Burzum- Hvis lyset tar oss

[Neurotic]

Originally Posted by Laeth MacLaurie

In music theory texts, yes, but not in reviews. Classical music reviews generally mention technique only when technical elements are noteworthy (i.e. when a composer has introduced new theories and techniques), the focus is always on the conceptual and emotional content of the music, rather than on the superficial aesthetics.

Jazz, on the other hand, isn't a 'serious' musical style, and it's improvisational to boot. Jazz is 100% technique, 0% art, so of course jazz reviews make reference to technique, it's the whole point of the genre (to the extent that nigger noise can be said to have a "point").

classical reviews mention both aspects, both conceptual and the theory, every review most of the time mention both aspects (if is someone who knows nothing about music reviewing probably won't give any insights about the music itself, mmmm this reminds me of something...).

you can say anything that you want but a review about music has to talk about music, even in classical music its common to compare composers in reviews, you just have to give an ideia of the work to the listener.

well, about jazz, thats your opinion, improvisation is an art itself. and saying its not serious is just ridiculous... and not all jazz is improvisation, many of them record albuns and they play it live like it is on the cd (and if the album is a product of improvisation so be it, its a valid way of composing like any other).

you got to realize the feeling you "get" from art is not universal, thats the beauty of art, everyone can feel different about music, a painting, a movie etc.

to me you sound like a pseudo intelectual narrow minded pretentious person, but hey, if that makes you feel good then keep it up

[Laeth MacLaurie]

Originally Posted by Neurotic

classical reviews mention both aspects, both conceptual and the theory, every review most of the time mention both aspects (if is someone who knows nothing about music reviewing probably won't give any insights about the music itself, mmmm this reminds me of something...).

Horseshit. Point me to a single review of a classical work (not a concert or a particular conductor's interpretation of the work, mind you, these are of necessity concerned much with the nuts and bolts of performance, rather than with the work itself) that mentions technique in anything but a passing reference. You can't do it, because serious reviews of serious music aren't concerned with technique or descriptions of sound, they're concerned with analyzing the underlying content and concept. That's what real reviews are, a critical analysis of art, not a third grade book report.

you can say anything that you want but a review about music has to talk about music,

And I talked about the music, I just talked about the element of music that actually mean something, which means my references went way the hell over the heads of you and the rest of your vocational high school buddies.

even in classical music its common to compare composers in reviews, you just have to give an ideia of the work to the listener.

Certainly, but only when the composer in question is not already extremely well known or when the work of others forms a definite reference point. Neither of which is the case with Burzum.

well, about jazz, thats your opinion,

My opinion merely coincides with actual fact. Jazz is crap, and the only reason people pretend otherwise is that we are socialized in the West to bow and scrape before nigger "culture" (else, the jungle bunnies might riot).

improvisation is an art itself.

Bullshit. Improvisation is a learned skill. It's purely about muscle memory and the internalization of rhythm and scales. It's "art" in the same way that Bob Ross's happy little trees were art.

and not all jazz is improvisation, many of them record albuns and they play it live like it is on the cd (and if the album is a product of improvisation so be it, its a valid way of composing like any other).

The soul of composition is the rendering of concept into symbolic expression. This requires thought, and purely improvisational music always falls short in the "thought" category. Occasionally, improvisational music works, but only because improvisation took place within a previously scripted framework (Krieg's debut album, for instance).

you got to realize the feeling you "get" from art is not universal, thats the beauty of art, everyone can feel different about music, a painting, a movie etc.

Of course most people don't "get" art in the same way I do. Most people only have a fraction of my intelligence, so they are unable to appreciate genius to the extent that I can.

[Neurotic]

like i said a review should mention both aspects, not just the music itself and i think i said in one of the first replys that there is no need for a theory class in a review, but some insight is needed, i never said anything about performance, but the composition itself, the way its built, occorrences in structure,etc , not about bow tecnique obviously lol
here's a review : (minimalism in this case, cuz most classical reviews are performances of works, and i'm lazy to find some, but if needed i will do it)

"Philip Glass - Glassworks

The usual stuff is here: arpeggio versus ostinato, ostinato versus arpeggio. And as always, the Philip Glass Ensemble's synthesizers double their woodwinds. But Glassworks is the most pleasant craftwork ever from the great minimalist exploiter -- six warm pieces that approach the spirit of minimalist pioneer Erik Satie. Only instead of Satie's lyrical-to-antic jumps, Glass creates the ruminative-to-excitable kind. "Opening"'s softly rolled piano melody is music to fold your hands and muse by, and when Sharon Moe's French horn sets up "Floe," everything seems nice and level -- until the flailing woodwinds and synthesizers of the ensemble crash in. Glassworks is tuneful in the most pleasingly direct sense -- the arrangements define the melodies so cleanly they're instantly memorable. In addition, the album is programmed with a particular shape in mind. It's kind of a waveform, where every other relaxed melody is upset by a classic Glass rush -- "Floe" is even outpaced by "Rubric"'s honking saxophones and enough cascading counterpoint to give David Helfgoff a case of carpal tunnel syndrome. These two tunes are so disruptive, so complex, that it's easy to think that they dominate the whole project. But they're also the shortest tunes on the album. Most of the time, harmonies bob around in the strings and woodwinds, though Jon Gibson's soprano sax glides atop "Facades." "Closing," based on "Opening" (funny), contains his second prettiest orchestration after the finale of Satyagraha. In fact, it's probably the source of Glass' subsequent reputation in the new age music industry. Of interest to those who keep up with Glass' re-use of his work: "Rubric" was originally intended for use in Godfrey Reggio's movie Koyanisqqaatsi. It was re-used along with "Facades" on the 1987 album Dancepieces. "Opening," "Floe," "Facades," and "Rubric" were performed in Peter Greenaway's film 4 American Composers, devoted to Glass and his ensemble; in this performance segment, Dora Ohrenstein's vocals replace "Floe"'s brass section. "

As you can see its compared to other composers, talks about the structure of the songs, instruments that are used, some of the tecniques used, etc in the end of the review you got an ideia of what the album sounds like, which isnt the case with your review.(you mention a couple of music aspects but not enough to get an idea)

about improvisation, well there's more to it then you think, there's the feeling of the moment, it's always different, its not that mechanical, its humans playing , not robots. theory is just a tool, you can write good music without it, in the end i agree, its the feelings that are comunicated to the listener that counts, but there is always a structure in music, a reason why things happen, and even a person that is writting a piece of music without knowing music theory will use some logic to get to the final result.

you just can't write a review just based on the concept, first its music, and the listener wants to have an ideia of how it sounds.

and that last sentence of you just made my day, i could see that coming mr. einstein you are going to change the world!

[Laeth MacLaurie]

And the description of the music is as cursory as that in my own review, made more extensive only by the fact that Glassworks has 6 tracks and an orchestra while Hvis lyet tar oss makes use of 4 instruments and 4 tracks.

[Neurotic]

Originally Posted by Laeth MacLaurie

And the description of the music is as cursory as that in my own review, made more extensive only by the fact that Glassworks has 6 tracks and an orchestra while Hvis lyet tar oss makes use of 4 instruments and 4 tracks.

pretty different, it does have some metaphors aswell and thats fine, i liked that on your review.
it goes deeper in the music aspects though, i actually never heard glassworks, i'm gonna download it and i know what i will find.
i couldnt say the same if i didnt knew burzum.

you could have mention that 4 instruments are used in the burzum album, i didnt even know that lol

[Laeth MacLaurie]

Originally Posted by Neurotic

pretty different, it does have some metaphors aswell and thats fine, i liked that on your review.
it goes deeper in the music aspects though, i actually never heard glassworks, i'm gonna download it and i know what i will find.

Of course you know what you'll find. Everything Phillip Glass has ever done sounds exactly the same. He's an 8th rate soundtrack composer with pretensions of grandeur.

And seriously, go back and actually read the review and see what it really says about the music. To wit, we find out that at various points woodwinds, french horns, brass and piano are used. Given that this is an orchestral composer we're talking about, isn't that information that is, you know, implied by the medium in question? It imparts no information that someone with any familiarity at all with classical music wouldn't already know.

[Uneasy_Conscience]

Originally Posted by Laeth MacLaurie

What exactly is a "review" if not a reviewer's thoughts on a work?

Dumbass.

Dumb would be reviewing an album and not telling anyone what the band sounds like.

[Neurotic]

Originally Posted by Laeth MacLaurie

Of course you know what you'll find. Everything Phillip Glass has ever done sounds exactly the same. He's an 8th rate soundtrack composer with pretensions of grandeur.

And seriously, go back and actually read the review and see what it really says about the music. To wit, we find out that at various points woodwinds, french horns, brass and piano are used. Given that this is an orchestral composer we're talking about, isn't that information that is, you know, implied by the medium in question? It imparts no information that someone with any familiarity at all with classical music wouldn't already know.

i'm not even a fan of glass, and he has done a lot more then soundtracks...

synths in classical? and there are so many combinations in classical music of different instruments. the album could consist only of strings or percussion and vibraphone, only wind instrumensts..etc, and if the reviewer did not wrote what instruments are used i wouldn't know...and saying what happens at certain moments of the music does help you get an idea of what it sounds like.

and it says more then that, it says the music its minimalistic of course, consists of arpegios vs ostinato, counterpoint is used, the synths double the winds, these are tecnical elements.

what do you say in your review? the last track has a keyboard melody, the rest is pretty vague and subjective...

i took that review from allmusic.com, you should see the disciption of the real classical works there, now thats insight on music and concept, you dont have a doubt of what you will hear. i wish all reviews were like that, but maybe thats too profund and more of a discription than a review but still ...that's how it should be done imo.

[Laeth MacLaurie]

Originally Posted by Devy_Metal

Dumb would be reviewing an album and not telling anyone what the band sounds like.

Dumb would be listening to metal in 2005 and having access to the internet and not having some idea what Burzum sounds like, cocksquat.