The fact is I made it very clear that I was assessing the album from my particular values.
Of course if I think an album sucks, there always going to be someone out there with completely different values who would think the album is good.
I think "Strawberries Oceans Ships Forest" by Fireman is the worst album I have ever heard. There's going to be people who like techno that may like that album. I think Guy Sebastian is the worst artist I have ever heard and is co, yet he writes number one hits in Australia. I think the CD of Under The Blood Red Sky is worthless, yet there will be some person out there who may well enjoy the album.
I think it goes without saying especially on a review site forum that every opinion someone gives on the album doesn't mean that everyone with different values is going to agree with me. I certainly don't think reviewers in the WRC should preface any opinion on an album that "other people with different values may disagree with my point of view". It's naturally assume and goes without saying.
Yes the performance isn't redundant in a sense that there aren't duplication and there are different recordings or performance and has value from a OCD completionist point of view. However what I was saying was that It was redundant to me personally because I feel no need to listen to it due to lack of quality in the mixing.
I think this is the point where I'll just say that if you are arguing that other people with completely different values may find some use to the album. Then yes I agree, however it's completely worthless to me, I understand how perhaps this could cause some confusion in my opening post but I have since clarified that numerous times since then.
In regards that this was an album review site not a live DVD site. Well the opening post was asking him why doesn't he expand the site to include live DVDs as well? If you can assess the music from a live CD, you can assess the music from a Live DVD especially considering how much he likes live albums in general and it just seems logical to expand the parameters of the reviews to review DVD as well. If he wasn't comfortable of assessing the directing/visual performance skills of the artist that is beyond the parameter of his reviewing, he could just review the DVD solely from a music perspective.
Of course if he doesn't want to review live DVD I'm wondering the rationale on why he was excluding it.
: >>"Shorter means that it's easier
: to get through the whole thing in one
: sitting. "
: >>Do you really think I'm the type of
: person who really find the length of time to
: sit through in one sitting an issue?
: I'm not trying to tell you what your own
: listening habits are. But they certainly
: don't represent the majority of music
: listeners, which is what I'm talking about.
: Worthless to you does not mean worthless to
: >>"However the CD *isn't*
: redundant since it consists of mostly
: completely different performances."
: >>Recently I bought Blondie's new
: album that came with a CD where the band
: re-record their greatest hits.
: >>>You could say that because they
: are completely different performance it
: isn't redundant OR you could say that all
: those performances were inferior to the
: original version due to mediocre vocal
: performances due to an aging vocalist.
: Blondie's thing was a bunch of halfassed
: studio recordings intended to trick people
: into buying their crappy new album. However,
: because the material is newly recorded it's
: still not completely redundant. If they had
: just stuck the old hits on there then it
: would have been. Like what The Beach Boys
: did when they released the Carl & The
: Passions album with Pet Sounds as a 2nd
: disk. That was really a ripoff.
: But anyway, you're comparing apples and
: oranges here since live and studio are
: The U2 live album is made of material
: featuring different performances, even if
: dont like those performances, the fact that
: they're different performances means that
: it's not a superfluous or redundant release.
: To me it seems like if they had of given the
: CD title from the video you would have been
: just fine with it because it wouldn't have
: invited the comparison it would have just
: been "some other songs from the
: tour" and little else. You could treat
: it as bonus tracks or something.
: A better comparison would be Rush's Exit
: Stage Left. the CD is a relatively sterile
: affair playing and mixing the songs very
: close to the studio versions, the video
: versions on the other hand are much more raw
: and powerful. Both versions feature
: different recordings and different
: tracklists and despite the fact that most
: folks agree that the video version is the
: superior performance, both are worth getting
: for fans because they aren't the same thing.
: The Genesis release Live Over Europe/When in
: Rome did the same thing (however the mixing
: is pretty similar on both and they were
: smart about it giving the two releases
: different titles).
: Saying one version of something is better
: than the other doesn't mean that the other
: thing is worthless, it just means that the
: other thing is worse. Worse =/= worthless.
: >>"But unless he actually did a
: separate DVD review"
: >>That's what I have been arguing for
: him to do for the entire opening post. That
: he should review the DVD separately as it's
: a core part of U2's legacy.
: Well, it's obviously not my decision since
: it's not my website. but considering that he
: didn't review any Yes DVDs (despite his
: extremely detailed and meticulous Yes page),
: or Pink Floyd's Live In Pompeii (which is
: pretty much the most iconic landmark live
: performance from them), or any other DVDs
: whatsoever (unless I'm forgetting something)
: I think it's a pretty safe bet that any U2
: or Sparks DVDs are off the table. This is an
: album review site and the fact of the matter
: is that live performance videos aren't
Message Thread | This response ↓
« Back to index