Second Guess The Critic: Reloaded, Final Round

[Brenden]

Murlough23: Neal Morse - Sola Scriptura (clips) http://www.amazon.com/Sola-Scriptura-Neal-Morse/dp/B000MTDRKE/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-3208919-1090241?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1177888583&sr=1-1
Plvarona: Nine Inch Nails - Year Zero (clips) http://www.amazon.com/Year-Zero-Nine-Inch-Nails/dp/B000O178BY/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-3208919-1090241?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1177888828&sr=1-1
Bloop: Nine Inch Nails - Year Zero (clips above)
NinjaRob17: Nine Inch Nails - Year Zero (clips two above)
Brenden: The Who - Quadrophenia (clips) http://www.amazon.com/Quadrophenia-Pete-Townshend/dp/B000002P1P/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-3208919-1090241?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1177888909&sr=1-1
Josh: Pulp - This Is Hardcore (clips) http://www.amazon.com/This-Hardcore-Pulp/dp/B000006DI9/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/103-3208919-1090241?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1177889002&sr=1-2

This round will end at 10PM eastern on monday the 7th.

[murlough23]

Wow, am I really the first one to guess after all this time?

bloop: 4
Brenden: 5
Josh: 5
NinjaRob: 4
plvarona: 3

[NinjaRob17]

3 for Murlough and Plvarona, 4 for everyone else.

[bloop]

3 for Mur
3 for Plv
4 for Rob
5 for Brenden and Josh

[Brenden]

I was actually just thinking, "wait, nobody guessed yet?".

bloop: 4
Murlough23: 3
Josh: 5
NinjaRob: 4
plvarona: 3

[ajyouthguy]

i have a broken arm and a doctor's appt monday for that, so in case i forget or just don't feel like typing/listening to clips before then, i'll just say 4's for all.

[Josh]

Brenden: 5
Everyone else: 4

[plvarona]

Tentative guesses - these may change tomorrow morning.

Murlough: 3
Bloop: 4
NinjaRob: 4
Brenden: 4
Josh: 5

[RedcoatJones]

Murlough: 4
Plvarona: 3
Bloop: 5
Ninjarob: 4
Brenden: 5
Josh: 5

[RedcoatJones]

So ... are any of the critics gonna share their thoughts? 

[murlough23]

So ... are any of the critics gonna share their thoughts? 

Sure, I'll go first (I had to listen again this afternoon, plus go back and revise some of my guesses).

Neal Morse can clearly navigate his way through a good prog-rock crash course. Sola Scriptura has more cleverly played, rocking sections than Testimony, the only other album of his that I've heard, and his music runs the gamut between hard rock, mellow inspirational pop, and whatever other genres he feels like sprinkling in (Spanish folk, Gregorian chants, weird jazzy stuff), and the most significant drawback to this amusing genre-bending is that sometimes it sounds downright cheesy. It doesn't help that Morse's reedy voice seems a bit too weak for the grandiose material - the guy's a brilliant composer, but his singing just doesn't appeal to me. At his worst moments, particularly when he makes the mistake of assuming that cheesy 80's CCM ballads are just as good of an influence to draw from as his prog-rock heroes, he sounds like a really overzealous version of Michael W. Smith. So all of these elements combined sort of make him the prog-rock equivalent of Carman. There are some great emotional highs on this record, and also some frustrating lows, and in every case other than the schmaltzy "Heaven in My Heart", which is the sole "regular-length" song on this 4 track album, many of the highs and lows are encapsulated within a single song, elements that are inseparable from one another. Morse's glorification of Martin Luther without grasping the man's flaws also makes the record feel a bit like hero worship - he found out about Luther's hatred of the Jews after completing the album, and acknowledges this in the liner notes, but doesn't really make any effort to acknowledge how this shifts the focus to the power of God's grace rather than the accomplishments of a man.

Overall, an album with admirable ambitions that proves to have too many trouble spots for me to want to listen to it much. 2 stars.

[plvarona]

I wonder if people realized coming in that I'm really not much of a Nine Inch Nails fan at all.  I did my best to give this one a fair shake, though.

Album Reviewed: Year Zero - Nine Inch Nails

Pros: I've read that this album is supposed to sound futuristic, and it at least succeeded on that level.  The special effects were effective in quite a few places.  Furthermore, I will also give points for originality, as I can't really think of any other album out right now that sounds like this one.

Cons: Quite frankly, I did not enjoy this album very much.  For all the nice special effects, there were also quite a few ones that I found to be unpleasant.  There were too many abrasive-sounding moments for my taste, and the music was a bit on the repetitive side for my liking.  I realize that my have been intentional, but that doesn't mean I have to like it either.  Trent Reznor did admit this album might have been too long, and I tend to agree with him there.

The Bottom Line: NIN did some nice things on this album, but too many jarring moments and too much musical repetition make it hard for me to really enjoy this album.

Rating: Even though I didn't really like this album, I can see enough musical merit to keep myself from completely panning it.  I say 3 stars sounds about right.

On Deck For Next Week: Oh wait.  There is no next week!

[NinjaRob17]

Everyone guessed me right. Congratulations.

[murlough23]

For all the nice special effects, there were also quite a few ones that I found to be unpleasant.  There were too many abrasive-sounding moments for my taste, and the music was a bit on the repetitive side for my liking.

It's NIN, so I can't say that I'm surprised.

[Brenden]

My computer has been acting strange, so I have had a hard time getting online without it freezing up.

Quadrophenia is a classic album by a classic band. The songs are consistently good, with Love Reign O'er Me being the amazing close to the album. There are a few moments where it's hard to hear what's going on, but nothing too major. I pretty much gave you guys this one.

5 stars

[bloop]

Reznor's last album, With Teeth, failed to excite me after hearing so much to be excited about on The Fragile (maybe a little too much, but there was even some exploration of more more hopeful territory on that album, which instantly caused me to place it alongside his very best).  Year Zero still finds Trent hopelessly in a rut lyrically (we get it Trent - you're pissed, and you hate some kind of dead or nonexistent supreme being.  interesting this is not), but the sounds and production on the album keep me coming back, so I can recommend it at around a B+ level, or 4 stars - good for most of you.

[Wildcatblue7]

My computer has been acting strange, so I have had a hard time getting online without it freezing up.

Quadrophenia is a classic album by a classic band. The songs are consistently good, with Love Reign O'er Me being the amazing close to the album. There are a few moments where it's hard to hear what's going on, but nothing too major. I pretty much gave you guys this one.

5 stars

Yay!  another fan.  Quad is probably my all time favorite album . . . it's so awesome I actually have to work myself up to listen to it because it's emotionally draining.  Amazing.

I'd like to hear what Mur thinks of it, actually.

[murlough23]

I'd like to hear what Mur thinks of it, actually.

You want me to make time in my busy listening schedule for something that isn't current? Yeah, give me about five years.

[bloop]

Yeah, but Quadrophenia is probably better than most anything we're currently listening to.  It's worth blocking out a little time to catch up.

[murlough23]

Yeah, but Quadrophenia is probably better than most anything we're currently listening to.  It's worth blocking out a little time to catch up.

Then ten other people pop up with classic albums that I absolutely have to listen to right this minute. I'm not opposed to listening to it someday. Now just isn't a good time.

[Wildcatblue7]

Then ten other people pop up with classic albums that I absolutely have to listen to right this minute. I'm not opposed to listening to it someday. Now just isn't a good time.

Oh please, like you can't block out a few hours one day to hear it (or many other things).  Pass up something you know is a piece of shite (I know you always have a few of those in your queue, you masochist you  ) and listen to something that's purportedly awesome.  Seriously, music listening . . . isn't . . . or shouldn't be . . . so serious.  Really.

[murlough23]

OK, I'm editing my initial harsh response because it was uncalled for. But I will say that I don't appreciate the insistence that I must listen to something just because it's widely considered a classic or because you like it, or whatever. I may choose to listen to it someday. It's not a matter of having no time; it's a matter of what I want to make time for now, and yes, that includes some of the so-called "shite" that you refer to - I need to be able to assess it and give my opinion on whether I think it's shite to others who might buy it. I do go back and listen to older stuff from time to time, and one of these days I will probably devote a large block of time to a more intensive study of "classic rock". But at the moment, I'm mostly happy in the present, so please respect that.

[Wildcatblue7]

I'm not actually harping or insisting on that album or any other in particular; I actually just said I'd like to hear what you thought of it, and that doesn't mean right this second.  Really, I'm picking on your schedule of music listening.  That just makes it sound like a chore--maybe it's not, to you, but I've always regarded music as valuable entertainment, not something I HAD to do...

Just out of curiosity, why do you "need to assess it and give my opinion on whether I think it's shite to others who might buy it"?  I know, reviews, blah blah blah . . . but still, I don't understand the value of that exercise for you.  What do YOU get out of it?

[murlough23]

Really, I'm picking on your schedule of music listening.  That just makes it sound like a chore--maybe it's not, to you, but I've always regarded music as valuable entertainment, not something I HAD to do...

It's not a schedule. It's a matter of what I choose to spend my time on right now.

Just out of curiosity, why do you "need to assess it and give my opinion on whether I think it's shite to others who might buy it"?  I know, reviews, blah blah blah . . . but still, I don't understand the value of that exercise for you.  What do YOU get out of it?

What do you get out of your hobbies?

[Josh]

4 stars for Pulp-- it's very good, but not as good as Different Class.

[bloop]

Listening to middling CCM also-rans is a strange hobby, but it's your time, and you seem to enjoy it in a way.  It's hard to argue with that, but it would be pretty cool to see people's thoughts on the greats of years past.

[murlough23]

Listening to middling CCM also-rans is a strange hobby

So is watching disturbing Quentin Tarantino films, but you don't hear me saying you should watch Kill Bill over again one less time and free up 2 hours for whatever my favorite movie is. You have your tastes; I may not agree, but I respect that.

It's hard to argue with that, but it would be pretty cool to see people's thoughts on the greats of years past.

I have no doubt that it's excellent work, but I find myself struggling when I try to evaluate significantly older music because I get hung up on the production values.

As for the CCM also-rans and spending my time on "shite": Number one, that's not the totality of what I spend my time listening to and you know it. Number two, every now and then one of them pleasantly surprises me, and that's enough to make me gla I give various things a try. Number three, you attempt to listen to Linkin Park albums, and in the past you've listened to Kutless and Pillar as well, even though you expected very little from all of them and graded them low in accordance to what you felt the quality level was. So I'm not sure why I'm so weird in that regard.

[bloop]

So is watching disturbing Quentin Tarantino films, but you don't hear me saying you should watch Kill Bill over again one less time and free up 2 hours for whatever my favorite movie is. You have your tastes; I may not agree, but I respect that.

Come on, now.  My last movie was a disturbing PT Anderson feature, not a disturbing QT picture.  Either way, I wouldn't mind if you wanted to suggest a film for me to watch.  I think I watched "Hitch" partly due to your recommendation, but I'm not remembering.

I have no doubt that it's excellent work, but I find myself struggling when I try to evaluate significantly older music because I get hung up on the production values.

If anything, Quad is produced to the hilt.  Not that much has happened in production in recent years to make it so much better than that of the 70s.  The innovators took technique to a new level of fidelity long ago, so I think you may have stylistic rather than production hang-ups.

Number one, that's not the totality of what I spend my time listening to and you know it.

Granted.

Number two, every now and then one of them pleasantly surprises me, and that's enough to make me gla I give various things a try.

This makes sense to me, too.

Number three, you attempt to listen to Linkin Park albums, and in the past you've listened to Kutless and Pillar as well, even though you expected very little from all of them and graded them low in accordance to what you felt the quality level was.

First, I don't attempt to listen to anything.  I either listen or I don't.  Second, I didn't know what to expect from Pillar.  I was indeed not expecting much of LP and Kutless, but I could give them a fair listen. 

I think it's good to stay current, but sometimes, I find I just need to step back and listen to something that's really good - give myself a bit of perspective that may help me to not give A's out so easily (when in A territory, the albums really should be qualitatively comparable to some truly great stuff - I'm not sure I've always kept that in perspective, but I try).

Other times, I just want to enjoy what I'm listening to, so when we're in a dull season in music, I look back to some purported classic that I haven't heard.  It's a good system that suits me well, but maybe I'm a little weird, too.

[murlough23]

Come on, now.  My last movie was a disturbing PT Anderson feature, not a disturbing QT picture.  Either way, I wouldn't mind if you wanted to suggest a film for me to watch.  I think I watched "Hitch" partly due to your recommendation, but I'm not remembering.

Sure, but I didn't nag you to watch it, I didn't expect you to watch it, and I didn't even think it would totally blow your mind if you did.

We all make recommendations to one another; that's part of the reason why I love this site. But I have a hard time keeping up with everything that everyone recommends to me, and with the stuff I've discovered on my own that I want to keep up with. I think you've seen that I've gone back in time here and there with certain bands (Radiohead, a little bit of R.E.M., most certainly U2), and I will do more of this in the future, but right now I'm just plain not in the mood, and when I say "no thanks" the first time, I don't want a sales pitch; that's going to make me dig my heels in even more.

If anything, Quad is produced to the hilt.  Not that much has happened in production in recent years to make it so much better than that of the 70s.  The innovators took technique to a new level of fidelity long ago, so I think you may have stylistic rather than production hang-ups.

Brenden said he still had trouble hearing certain sections of it - that's one of my big pet peeves.

First, I don't attempt to listen to anything.  I either listen or I don't.

I meant in the sense of actually making it all the way through an album. I would have just said "You listened to X, Y, and Z" but I wasn't sure if you had a similar response to the latest Linkin Park and you just couldn't get through it... which I would totally understand.

I think it's good to stay current, but sometimes, I find I just need to step back and listen to something that's really good - give myself a bit of perspective that may help me to not give A's out so easily (when in A territory, the albums really should be qualitatively comparable to some truly great stuff - I'm not sure I've always kept that in perspective, but I try).

I have those times when I want to go back and investigate some classics as well - now just isn't one of 'em.

The thing is that those classic albums will always be classic. What's current will not always be current, and most of it, I'd like to get to while it's still current. You don't see me going back and investigating a lot of "CCM also-rans" from more than about a year ago.

[Wildcatblue7]

Brenden said he still had trouble hearing certain sections of it - that's one of my big pet peeves.

As someone who's listened to that album about a jillion times, it's not that you physically can't hear it; it has some of the best production I've heard this side of Synchronicity-era Police (same goes for Steely Dan and Who's Next).  There's tons of instrumentation going on all the time; it's a very full sound, so to speak, so it's more like you have to concentrate a little more to pick up on all the nuances.  This is best solved with a) a BOSE or b) a good set of headphones.  Crappy laptop speakers do NOT get the job done.

I'm not trying to pick on you, by the way, Mur; really all I meant was that it would be interesting to hear what you think of albums that are out of your comfort zone (at whatever date, I don't care if it's three years from now because this isn't life or death here).  I say out of your comfort zone because you seem almost afraid to listen to something without glossy modern production techniques, which I think kind of kill the soul of albums at times, but that's just me . . . Bloop's right, I think your hangups are stylistic rather than production aesthetics.  Production took a hit in the late 80s with hair metal on the downswing and grunge on the rise; with few exceptions it's not great in the 60s either.  70s production though . . . sometimes it's awesome to the point where I enjoy albums or bands that I might otherwise find dated or boring (Fleetwood Mac or even Steve Miller come to mind).

[murlough23]

As someone who's listened to that album about a jillion times, it's not that you physically can't hear it; it has some of the best production I've heard this side of Synchronicity-era Police (same goes for Steely Dan and Who's Next).  There's tons of instrumentation going on all the time; it's a very full sound, so to speak, so it's more like you have to concentrate a little more to pick up on all the nuances.

Layers of sound in which it can take a while to notice all of them is actually an interesting concept to me, so I guess I misunderstood Brenden's synopsis. I was referring more to the type of thing U2 or Tool do sometimes, where the vocals are so soft you can't make out what's being said, or when there are long, sustained sections of music being played so quietly that you have to change the volume level to really hear what's going on.

This is best solved with a) a BOSE or b) a good set of headphones.  Crappy laptop speakers do NOT get the job done.

I usually listen with headphones at work and I don't have the most expensive set in the world, but they're pretty decent. But what kills some albums with long, quiet sections is when I listen to them in the car, which is a true test of how much I enjoy any rock album. f there are significant parts of it that I can hear over ambient road noise with the windows rolled up, that's a big setback.

I'm not trying to pick on you, by the way, Mur; really all I meant was that it would be interesting to hear what you think of albums that are out of your comfort zone (at whatever date, I don't care if it's three years from now because this isn't life or death here).

One day you may get your wish, but the kind of pestering I was getting from you made it seem like you just couldn't stand the suspense any more.

I say out of your comfort zone because you seem almost afraid to listen to something without glossy modern production techniques, which I think kind of kill the soul of albums at times, but that's just me . . .

It certainly can, and I think you've seen me complaining about that in very many reviews. I don't mind an album having a more "dirty" or "muddy" sound, but I do mind when everything mushes together, or when a band's going full throttle and the mix makes it sound rather "thin". These sonic qualities are difficult to describe in words, but I know it bugs me and that's why there are certain indie bands that I can't really get into. I can understand it if you have a really low budget, but it's the whole "make the record sound cheaper than it is" aesthetic that I can't deal with. "Make the record sound really expensive and overblown" also gets on my nerves - it depends on whether the style of music calls for it.

But come on now, not everything I listen to is all glossy-sounding. That's hardly a fair comparison. Vienna Teng had my #2 favorite trecord last year and that's a very quiet, intimate record that for most part, only uses the layers and instruments that it really needs. (It takes longer for me to get into that sort of an album, but still.)

Bloop's right, I think your hangups are stylistic rather than production aesthetics.  Production took a hit in the late 80s with hair metal on the downswing and grunge on the rise; with few exceptions it's not great in the 60s either.  70s production though . . . sometimes it's awesome to the point where I enjoy albums or bands that I might otherwise find dated or boring (Fleetwood Mac or even Steve Miller come to mind).

Maybe I was incorrectly assuming that the awful production I've heard in most 80's music was a limitation of the available techniques at the time, rather than a chosen aesthetic. (It may have been a response to what some felt was too much layering and so forth in the 70's; I don't really know, but I'll take your word for it.)

But I won't use what I expect it to sound like as an excuse. I want to save it for when I'm interested in going back and digesting a good chunk of older stuff all together. If it's the lone representative of the 70's on my playlist for a given month, I think it'll suffer for that.

[Brenden]

Layers of sound in which it can take a while to notice all of them is actually an interesting concept to me, so I guess I misunderstood Brenden's synopsis. I was referring more to the type of thing U2 or Tool do sometimes, where the vocals are so soft you can't make out what's being said, or when there are long, sustained sections of music being played so quietly that you have to change the volume level to really hear what's going on.

It's a little of both. I thought the intro track was too quiet compared to the rest of the album, even when played in my car. It's waves on a beach with some piano and quiet phrases sung over it to foreshadow later songs. And there was a spot in the middle of the first disc where I thought the same thing.

[Wildcatblue7]

It's a little of both. I thought the intro track was too quiet compared to the rest of the album, even when played in my car. It's waves on a beach with some piano and quiet phrases sung over it to foreshadow later songs. And there was a spot in the middle of the first disc where I thought the same thing.

On "The Dirty Jobs"?  Yeah, but I'd consider that the weakest point of the whole thing anyways.

Mur, I really wasn't trying to pester you . . . once again, miscommunication time.  Sorry.  I think we're not really connecting on the definition of production, either, but that's okay.

[murlough23]

Oh please, like you can't block out a few hours one day to hear it (or many other things).

From one person who often doesn't realize the tone they're communicating to another... please take a look at this statement and tell me how it's not pestering.

[bloop]

Production took a hit in the late 80s with hair metal on the downswing and grunge on the rise; with few exceptions it's not great in the 60s either.

I think you may have a stylistic hangup here.  Seems it applies to more than just mur, but I guess we all have our little quirks.

Get to the old stuff whenever you can carve out the time, mur.  I hope you enjoy it when/if you do.