Quantcast
Music reviews are totally pointless and stupid.

Forums - General Discussion - Music reviews are totally pointless and stupid.

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.



Around the Network
bugrimmar said:

 

 

Wrong. Games have so many dimensions that can easily be critiqued objectively. The facts of low resolution and low framerate are facts. You can't hide that behind any kind of hyperbole. Whoever is watching, you can compare one game has smoother frames while another doesn't. Run a PS4 game vs a PS1 game and anyone can tell the difference.

 

But with music, how to compare? One sounds better than another? If you listen to bohemian Rhapsody be from decades ago and some miley Cyrus crap, do you notice the quality difference? No. All people can say is either they like the song or not. They prefer this genre or not. that's it. Games have objective differences over time that you can compare while music does not.

Are you serious? You can absolutely, objectively compare sound quality of music tracks, just like you can compare resolution and FPS. You can listen to two guitar riffs from two rock songs - even two versions of the same rock song - and objectively compare the sound quality (as in: how high is the bit rate in this conversion? How clean does it sound? What's the quality of the sample?). Don't tell me objective, technical sound quality doesn't exist! For example, even on the low-quality version of Spotify can you hear sound quality differences between modern music and music from the 80s. Of course there is more to music than "does it sound good"! And of course you notice the quality difference between Bohemian Rhapsody and a Miley Cyrus track! Sound quality has gotten so much better since the 80s, just like resolution in video games. Obviously, the next question is: Which version of Bohemian Rhapsody are you referring to? The original? A certain live concert version? A remastered version, and if so, which remastered version?

And of course, an audiophile person with a 1.000$ sound system wants to know if the latest album by his favourite band matches his quality standards: Is everything mixed correctly? Do the vocals sound too tinny compared to the last album? Are there too many highs or too much bass? Just read the sentence you quoted in the OP again: It's not nonsense, it tells you very important things if you listen to music through high-quality headphones! Just like resolution and FPS teach a hardcore gamer important stuff that a casual gamer doesn't care about.

To rephrase your statement: "You can't objectively compare video games! How do you compare a Jump 'n' Run to a first person shooter? All people can say is if either they like the game or not!" I mean, you can even use maths to determine which music is good and why it makes you feel a certain way. We know for a scientific fact which music / melodies will be perceived as pleasurable by the human brain and which ones not! By the way, this is the reason most albums score highly these days: We simply know what sounds good, or at least the experts know and thus the catchiness of pop songs in particular goes up and up. How objective do things need to get? 

Of course some people will like Jazz and others will prefer Hip-Hop or Rock. Just like some people will prefer an RPG to and FPS. But that doesn't mean you can't objectively score an FPS game or that any rating of video games is moot and totally subjective. We can compare pixels just like we can compare sound quality, but how do you "objectively" score fun during gameplay? I don't see where the advantages are for game reviews here. In the end, isn't the reviewer simply saying "the game is technically well made [objective statement] and was fun to play [subjective statement]"? Because music reviews are the same: "The sound quality of this album is high [objective statement] and I enjoyed listening to it [subjective statement]".



A lot of random nonsense being spewed now. Worthless to keep replying.
Just gonna leave a thought. Why is almost every album rated on metacritic in the green range? Because there's nothing to critique.



bugrimmar said:
A lot of random nonsense being spewed now. Worthless to keep replying.
Just gonna leave a thought. Why is almost every album rated on metacritic in the green range? Because there's nothing to critique.

Because Metacritic lists all albums above 60 as green while only games above 75 are in the green range?



bugrimmar said:
A lot of random nonsense being spewed now. Worthless to keep replying.
Just gonna leave a thought. Why is almost every album rated on metacritic in the green range? Because there's nothing to critique.

I'll leave another thought. If I were a reviewer why would I care of making a serious analysis when all the supposed reader does is just looking at an aggregate score?



Around the Network

People apparently want it, so why not? Whatever helps them to make a more educated purchase. If they trust the reviewer it's fine. If they disagree with his opinion they won't follow his advice in the future. That's how recommendations work.
Music albums especially are a fickle thing. You will never know how it'll be until you bought it. A review can give you at least a general idea if it's the same as previous albums or something completely new and disgusting.

You know what's pointless? Complaining about music reviews on a gaming forum.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.