Quantcast
View Post
bugrimmar said:
drbunnig said:

They're different metrics you can use to describe the music/album to give the listener an idea of what it's like. What you're suggesting is like saying the quality of acting, script, lighting, special effects, running time etc in a film are all the same thing. Do you think film reviews are pointless too?

Wrong. In films, there are more dimensions to see and actual things to critique. The fact that you can see things is already a huge difference. If the lighting is bad, you really see the lighting is bad. If the special effects are bad, you really see the special effects are bad. It's objective. If they're using 10 year old technology to make a whale, you can really see that they're using 10 year old technology and it's not realistic.

 

You can compare films to real life. That's the point. There's a point of comparison. Music is just one dimensional. Just sound. Nothing else. So all that stuff you're saying is just sound while films have sound and a visual component you can compare with real life.

The quality of lighting and special effects is subjective. It's up to the viewer to say if they're any good or not.

Things like dynamic range, tunings, vocal and instrumental techniques, lyrical topics, rhyming schemes, song structures, song lengths etc are things that cannot be subjectively judged. A song may be ten minutes long, use complex time signatures, talk about war, make use of drop tuning and have no chorus. Those are all facts that can be addressed in a review and can be informative to the reader without there being any sort of subjective critique. Whether it's good is another matter.