A Nice Guy's Music Musings
 

I thought I might have a go at doing some reviews, so I think this is a good place to start. For my ratings of albums I'm going to use George Starosin's system, which works pretty well imo. Here is a link if you wish to find out how it works The Ratings System. Please don't hesitate to comment if you wish! :thumb:

edit: Not using the actual band rating system he has but instead I'm just doing a straight score out of 15.
For a guide: 15=Best of the Best
13-14=Very Good/Excellent
10-12=Average-Good
7-9=Below Average-Fair
5-6=Poor
<5=Bad

Hmmm, he said. A bit overcomplicated if you ask me. I used to use a four or five-stage rating system too, but I would score each indivdual track out of a total of 100, then divide the albums up into things like Content, Writing Skill, Musical Expertise, Enjoyment and so forth, and score them all out of 20, add the two scores thus giving me an overall album score (you can see some of this at work on my website at Lestat's Asia Website), but even that was a little over-analysing things, I felt.

These days I don't give scores, just talk about the album and let people score it if they want to. After all, like yer man says, you could rate an album really highly whereas someone else would not do so. I do have one question about his system though: the "band rating" he talks about. Surely that means you need to have heard all or most of a band's output in order to rate them? There are many artistes of whose work I've only heard one or two albums, and some I would not wish to hear more. Does that system he uses then not mean you have to be either a) very very old to have heard all these bands' full catalogue, b) very very rich, to be able to buy all their albums (or find somewhere you can download them!) and c) have a hell of a lot of time to compare and make judgements?

I personally don't like his system --- where does he get off, saying the Eagles' best album was their first? --- but I will be interested to see how your own reviews go.

Welcome to the Music Journals anyway!

TH
:wave:

Yeah he usually reviews a bands whole catalogue. I actually forgot about this when posting the thread. The system is quite complicated I agree but I don't think giving an album a rating out of 10 shows the true range of quality that we can get in the music, for example.

I think I'll scrap his band rating system for here but I'll take a leaf out of his book and make the ratings all out of 15. I think this gives a reasonable spectrum to show the music's quality, but it also allows me to not be too worried about doing every single album from a particular artist/band.

I think you do need time to hear enough music to make judgements that are more than just liking or disliking a particular genre. I'm not sure you need to hear a group's whole discography though, just compare it to similar music from other people you have heard.

I agree with that sentiment. In fact, as I just proved with my review of It Bites' "Once around the world", sometimes just one album can be great and the rest either dross or just not of as high quality, so in some ways, going through a whole band's discog could in fact lessen your appreciation of them. Not always, of course, but it just proves there are after all no hard and fast rules when it comes to music.

That said, as a youngster many (many!) moons ago, once I discovered a new artist I usually (providing I liked them, of course!) went out and bought the rest of their catalogue. So it was with Bob Seger, Springsteen and Judie Tzuke, to name but a few.

Another good way to get an idea of an artiste, I always found, was to get a live album. These days of course, it's all Youtube and Myspace, wasn't like this in my day, had to work for a living, blah blah blahzzzzzzzzz...... :)

Yeah that does make sense. I don't think I could really get through a whole bands catalogue unless I really liked them.

Finally got around to my first review!

The Smiths-The Queen is Dead

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/...500_AA300_.jpg

Track Listing: 1. The Queen is Dead (Take Me Back to Dear old Blighty) 2. Frankly Mr Shankly 3. I Know it's Over 4. Never Had No One Ever 5. Cemetry Gates 6. Bigmouth Strikes Again 7. The Boy With A Thorn in his Side 8. Vicar in a Tutu 9. There is a Light That Never Goes Out 10. Some Girls Are Bigger Than Others

Best Track: I Know It's Over or Cemetry Gates

Starting off with such a well regarded album was nice, but on first listen The Queen is Dead disappointed me a little. It seemed decent but at times muddled (Especially on the title track) indie pop/rock that seemed a bit bland as well. Everything seemed to be focused on Marr's guitarwork and it all seemed very one dimensional.

However on my second and later third listen the real quality shone through. Whilst the title track still felt very muddled and undefined in it's sound, the rest of the album started to pick up. The quaint but attractive melodies in Frankly and Cemetry Gates really caught my ear this time around. Perhaps it's that delicate sound that doesn't quite get picked up when your expecting a harder edged sound. Yes I'll admit never having never heard The Smiths before I had some preconceived ideas in my mind that they would rock a little harder, but it's all for the better that they didn't.

Morrissey really shows me why he's so well regarded for his beautiful and emotional singing delivery, as well as his sharp and witty but at the same time sombre lyrics. The best example is in I Know It's Over, with his depressed beauty shining through in his voice, and of course the lyrics (Oh Mother, I can feel the soil falling over my heaaaaddd....). His lovely vocal delivery is evident throughout, and he makes it all bond well with Marr's dominant yet again melodic guitar parts. Whilst the bass and drum influence feels more in the background, it's still solid enough I guess. To be honest with the excellent use of the guitar on, for example, Boy with a Thorn and Some Girls are Bigger Than Others it makes up for the lack of variation in the rhythm section.

If anything this album proves to me that multiple listens are needed before making judgements. With only two tracks that aren't superb (Title track and Vicar in a Tutu), it has to be a given a 13 or 14. I'll be generous and give it a low 14, really due to the dual strength of Morrissey and Marr.

EDIT: In hindsight 14 was a bit too good for the album, so I'm pulling it down a notch to a still respectable 13.

13/15

Interesting review. I often wish I could review albums that succinctly, but I tend to ramble on and run off at the mouth (or at least, the keyboard), so my reviews tend to be much longer. Often they're probably too long, but whaddya gonna do? Everyone has their own style, I guess.

Never been a fan of the Smiths. Just never been into that sort of music, but it's a good review. Just one suggestion: when I list the tracks on an album I always do them one under another, as that way you can see clearly the titles, whereas when they're in a line it may be a little hard to distinguish one from the other. Just an observation, that's all.

I'm also impressed by your contention that you need to listen to albums more than once to appreciate them. That's certainly true. I have albums here I've reviewed while listening to them for the first time, and I wonder if my opinion would change (on the ones I say I don't like) over time and repeated listenings? Thing is, I usually have just about enough time to listen to an album once, never mind several times, so unless I already know it well it may not get the review it perhaps deserves. Food for thought, indeed.

Good first effort. I'll be watching for your next review eagerly.
Keep it up!
Trollheart

Thanks! I actually rushed this review a little but to be honest it's not a huge album really so it didn't really have to be to long. As for the track listing I'll try your way for the next review to see how it turns out.

I've often found that certain albums (generally quieter, mellower ones) really don't stand out that much on first listen compared to more upfront sounding albums. Anyway I usually give at least 2 listens to an album, unless of course it's absolute bollocks when I won't bother with the 2nd listen or on the other hand if I really enjoy it then I'll probably give it a few more listens.

Edit: 100 posts!

Pink Floyd-A Momentary Lapse of Reason

http://www.progarchives.com/progress...3151082009.jpg

Track Listing:
1. Signs of Life
2. Learning to Fly
3. The Dogs of War
4. One Slip
5. On the Turning Away
6. Yet Another Movie
7. A New Machine pt. 1
8. Terminal Frost
9. A New Machine pt. 2
10. Sorrow

Best Track: Learning to Fly

Well it's no Dark Side but it doesn't deserve it's bad rep either...

Pink Floyd seemed finished after the effectively Waters solo record that was The Final Cut, but instead Gilmour, Mason and to an extent Wright restarted Floyd to make Momentary Lapse. Considered by many Floyd fans to be horrid and an insult to the great Pink Floyd catalogue, this album tends to get a pretty bad wrap. But to be honest does it really deserve this criticism?

The first song is the instrumental Signs of Life. It opens with the flowing water at the start which then leads on to an ambient-ish synth part before ending in a subdued Gilmour guitar part. Quite a pleasant song, but probably not the best to open an album with. It's just a bit too unremarkable. Ideally you'd want the next song, Learning to Fly, to start off proceedings. Learning immediately hits with it's soaring slashes of guitar, which add to the effective and strong lyrics.

One thing about Momentary Lapse is that the record has energy with it. Even though The Dogs of War and One Slip aren't the best songs here at least they don't get bogged down. Dogs of War shows Gilmour trying to be all angry and demonstrative but really only Waters was ever good at that. On the Turning Away is another anthem like Learning to Fly, but it lacks the guitar slashes that predominate latter. It instead relies on effective backing vocals which background Gilmours airy voice beautifully.

The worst songs on the album are the double whammy of A New Machine pt 1 and 2. The sound is harsh, too sudden and ugly, with the empty gaps between Gilmour's shrieks awkward and pretty useless. I'm not sure whether Gilmour and co. trying to revive the gritty atmosphere of Animals here but if they were they failed dramatically. And then just to rub salt into the wound (or ears rather?) they decide to just repeat about 40 seconds of it a second time. Not smart, not smart at all...

Mind you in between the two abominations there is the (second) lovely instrumental, Terminal Frost. Starting off with a nice piano line, assumedly from Wright, and a bit more soaring guitar from Gilmour, the instrumental then morphs into a superb saxophone solo. Truly brilliant, the sax solo is moving but not wanky like you sometimes get with solo's from this instrument. It's very close to best track here, which is rare as generally I consider most instrumentals filler to the vocal tracks (unles of course the artist goes by the name of Brian Eno ;))

So certainly by no means a bad album. Granted there a few poor tracks and only one two true good ones but there really is no real problems here. It gave back Pink Floyd energy in their music as well as a bit more positivity after three generally dark albums. Certainly if you enjoyed stuff before Waters became too dominant then you shouldn't find this a bad album.

11/15