exept me whos right
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5
Yes, except Dryden and his provocative avatar
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5 | Sound Off
Well, duh, everyone knows Dryden is right.
|
| |
Enotron and Knott-: You guys both make good points. And while I'm very firm in my convictions, I do admit that there is some space for the whole "It's okay, I don't like this but it's cool if you do." It's an obvious fact that people's opinions diverge over certain topics.
Still, I'd like to think that there's a level at which music and lyrics can be discussed and evaluated critically according to more strictly-defined aesthetic and extra-aesthetic (sociohistorical, political, poetic, etc.) criteria. This is the only level at which any kind of argument is possible. Otherwise, everything reduces to the whole "I like this, you don't" thing or vice versa.
For me, I feel most confident criticizing the lyrical dimension of the album and its recording quality, since I've studied poetry and have used recording equipment a lot in the past. Though I know some music theory and kept taking classes on it into my first couple undergraduate years, I feel like I don't know enough of the hardcore theoretical concepts in order to pick apart an album that way. I'll admit that with my whole statement about how CTtS' use of dissonance is "obsolete" I was taking Schoenberg, Berg, and Adorno more or less at their word then they claimed that all previous modes of dissonant composition had been outmoded by dodecaphony.
|
| |
And Knott-, your point about most human beings not being wired to handle a completely detached, purely rational analysis of an album is well taken. I'll say that it's impossible and even undesirable that we would ever be able to completely remove ourselves in judging a work of art or piece of music. Nevertheless, I'd like to think that it's possible for anyone to strike a balance.
Without wholly sacrificing the immediacy of listening to an album for the first time or even listening to it repeatedly, I think that one should be open to a rational reflection on the album's contents, submitting it to analytic scrutiny. For while thinking about an album a bit harder and more carefully could potentially ruin it for you, such analysis could equally serve to only deepen your appreciation of it and clarify the reasons it's so good.
When I was younger, I used to resist looking into the social and historical context of music and tried to keep from really thoroughly analyzing it, especially if I liked it. Why risk ruining it for myself by "overthinking" it if it just sounds good to me on an immediate level? I didn't even want to know about the artists' lives or their milieu or influences for fear that it might "corrupt" my raw appreciation of the music considered as such. However, I later came to realize that limiting myself to this narrow mode of listening was just a way of sheltering myself from the disappointment that would come from the realization that something I had liked was actually crap. Since then, I've come to think that the resolute insistence upon a just purely immediate reaction to music is shallow. But hey, you might disagree.
|
| |
Album Rating: 2.0
Okay I loved almost everything on the Sputnik top ten list that just came out but wtf is this and why does it have so many 5 out of 5 reviews
|
| |
Album Rating: 2.5 | Sound Off
Because people love to think bad music is good.
|
| |
Alright, I'm not going to get into it too much but I finally listened to this over the weekend and it's definitely not my thing.
|
| |
Album Rating: 1.0
too much readingz
|
| |
Album Rating: 1.0
Willie might understand the ire for this album now.
|
| |
I'm thinking about reviewing this.
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
while I don't think that it is a pile of junk, I REALLY don't get the 5's
|
| |
Willie might understand the ire for this album now.
I understand why its level of quality might be up for debate, but I still don't understand the heated discussions that crop up because of it.
|
| |
please no
|
| |
Album Rating: 2.0
I was thinking of rating this 1 out of 5 but I dont want to rate anything that low until I have listened to it a few times and am really sure. I listened to this once all the way through and started to give it a second listen but I had to turn it off because it was giving me a headache. So for now it is still a 1.5 until I am strong enough to go through it again
|
| |
I've got a thesis, basically: As the Roots Undo is a record which shows a flawed concept marred by sloppy execution; but it is later redeemed when the elements are more integrated and less syncretistic, if only to an extent.
|
| |
willie hit it on the head - this isn't my cup of tea either, but neither is converge. i'm not sure why this has become such a hot topic besides as MJ's ego trip
|
| |
about an album a bit harder and more carefully could potentially ruin it for you, such analysis could equally serve to only deepen your appreciation of it and clarify the reasons it's so good.
I've been listening to this recently (because I'm trying to decide if it's a 2 or a 2.5) and the more I pay attention, the more I find both positives and negatives. For example, a lot of technical errors (the double bass drum skips over several notes on Kill the Switch, but not in the whole "it's supposed to be discordant" context. As well, I'm liking the ambience at Karma better, and the sample-tunes at Interview at the Ruins less, although I realize now that track is probably the most dynamic, even though it's the most straightforward.
|
| |
Album Rating: 2.5 | Sound Off
I think it's become a hot topic because it's gone so long being a 5 to most of the users here. Now people are questioning that and its status.
|
| |
like who gives a shit though? i hate a good amount of the stuff that was on the staff list and i'm not getting fired up about it
|
| |
|
|
