REVIEW: Fates Warning - "Disconnected" (2000)
Marco van Leeuwen
Review Date: July 6th, 2000
Reviewer: Marco van Leeuwen, over...@caiw.nl
Purchased At: Plato, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Release Date: June 26th (Europe), July 25th (North America)
Note: the European version of this album is currently available in a
limited digipak edition.
Track Listing:
[1] disconnected part 1 (1:14)
[2] One (4:27)
[3] So (8:08)
[4] Pieces Of Me (4:24)
[5] Something From Nothing (10:59)
[6] Still Remains (16:08)
[7] disconnected part 2 (6:11)
Total Disc Time: (51:32)
Musicians:
Jim Matheos: guitars; additional keyboards and sound effects
Ray Alder: vocals
Mark Zonder: drums
Joey Vera: bass
Kevin Moore: keyboards
Steve Tushar: additional keyboards and sound effects
Capsule:
The hype is certainly not undeserved: increased energy and a more
varied atmosphere compared to 1997’s "A Pleasant Shade Of Gray" ensure
that the latest release by one of the most talented, respected,
underappreciated and progressive bands in metal is (yet again) a thing
of beauty.
Album Theme:
Human beings are intensely and essentially communal creatures,
depending on the aid of others to compensate for their usually quite
considerable deficiencies. Considering the web of dependencies any new
citizens of the North Atlantic culture in particular are thrust into,
the connection with others is not merely a physical prerequisite for a
healthy and productive existence, but also a necessity for one’s
mental wellbeing. It’s in the interaction with others - like-minded
and with deviant opinions, with the same socio-cultural background or
with radically different roots - that our own thoughts, feelings and
world views can develop, having the characteristics of what we hold
true reflected back to us in the words of the other, thus having the
flaws and strengths of our belief systems through either the
discordance or resonance with the views of our discussion partners
revealed to us.
However, human beings are also creatures that unite within themselves
the most violently opposing forces: the Dionysian and the Appolonian,
evil and good, desire and restraint, earth and heaven. It’s this focal
point of counteractive influences that provides man with its superior
vantage point, the seeking of the the balance of opposing impulses
itself that he draws his strength from, is guided by and is ultimately
destined to fail at. With the social character of the human animal it
is no different, for as a counterbalance to the communal sense there
are the decidedly anti-social aspects of everyone’s actions and realms
of thought: egocentricity, self-importance, the drive to attain
autonomy, selfishness, the need for privacy - all of them agents that
force us to break free of the restraints living in a society forces
upon us, and we, in a sense, force upon ourselves.
As we grow older, we customarily get better at dealing with these
internal conflicts, but an important problem is that we don’t always
have full control over how these battles play out. The greatest pain
and most destructive sadness arise when we are faced with a
disconnection when we’re not ready to let go yet, or an enduring
connection when we’re passionately wishing for salvation - being left
by the love of your life, or, conversely, being trapped in a
destructive relationship. We have all lived through such event
sequences permeated by varying degrees of emotional impact, and all
know the pain that goes with feeling disconnected from the situation -
the incompatibility of your inner life with what is happening to you
on the outside.
The insightful lyrics of Jim Matheos and Ray Alder capture this theme
quite nicely, and the album package’s concept photography also
delivers several interesting explorations of this topic.
Album Atmosphere:
Once again Fates Warning has succeeded in reinventing themselves: they
started out as a metal band in the Iron Maiden style, developed a
totally unique sound characterised by intensely complex riffing and
John Arch’s phenomenal and uniquely melodic vocals on "Awaken The
Guardian" to the trailblazers of Dream Theater-style prog metal on "No
Exit" and "Perfect Symmetry", then to intelligent melodic prog rock on
"Parallels" and "Inside Out", after which they decided to redefine the
power ballad in the mood metal masterpiece "A Pleasant Shade Of Gray",
and now they’ve found yet another new direction.
The music on this album is still immediately recogniseable, vintage
Fates Warning, but incorporates both a shameless return to a time when
it was okay to be a virtuoso at one’s instrument, as well as decidely
modern, post-postmodern influences. Apart from exquisitely and
carefully developed musical themes and subtle, whimsical sounds, this
album also contains some intensely visceral material, undoubtably
capable of whipping concert halls full of fanatical fans into ecstacy.
The material is more energetic than on 1997’s "A Pleasant Shade Of
Gray", and trades in some of that album’s intense melancholy for
divine melodies and addictive rythms, but retains a definite
introspective aspect that will serve to drag the chronically
angst-ridden amongst us through many a rainy afternoon.
Jim Matheos sounds heavier than he has for a while, and sounds
completely confident as the only guitarist of the band, where for most
of its career Fates Warning has utilised a dual guitar approach. Ray
Alder’s vocals sound excellent as always, incorporating some of the
edge of last year’s "Engine" solo project. Mark Zonder supposedly
trimmed down his drum kit for this release, but he hasn’t lost any of
his power - one might even go so far as to state he sounds better now,
more organic and hands-on, less muddled by freaky triggered samples.
It’s blatantly obvious the man’s skill as a drummer and percussionist
is unparallelled. Joey Vera does an excellent job as always, but
appears to be a bit lower in the mix. Kevin Moore’s parts were
reportedly written by Jim Matheos, but all throughout the album some
of the atmosphere that made the early Dream Theater albums and the
Chroma Key material so special shines through - he really is turning
into an invaluable ‘permanent guest-member’ of the band. Finally, the
sound effects Jim and Steve Tushar came up with add a lot of wonderful
atmosphere to the songs, and are never excessive, as so often is the
case with such additions.
Individual Songs:
While doing this usually does justice to neither the new song nor the
song that’s being referenced to, I will give a possible connection of
each track to an older or more well-known piece or style of music, a
short description that might give you an idea of what the song in
question sounds like.
-disconnected part 1
Connection: "A Pleasant Shade Of Gray Part I"
A very atmospheric intro, characterised by a recurring guitar wail
that collects and magnifies many lifetimes worth of emotional pain and
suffering.
-One
Connection: A more energetic version of a song that might have been on
"Inside Out", with a strong keyboard presence and electronic effects.
It took me a while to get used to this song - at first it sounded too
much like something off of "Parallels" or "Inside Out", but repeated
listens revealed the wonderful energy and effective use of keyboards
during the verses. The chorus is terribly catchy.
-So
Connection: Dream Theater meets Tool
A moody intro bleeds into a heavy riff we haven’t heard on a Fates
Warning album in a while. Once again Kevin Moore supplies his
trademark sound, complementing the mighty riffs and great vocal
melodies wonderfully. I think a radio edit of this song might do quite
well if properly marketed.
-Pieces Of Me
Connection: Rammstein on steroids
This was a surprise! An incredibly energetic and catchy song.
Initially this track sounded very uncharacteristic of Fates Warning,
but after a few listens it dawned on me how utterly obvious it is that
they would have mastered this particular substyle of metal as well. If
this song gets any measure of substantial airplay they could do very
well for themselves with this album.
-Something From Nothing
Connection: A more atmospheric "The Eleventh Hour" (from the band’s
own "Parallels")
Possibly the best track on the album. The intro is quite moody and
features epic keyboard sequences. After the song really gets going
we’re treated with a wonderfully lively bridge section, and an utterly
beautiful chorus.
-Still Remains
Connection: A more subtle "A Change Of Seasons" (Dream Theater)
Another contender for the number one spot. Very layered and ambitious,
with pretty sections followed by complex instrumental ones, but never
exceedingly self-indulgent. Epic in its diversity, but never losing
sight of the unifying musical themes, and therefore more coherent than
other megasongs such as "The Ivory Gate Of Dreams" or Dream Theater’s
"A Change Of Seasons".
-disconnected part 2
Connection: "Space Dye Vest" (Dream Theater)
A very spacey and moody instrumental outro. The wailing guitar from
"disconnected part 1" returns, like Nietzsche’s eternal recurrence of
the same or Walter Benjamin’s repetition of the undifferentiated,
non-auratic in modern society, the full force of the emotions behind
the music truly permeate the listener’s mind in this repetition.
Remarkably, despite the mood and theme of the album, the vocal sample
featured in this song is full of compassion and understanding.
Verdict:
For most people this will probably be an acquired taste, but if you
give it a chance the rewards are enormous - there is so much to
discover and enjoy on this album. It is probably safe to say Matheos
and friends have once again managed to enrich our world with a true
work of art, that will yield its secret beauty and wisdom to all who
are receptive to it.
Rating: [100/100]
Other Albums By Fates Warning (rating [x/100]):
1984: "Night On Bröcken" [85]
1985: "The Spectre Within" [92]
1986: "Awaken The Guardian" [94]
1988: "No Exit" [93]
1989: "Perfect Symmetry" [99]
1991: "Parallels" [93]
1994: "Inside Out" [90]
1995: "Chasing Time" (Best Of) [95]
1997: "A Pleasant Shade Of Gray" [100]
1998: "Still Life" (Live) [100]
(Note: Reading these ratings, it might appear I’m biased - I probably
am. While it is true I’m a fan of Fates Warning, I tried to be fair in
my review, and refrained from uncontrollably spouting undeserved
praise. Everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion - dare to make up
your own mind without disparaging others.)
TOIB
> REVIEW: Fates Warning - "Disconnected" (2000)
Do you have a 300-word version?
> Rating: [100/100]
Well, this'll do I guess, but you should add a cursory "It roolz".
> Other Albums By Fates Warning (rating [x/100]):
> 1984: "Night On Bröcken" [85]
> 1985: "The Spectre Within" [92]
> 1986: "Awaken The Guardian" [94]
> 1988: "No Exit" [93]
> 1989: "Perfect Symmetry" [99]
> 1991: "Parallels" [93]
> 1994: "Inside Out" [90]
> 1995: "Chasing Time" (Best Of) [95]
> 1997: "A Pleasant Shade Of Gray" [100]
> 1998: "Still Life" (Live) [100]
> (Note: Reading these ratings, it might appear I’m biased - I probably
> am. While it is true I’m a fan of Fates Warning, I tried to be fair in
> my review, and refrained from uncontrollably spouting undeserved
> praise. Everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion - dare to make up
> your own mind without disparaging others.)
Oh wait a minute, I remember you. You got pissed off at me
the *last* time I suggested that a 30-page tribute to a band wasn't
necessarily a helpful review (that being for "Scenes of a Memory", which
might have even dipped into the loathed 80s). Oh well, back to prog-metal.
--
Sean McFee
Ground and Sky: http://www.progreviews.com
The Progressive Rock Used CD Shop: www.nexus.carleton.ca/~sean/prog/shop
My Radio Show: www.nexus.carleton.ca/~sean/prog/radio
Marco van Leeuwen
>> (Note: Reading these ratings, it might appear I’m biased - I probably
>> am. While it is true I’m a fan of Fates Warning, I tried to be fair in
>> my review, and refrained from uncontrollably spouting undeserved
>> praise. Everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion - dare to make up
>> your own mind without disparaging others.)
>
> Oh wait a minute, I remember you. You got pissed off at me
>the *last* time I suggested that a 30-page tribute to a band wasn't
>necessarily a helpful review (that being for "Scenes of a Memory", which
>might have even dipped into the loathed 80s). Oh well, back to prog-metal.
No, what you did was make a number of disparaging remarks while at the
same time stating you hadn't even read the entire review, just the
ratings at the end. That's like watching the closing credits of a
movie and saying the acting sucked - it makes no sense, and insults
whoever spent time and effort making that which you criticised. All I
had done was express my satisfaction with "Scenes From A Memory" - I
wasn't even particularly fanboy-ish, offering some definite criticism.
And now it seems you want to pick a fight *again*. If you feel these
reviews are too long or advocate an opinion deviant from your own,
don't immediately pull out the flamethrower - I really don't see how
reacting all pissy to someone's attempt at writing a helpful review is
going to make the world a better place.
-Marco van Leuwen.
Joe Dackman
wrote:
>On 6 Jul 2000 15:08:32 GMT, smc...@chatSP.AMcarleton.ca (TOIB) wrote:
>
>>> (Note: Reading these ratings, it might appear I’m biased - I probably
>>> am. While it is true I’m a fan of Fates Warning, I tried to be fair in
>>> my review, and refrained from uncontrollably spouting undeserved
>>> praise. Everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion - dare to make up
>>> your own mind without disparaging others.)
>>
>> Oh wait a minute, I remember you. You got pissed off at me
>>the *last* time I suggested that a 30-page tribute to a band wasn't
>>necessarily a helpful review (that being for "Scenes of a Memory", which
>>might have even dipped into the loathed 80s). Oh well, back to prog-metal.
>
>No, what you did was make a number of disparaging remarks while at the
>same time stating you hadn't even read the entire review, just the
>ratings at the end. That's like watching the closing credits of a
>movie and saying the acting sucked - it makes no sense, and insults
>whoever spent time and effort making that which you criticised. All I
>had done was express my satisfaction with "Scenes From A Memory" - I
>wasn't even particularly fanboy-ish, offering some definite criticism.
>And now it seems you want to pick a fight *again*. If you feel these
>reviews are too long or advocate an opinion deviant from your own,
>don't immediately pull out the flamethrower - I really don't see how
>reacting all pissy to someone's attempt at writing a helpful review is
>going to make the world a better place.
>
>-Marco van Leuwen.
>
I, for some strange reason, see a great irony in the academic
criticism of heavy metal. Particularly since the great majority of
metal listeners make even your understated adversary "Toib" seem
scholarly. Your reviews are certainly of good quality, but writing
them may be a wasted effort.
TOIB
> same time stating you hadn't even read the entire review, just the
> ratings at the end.
...which was likely due to the excessive length. Just like that
time, I skipped your entire review past the first page once I realized how
long it was, and then when I saw the ratings at the end I recognized you.
If it takes less time to listen to an album than read its review,
the review is useless.
My remarks might have also been with regards to how ridiculous it
is to use a 100 point scale, too. I can't remember.
See, you call these disparaging remarks, but they're actually an
opportunity for improvement.
> That's like watching the closing credits of a
> movie and saying the acting sucked - it makes no sense, and insults
> whoever spent time and effort making that which you criticised.
No, it's more like having Roger Ebert come and talk about a
2-hour movie but take 4 hours to describe it, and then give it 1 3/8
thumbs up.
> And now it seems you want to pick a fight *again*.
Not really. I was going to just say "Try cutting it down to a
reasonable length" and leave it at that, but then when I saw that it was
you I realized such an endeavour would likely be useless, and speculated
on the futility of my actions.
Criticism doesn't always come with a bowl of cherries and a gold
star for effort. If you take all criticism so personally you will never
get better as a review writer. Perhaps you think you're already good
enough, although I can't possibly see your target audience in this case
(see below).
> If you feel these
> reviews are too long or advocate an opinion deviant from your own,
> don't immediately pull out the flamethrower - I really don't see how
> reacting all pissy to someone's attempt at writing a helpful review is
> going to make the world a better place.
If you feel that my crticism is too harsh or advocates an opinion
deviant [sic] from your own, don't immediately pull out the flamethrower -
I really don't see how reacting all pissy to someone's attempt at helping
you write something that someone with less than a marathon runner's
stamina can wade through is going to make the world a better place.
At the very least you could put your "Rating: 100/100" at the
start of the review so that the discerning reader can skip it from the
outset; the Fates Warning fans will buy it anyway, and a War-and-Piece
like tome of homage isn't the most effective way to reach anyone. I
mean, if you wrote the review to feed your ego or practice your writing
skills then go ahead and do what you like. Perhaps you just want some sort
of tribute to the perfection of Fates Warning that other Fates Warning
fans will read, nod their heads, say "you da man", and get on with their
lives. Who knows? (In that case, x-posting it outside of the Fates
Warning newsgroup is a strange thing to do). But if you want to actually
write something that will effectively get peoples' attention, try cutting
to the essential information, or at the very least putting an abstract at
the top that summarizes your thoughts.
I don't particularly care if you feel I'm disparaging you, but you
might do well to consider what I'm suggesting.
David Rheault
>
> On Thu, 06 Jul 2000 15:47:56 GMT, over...@caiw.nl (Marco van Leeuwen)
> wrote:
>
> >On 6 Jul 2000 15:08:32 GMT, smc...@chatSP.AMcarleton.ca (TOIB) wrote:
> >
> >>> am. While it is true I’m a fan of Fates Warning, I tried to be fair in
> >>> my review, and refrained from uncontrollably spouting undeserved
> >>> praise. Everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion - dare to make up
> >>> your own mind without disparaging others.)
> >>
> >>the *last* time I suggested that a 30-page tribute to a band wasn't
> >>necessarily a helpful review (that being for "Scenes of a Memory", which
> >>might have even dipped into the loathed 80s). Oh well, back to prog-metal.
> >
> >same time stating you hadn't even read the entire review, just the
> >movie and saying the acting sucked - it makes no sense, and insults
> >had done was express my satisfaction with "Scenes From A Memory" - I
> >wasn't even particularly fanboy-ish, offering some definite criticism.
> >reviews are too long or advocate an opinion deviant from your own,
> >don't immediately pull out the flamethrower - I really don't see how
> >reacting all pissy to someone's attempt at writing a helpful review is
> >going to make the world a better place.
> >
> >
>
> I, for some strange reason, see a great irony in the academic
> criticism of heavy metal. Particularly since the great majority of
> metal listeners make even your understated adversary "Toib" seem
> scholarly. Your reviews are certainly of good quality, but writing
> them may be a wasted effort.
Thanks all the same for your efforts Marco. Fates Warning is indeed a
band that merits the attention of prog fans everywhere and this album
sounds very interesting. I've even been able to interest some of my
young nephews in some of their albums (Pleasant Shade of Grey, for ex.).
And it is no mean accomplishment to get their attention away from the
commercial Rap and Britney Spears stuff the industry is bloating them
on.
Dave R.
TOIB
> I, for some strange reason, see a great irony in the academic
> criticism of heavy metal.
Somewhere on the Web there is an academic paper on Meshuggah, I
believe (it might have been on progressive metal with Meshuggah as the
case study). It was pretty good. While it might seem like a strange
premise at first, I think any genre of music is worthy of some
musicological treatment.
> Particularly since the great majority of
> metal listeners make even your understated adversary "Toib" seem
> scholarly.
Your assessment of my scholarship from one post amuses me.
> Your reviews are certainly of good quality, but writing
> them may be a wasted effort.
Here is where I disagree. If he were writing an essay on the
music and social impact on Fates Warning, I bet he'd do a good job in the
style he is using. For a review, it's a totally inappropriate approach if
your goal is to actually convey information to someone considering buying
the album.
I am not a Fates Warning die-hard fan, although I have some of
their stuff. I see a post with a title declaring it a review of their
latest release. I check it out to see if I want to buy it. I see that it
is about fifteen pages long. Sorry, too long, skip. And trust me, I'm far
from the only one. Do you *ever* see a review in a magazine that is longer
than 500 words? I'm not sure I ever have. Apart from The Christopher
Currie (an r.m.p. poster who has endured some ridicule (and not from
me) for similar, but less excessive, levels of dissection) something like
this is unheard of.
Therefore, if the purpose of the review is to convey information
as widely as possible, it would seem to make sense to either condense the
information, or provide a condensed version that summarizes the contents
to follow.
The rating on the end is yet another story altogether. A 100-point
subjective scale is just about useless. What differentiates a 93 from an
87? A 65 from a 62? If the original reviewer (whose name I don't recall,
so deeply seeded is my animosity <G>) were to rate 50 albums, and then two
weeks later be given a sheet to fill in the blanks, how many do you think
he would get right? Excepting cases where he rated something a "100" or a
"0", of course. Logic (as well as studies, but here I will here defer to
Henry Potts, who is *scholarly* in this area) would state that having more
than six or seven ratings on your scale is likely going to lead to
inconsistencies. The further you get from that, the worse it gets. In this
case, the factor of magnification is about 15.
If the answer to this is "The rating is a ballpark figure", then
that is the same as saying "I should have less points on my
scale."
Alternately, the reviewer could explain to me what each of the
following ratings means:
38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 66, 67, 79, 91, 92, 94
The point is, it's not possible. And once the reviewer gets over
their indigniation at being disparaged, I think they will realize this as
well.
Marco van Leeuwen
<very big snip>
Well now. Despite your penchant for the mildly vitriolic, you do make
a few good points in this last post. However, this is not what you
said in your reply to my original review, nor was it what you were
trying to make me understand back when I had just written the review
of "Scenes From A Memory". Perhaps you meant it, but it certainly
didn't convey - they were sort of drowned out by the poorly informed
ad hominem attacks. I do get your point now, and I've decided that our
ideas of what an interesting review should be like are simply
different. I will take your criticism into consideration while writing
future reviews for a particular audience - in this last essay (if it
can't be called a proper review) I did include a capsule review right
after the track listing, but apparently that wasn't enough, or not
sufficiently clear.
I hope this concludes this particular subthread. Yes?
-Marco van Leeuwen
TOIB
> <very big snip>
> Well now. Despite your penchant for the mildly vitriolic, you do make
> a few good points in this last post. However, this is not what you
> said in your reply to my original review, [...]
Well yeah, it basically is. I just didn't bother to say it nicely,
given our past history of mutual respect.
> Perhaps you meant it, but it certainly
> didn't convey - they were sort of drowned out by the poorly informed
> ad hominem attacks.
They were not "poorly informed".. they are the same as I have said
in the extended post.
They also were not attacks. You were not attacked. Your work
was. That's called a critique. This same difference is often lost on fans
of bands who think that an attack on the band's work is an attack on the
band as people, or their fans as people.
But this does explain the fracas with the Dream Theater
review; you seem to take all such criticisms as if they were "poorly
informed ad hominem attacks".
> I do get your point now, and I've decided that our
> ideas of what an interesting review should be like are simply
> different. I will take your criticism into consideration while writing
> future reviews for a particular audience - in this last essay (if it
> can't be called a proper review) I did include a capsule review right
> after the track listing, but apparently that wasn't enough, or not
> sufficiently clear.
You're going to want to shoot me for this, but I have to say
it; the "Capsule Review" is too *short* :). It doesn't really tell me
anything about the album except that you really like it.
Just to give you an idea of where I'd see a happy medium; you
might write a sentence or two to introduce the review, like "Fates
Warning, one of the more long-standing prog-metal bands [blah blah]". Then
you'd introduce the album itself. You'd describe the music with
descriptives, citing particularly notable (either good or
bad) portions. It's not necessary to go song by song. You then might
compare the sound to other bands to give people a frame of reference. For
a band like Fates, you'd probably also compare the album to their older
stuff, but that kind of thing would be kept short since ideally the
audience is general, and too much emphasis on comparisons leaves out
anyone who hasn't heard what they're being compared to. After all these
descriptions, if your direction was still potentially ambiguous
(ie. whether you recommend, recommend with a qualification, don't
recommend) you'd clarify it at the end, although that shouldn't be done
out of habit or it gets too cliched. The whole thing would be 300 words or
less, although sometimes it'll get to 400 or 500 if you through in some
colorful historical background or whatever (this all amounts to basically
1-2 pages on a standard telnet display).
That isn't the law of reviews or anything, but that's how I find
them most helpful, and most printed reviews tend to be somewhat in this
ballpark of description. Here the review serves primarily as a
description, with opinion relegated to secondary importance but still
present, and sums everything up quickly enough that one doesn't lose
interest (as they surely have in this thread), or give up in the face of
the ordeal ahead.
You might be interested in knowing that I am not exactly the
world's greatest reviewer myself. Far from it. Most of this stuff I've
found by experience. I once had a 17-point scale for ratings. I once did
four-line reviews. I once did marathon-style reviews. I often did reviews
that forgot the focus; talk about the music concisely! Talking to people
who understood this stuff and criticized what I was doing allowed me to
improve. The feedback on one of my long ones was, literally,
"Zzzzzzzzz." Hey, point taken, lesson learned. I'm still not as good as I
could be, but hopefully I'm getting better. Without accepting that my way
was not necessarily the right way, that couldn't happen.
> I hope this concludes this particular subthread. Yes?
Sure, unless you want to keep going! I can debate all day long,
which is why I'm so loved.
Roger Sullivan
Roger Sullivan
www.monumentweb.com/roger
Atrox
through long posts and finding the relevant parts. If you learn
to skim, maybe you won't feel compelled to respond with such
rudeness.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
Richard Barnes
shade of grey is just that, the new one is the best FW I've heard.
--
Richard Barnes
Long way from the edge
Marco van Leeuwen <over...@caiw.nl> wrote in message
news:39649d3a...@news.kabelfoon.nl...
TOIB
> Dunno about all the hype, but as someone who is not a big FW fan and thinks
> shade of grey is just that, the new one is the best FW I've heard.
See, this post tells me something in just two lines.
TOIB
> In college they taught me how to skim.
If you spend less time in the campus bar you'll be able to read
the whole thing.
Shane Carey
> If it takes less time to listen to an album than read its review,
> the review is useless.
That's true, but you'd have to be a pretty slow reader.
> My remarks might have also been with regards to how ridiculous it
> is to use a 100 point scale, too. I can't remember.
>
> See, you call these disparaging remarks, but they're actually an
> opportunity for improvement.
They're both. I hope your use of the word "ridiculous" was backed with some
sort of constructive support, because right now you're the only one doling
out the ridicule.
> > That's like watching the closing credits of a
> > movie and saying the acting sucked - it makes no sense, and insults
> > whoever spent time and effort making that which you criticised.
>
> No, it's more like having Roger Ebert come and talk about a
> 2-hour movie but take 4 hours to describe it, and then give it 1 3/8
> thumbs up.
See, now, the first time it was just a joke. Use it again, and you start to
sound like it really did take you longer than the album's running time to
read two screenfuls. Are you just lashing out at Marco because you don't
want people to find out how poorly you read?
> If you feel that my crticism is too harsh or advocates an opinion
> deviant [sic] from your own, don't immediately pull out the flamethrower -
> I really don't see how reacting all pissy to someone's attempt at helping
> you write something that someone with less than a marathon runner's
> stamina can wade through is going to make the world a better place.
If you genuinely feel that you're being helpful, then good for you. That's
a very generous sentiment and it's pretty goddamn uncommon around here. You
*do* sound rather disparaging, though, and I bet it took you less time to
write your response than to read the thread which came after it. We all
know you hate that. I would suggest that you word your criticisms a little
less pointedly in an experiment to see how many fewer times you have to
defend against perceived slights. There really is a way to make helpful
suggestions without being hurtful about it.
> At the very least you could put your "Rating: 100/100" at the
> start of the review so that the discerning reader can skip it from the
> outset; the Fates Warning fans will buy it anyway, and a War-and-Piece
> like tome of homage isn't the most effective way to reach anyone.
You have a point there... Why anyone would be interested in a review over
100 words or a song over 3 minutes in length is completely beyond me.
Didn't you already do this last time he wrote his review? Why do you feel
the need to do it again? Maybe he wrote another War-and-Piece [sic], but at
least it was all-new content. You still have the same old objections. Is
the sequel turning out any better than the original? Once your comments on
a writing style have been stated, rehashing them in response to a second
review isn't the most effective way to reach anyone.
-shane
Schopf
>
> Connection: A more atmospheric "The Eleventh Hour" (from the band's
> own "Parallels")
>
> Possibly the best track on the album. The intro is quite moody and
> features epic keyboard sequences. After the song really gets going
> we're treated with a wonderfully lively bridge section, and an utterly
> beautiful chorus.
>
IMHO every owner of Pink Floyd's A SAUCERFUL OF SECRETS would state:
Connection: Set the controls for the heart of the sun (from PF's
Saucerful...).
...The first 5 minutes are quite moody, feature epic keyboard sequences and
sound a lot like Set the controls for the heart of the sun...
Anyone agree?
Otherwise: Great review for a great album (as someone said before)
Tom
cashel
>
>Otherwise: Great review for a great album (as someone said
before)
I agree, thanx for the review. i think tha this is the album of
the year so far. I have had the Mp3's for awhile, and then
recieved the cd from Metal Blade. I like the look and design of
the booklet, it goes nicely with the theme of the album.
One other thing, i have seen in other reviews that they are
making a big deal about the fact that Ray Alder wrote lyrics for
this cd. If I am not mistaken he already wrote some lyrics on
Inside Out. Also Frank Aresti wrote a good portion on Perfect
Symmetry. I know Jim Matheos is the principal writer, but it is
not that big a shock to see others helping him out.
MCA
TOIB
>> My remarks might have also been with regards to how ridiculous it
>> is to use a 100 point scale, too. I can't remember.
> They're both. I hope your use of the word "ridiculous" was backed with some
> sort of constructive support [...]
It was. On Usenet it is generally recommended to read the whole
thread to avoid redundant commentary such as the above.
> See, now, the first time it was just a joke. Use it again, and you start to
> sound like it really did take you longer than the album's running time to
> read two screenfuls.
Two screenfuls? Once more, I urge you to read the thread to which
you are contributing.
Furthermore, why would the reinforcement of my point make it look
like I can't read? I'm curious as to whether you actually applied this
specious reasoning, or if you figured you'd just throw in a random insult
much as you chide me for doing later in the post. See, in the former case
you're lacking logic, and in the latter case, you're a hypocrite. Dontcha
love it?
> If you genuinely feel that you're being helpful, then good for you.
The original writer has indicated as much, even if he doesn't like
my tone.
> That's a very generous sentiment and it's pretty goddamn uncommon
> around here.
Thank you! Isn't that nice of you...
> You have a point there... Why anyone would be interested in a review over
> 100 words [...]
Once more, had you actually read the thread, you'd have seen my
statement that 200-300 words is an optimal length.
> or a song over 3 minutes in length is completely beyond me.
As Glatt would say, non-sequitur.
> Is the sequel turning out any better than the original?
I would say so, judging from the interactions with the writer. You
don't seem to have gotten as much out of it this time, but I think it's
fairly clear from the above that you haven't really been following along
too well.
Josh Kortbein
: In rec.music.progressive Atrox <rphillN...@eden.rutgers.edu.invalid> wrote:
: > In college they taught me how to skim.
: If you spend less time in the campus bar you'll be able to read
: the whole thing.
... in order to better complain about its length? Gee, there's no
winning with you, Sean. :)
Josh
NP: Stuart Dempster, _Underground Overlays from the Cistern Chapel_
--
josh blog: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~kortbein/blog/
tdr: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~kortbein/tdr/
TOIB
> TOIB (smc...@chatSP.AMcarleton.ca) wrote:
> : In rec.music.progressive Atrox <rphillN...@eden.rutgers.edu.invalid> wrote:
> : > In college they taught me how to skim.
> : If you spend less time in the campus bar you'll be able to read
> : the whole thing.
> ... in order to better complain about its length? Gee, there's no
> winning with you, Sean. :)
I'm a monster heel :).
Roger Sullivan
some other guy is all pissed about it? If you don't like his review don't
read it. It's that simple. This is supposed to be a discussion group about
Fates Warning. Not a fucking critique of everyone's writing style.
JEEZ! grow the fuck up!
--
Roger Sullivan
cyd...@bellsouth.net
www.monumentweb.com/roger
Shane Carey
> specious reasoning, or if you figured you'd just throw in a random insult
> much as you chide me for doing later in the post. See, in the former case
> you're lacking logic, and in the latter case, you're a hypocrite. Dontcha
love it?
I love that you get so much glee out of drawing that conclusion. It's a
pity that you didn't quote the "chide," because I don't see anything in my
original wording that I would give that label, and I'm sure that it's more
clear to you because you don't have the veil of intent through which I
review it.
If my intent had been to tell you not to insult the guy, then, certainly,
I'd have been a hypocrite. However, that was *not* my intent. I don't care
whether or not you insult him; what you mistook was my suggestion that doing
so was not entirely consistent with your stated goal of being helpful.
In fact, my goals were unclear even to me when I entered this little war of
words. I wrote just after awakening, and delivered something that was a
muddled combination of outrage, commentary, insult, and sincere outreach. I
neither regret nor retract anything that I said, but it would be a mistake
for me to continue responding to you point by point, when each of those
points arose in response to things I said without thinking about what
elements of this thread really matter to me enough to respond. If I could
start all over, I would write only this:
Sean, I regard your inability to see the value in Marco's reviews as a
deficiency, and I do so with some disdain. It is my opinion that to
discourage him from writing at this depth is a reflection of a poor
attention span and comprehension skill on your part, and I hope that the
opinion is not widely shared. I am one who prefers this level of detail,
and if you want a reviewer that writes at a different level, I wish you
would seek one out instead of trying to diminish this one. You are asking a
creative writer to change to fit your taste, and the particular changes
you're soliciting produce the same reaction in me as if someone were to tell
Dream Theater to keep it all in 4/4, or to say, "Hey, Jon Anderson, enough
already with the Stravinsky! And try to keep it under four
minutes,wouldja?"
Maybe you won't agree with the analogy. Maybe you won't even try it on. I
know I'm not being particularly nice about this, and I know that you catch
more flies with honey than with vinegar. But I'm not trying to catch
anybody. I'm fairly pessimistic that you'll even correctly understand me,
let alone that you'd give me the opportunity to sway you. I'm just saying
this to cast a vote on behalf of the bright people who happen to enjoy
detail and don't think that five minutes of reading is a marathon.
I don't condemn you as a person, for I don't know you. I do, however, think
little of your opinion, save that I have no desire for yours to be the
dominant voice in the thread.
-shane
TOIB
[etc. etc. etc.]
Shane, you grow tiresome in your attempts to perpetuate a flame
war. I have posted my criticisms, explained them at length when asked, and
the reviewer has indicated he will give them consideration. Your
involvement is unnecessary and transparent.
BTW, you too could learn about editing for length.
Regards,
TOIB
> Joe Dackman come on down:
> Scholar is not exactly an honorable profession, but calling Marco a "scholar"
> still does the calling injustice.
Well, he does make reference to the philosophical writings of
Peart within the work:
"However, human beings are also creatures that unite within themselves
the most violently opposing forces: the Dionysian and the Appolonian,"
--
Scott Andrews
: If he were writing an essay on the
: music and social impact on Fates Warning, I bet he'd do a good job in the
: style he is using. For a review, it's a totally inappropriate approach...
[snip]
: is about fifteen pages long. Sorry, too long, skip. And trust me, I'm far
i agree. the length and the pseudointellectual prose style
soured me on what i hoped would be an informative read.
the author should be commended for acknowledging his bias for
Fates Warning based on his adoration of their previous work,
but this bias also lessened the impact of his superlative
conclusions.
scott andrews
sh...@virginia.edu