Pimp Your Reviews!

[murlough23]

Other than the odd comparison to and criticism of a track that you're still wrong about, decent review.      

You can convince me of the artistic merit of "Motion Picture Soundtrack", but you can't convince me to like it. And "My Juvenile" doesn't sound like that track, but the use of the harp and the fact that it's the end of the album do remind me of it in an oblique way.

While maybe tossing out the odd number a bit hastily

You mean like 13? I've never been a fan of the number 13.

Oh, you mean the odd song. Which one did I toss out that you think is worthwhile? Whatever it was, I didn't do it hastily. I've listened to this album quite a bit in the last two months, and tried to find reasons to dig deeper into the tracks I liked the least. (I really hated "Declare Independence" at first, for example.)

I think you picked out the stronger tracks which, in this case, are those that make good on the more light-hearted pop album promise behind the album's marketing campaign.

Yeah, that campaign was apparently about as much B.S. as "Jars of Clay returns to roots". There are some great, danceable, catchy songs on that album, but they're still in the minority (and I don't think they should have comprised the whole album, but I'm still weirded out by how there's pretty much nothing in between the two sonic extremes, save for "Hope").

[bloop]

You can convince me of the artistic merit of "Motion Picture Soundtrack", but you can't convince me to like it.

I've always been a little ambivalent as to how important that should really be when assessing these kinds of things anyway, but we've talked about this one before, exhaustively.  I do genuinely enjoy it, though.

Oh, you mean the odd song. Which one did I toss out that you think is worthwhile? Whatever it was, I didn't do it hastily. I've listened to this album quite a bit in the last two months, and tried to find reasons to dig deeper into the tracks I liked the least. (I really hated "Declare Independence" at first, for example.)

I'm not sure the songs listed as $0 are really entirely devoid of merit, so I'd probably kick them up to $0.50.  That's about it, really.

[murlough23]

I've always been a little ambivalent as to how important that should really be when assessing these kinds of things anyway, but we've talked about this one before, exhaustively.  I do genuinely enjoy it, though.

I try to note what's interesting about a track even when I don't personally like it; the reader can decide for themselves. But I need to be able to state what it's worth to me, personally. I try to be open-minded, but I've given up all pretense of being able to review from an objective point of view, because I don't think that's posible, or even something to necessarily aspire to.

I'm not sure the songs listed as $0 are really entirely devoid of merit, so I'd probably kick them up to $0.50.  That's about it, really.

It's not a matter of lacking merit. It's a matter of the sum of a song's merits and its demerits.

NP: "Will You", P.O.D.

[bloop]

I still think it's at the very least something to aspire to myself, but I'm not sure it's ever been truly realized in any particular individual's reviews.  Again, I liked the job you did on this one.

I think it speaks highly of a reviewer if they can say something isn't appealing to them, but still recognize that which makes a well-executed work and praise it anyway.  That's not really the ideal, but it's approaching that and makes me optimistic that my steadfast refusal to believe that the ideal impossible may not be wrong after all.

It's not a matter of lacking merit. It's a matter of the sum of a song's merits and its demerits.

Probably just a difference of thinking about a song-by-song rating system.  It's your system, so you obviously know it better than I would.

[murlough23]

I think it speaks highly of a reviewer if they can say something isn't appealing to them, but still recognize that which makes a well-executed work and praise it anyway.  That's not really the ideal, but it's approaching that and makes me optimistic that my steadfast refusal to believe that the ideal impossible may not be wrong after all.

There are some things in music that aren't my style, but that I have great respect for. However, Bjork's "floating in the ether" method of getting to the next line whenever she damn well pleases on some of her slow songs isn't one of them.

Probably just a difference of thinking about a song-by-song rating system.  It's your system, so you obviously know it better than I would.

I'd say the star rating is more important tan the song-by-song, but that's just an alternate method of analyzing whether I think I got my money's worth. A $0 song isn't "worthless" to me, per se, but it's not something I'd want to pay to hear, either. To make up for that, other songs have to be more valuable to me than the median $1 that I'd expect to pay for a decent song.

NP: "Perfect Change", Dakona

[bloop]

There are some things in music that aren't my style, but that I have great respect for. However, Bjork's "floating in the ether" method of getting to the next line whenever she damn well pleases on some of her slow songs isn't one of them.

I like that about her, depending on the song.  She's very uncompromising and sometimes a bit bizarre as an artist, and I do understand that's going to create roadblocks.

[murlough23]

I like that about her, depending on the song.  She's very uncompromising and sometimes a bit bizarre as an artist, and I do understand that's going to create roadblocks.

I admire the willingness to be an individual who doesn't compromise, but doing that means accepting that not everyone's going to like everything you have to offer. So I don't necessarily admire all of the results of the uncompromising experiment.

[murlough23]

Here's Wilco's Sky Blue Sky, as if bloop and I didn't have enough to argue about.

http://www.epinions.com/content_399675002500

[bloop]

Um, what's there to argue about?  Even as a huge fan of Yankee Hotel Foxtrot, I actually agree with you that Sky Blue Sky deserves a closer look, past its lack of inherent "weirdness", to the craftsmanship that continues to define Wilco through each of their albums.  With the YHF review, I thought the biggest problem with your review was that you made some rather uncharitable assumptions about the artists - their motivations, sobriety, etc.  You didn't make the same mistake again, so I like the review. 

It's not the same kind of record as YHF, but any Wilco fan that has been around longer than that (or who went back for curiosity's sake) knew that they can't really sit still for long.

At least, I hope they still can't.

If you're able to be yourself and still record something relatable and enjoyable to listen to without "selling out"

Hehe - Volkswagon.

I hear Sonic Youth is at Starbucks.  I could do for a latte.

[murlough23]

Um, what's there to argue about?

Apparently, there's so much less to our argument than I thought. But I was mostly being facetious. "Debate" is probably a better word. I figured I might get grilled for stating in no uncertain terms that I vastly prefer the sound of Sky Blue Sky to that of their last two albums, which I'm fairly sure puts me in the minority among Wilco fans.

Even as a huge fan of Yankee Hotel Foxtrot, I actually agree with you that Sky Blue Sky deserves a closer look, past its lack of inherent "weirdness", to the craftsmanship that continues to define Wilco through each of their albums.

With the YHF review, I thought the biggest problem with your review was that you made some rather uncharitable assumptions about the artists - their motivations, sobriety, etc.  You didn't make the same mistake again, so I like the review.

2003 was a different time. I think I've learned to assume less since then, a point which I briefly acknowledged in my Sky Blue Sky review. Getting called on it by the folks over at the Via Chicago boards helped me to make fewer assumptions (that was during my "post review links on the band's message board" phase, which was experiment to try to drive up hits that didn't work all that well).

I can't say much to defend my YHF review because of my relative ignorance of Wilco at the time. I still stick by my rating of that album, but I do own it and enjoy some of it, and my reasons for what I dislike about it have changed a bit. One small thing in my defense is that just because I sum up a lyric by saying "Apparently he did this and/or felt this way", doesn't necessarily mean that I think the songwriter actually went through that experience or holds that position; I'm just talking about him as the protagonist of the song. That doesn't always translate in the reviews that I write, which I need to be better at. But it would become tedious to explain that every time.

Anyway, my biggest roadblock with YHF was expectations due to how Josh and some others described the album. It was my fault for expecting to have the same transcendent personal experience with it, and this led me to be overly critical of some of the religious allusions and so forth, which just didn't do as much for me. If I hadn't gone in expecting it to work wonders for me, I probably would have appreciated it more as just a curiosity - I've come to appreciate it more since then. I'm not blaming Josh or anyone else; I'm just blaming myself for letting my expectations get that hyped up.

It's not the same kind of record as YHF, but any Wilco fan that has been around longer than that (or who went back for curiosity's sake) knew that they can't really sit still for long.

I learned that they couldn't sit still for long by comparing Summerteeth to YHF, and then to Ghost. So the surprise isn't that they changed, it's that they changed in a way that made them more accessible. I don't necessarily expect that their next album will be so easygoing, and if they move forward in a way that makes them more experimental for it, I'm not going to criticize them for not staying in a musical space that I happened to enjoy the most. At the same time, if I enjoy it less, I will have to be honest about that, but there's a difference between "This just isn't my taste" and "They did this wrong."

Hehe - Volkswagon.

I didn't know about the VW ads until I read it in Wikipedia after writing the review. I think there's a difference between recording songs for the express purpose of having them be used in commercial jingles and just being pop culture juggernauts in general without there being much else in terms of a reason for the song to exist, and just writing the songs you feel like writing and then making your best effort to market them.

Ed Robertson actually had a good explanation for this in one of the Barenaked Ladies' podcasts from last year docunmenting the making of their last two albums. He acknowledged that some fans regharded the use of a band's music in commercials as "selling out", but his view was that if they made a song and somebody wanted to use it in an ad, so long as the ad didn't trivialize the context or meaning of the song, it wasn't a bad thing to get that song more exposure. It's an additional way to make money, sure, but part of the reason for making that money is so that they can continue to make more music for the fans to listen to. (Of course, the song he was talking about submitting for use in a commercial was "Quality", which sort of parodies an artist trying to sell himself and has a tune that kind of resembles a commercial jingle, and it also happens to be just about the dumbest song they've ever written, but that's beside the point.)

A song like "You Are My Face" is not the type of thing I'd expect to hear as a TV jingle, but I think it could be done well. It sure as hell beats desecrating "American Pie" for the purposes of selling a Chevy.

I hear Sonic Youth is at Starbucks.  I could do for a latte.

Heh. So is Wilco.

NP: "Endless Day", Wavorly

[bloop]

Apparently, there's so much less to our argument than I thought. But I was mostly being facetious. "Debate" is probably a better word. I figured I might get grilled for stating in no uncertain terms that I vastly prefer the sound of Sky Blue Sky to that of their last two albums, which I'm fairly sure puts me in the minority among Wilco fans.

You did this in a way that I thought was appropriately challenging to fans of experimental post-rock/alt. country Wilco.

I don't have a big problem with the VW ads, or Sonic Youth's foray into overpriced coffee, but I understand that there are plenty who do.  I was just making a funny.

[murlough23]

You did this in a way that I thought was appropriately challenging to fans of experimental post-rock/alt. country Wilco.

That's a pretty big compliment coming from you. I guess I wondered if it was even my place to do so, because I'd expect a seasoned Wilco fan to regard me as a bit of a fairweather fan - "Oh sure, now that they're less experimental, you jump on the bandwagon and say it's their best stuff."

But now I'm glad I went through the difficulties that I did with Wilco's last two albums - it helped me to imagine what those "seasoned" Wilco fans might be feeling now even though I'm on the opposite side.

[Josh]

My take on the new Over the Rhine record.

[murlough23]

I finally finished procrastinating and finished my review of Modest Mouse's We Were Dead Before the Ship Even Sank, an album which seems to be about procrastination.

http://www.epinions.com/content_400823324292

I really want to get Mae and Eisley's new ones reviewed within the next week. I'll try to make them a priority.

[murlough23]

I'm having trouble getting my Singularity review written, so I did one that was easy because I've known the songs for years. It's a review of Third Day's Chronology, Vol. 1. For those who are looking forward to watching me rip Third Day apart for being so mediocre, you'll have to wait for my review of Vol. 2, because most of their early stuff, I still enjoy.

http://www.epinions.com/content_401732636292

[Brenden]

http://www.epinions.com/content_401950805636

My review of The Trumpet Child.

[danny316]

Some of us actually have lives.

...and some of us are forum trolls who refuse to learn about time saving technologies and smugly add valueless and insulting comments to threads at random.

One thing about being able to access the reviews quickly and directly is that I don't have to deal with some of the crap like this that just drags down the conversation. Getting a direct feed of opinions that I value is a far better use of my time than wading through forums with a far lower signal-to-noise ratio.

After catching up with this thread (I'd already read/skimmed all the reviews elsewhere), I still don't get why Murlough uses the $2 per great song system he uses. It seems a bit positively weighted to me - most CDs that I'd find enjoyable are worth more than retail value by that system, and that's expensive for a CD if you ask me. $1 per song makes more sense, but that only opens it up to be more of a subjective scale.

Combining my tangent with the actual topic, I also don't get why people here do the "glutton for punishment" type reviews. When I realize I hate an artist and want to avoid their work, I don't track down everything they do after that, but for some reason people here try out new CDs by Third Day, Paris Hilton, Fergie, etc instead of spending that time finding more worthwhile artists. What gives?

[murlough23]

...and some of us are forum trolls who refuse to learn about time saving technologies and smugly add valueless and insulting comments to threads at random.

Big WORD to the second part of your sentence (from "smugly" on). I can handle a good deal of verbal abuse from someone who is actually part of the ongoing conversation, but when someone butts in just to tell me to shut up because I'm boring them, I'm inclined to just say, "Butt out, and you'll be a lot less bored."

But in all fairness, you added a pretty high dose of your own smugness to the conversation when you brought up said time saving technology. It kind of had that whole "You're an idiot for not knowing how to do this" air about it.

After catching up with this thread (I'd already read/skimmed all the reviews elsewhere), I still don't get why Murlough uses the $2 per great song system he uses. It seems a bit positively weighted to me - most CDs that I'd find enjoyable are worth more than retail value by that system, and that's expensive for a CD if you ask me. $1 per song makes more sense, but that only opens it up to be more of a subjective scale.

It's $1 per good song. Bonus points are added for songs that are really good or just flat out awesome. It's not like I'd want to pay $24 for a CD packed with 12 absolutely awesome songs or anything. But such a CD would certainly be worth its retail price. More often than not, though, my system ends up showing why I think most CDs aren't worth retail. If more effort was made to keep the consistency up instead of just throwing some attention-grabbing singles and a lot of filler onto a CD, people would probably buy more CDs in general. (Though there might be fewer CDs to choose from, since only the higher quality artists would get signed in the first place. Ah, to live in an ideal world...)

But I don't pretend that my method of rating CDs is any more of a scientific breakthrough than anyone else's. There's no formula that will always work (see how I have to adjust it for bands like Dream Theater that have really long songs with several segments that could be considered individual songs that morph into one another). And sometimes it conflicts with the star ratings I assign - I have some 4-star CDs that, by my own system, are "worth" more than some of the 5-star ones. It's just another way of looking at it. Did the artist give us a good quantity of material, and if so, was it consistent?

The whole thing actually goes back to a remark that a friend made in college. He used to claim that he had this "system" for rating films (usually cheesy B-movies), that every cool stunt or one-liner or whatever that amused him was worth 25 cents, and if the net worth after adding up all of those quarters was more than what it cost to rent the movie, then it was a good movie. For example, he rented some really bad horror movie about a leprechaun in which, during a scene where the good guys finally turn the tables, some kid exclaimed something to the effect of, "Fuck you, Lucky Charms!" just before blowing the leprechaun away. My friend exclaimed, "That's fifty cents right there!"

Anyway, I thought back on that later and wondered if I could adapt such a system for CDs. Another friend of mine claimed to have a "six-song rule" - if he liked at least six songs on a CD, he'd buy the CD. I thought, "Yeah, but are those really good songs or just ones that you think are decent? What about the others? Are they really boring, or truly awful, or just nondescript filler?" Plus, once the digital age came about, a song on iTunes was sold for 99 cents. So I figured a truly classic piece of musical art should be worth twice that, and a bad song should be worth either nothing or a negative value, depending on how serious of a bump in the road it was when listening to a CD. My little "money scale" came from that.

Combining my tangent with the actual topic, I also don't get why people here do the "glutton for punishment" type reviews. When I realize I hate an artist and want to avoid their work, I don't track down everything they do after that, but for some reason people here try out new CDs by Third Day, Paris Hilton, Fergie, etc instead of spending that time finding more worthwhile artists. What gives?

There's a variety of reasons. Sometimes we just want to make others laugh with a good set of zingers directed at an artist who we all know deserves it. Sometimes we want to see if something others have said is bad is really all that awful. Sometimes we used to like an artist and are holding out hope that they'll make a comeback. Sometimes we've heard a lot of hype about something that we expect to be genuinely good, and it turns out we've been horribly misled.

Quite frankly, I give out a lot of 4-star ratings. I have fairly good luck with the music I choose to listen to. Most of the things that are blah, or that really stink, I don't have high expectations of coming into it, but every now and then I'll be rudely surprised by a Lifehouse or a Linkin Park. Sometimes I need to clear the air about something that gets way too much hype. Sometimes I've been sent a free CD by a record label that is becoming increasingly out of touch with the world, and if it's sitting on my desk, I'll open it up and give it a fair listen, and I'll be brutally honest if it's truly that bad.

Having said that, some artists amuse me by how much they continue to suck (e.g. Kutless), and others, I won't continue to follow because I'll just end up making the same complaints time and time again (e.g. FFH). It's rather arbitrary on my part. I'm OK with that. It's not like I don't make time to search for new stuff.

[Brenden]

When I realize I hate an artist and want to avoid their work, I don't track down everything they do after that, but for some reason people here try out new CDs by Third Day, Paris Hilton, Fergie, etc instead of spending that time finding more worthwhile artists. What gives?

I find it fun to tear these artists apart, and I'm masochistic with my entertainment.

[Aaron]

...and some of us are forum trolls who refuse to learn about time saving technologies and smugly add valueless and insulting comments to threads at random.

Ah yes, because that is exactly what I am.  Not really, but you can take the stick out of your ass anytime now.

[murlough23]

Deas Vail - All the Houses Look the Same

(WARNING: Gratuitous fanboy gushing ahead.)

http://www.epinions.com/content_403734826628

[dgp11776]

Deas Vail - All the Houses Look the Same

(WARNING: Gratuitous fanboy gushing ahead.)

http://www.epinions.com/content_403734826628

Good job on that one.  The rhythm is definitely a highlight of the album - I find myself often trying to figure out what in the world is going on here and there.  I'm just happy to see you got turned on to them.

[murlough23]

The rhythm is definitely a highlight of the album - I find myself often trying to figure out what in the world is going on here and there.

I really do wonder how that album would play for someone who didn't have an ear for complex rhythm. Would they realize the rhythm was a strange one and would that bother them, or whether it would even register that something weird was happening.

I have bands like Iona to thanks for getting me used to wacky time signatures, to the point where I derive a lot of pleasure from figuring out the pattern in what sounds like chaos.

[murlough23]

Third Day, Chronology, Vol. 2

Here comes the part where I'm not so nice to them.

http://www.epinions.com/content_403946049156

[latinchic]

Murlough used the word "PIMP" in the thread title.  Just how long have I been away??

[bloop]

Yeah, mur's a potty-mouth, and Josh is a CCM fanatic.

[murlough23]

Murlough used the word "PIMP" in the thread title.  Just how long have I been away??

This isn't CMC, darling.

I've lossed up about my views on "swearing" in the past few years, but at the same time, I try not to be gratuitous about it. I'm not even sure that "pimp" is a cussword, anyway.

NP: "A Lover's Charm", Deas Vail

[latinchic]

This isn't CMC, darling.

I've lossed up about my views on "swearing" in the past few years, but at the same time, I try not to be gratuitous about it. I'm not even sure that "pimp" is a cussword, anyway.

NP: "A Lover's Charm", Deas Vail

Ohhh, no-no-no.  I don't think it's a cuss word, and I don't care if you use it or not.  Just teasin'.  I just don't remember you being "ghetto fabulous". 

Ok I digressed.  Back on topic....

[murlough23]

Just teasin'.  I just don't remember you being "ghetto fabulous". 

I'm not, but I like misappropriating pop culture slang words for my own nefarious purposes.

[murlough23]

If you gots the poison, I gots...

http://www.epinions.com/content_406116470404

[Brenden]

http://www.epinions.com/content_406243217028

I review Apologetix in a flash to my childhood of bad music.

[murlough23]

http://www.epinions.com/content_406243217028

I review Apologetix in a flash to my childhood of bad music.

Aw. I kind of thought "The Real Sin Savior" was funny. (BTW, the Will Smith reference is in the original Eminem song - Slim retorts to people who say he shouldn't swear because Will Smith doesn't have to swear to sell records, and his response is "f*** him and f*** you too", so I was amused that this turned into "it affects him and it affects you too" with just about the same delivery.)

That said, they totally deserved the pistol-whipping that you gave them. I can only handle them about one or two songs at a time, just for a cheap laugh, when they're not being too obnoxiously preachy. Every now and then they show a glimmer of cleverness, but really it's nothing that Weird Al hasn't done twenty times better.

[Brenden]

the Will Smith reference is in the original Eminem song - Slim retorts to people who say he shouldn't swear because Will Smith doesn't have to swear to sell records, and his response is "f*** him and f*** you too

I heard someone sing that part, but they used a different reference, so that's why I didn't catch it.

[bdg13disciple]

it's been a while, but i've got a few newer ones up...

The Rocket Summer
Neon Horse


peace... love... bdg...

[murlough23]

Here's The Fragile Army by The Polyphonic Spree.

http://www.epinions.com/content_406616968836

[murlough23]

Here's Overdressed by Caedmon's Call.

http://www.epinions.com/content_407381708420

I'll be reviewing Derek Webb's The Ringing Bell next - I think I initially overlooked it in light of his reunion with the band.

[ajyouthguy]

i enjoy the way you do reviews, so thanks for always posting them in here.
i have a version of the album that has 15 songs on it, though...

[murlough23]

i have a version of the album that has 15 songs on it, though...

Really? I was aware of there being a version with 2 bonus tracks, but not 3. What are they, and is it worth my time to hunt them down?

[ajyouthguy]

my bad, it is 14, rather than 15, i thought it was 15 but i'm mixing that up with the Shane and Shane album i got at the same time.

the extra songs are "Love" and "Ten Thousand Angels."  I like them, but I wouldn't say they are super standouts as such.

[murlough23]

the extra songs are "Love" and "Ten Thousand Angels."  I like them, but I wouldn't say they are super standouts as such.

Are they better than the 4 songs that I thought were kinda boring?