Rick Springfield - Rocket Science

[CureTheSane]

Jeez mate, for someone who rates so "harshly" you can sure throw out a 10/10 (or 100% if you will) without much hesitation.

 

Anyway, I basically rate 'Slippery...' the same score as you, but 'Hysteria' quite a bit higher (I love 'Gods of war' and to a slightly lesser extent 'Don't shoot shotgun'). But these two are popular albums; not necessarily truly great albums. There are albums worth over 90% but I agree they are extremely few and far between. You just need to look in the right places, but on the pop charts is not that place. Try finding much to fault in something like Kane Roberts' 'Saints and Sinners,' for example.

 

 

I was VERY liberal. Trying to kind of relay what I would have thought at the time, remembering taht Slippery was a milestone of sorts and comparative to what was around at the time a massive stand out.

 

Really not a big deal, but I still struggle with these ratings.

 

If you want to go back on topic (of sorts) then I would again say that Andrew must have been listening day and night to the new RS to be able to give that review, and based on it, it most definitely should be top of the charts.

 

Like I said, it sounds great. Really great, and I will likely rate it fairly high. Will be lucky to get close to 80% though, which would probably define the top 4 or 5% of releases.

[KarpetRydOFunk]

 

 

In your opinion.

Precisely.

In mosts opinion....subtly different

 

 

Nah. What you're not grasping is I'm implying all reviews are subject to opinion, and ratings are relative to one's personal, often, seemingly, arbitrary, standard. So arguing over the rating one assigns to the object they are reviewing is trivial, because, while we can do our best to understand one's opinion through their words, we only truly, fully comprehend our own standard.

 

Like you, Gleonard, I prefer to read a review than browse the ratings.

[CureTheSane]

Having said that, you're gonna find that most people rate Appetite For Destruction very highly, and most will say the new Hardcore Superstar is shit

People may differ slightly (or greatly) on songs within an album, but a great disc is a great disc.

 

Every now and then you'll find someone that things Appetite is average, and the new HCSS is amazing

[Glen]

 

 

 

In your opinion.

Precisely.

In mosts opinion....subtly different

Nah. What you're not grasping is I'm implying all reviews are subject to opinion, and ratings are relative to one's personal, often, seemingly, arbitrary, standard. So arguing over the rating one assigns to the object they are reviewing is trivial, because, while we can do our best to understand one's opinion through their words, we only truly, fully comprehend our own standard.

 

Like you, Gleonard, I prefer to read a review than browse the ratings.

Of course i grasp that.

 

What i dont grasp is how one persons 'opinion' can rate so many albums so consistently high when the general consensus across many peoples top listings for 2015 is that there was a pretty wide difference in quality between say the top 3-5 albums and the top 10-20.

 

Stats dont lie.

 

Capiche??

[CureTheSane]

What i dont grasp is how one persons 'opinion' can rate so many albums so consistently high when the general consensus across many peoples top listings for 2015 is that there was a pretty wide difference in quality between say the top 3-5 albums and the top 10-20.

 

Stats dont lie.

 

 

 

 

There are always exceptions.

Warrant 96 was slammed, but over time, people started to listen to the songs on their merits, rather than being disappointed not getting 10 versions of "Cherry Pie"

Same with Kiss - The Elder. To a lesser degree, Firehouse - O2 Def Lep - Slang, Motley S/T etc

One of my favorite bands is Hot action Cop. Massively underrated, but their last album was very mainstream compared to their previous. I expected heavier harder rock, but after a few listens got into it and love it.

But if I posted songs here, people would likely hate them, which leads back to my point about time and repeated listens and letting the songs work their way into your head.

[Geoff]

 

What i dont grasp is how one persons 'opinion' can rate so many albums so consistently high when the general consensus across many peoples top listings for 2015 is that there was a pretty wide difference in quality between say the top 3-5 albums and the top 10-20.

 

Stats dont lie.

 

 

 

 

There are always exceptions.

Warrant 96 was slammed, but over time, people started to listen to the songs on their merits, rather than being disappointed not getting 10 versions of "Cherry Pie"

Same with Kiss - The Elder. To a lesser degree, Firehouse - O2 Def Lep - Slang, Motley S/T etc

One of my favorite bands is Hot action Cop. Massively underrated, but their last album was very mainstream compared to their previous. I expected heavier harder rock, but after a few listens got into it and love it.

But if I posted songs here, people would likely hate them, which leads back to my point about time and repeated listens and letting the songs work their way into your head.

 

 

Sorry mate, but I'm pretty sure everyone always has, still does and will always hate Warrant's 'Belly to belly.' Not sure who you know you decided it wasn't a trainwreck? Because it is.

 

Alternatively, I feel like 'Slang' and Motley Crue's s/t have always been quite well regarded.

 

Not sure where the majority of people stand with Firehouse's 'O2' but it's a piece of fucking dog shit. So hopefully for the sake of people's ears they just agree with that.

 

'The Elder?' Don't care enough about that one to know what people think about it.

[tts42572]

I always view ratings as guidelines more than anything else. Personally, I like to look at albums as more of a complete work and from an overall perspective when assigning ratings rather than rating each song and coming up with an average. I mean, a band could throw 12-13 songs on an album, have 9 or 10 absolutely outstanding tracks and a couple clunkers and they'd probably come out with an 80 overall or something because of those couple songs. I guess I just don't like holding 2-3 songs against albums for their ratings.

 

I'd agree Andrew has had a lot of good reviews recently but I wonder if maybe he's being a little more selective in what he's looking at and not bothering with the complete crap? I mean, I know there have been plenty of poor reviews from him over the years. If I see something reviewed in the 90-100 range, it's usually just a good indicator that I might need to give an album a look if it's along my line of tastes. That said, I know stuff like Rick Springfield, Toto, Journey aren't in my wheelhouse so they will never be 100's (or probably even 70's) to me personally. That's doesn't mean they can't be 100's to somebody else though.

 

I really don't care what system anybody uses to review. I think it all just comes down to getting to know a reviewer and figuring out how his tastes align with yours. An 80 might be a great score by some reviewer's standards like in the Def Leppard and Bon Jovi examples above. For a reviewer like Andrew through, if I see an 80 overall it really makes me pause as 75-80 for him is often a lukewarm endorsement. I kinda like Andrew's approach better in that I'm less likely to miss something good. If some reviewer is giving everything 70's or 80's and I don't really know the reviewer, then I don't know if I'd ever buy anything off their reviews. I just feels really odd to me reading a glowing review and seeing a score of 83 or something.

 

All I want from reviews are some good recommendations and to get an idea how stuff separates and/or compares to previous works from an artist or from similar artists in it's genre. I think Andrew does a pretty good job at pointing out stuff that is well done and needs a look. I really don't care if it's assigned a 95 or 100.

[CureTheSane]

 

 

What i dont grasp is how one persons 'opinion' can rate so many albums so consistently high when the general consensus across many peoples top listings for 2015 is that there was a pretty wide difference in quality between say the top 3-5 albums and the top 10-20.

 

Stats dont lie.

 

 

 

 

There are always exceptions.

Warrant 96 was slammed, but over time, people started to listen to the songs on their merits, rather than being disappointed not getting 10 versions of "Cherry Pie"

Same with Kiss - The Elder. To a lesser degree, Firehouse - O2 Def Lep - Slang, Motley S/T etc

One of my favorite bands is Hot action Cop. Massively underrated, but their last album was very mainstream compared to their previous. I expected heavier harder rock, but after a few listens got into it and love it.

But if I posted songs here, people would likely hate them, which leads back to my point about time and repeated listens and letting the songs work their way into your head.

 

 

Sorry mate, but I'm pretty sure everyone always has, still does and will always hate Warrant's 'Belly to belly.' Not sure who you know you decided it wasn't a trainwreck? Because it is.

 

Alternatively, I feel like 'Slang' and Motley Crue's s/t have always been quite well regarded.

 

Not sure where the majority of people stand with Firehouse's 'O2' but it's a piece of fucking dog shit. So hopefully for the sake of people's ears they just agree with that.

 

'The Elder?' Don't care enough about that one to know what people think about it.

 

When Slang and Motley S/T came out, they were slammed. That's my recollection anyway.

 

But aside from that, you kinda made my point re: tastes

I don't really like Rush, or Toto, but I like Rick Springfield.

I also like Sarah Brightman

[melodicrock]

tts42572 - So much crap passing over my desk, but no time to review. Sticking to the major titles and the best ones until the smoke clears.

[Darkstone]

I always view ratings as guidelines more than anything else. Personally, I like to look at albums as more of a complete work and from an overall perspective when assigning ratings rather than rating each song and coming up with an average. I mean, a band could throw 12-13 songs on an album, have 9 or 10 absolutely outstanding tracks and a couple clunkers and they'd probably come out with an 80 overall or something because of those couple songs. I guess I just don't like holding 2-3 songs against albums for their ratings.

 

I'd agree Andrew has had a lot of good reviews recently but I wonder if maybe he's being a little more selective in what he's looking at and not bothering with the complete crap? I mean, I know there have been plenty of poor reviews from him over the years. If I see something reviewed in the 90-100 range, it's usually just a good indicator that I might need to give an album a look if it's along my line of tastes. That said, I know stuff like Rick Springfield, Toto, Journey aren't in my wheelhouse so they will never be 100's (or probably even 70's) to me personally. That's doesn't mean they can't be 100's to somebody else though.

 

I really don't care what system anybody uses to review. I think it all just comes down to getting to know a reviewer and figuring out how his tastes align with yours. An 80 might be a great score by some reviewer's standards like in the Def Leppard and Bon Jovi examples above. For a reviewer like Andrew through, if I see an 80 overall it really makes me pause as 75-80 for him is often a lukewarm endorsement. I kinda like Andrew's approach better in that I'm less likely to miss something good. If some reviewer is giving everything 70's or 80's and I don't really know the reviewer, then I don't know if I'd ever buy anything off their reviews. I just feels really odd to me reading a glowing review and seeing a score of 83 or something.

 

All I want from reviews are some good recommendations and to get an idea how stuff separates and/or compares to previous works from an artist or from similar artists in it's genre. I think Andrew does a pretty good job at pointing out stuff that is well done and needs a look. I really don't care if it's assigned a 95 or 100.

 

beautifully said, and absolutely spot on when it comes to viewing ratings. Case closed.

[Geoff]

 

 

 

 

In your opinion.

Precisely.

In mosts opinion....subtly different

Nah. What you're not grasping is I'm implying all reviews are subject to opinion, and ratings are relative to one's personal, often, seemingly, arbitrary, standard. So arguing over the rating one assigns to the object they are reviewing is trivial, because, while we can do our best to understand one's opinion through their words, we only truly, fully comprehend our own standard.

 

Like you, Gleonard, I prefer to read a review than browse the ratings.

Of course i grasp that.

 

What i dont grasp is how one persons 'opinion' can rate so many albums so consistently high when the general consensus across many peoples top listings for 2015 is that there was a pretty wide difference in quality between say the top 3-5 albums and the top 10-20.

 

Stats dont lie.

 

Capiche??

 

 

I kinda let this pass the first time, but I do have to say... my favourite album of 2015 was Issa, yet it did not make a lot of people's top 10's or 20's or 50's. And Cauterize are my favourite band of all time yet they would be no one else's on earth.

 

Does this mean I'm wrong and the people who like the most popular band on earth are right? I certainly think not.

 

Judging music based on this theory, the foolish masses would have you believing something completely false, like Van Halen are actually a *choke* good band. Just because millions of people like them, it doesn't mean they are not terrible.

 

And like others will often point out - something along the lines of Coldplay probably sold the most albums in 2015 and would have received equally positive reviews. Fucked if I know who it actually was, but I'll use them as an example. So based on those stats, and those of their adoring fans, are we to assume that Coldplay are the best band in the world, or even good, or okay, or listenable, or not absolutely abominable? Because I'd go with the latter.

 

Trusting stats is very dangerous when it comes to music, and especially in a small genre like ours where some of the best releases may not even be heard by the men with the stats. I'd like to think that most of us made our way to a site like this based on the music we loved to hear for ourselves, rather than what some statistics may have said was the best music to listen to.

[Glen]

No mate stats suggesting there was a large variance in quality across the releases in 2015...not that they were all worth 85-95%

 

If that makes sense.

[CureTheSane]

Loud & Clear - Disconnected

One of the most underrated albums of all time.

[martinsane]

tts42572 - So much crap passing over my desk, but no time to review. Sticking to the major titles and the best ones until the smoke clears.

Can I have all the third and fourth tier stuff.

[JC_AOR]

No mate stats suggesting there was a large variance in quality across the releases in 2015...not that they were all worth 85-95%

 

If that makes sense.

Where are these stats being derived from? And are you suggesting that 2015 had a larger variance in release quality than previous years? If so I would like to know where the stats you speak of come from or is this just your opinion? If this is just your opinion then you should consider respecting the opinions of others including Andrew's rating on MR.com. I too don't believe many albums rate >90% and few (if any) rate at 100%, though I can understand that we are all unique when it comes to deciding what we enjoy listening to. Like Geoff mentioned about Cauterize, I have similar feelings about an Aussie band called Motor Ace. Andrew likes what he likes, it is his website and we should respect his thoughts and opinions even when we don't necessarily agree.

 

I'll also add that Geoff makes a good point regarding the reason most of us likely came to know of and choose to spend so much time on Heavy Harmonies - this is unlikely to have anything to do with what is popular but rather the mutual respect we all have for each other's (sometimes strange) tastes in this whole melodic / hard rock world.

 

Also I would like to pick up on a comment that I agree with from Jez - perhaps reading reviews is more valuable than reading ratings. I tend to agree. There are exceptions to this when you come across someone with very similar tastes and in those cases you can generally rely on ratings alone as a guide.

[simo]

Damn it I didn't want to, but I listened to the previews again and some of them sounded quite ok. I think I'll be getting this on Friday. I just need something new to listen to, quite desperate at this point

[Glen]

Jesus guys calm down. Im not talking about official stats for christ sake....merely top lists ive seen - maybe on this site, my mates, other sites.

 

You name me one person who had 80% of albums in 2015 above 85%.

 

Its my opinion and im perfectly within my rights to state it.

 

And i only stated it in reaction to Andrew going off on one and saying he didnt rate consistently highly.

 

Read the thread.

[Stefan]

[PeterS]

First spin over. Sounded really good.

The slight 'country' thing going on works fine.

 

Just seen the Inglorious was also released today so that's my next weeks listening sorted.

[CureTheSane]

 

The slight 'country' thing going on works fine.

 

 

How times have changed...

[Axelinger]

"Country thing". Anything bearing that description merits an immediate pass from me. It suggests twangy shit with nasally vocals, which sound like the singer hasn't blown the snot out of his nose in a couple of months. Outside of rap, nothing musically bugs the shit out of me more than country vocals. I'd rather listen to a rusty hinge creaking away. Maybe if I lived on a ranch, wrangled steers, wore a ridiculous looking hat (well, more ridiculous than the one I usually wear), drove a pick-up truck, and sat around the campfire scarfing down plate after plate of baked beans (don't settle into your sleeping bag downwind, y'all), I might be into country, but I'm about as far from down-home-folksy as it gets. The lyrical content of country leaves a lot to be desired, too. Not a lot of MENSA material penning country lyrics out there. I get a kick out of these city people, who slap on a stetson, cowboy boots, a patterned shirt, head to the country bar, and bellow out, "Yee-Haw!!" a lot when the shitkicker band finishes every song. Talk about yer phony dipshits.

[melodicrock]

Rocket Science is neither lyrically or nasally influenced by country. It's just a RS pop/rock record with country instruments.

[CureTheSane]

Rocket Science is neither lyrically or nasally influenced by country. It's just a RS pop/rock record with country instruments.

 

is it melodic?

[PeterS]

Rocket Science is neither lyrically or nasally influenced by country. It's just a RS pop/rock record with country instruments.

There are a few songs with a slant but it's really not more than an influence and it works well.

 

Anybody who dosent listen to it because of fear of a country vibe is missing out on a truly wonderful album.

 

Getting into it now and I really thing it's an amazing piece. Perhaps not quite as good as the last but that one was one of my favourite albums in the last few year's

[CureTheSane]

I've always been open to a country vibe at times.

Not a C&W fan, but I don't hate it like many do.