Daniel Amos Message Board (http://www.danielamos.com/wbb2/index.php)
- DA Related Discussion (http://www.danielamos.com/wbb2/board.php?boardid=4)
-- General Discussion (http://www.danielamos.com/wbb2/board.php?boardid=1)
--- Has Anyone Seen (http://www.danielamos.com/wbb2/thread.php?threadid=4914)
Posted by baxter on 02-09-2004 at11:41:
BD is just expressing his pain. i am a curse word.
Posted by BigDork on 02-09-2004 at14:17:
| quote: |
Originally posted by carl
All I'VE seen is a crapload of "baxturd" threads.... 
|
i fixed them for you carl
Posted by carl on 02-09-2004 at14:20:
Good.
Posted by jiminy on 02-09-2004 at14:25:
THAT IS A GREAT REVIEW-
The only one I read that seemed a bit discouraging was AMGS
Dave Slager-
though hes up and down about it- and goes 2.5 of 5 stars
( I own a lot of their 2 star works-..and some 5's that to me-aint.)
After a six-year studio hiatus, Daniel Amos returns with a lofty effort illustrating the impact author Frederick Buechner had on chief songwriter/vocalist Terry Taylor and, presumably, the entire band. The trouble with implied concept albums, however, is the difficulty songwriters face in bridging the many disparate and frankly "unsingable" themes involved. Thus, excess filler material is inevitable. This album is no exception. Daniel Amos has always fared better with their edgier, more alternative material; however, this recording is mired in melancholy and inconsistency — the latter trait having glaringly dogged this band up until their 1987 artistic breakthrough, Darn Floor Big Bite, and to a lesser degree in their more musically stable period since then. The contemplative themes comprising this album do not always lend themselves to accessible alternative pop songs. Absent for the most part are guitarist Greg Flesch's biting and creative Snakefinger-esque guitar riffs; the band's melodramatic, 10cc-derived vocal harmonies (Godley and Creme era); and their hook-laden melodies à la Electric Light Orchestra. While Buechner may have been an admirable and inspirational fellow, this collection of songs frequently fails to convey that reverence to the listener. Taylor's humdrum delivery and bland band arrangements counter the exceptional work he's done in his other band, Lost Dogs, and noteworthy Daniel Amos releases like the brilliant Motor Cycle and the David Bowie-infused Songs From the Heart: The Story of Bud and Irma Akendorf. By contrast, the plodding pace of Mr. Buechner's Dream gives its immediate predecessor, Songs From the Heart (which was regarded as an uneven and brooding affair), a new degree of continuity and energy. This collection is not devoid of engaging material. Outstanding tracks include "Easy for You," a noisy throwback to 1987, and the rootsy and jangly "Pregnant Pause" (which could've been included on Gift Horse or Scenic Routes, two of Lost Dogs' finest recordings). There is an estimable album hidden amid these 33 tracks, but sifting through for those gems may prove to be too tedious for the casual listener. The overriding stark and stripped-down nature of this album may have been better served as a Taylor solo project, as it defies many of the identifiable and long-standing trademarks of this band. — Dave Sleger
I don't know where SOTH is "Bowie infused" - Davie Jones has NOTHING like Evangeline on anything I've ever heard by him- or any other tune on it.
Anyone wanna call me to task there?
Posted by Crinklepot on 02-09-2004 at15:49:
I would hate to read his reveiw of the Beatles White Album.
Posted by dennis on 02-09-2004 at16:20:
Great review.
The White Album is awesome, BTW.
Posted by audiori on 02-09-2004 at19:24:
Here is my reveiw of Dave Slager's reveiw;
After a not long enough hiatus between posting his opinion,
Dave Slager brings forth another reveiw of an album he would not
have the talent to make himself. The problem with writing a reveiw
is the writer should give an unbiased and intelligent description
of the album for the potential listener. Not judging the material
on his own personal musical tastes. Mr Slager fails in these two
areas by comparing this album to other works he does like and
even comparing the album to the country flaired Lost Dogs albums
he apparently likes. If he doesn't like the style of the album,
that should not be reflected in the reveiw.
Throughout the review are various contradictions, how can "Taylor's
humdrum delivery and bland band arrangements" and "Outstanding
tracks include..." be descriptions of the same album?
Not only that, there is frankly more information about other DA albums
in this reveiw than information about this DA album. It is almost a
commentary on DA's career more than an album reveiw.
After reading this reveiw I know no more about the album than before
I read it. There is no in depth analysis of the albums content here,
all I learn is that this guy likes older DA albums and the Lost Dogs.
I give this reveiw one star out of five.
Posted by baxter on 02-09-2004 at19:49:
i think you are too generous.
Posted by Stuart Pedasso on 02-10-2004 at13:30:
| quote: |
Originally posted by audiori
Here is my reveiw of Dave Slager's reveiw;
After a not long enough hiatus between posting his opinion,
Dave Slager brings forth another reveiw of an album he would not
have the talent to make himself. The problem with writing a reveiw
is the writer should give an unbiased and intelligent description
of the album for the potential listener. Not judging the material
on his own personal musical tastes. Mr Slager fails in these two
areas by comparing this album to other works he does like and
even comparing the album to the country flaired Lost Dogs albums
he apparently likes. If he doesn't like the style of the album,
that should not be reflected in the reveiw.
Throughout the review are various contradictions, how can "Taylor's
humdrum delivery and bland band arrangements" and "Outstanding
tracks include..." be descriptions of the same album?
Not only that, there is frankly more information about other DA albums
in this reveiw than information about this DA album. It is almost a
commentary on DA's career more than an album reveiw.
After reading this reveiw I know no more about the album than before
I read it. There is no in depth analysis of the albums content here,
all I learn is that this guy likes older DA albums and the Lost Dogs.
I give this reveiw one star out of five. |
Blah blah blah. Let's review the view ...
It's an opinion. It what they do. Siskel does the same. You get a sense of that a reviewer likes or doesn't like. Point of reference is fair game. If you don't like the style you say so. If you want to have your stuff reviewed a certain way, then send out the specifications of what you will accept as in a review. By the way the bland delivery makes sense when taken as a whole. And within there can be moments where it does rise above. I have a number of albums where I think they're not very good, but when I listen to them closely there are moments I go "ooh and ah" but later when thinking about the whole thing it's nothing that I remember.
1. You must like it and proclaim Terry a genius
2. If you don't like it, don't review it or we'll get upset
3. You can't make contradictory statements.
Even bad press is press. Someone took the time to think DA was important enough to review even if it wasn't as favourable as you'd like. I had an interesting side conversation with Jeff from Ping a week ago where I was apologizing for not really liking one of his albums. I wanted to, and there were a number of really great moments, but the overall impression never struck me. It was the style and delivery not the talent. He thanked me for giving him a review and taking the time to acknowledge the band.
I can hardly wait to post some more of my personally subjective reviews of DA albums that have no indepth analysis.
Posted by dennis on 02-10-2004 at16:32:
| quote: |
Originally posted by audiori
Here is my reveiw of Dave Slager's reveiw;
After a not long enough hiatus between posting his opinion,
Dave Slager brings forth another reveiw of an album he would not
have the talent to make himself. The problem with writing a reveiw
is the writer should give an unbiased and intelligent description
of the album for the potential listener. Not judging the material
on his own personal musical tastes. Mr Slager fails in these two
areas by comparing this album to other works he does like and
even comparing the album to the country flaired Lost Dogs albums
he apparently likes. If he doesn't like the style of the album,
that should not be reflected in the reveiw.
Throughout the review are various contradictions, how can "Taylor's
humdrum delivery and bland band arrangements" and "Outstanding
tracks include..." be descriptions of the same album?
Not only that, there is frankly more information about other DA albums
in this reveiw than information about this DA album. It is almost a
commentary on DA's career more than an album reveiw.
After reading this reveiw I know no more about the album than before
I read it. There is no in depth analysis of the albums content here,
all I learn is that this guy likes older DA albums and the Lost Dogs.
I give this reveiw one star out of five. |
Yup, it's a piece of "piece"
Posted by BigDork on 02-10-2004 at17:16:
| quote: |
Originally posted by Stuart Pedasso
| quote: |
Originally posted by audiori
Here is my reveiw of Dave Slager's reveiw;
After a not long enough hiatus between posting his opinion,
Dave Slager brings forth another reveiw of an album he would not
have the talent to make himself. The problem with writing a reveiw
is the writer should give an unbiased and intelligent description
of the album for the potential listener. Not judging the material
on his own personal musical tastes. Mr Slager fails in these two
areas by comparing this album to other works he does like and
even comparing the album to the country flaired Lost Dogs albums
he apparently likes. If he doesn't like the style of the album,
that should not be reflected in the reveiw.
Throughout the review are various contradictions, how can "Taylor's
humdrum delivery and bland band arrangements" and "Outstanding
tracks include..." be descriptions of the same album?
Not only that, there is frankly more information about other DA albums
in this reveiw than information about this DA album. It is almost a
commentary on DA's career more than an album reveiw.
After reading this reveiw I know no more about the album than before
I read it. There is no in depth analysis of the albums content here,
all I learn is that this guy likes older DA albums and the Lost Dogs.
I give this reveiw one star out of five. |
Blah blah blah. Let's review the view ...
It's an opinion. It what they do. Siskel does the same. You get a sense of that a reviewer likes or doesn't like. Point of reference is fair game. If you don't like the style you say so. If you want to have your stuff reviewed a certain way, then send out the specifications of what you will accept as in a review. By the way the bland delivery makes sense when taken as a whole. And within there can be moments where it does rise above. I have a number of albums where I think they're not very good, but when I listen to them closely there are moments I go "ooh and ah" but later when thinking about the whole thing it's nothing that I remember.
1. You must like it and proclaim Terry a genius
2. If you don't like it, don't review it or we'll get upset
3. You can't make contradictory statements.
Even bad press is press. Someone took the time to think DA was important enough to review even if it wasn't as favourable as you'd like. I had an interesting side conversation with Jeff from Ping a week ago where I was apologizing for not really liking one of his albums. I wanted to, and there were a number of really great moments, but the overall impression never struck me. It was the style and delivery not the talent. He thanked me for giving him a review and taking the time to acknowledge the band.
I can hardly wait to post some more of my personally subjective reviews of DA albums that have no indepth analysis. |
Here is my review of Stuart’s review of the audiori’s review of Mr Slager’s review of…
… some album I can’t remember, but it was important at the time.
I think Stuart has his panties in a wad over the fact that someone outside of the critics world (that he so longs to be a part of), doesn’t agree or like a certain style of writing in said review.
I say to Stu,
1) First learn to spell the word Favorably correctly. If you are going to review an audiori from the USA, who reviewed a reviewer from the USA then you must learn to write as a person from the USA. We, unlike the rest of the world do not use an extra vowel.
2) Please pull you panties out and put on a fresh pair. You will look, feel and smell a whole lot better.
3) There is no third, I just wanted to use three numbers like you did.
Even a bad review of a bad review of a bad review is OK once in a while.
Please do post some of your in depth analysis of DA albums so we may stone you proper.
BDasso
Posted by Joey T. on 02-10-2004 at17:19:
i like bdasso's review of stu's review of the other reviews......
Posted by BigDork on 02-10-2004 at17:26:
so is that a positive review of my review of the bad review of the bad review of the original review in question?
Posted by Joey T. on 02-10-2004 at17:28:
now i'm confused....
Posted by Stuart Pedasso on 02-10-2004 at17:35:
You're confused, I can get my gonch out of my crack, and now I'm finding that my alias isn't as bullet proof as it should be. Bloody hell - er heck, allow me to pretend that Stu is real. BDasso must have me confused with someone else who is tall and thinks that the big guy who plays the obnoxious fiance isn't that obnoxious.
As to the extra vowels ... I'm honoured to think that my neighbours to the south feel they have most favoured nation status and are the true centre of the universe.
Now about Songs of the Heart. What the hell was that? Nothing at all like the Lost Dogs who I happen to like. That song Mexico was great, why can't Terry write more songs like that? HUH (is that American enough for ya?)
Posted by Stuart Pedasso on 02-10-2004 at17:46:
Additional. I don't think I'm a critic so much as a guy who spent too much of his own money on stuff, and unfortunately has a website and some free time and has the audacity to write whatever the heck he feels like and then posts it up. FREE SPEECH BABY. Even Canadians like that one.
A critic usually gets stuff for free. They have no emotional or monetary investment in the product. They can be mean for fun. I'm mean for fun too once in a while, but usually I like what I buy.
Oooh, dang thongs for men just aren't comfy. I wonder if I've got the thing on backward.
Posted by Joey T. on 02-10-2004 at17:49:
| quote: |
Originally posted by Stuart Pedasso
Oooh, dang thongs for men just aren't comfy. I wonder if I've got the thing on backward. |
Posted by Stuart Pedasso on 02-10-2004 at18:02:
Looks like a freakin' Cow's skull.
Forum Software: Burning Board 2.3.6, Developed by WoltLab GmbH
