fyi ins i was referring to much more than just the p-word

some observations:

using words like ataractic is fine but the way you do it here feels forced, like you wrote the review first and then went through each section searching for fancy synonyms to replace the adjectives

the review reads like these words are shoehorned in for no other reason than to appear intellectual when all they actually do is emphasise the clunky flow of the writing

gonna have to ditto tommy. this review starts off as a nice, casual conversational piece, but then you say "oh wait I'm reviewing Beethoven, guess I'd better beef up my vocabulary a bit". focus on communicating the meat and potatoes of what makes the album special to the reader. nothing wrong with showing off your diction if it flows nicely, but imagine if you read this out loud to one of your friends

Album Rating: 5.0

thats a pretty baseless assumption. i wasnt going for a tongue in cheek review, i used words that i felt would best get my point across and ive proofread this thing countless times and had no problem with the flow. if you could specify which parts feel clunky to you that would help

"thats a pretty baseless assumption"
^ that is a baseless assumption. I'm not assuming anything, I'm trying to explain the impression that i get from reading it. that's how it reads to me. not trying to shit on your writing.

I honestly think if you ask one of your friends to sit down while you read this out loud, you'll get what I'm saying.

but ok, moving on:
"pulchritudinous elegance" - this is redundant. you might as well be saying "elegant elegance" or "lovely prettiness"

"hearty bravado" - again, redundant. you're adding descriptions on top of descriptions for the sake of it. is there such a thing as bravado that isn't hearty?

"regularly by numerous philharmonics" - ...you mean an orchestra?

"transcendent masterpiece" - an exceptional masterpiece? again, man, redundant.

phrases like "suspenseful tenuto" and "fortissimo" make sense to me, as someone who has studied music a bit, but they're obviously excessive. you could cut out "tenuto" and just say the "suspense of every note....". likewise, instead of "fortissimo" you could just as easily have said "loudly"

I'm starting to get nitpicky, but the little stuff like that adds up.

"Ludwig Van himself"

just Ludwig, the prepositional prefix Van means "from" in Dutch

Album Rating: 5.0

i was referring to tom with that but okay. cut back on redundant adjectives, got it



'"regularly by numerous philharmonics" - ...you mean an orchestra?'



thats what a philharmonic is, yes

just to reiterate: not trying to take a dump on your review. if i thought you were a poor writer i wouldn't bother criticizing.

Album Rating: 5.0

its fine, man. i appreciate the actual criticisms over the passive aggressive jabs (not referring to you)



as for the music terms, they just came out naturally. i didnt even give it a second thought but youre right not everyone knows music theory, ill keep that in mind

the community of reviewers here is sort of a blessing/curse. on one hand, it's cool to share your input candidly and help other writers improve. on the other hand, it's difficult to take into consideration average people who stumble across your review, and don't habitually read album reviews.... if you get what I'm saying.

as someone who's read hundreds (thousands?) of reviews, i have no issue with this writeup. but, if i was a non-user casually reading reviews off the front page, i'd find this review a bit much. that's not to say you need to "dumb things down", but definitely favour accessibility above all else. make it a fun read, and people who don't normally give this sort of thing a chance will be that much more likely to after reading this.

Album Rating: 5.0

changed a few word choices, hope it reads better now



should also point out that this is fucking amazing;



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pd_eQkuOlZI

Album Rating: 4.0

Nice to see a bit more classical appreciation on this site. I think this one is a teensy bit overrated though, 6 7 8 and 9 are all better.

Yeah I don't really know what you mean by saying Mozart is "technical". I assume it's derived from the today's pop/metal music meme that when people say that some metal bands are "technical" that it is supposed to be a comment about the lack of songcraft, and an abundance of proficient playing? On that level, first, I'd say Beethoven is actually more difficult to play. If it is a comment on lesser emotiveness, then 1. I would say that you haven't listened to his operas (the way that Beethoven used his symphonies to PR himself, Mozart used opera - Mozart wrote his last symphonies as an idea and we don't know if they were performed during his life) 2. but also, noote that people thought differently in the 18th century. Mozart lived in midst of the age of reason, and really, amongst all the composers of that age, music was not fully about trying to emote - rather, the use of the emotive was in the service of the greater argument of the piece - so, as one example, Bach or Haydn or Mozart may take an unpromising theme and use their compositional ability to prove that yes, it is a worthwhile one for a composer to use, using variety of development, and compositional resources, and may invoke emotion and beauty. Whereas, Beethoven was part of the dawn of an "artist" discourse (influenced, ironically, by the idea of Mozart as a genius above and unappreciated by his time) - the artist as the revolutionary genius, and to drive that point he used his music to overpower (i.e. the 5th) or powerfully affect (i.e. the 6th) his listeners.

They are really different outlooks, but I have to say that because that whole "technical" metal/prog meme irritates me (it's not something that actually exists - only good/bad musicianship), I'm speechless if that is going to be applied to Mozart. Chopin, probably the least "technical", but technically difficult of composers, loathed Beethoven, and adored Mozart. Seriously, as an experiment you could go to a classical forum and try and say something like that.

Phat beats on dis shit

Album Rating: 5.0

"I assume it's derived from the today's pop/metal music meme"



thats what you get for assuming

"Seriously, as an experiment you could go to a classical forum and try and say something like that."
Why don't you just go back there?

nice job nit-picking his argument guys

"have"

Lol, what a Pleb

Album Rating: 5.0

sucks 200 year old albums dont get features

no VIP privilege for you