 07 2006 at 16:44
You live in Canada ... one of the big advantages of this magnificent country is that Napster is available there. So for the price of a few dollars each month you can have access to all these albums that you wouldn't normally spend money on.  ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: el böthy
Date Posted: November 07 2006 at 17:07
|
Many people rate only the albums they really really like, and in most cases this are the ones that get their 5 star review. I dont see why that bothers you
------------- "You want me to play what, Robert?" 
|
Posted By: johnobvious
Date Posted: November 08 2006 at 13:17
|
Having people review bands they don't like would be like what is happening now, just in reverse. You would still not be getting an unbiased opinion. Music reviewing can never really be conducted in a vacuum, even by professionals. But do I have an answer to fix it, no. But one thing I do really appreciate in a review is the referencing of the band's other albums (or albums of like bands). When a new album comes out, any references to previous albums and how it compares does more for me than just trying to describe sound with text. Maybe that could be incorporated in the suggestions for reviews. ------------- Biggles was in rehab last Saturday |
Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: November 08 2006 at 15:18
 It's still not free though, so it won't happen.Plus I don't want to have to listen to music I don't really like, anyway. (I use multiple listens to write a review.)
I don't have limitless time for music. I turn to it for pleasure, not out of a sense of duty or obligation.
Plus I want the real CD lyrics, photos & all -- I am a collector.
In any case, I really don't care about the percentage of 4 & 5 star reviews I've written. They accurately reflect MY collection, and what I think of it. Others have expressed concern, not me. (I only responded to point out how I thought a top-heavy weighting overall was inevitable, in a site where reviewers are unpaid fans, not paid professionals being sent music to review.)
 ------------- "And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: November 08 2006 at 16:05
|
^ fair enough, who has time to listen to bad music ... but it's not fair to complain that Napster is not a free service ... after all, good music doesn't just make itself. 10 bucks for more than 2 million tracks still sounds quite fair to me. BTW: I also couldn't care less about the percentage of 5 or 4 star ratings in my profile ...  ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: OpethGuitarist
Date Posted: November 09 2006 at 15:17
Perhaps because that's all you have?  I kid, I kid. ------------- back from the dead, i will begin posting reviews again and musing through the forums |
Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: November 09 2006 at 18:57
No, I don't want it to be free -- I am agaiinst illegal downloading.
 Admittedly, I did some in the past (mostly "one-hit wonder" stuff I'd never have bought), but I had a "crisis of conscience" about two years ago, and am enthusiastically buying CDs again. I guess what I mean, but didn't make clear, is that until I am paid (handsomely
) to listen to and review stuff I don't care for, I just won't listen to it, or try to acquire it. My few very low ratings here were of CDs I was given, or from bands whom I'd enjoyed before (Tull, Rennaissance, etc.).The opportunities are few, but I actually enjoy writing negative reviews. You get to use a whole new set of adjectives, and it's a great chance to use more humour. In fact, as I've said here before, some of my favourite professional reviews that I've read in magazines, etc, have been the really scathing ones.
I have had a good idea for a (hopefully) funny negative review for some time now, but someone would have to send me some ultra-fast and heavy, growly metal that they think I'd hate, first. (For the sake of my conscience, they'd have to know ahead of time what I was hoping/planning to do with the album: savage and ridicule it.)
You know what I don't like, Mike. Have you got any extra copies of albums that you might like, but think I'd hate lying around? Does it perhaps need its overall rating lowered? Would you be able to tolerate me making fun of it, mainly for the purpose of exercising my creative/funny side, and giving my ratings more "balance?" Would you be able to laugh too, even if you strongly disagree with my opinion?I'll just hold my breath, and keep checking my mailbox.... ------------- "And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy. |
Posted By: OpethGuitarist
Date Posted: November 09 2006 at 19:00
Peter I can more than help you out, if you are really so inclined... ------------- back from the dead, i will begin posting reviews again and musing through the forums |
Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: November 09 2006 at 19:37
Now I've given the game away though....
What the hell -- PM me, if you wish, Joey! ------------- "And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: November 10 2006 at 02:49
I think the problem might be that you sometimes sound like you're open to recommendations or suggestion, but you're really not. *You* know what you don't like, and your opinion won't change - so where's the point in committing my time to find something new that I think you might like, when all you would do is listen to it a few times with "closed ears" and then write a scathing review just for the fun of it? I don't think that you would really listen to anything which I recommend, as you have already decided that I listen to bad music. BTW: I *hate* scathing reviews for albums that are generally (read: statistically) accepted as at least "decent" ... 90% of these reviews are unfair . And it doesn't have anything to do with whether I agree with them or not. It's just that often the authors of these reviews are either misinformed about what the musicians tried to achieve, or they simply hate the genre of the album and use the album review as a platform to release their anger or to advertise other genres or albums which in their opinion should be rated much higher. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: November 10 2006 at 09:23
Sigh.
Mike, I made it perfectly clear that I wanted something which you thought I would not like, and what I wanted it for. Please read my post again. I did not ask anyone else, and I certainly did NOT expect you to send me anything. (My winking emoticon at the end makes that, and my joking tone, obvious.)
I have read some very funny scathing reviews over the years. Here, for example, there's Tony's witty ELP one, and I think my Styx and Renaissance "Camera Camera" reviews are passably amusing. Both bands have done stuff I like, as I make clear. I invite you to read those reviews, and see if they truly exhibit the hatred, ignorance, or trumpeting of other music which you say are common traits of the negative review.
I take the attitude that it's just music, for goodness sake -- not world politics, global warming, or religion. Different groups of people have different tastes and attributes, and sometimes that can be a source of humour. Much of comedy is based upon "tensions" and dis-connects between genders, generations, races, city vs country people, etc. It's good to laugh at our foibles.
I, in turn, have a creative idea for what I think would be a genuinely funny review, but (without giving my concept away) the music has to be very loud, fast and aggressive, with growly vocals. I honestly think that many people -- including some fans of the music who are able to laugh at themselves, and see the potential for a humourous reaction to the music -- might find it funny. I like ELP -- Tony's ELP review made me laugh. I am a prog fan -- I have read many things here (eg. "Are you a proghole?") that make fun of prog fans and our stereotypical image, and I have laughed to see us so accurately, if exaggeratedly, skewered. In short, I can laugh at myself, and at a musical form that often takes itself too seriously for its own good. Yes, it's just music, and music is a source of pleasure, and fun, for me, and many others.
BTW, Bryan sent me some prog metal so that I could see the diversity and "progginess" of the genre, and I listened and responded to it with an open mind -- just ask him. I have also said publicly here in the past that I can understand why prog metal is here. That is more of an olive branch than you get from some! I have read some stuff that is very much anti metal-as-prog here recently, but as far as I know, you did not respond. You always seem to zero in on me, even when I try to defuse tension, and joke with you, as I did in my prior post here.
Still, however, I find that the two main genres generally have very different fan bases (and always did, historically) -- different in generation, outlook upon the world, and outlook upon beauty, humour, etc. I think the two groups often don't mix very well, and I think that a forced union of older prog and younger metal fans was unnatural, and bound to lead to tension (as you've seen it does -- and it's not all down to me, is it? Many older fans of classic prog feel as I do about metal being dubbed prog.) Perhaps laughing at some of those difference would do us all good, and in the end, bring us closer, or at least decrease tension, and increase tolerance.
Do you think there would be no tensions among different fan bases if alt country and more sophisticated hip hop were to be renamed "prog country" and "prog hip hop" (people have asked for the latter), then grafted on here? Imagine the acts that folk would then lobby for including!
With all due respect (and I do respect you as an obviously intelligent person who passionately advocates and defends his favourite music), I honestly think you sometimes lack a sense of humour, and take it all too seriously, and personally. You sometimes react much as if you wrote the music in question, and as if I am somehow evil, or deliberately deceiving.
Again, regrettably, I find you determined to disparage my personality and integrity, and unable to even fully understand me, so I see no real point in continuing this. We always seem to clash, in the end, so let's just stop this. It's pointless. ------------- "And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: November 10 2006 at 09:47
|
^ Now it appears like I attacked you - how did that happen? I misunderstood your request, but other than that I just said that I don't like reviews which are solely intended to bash the artist or genre. As long as you don't write such reviews, this doesn't even concern you. BTW: I don't take any of this seriously, and neither should you!  With the words of the amazing late Kevin Gilbert: "My mind is quiet and still".  ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: November 10 2006 at 09:51
|
Sorry Mike -- you and I often seem to get our wires crossed.
Thanks for the hug (I'll genuinely have a better day now) -- here's one back at ya!
 Have a good Friday, respected sparring partner!
Take care. ------------- "And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy. |