Written by Troy Killjoy on 10.12.2013 at 16:35

Can we open an off-topic debate thread?

As in you wish to participate without contributing to the mess or you just want to divert the inevitable mess to come?

Written by LeKiwi on 10.12.2013 at 16:31

Wait a minute...you're among the users who perceive melodic death metal to be "overrated" on this website. How can such a notion exist if all votes are personal?

Edit: Overrated as in the album "deserves" a lower rating: your imposing your own level of appreciation there

I've never made such a blanket statement. I've given plenty of extremely high ratings to some great melodeath which I'm still very fond of. Stop misrepresenting me in trying to goad me into another strawman argument.

Concerning voting strategies, I consider what you're doing to be on roughly the same level as vote abusers. You're subverting a system by insisting on doing things your way against a general status quo. By doing so you're poisoning how albums are being represented on a purely taste point of view, which as I say is likely how people generally vote.

Written by Guest on 10.12.2013 at 16:37

I've never made such a blanket statement. I've given plenty of extremely high ratings to some great melodeath which I'm still very fond. Stop misrepresenting me in trying to goad me into another strawman argument.

Concerning voting strategies, I consider what you're doing to be on roughly the same level as vote abusers. You're subverting a system by insisting on doing things your way against a general status quo. By doing so you're poisoning how albums are being represented on a purely taste point of view, which as I say is likely how people generally vote.

Even if you don't share that particular view, I've seen you mention the notions of underrated and overrated, implying you believe albums deserve a particular rating. Thus, you see beyond personal enjoyment and believe the ratings should reflect the appreciative qualities in the music to an extent, despite that you continue to deny this

Voting in the manner of a reviewer is vote abuse? Give me a break. Reviewers' personal rating more often than not reflect their review score

Written by LeKiwi on 10.12.2013 at 16:45

Even if you don't share that particular view, I've seen you mention the notions of underrated and overrated, implying you believe albums deserve a particular rating. Thus, you see beyond personal enjoyment and believe the ratings should reflect the appreciative qualities in the music to an extent, despite that you continue to deny this

If there's an argument here I'm not seeing it. Because it's my opinion that I disagree with people who like or dislike albums more or less than myself it doesn't mean I feel they should vote differently. It means it's my opinion that they have iffy tastes. I'd much rather people with dodgy tastes vote on albums how they feel should be voted on based on how much they enjoyed it than have more people like you who seem to consider themselves arbiters of what albums deserve beyond their own tastes (and others) without submitting a review or at least a decent few paragraphs explaining why and trying to coerce others into doing the same.

Quote:

Voting in the manner of a reviewer is vote abuse? Give me a break. Reviewers' personal rating more often than not reflect their review score

A good reviewer wouldn't. Most reviewers aren't especially good reviewers.

Written by Guest on 10.12.2013 at 17:01
If there's an argument here I'm not seeing it. Because it's my opinion that I disagree with people who like or dislike albums more or less than myself it doesn't mean I feel they should vote differently. It means it's my opinion that they have iffy tastes. I'd much rather people with dodgy tastes vote on albums how they feel should be voted on based on how much they enjoyed it than have more people like you who seem to consider themselves arbiters of what albums deserve beyond their own tastes (and others) without submitting a review or at least a decent few paragraphs explaining why.

Overrate definition:
1. To overestimate the merits of; rate too highly.
2. Have a higher opinion of (someone or something) than is deserved.

Overrated is an objective notion and you knew that. You're trying to cover up your blunders. If you were baffled as to the undue praise for an album, you would say that, not that an album is overrated.

My votes are personal to a degree, like any other user's - all of my ratings are subject to human error. Additionally, I don't have the time to justify the rating of hundreds of albums.

Quote:
A good reviewer wouldn't. Most reviewers aren't especially good reviewers.

How conceited...

Written by LeKiwi on 10.12.2013 at 17:25

How conceited...

Try turning that mirror on yourself, mister "I do things my own way" Vote abuser

Written by Guest on 10.12.2013 at 17:26

Try turning that mirror on yourself, mister "I do things my own way" Vote abuser

Doesn't change the hypocritical nature of your arguments

Written by LeKiwi on 10.12.2013 at 17:32

Doesn't change the hypocritical nature of your arguments

Nor does it change the straw-manned nature of yours

Good luck with your efforts in recruiting people to your bizarre voting methods

Written by Guest on 10.12.2013 at 17:35
Nor does it change the straw-manned nature of yours

Good luck with your efforts in recruiting people to your bizarre voting methods

I've used no such thing. You're in denial. Here's your argument in a nutshell.

1. Makes objective statements regarding album votes.
1. Argues votes should be subjective.
3. Inconsistency and hypocrisy or, more likely, ignorance

Edit: To be honest, I shouldn't have expected a well-constructed argument from you.

Written by LeKiwi on 10.12.2013 at 17:25

How conceited...

let me introduce you to this guy:

Quote:

Additionally, unless you are a vocalist, it is unlikely that you possess the insight required to make a list like this. I can gauge which styles are hard to perform because I, among other vocalists I have spoken to, have attempted them.

Written by mz on 10.12.2013 at 18:03

let me introduce you to this guy:

Another fallacy Lekiwi is well acquainted with

Written by mz on 10.12.2013 at 18:03
let me introduce you to this guy:

Quote:

Additionally, unless you are a vocalist, it is unlikely that you possess the insight required to make a list like this. I can gauge which styles are hard to perform because I, among other vocalists I have spoken to, have attempted them.

Conceited? Wouldn't you say that experience renders an informed position? You cannot possibly claim knowledge without related evidence of some sort, be it empirical or anecdotal

I have no issues with LeKiwi's approach as such; none of our voting standards are beyond reproach, if we really scrutinized them. "Objective" and "subjective" are some of the most frequently abused words that really have no definite meaning we could refer to. There's no "objective" way to measure our "subjective" enjoyment, so a lot of uncertainty factors affect our ratings even when we try to assign them by gut feeling. Most of us will admit that some conscious criteria of quality affect our experience of music, even to the point that having certain expectations or attitudes towards a piece of music can make us enjoy it more than we would in a different situation. (Of course, it's "cool" to not care about anything other than the music, so some will probably vehemently deny such accusations.)

So yeah, taking openly into account what you consider the "objective" criteria of quality when rating music seems fair. We all do it, some more than others, so I see nothing wrong with being honest about it.

However, there's one issue: if you consider the criteria to be quite universal, to the point that you can name albums that "deserve" to be in a top list of all time (and I assume your criteria include musical craftsmanship, technical prowess, critical acclaim and public reception, historical significance, innovation and some clarity of purpose), then doesn't your voting system simply become an extension of received opinion? If you give 10s and 9s to albums that are generally considered well-made and successful, what do your votes actually contribute? You're repeating and reenforcing some predetermined canon of "objectively good stuff", when instead you could be shaking it up and pushing underappreciated albums that you enjoyed more and think should get more recognition.

Your system becomes an interpretation of what's considered objectively good, instead of your personal statement of what should be considered good. The irony is, of course, that the objective quality that you're trying to capture in some Hall of Fame is actually the result of thousands of uninformed, unreflexive personal opinions.

Written by IronAngel on 10.12.2013 at 18:12

I have no issues with LeKiwi's approach as such;

Written by IronAngel on 10.12.2013 at 18:12

However, there's one issue:

Written by IronAngel on 10.12.2013 at 18:12

I have no issues with LeKiwi's approach as such; none of our voting standards are beyond reproach, if we really scrutinized them. "Objective" and "subjective" are some of the most frequently abused words that really have no definite meaning we could refer to. There's no "objective" way to measure our "subjective" enjoyment, so a lot of uncertainty factors affect our ratings even when we try to assign them by gut feeling. Most of us will admit that some conscious criteria of quality affect our experience of music, even to the point that having certain expectations or attitudes towards a piece of music can make us enjoy it more than we would in a different situation. (Of course, it's "cool" to not care about anything other than the music, so some will probably vehemently deny such accusations.)

So yeah, taking openly into account what you consider the "objective" criteria of quality when rating music seems fair. We all do it, some more than others, so I see nothing wrong with being honest about it.

However, there's one issue: if you consider the criteria to be quite universal, to the point that you can name albums that "deserve" to be in a top list of all time (and I assume your criteria include musical craftsmanship, technical prowess, critical acclaim and public reception, historical significance, innovation and some clarity of purpose), then doesn't your voting system simply become an extension of received opinion? If you give 10s and 9s to albums that are generally considered well-made and successful, what do your votes actually contribute? You're repeating and reenforcing some predetermined canon of "objectively good stuff", when instead you could be shaking it up and pushing underappreciated albums that you enjoyed more and think should get more recognition.

Your system becomes an interpretation of what's considered objectively good, instead of your personal statement of what should be considered good. The irony is, of course, that the objective quality that you're trying to capture in some Hall of Fame is actually the result of thousands of uninformed, unreflexive personal opinions.

Concise description of my voting approach barring the fact that my votes are based largely on musical merit and eschews considering what you refer to as "critical acclaim and public reception, historical significance". I do believe an album's rating should represent such merits, yes. A vote representing what I consider to be "good" would be rendered redundant as a result of the the averaging of votes. Thus I see it more valid to rate an album based on its merit.

Written by LeKiwi on 10.12.2013 at 18:11

Conceited? Wouldn't you say that experience renders an informed position? You cannot possibly claim knowledge without related evidence of some sort, be it empirical or anecdotal

I have stated my strong disagreement with you about how you think your selections are based on objective standards but for the sake of discussion, let's just suppose that the statement I quoted is correct and non-vocalists cannot judge the vocal performances and your list as appropriate as you a . Now, don't you think that the same should be applied for reviewing? I mean, if we accept your argument on your list, then we must accept that only those who are official reviewers for metal websites as prestigious as Metalstom could judge the value of a review. In the other words, since Joe is a official reviewer of an international and well respected website and you are not, you cannot refute his statement about reviews published by the others. I hope that you don't say that you've refuted his statement about reviews and just called him self obsessed.
In order to contribute to the topic at hand, I must say that in my opinion, your dry, analytically approach kills the music sprite. We are not approaching a mathematics problem. I think that at least we agree that the prime purpose of music for a listener is enjoyment in its different shapes.If you don't like an album, that cannot be prefect for you. Again, this is just my opinion.

Written by mz on 10.12.2013 at 19:03

I have stated my strong disagreement with you about how you think your selections are based on objective standards but for the sake of discussion, let's just suppose that the statement I quoted is correct and non-vocalists cannot judge the vocal performances and your list as appropriate as you a . Now, don't you think that the same should be applied for reviewing? I mean, if we accept your argument on your list, then we must accept that only those who are official reviewers for metal websites as prestigious as Metalstom could judge the value of a review. In the other words, since Joe is a official reviewer of an international and well respected website and you are not, you cannot refute his statement about reviews published by the others. I hope that you don't say that you've refuted his statement about reviews and just called him self obsessed.
In order to contribute to the topic at hand, I must say that in my opinion, your dry, analytically approach kills the music sprite. We are not approaching a mathematics problem. I think that at least we agree that the prime purpose of music for a listener is enjoyment in its different shapes.If you don't like an album, that cannot be prefect for you. Again, this is just my opinion.

I don't think this is something that needs to be dredged up again. I vaguely recall his answer before being something along the lines of music reviews being purely subjective whereas musical talent is not. He has "refuted" my points and personal experience about MDMA by citing yahoo answers pages as credible evidence (probably the single worst source imaginable), even though I do have first hand knowledge of the drug, and he hasn't. My point is: his answer will change depending on the situation so this idea that "experience renders an informed position" is a sliding scale. If it's his personal knowledge then his position is paramount. If it's someone else's experience then he apparently renders their points moot with hastily searched floating anecdotal "evidence" from spurious websites that hold no merit.

Written by mz on 10.12.2013 at 19:03
I hope that you don't say that you've refuted his statement about reviews and just called him self obsessed.

In order to contribute to the topic at hand, I must say that in my opinion, your dry, analytically approach kills the music sprite. We are not approaching a mathematics problem. I think that at least we agree that the prime purpose of music for a listener is enjoyment in its different shapes.If you don't like an album, that cannot be prefect for you. Again, this is just my opinion.

Joe is conceited to believe that his perception of the valid correlation between review rating and votes overshadows that of other staff reviewers. So, to answer your question: yes.

Are reviews mathematical? Do they kill the spirit of music? Not really, and my votes are essentially reflections of that perspective. Enjoyment of music need not be reflected in your votes, unless you feel the need to add veracity to your views through some numerical form? Pointless imo

Written by Guest on 10.12.2013 at 19:09

I don't think this is something that needs to be dredged up again. I vaguely recall his answer before being something along the lines of music reviews being purely subjective whereas musical talent is not. He has "refuted" my points and personal experience about MDMA by citing yahoo answers pages as credible evidence (probably the single worst source imaginable), even though I do have first hand knowledge of the drug, and he hasn't. My point is: his answer will change depending on the situation so this idea that "experience renders an informed position" is a sliding scale. If it's his personal knowledge then his position is paramount. If it's someone else's experience then he apparently renders their points moot with hastily searched floating anecdotal "evidence" from spurious websites that hold no merit.

I just needed a little clarification here and agree with you obviously :}

Written by Guest on 10.12.2013 at 19:09
I don't think this is something that needs to be dredged up again. I vaguely recall his answer before being something along the lines of music reviews being purely subjective whereas musical talent is not. He has "refuted" my points and personal experience about MDMA by citing yahoo answers pages as credible evidence (probably the single worst source imaginable), even though I do have first hand knowledge of the drug, and he hasn't. My point is: his answer will change depending on the situation so this idea that "experience renders an informed position" is a sliding scale. If it's his personal knowledge then his position is paramount. If it's someone else's experience then he apparently renders their points moot with hastily searched floating anecdotal "evidence" from spurious websites that hold no merit.

Reviews are more subjective that musical talent, but an objective effort altogether. You should know this. Talk about a straw man approach

Pfft, if you were able to find anecdotal or empirical evidence that clashes with my arguments, I would back down. You've not provided any in each of our arguments. There is no sliding scale. Provide the evidence. When its anecdotal evidence vs. anecdotal evidence, you dismiss it, because your debating skills are lacking. Despite how many times you've attempted to accredit a straw man approach to my arguments, it seems you've a better grasp on its use

Written by LeKiwi on 10.12.2013 at 16:37
As in you wish to participate without contributing to the mess or you just want to divert the inevitable mess to come?

Ya, I wanted to avoid that mess you prophesied. Let's talk about Moontower now guys.

Written by Troy Killjoy on 10.12.2013 at 20:59
Ya, I wanted to avoid that mess you prophesied. Let's talk about Moontower now guys.

Moontower is good a masterpiece, 10/10. Nearly got shafted there...

Written by LeKiwi on 10.12.2013 at 19:33

Reviews are more subjective that musical talent, but an objective effort altogether. You should know this. Talk about a straw man approach

Pfft, if you were able to find anecdotal or empirical evidence that clashes with my arguments, I would back down. You've not provided any in each of our arguments. There is no sliding scale. Provide the evidence. When its anecdotal evidence vs. anecdotal evidence, you dismiss it, because your debating skills are lacking. Despite how many times you've attempted to accredit a straw man approach to my arguments, it seems you've a better grasp on its use

Sorry Troy, I just want to get a little Straw Man 101 in for Lekiwi. I'll be done after this, I promise.

Straw Man
A straw man, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[3] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position

Ok, let's start with this:

Quote:
Reviews are more subjective that musical talent, but an objective effort altogether. You should know this. Talk about a straw man approach

Right, what you have done here is create a fictitious scenario in which I (should) believe what you have posited (which I don't. I believe reviews can take many forms). Please tell me how this is a "straw man" approach? How have I "misrepresented your position?" At no point have I ever agreed to these definitions you've set out, so I fail to see how I could have done so. I can only conclude that you don't understand how to apply this logical fallacy to actual debate. The irony is that this statement is in effect a straw man argument in itself. You have magically put me in a position with some made-up rules that I have never been in and you have then refuted that fantasy version of me and my argument. Congratulations.

Now let's examine how you have committed a number of straw man fallacies in order to misrepresent me. Hopefully this might enlighten you in what a "straw man" actually is.

Quote:
Wait a minute...you're among the users who perceive melodic death metal to be "overrated" on this website. How can such a notion exist if all votes are personal?

Here you have constructed a false identity for me in which you posit that I consider users on this site to "overrate" albums en masse. This is, naturally, quite false as I went on to highlight how I have given high ratings to many albums of the genre, and enjoy many of its albums. Despite me pointing this out and that you created a straw man version of my arguments you still used this as a springboard to a fallacious area of argument in which you attempted to draw a parallel between my personal tastes and how I feel about other people voting on albums. You attempted to allude that I think all votes should be in line with my own and in using terms like "overrated" I believe the votes different from my own are objectively wrong. This is false. Any comments I make in this regard are drawn from an "it's my opinion" trope. Your attempt to validate your claim by using semantics and giving me a dictionary definition of the meaning of "overrated" was once again erroneous as you insisted that the notion of "overrated" is objective, when it is not. To call something "overrated" in this context is derived from opinion and not necessarily objective. Thus my calling something overrated is not directly tied to your fallacious, straw man argument that I believe " ratings should reflect the appreciative qualities in the music to an extent." This is not so and has never been the case. That is your misrepresentation.

You said that:

Quote:
I've used no such thing. You're in denial. Here's your argument in a nutshell.

1. Makes objective statements regarding album votes.
1. Argues votes should be subjective.
3. Inconsistency and hypocrisy or, more likely, ignorance

This is a straw man fallacy. You have constructed a false argument in my stead. At no point have I made objective statements. I can even be quoted as saying "People are allowed to vote how they like (within reason; probably worth pointing out that Lekiwi's voting antics got his votes wiped a little while ago.)" Clearly, this highlights that I believe that ultimately people are allowed to vote how they like, as long as they keep within the rules. You are attempting to discredit me by accusing me of an hypocrisy that does not exist. All my arguments have stemmed from a personal belief that your voting method is disruptive to the overall voting patterns which I believe people adhere to, which when correctly, and honestly applied, gives an overall impression of what the consensus feel is good and bad. The fact I may personally consider certain ratings to be over or underrated is completely immaterial as I recently pointed out. This can, perhaps ironically, be summed up with the axiom "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." In this case I clearly mean people's votes. I don't always agree with them, but I agree with the system they are used in. I don't however agree with your system, yet, it is still my right to question you on that. Doing so does not make me a hypocrite, and I don't believe I've been inconsistent or ignorant in doing so. That's your point, which I find in keeping with a poorly executed ad hominem.

Furthermore:

Quote:
Joe is conceited to believe that his perception of the valid correlation between review rating and votes overshadows that of other staff reviewers. So, to answer your question: yes.

Another straw man fallacy. Here you have painted me in the light of someone who believes that my opinions on the relation between review scores and personal votes are above other staff's. Where have I ever said that? I stated that a good reviewer would be able to distinguish well between a personal rating and a good review with a strong element of objectivity. I also said that there aren't many good reviewers. Of course, I never said I was one of those reviewers. You have opted to misrepresent me by suggesting that I did say that and that I believe my opinion towers above others. This is a classic argument you seem to fall back on.


Another quote taken from the wiki page of Straw Man Argument:

Quote:
In those cases the false victory is often loudly or conspicuously celebrated.

I honestly can't think of a more succinct description of your arguments, which invariably end with you touting victory over arguments which were never made. As I've pointed out before you have an amazing ability to make arguments go round in circles by changing the nature of them at various points so it gets to the point that the original argument has long been lost. When the other person gets to this point you deftly regale everyone with "I have provided proof and you haven't!" and other such rhetoric and the entire discussion becomes a tiresome roundabout where you will take any fake, straw man victory as you "winning" the debate.

Of course the greatest thing about discussion is that one does not need to be told when they have or haven't won or lost it. Arguments stand for themselves for those that read it. Your need to be the last one commenting doesn't reinforce anything you have said. It just shows that you need to be the last one to comment.

Anyway, that's enough from me. The last word is yours if you want it.

Written by Guest on 10.12.2013 at 22:02

Right, what you have done here is create a fictitious scenario in which I (should) believe what you have posited (which I don't. I believe reviews can take many forms). Please tell me how this is a "straw man" approach? How have I "misrepresented your position?" At no point have I ever agreed to these definitions you've set out, so I fail to see how I could have done so. I can only conclude that you don't understand how to apply this logical fallacy to actual debate. The irony is that this statement is in effect a straw man argument in itself. You have magically put me in a position with some made-up rules that I have never been in and you have then refuted that fantasy version of me and my argument. Congratulations.

This was a very simply notion. There was a three-way argument. You put words in my mouth regarding my perception of reviews and subsequently debunked my position without giving me the opportunity to respond. That is a straw man approach. If you don't see that, you need to stop using the fallacy terminology...you're embarrassing yourself with your conceited posturing.

Quote:

Now let's examine how you have committed a number of straw man fallacies in order to misrepresent me.

You have numerous detracting posts scattered throughout the website with regards to the quality of melodeath, so this is not a baseless claim. For instance, take your quote on Dark Tranquility's The Gallery. Your post is in concordance with the fact that being overrated is associated with a particular score (a 7 being too high as indicated by your post.) Hence, stating that an album is overrated implies that the overall score is above what you believe it deserves. It is you in truth who have constructed another straw man, stating that I have alluded that you believe that others should to adhere to anyone's voting principles, including your own - I have never stated this. I said that your arguments were inconsistent. Claiming an album is overrated is a highly objective remark. This is a simple notion: it means you cannot fathom how the album has received the rating it has. Really? The only reason you would state that is because you believe the album is devoid of the merits that are consistent with a higher rating. Merits are what constitute a rating. Thus, my argument - no straw man to be found on my front...only yours.

Quote:
I stated that a good reviewer would be able to distinguish well between a personal rating and a good review with a strong element of objectivity. I also said that there aren't many good reviewers. Of course, I never said I was one of those reviewers. You have opted to misrepresent me by suggesting that I did say that and that I believe my opinion towers above others. This is a classic argument you seem to fall back on.

Where did you say that What you said is that a good reviewer's personal ratings would never reflect their review score. Every staff member whose ratings and reviews I have examined showed a positive correlation between the two items. This means that you view these staff as not "good reviewers." Surely you who insists on such principals would adhere to them. Surely not...hypocrisy

Quote:
In those cases the false victory is often loudly or conspicuously celebrated.

You have continuously failed to provide any proof of any sort (and I'm not referring to this argument, I'm referring to the others you have so kindly rekindled.) The justification for my final comments is to respond to your desperate, last ditched endeavors at debunking my arguments as a result of "ad nauseam" and your unscrupulous and disrespectful attempts to paint me in bad light. You write your comments in a manner that warrant a response, despite how subtle your insults and detracting remarks may be.

Edit: Found this when E.Mol posted a link to Slumber's Fallout and thought it was quite insightful. I find it astounding that you lied just to embarrass me...pathetic.

Written by Guest on 29.10.2011 at 15:35
Any kind of melodic doom or melodeath gets absurdly high scores these days.

Here's my seven step approach to better appreciating the awesomeness that is the Moontower:

1) Drop argument(s).
2) Read Mech's supremely objective review of an objectively awesome album.
3) Get feels.
3) Go home sans bitterness, hand in hand.
5) Re-visit Moontower.
6) Come back here.
7) Repeat.

... yeah, I should do this more often myself.

I keep forgetting how awesome this release is. As much as I adore Edge of Sanity I really wish Dan would make more of "this".

What a great album this is.

The first half is a masterpiece, the second brings the overall score down - Creating Illusions is such a disappointing drop in quality after the first 4 songs.

First half = 10/10
Second half = 7.9/10
Overall = 8.9/10

I'm the 200th vote!
This album is a masterpiece of progressive metal! All of Dan Swanö's genius musicianship on display! Beautiful melodies, mesmerizing atmosphere, and poetic lyrics create a one-of-a-kind experience in metal history!
My favorite tracks here are Sun of the Night (hypnotic riffs and relatable heliophobic lyrics ), Add Reality (a crazy collection of beautiful and fun melodies), and The Big Sleep (emotional lyrics about death).

Sun of the Night has got to be in the top 10 metal songs of all time - it's got it all: epic vocals, poetic lyrics of darkness, mesmerizingly and catchy riffs and a beautiful guitar solo - and Dan The Man does it all!