Jimmy Eat World - Integrity Blues (October 21, 2016) Album • Page 107

That's a very bizarre review. Didn't say much of anything at all. Also, 15 years is hardly recent

 

Yeah, I mean I don't want to seem like I'm jumping to criticise reviews just because they're negative... but it didn't seem like a great review to me.

 

That review was objectively not good.

 

I read this as Dr. Phil..

 

since when is jimmy eat world a pop punk band?

"The drumbeat kicks in and it’s immediately clear that it’s a Jimmy Eat World track. "

this is the worst sentence in a review i think ive ever read


"The main problem that Jimmy Eat World currently face is their tendency towards pushing out an album every 2-3 years, regardless of whether it appears they actually want to record new music or if they’ve found new inspiration."

nvm that is

"Maybe it’s time to have a break and focus on what the next exciting sound for the band is, rather than churning a new album out every couple of years."

or maybe that is




god i hate most reviews

 

I'm not going to really consider that review's opinion too heavily considering that first sentence is a mess grammatically.

 

Yep, it's okay to say that's a badly written review. The writer only even mentioned one song from the album by name.

 

i didnt read the review, but after reading those sentences i never will^^

 

Those of you who have heard the album: what song are you most excited for JEW fans to hear?

 

lol it does feel like every sentence is worse than the one that precedes it in that review.

 

Now that "You are Free" is out there? Probably "Pass the Baby" (it's like nothing they've ever done before) followed by "Pol Roger"

 

This is also in response to something @minty901 said to me:

The sweeping assumption that all art is wholly subjective is a modern conception that has actually swung back and forth throughout time. There have been other periods of the past when art was considered subjective, but there have also been periods where the predominant philosophical viewpoint was about the objectivity of art.

I think we can see this even within our opinions and how some opinions are more subjective than others. Is something can be less subjective, that means it's more objective. For example, if I ask you what's the best movie you've ever seen, you're mind might starting filtering through The Rules of the Game or Citizen Kane or Casablanca, but if I then ask you what's your "favorite" movie, your mind will switch to an entirely subset of films that might include Anchorman or Hot Rod or The Notebook, or whatever films you might love with the biased acknowledgment that you've seen "better" movies.

Or consider this: what if I handed a poem to two people, a child and a literature professor with a Master's in Poetry. If I ask them both what they think about the poem...are the two opinions equally valid? If the professor knows what the poem is making homage to, can recognize the different literary techniques, or can blatantly tell that the poem is ripping off Goethe, is this really equally as valid as the kid who says, "It's nice," or "I don't get it"?

I really like to point to David Hume on this subject. Writing in the 1700's, he had an essay about the difference between taste and judgment. Taste is our 100% subjective, biased way of dealing with everything we encounter, while judgment is the objective way. His argument was that perfect judgment exists but is unattainable by man due to our own personal tastes. However, we can learn to move from our taste closer to judgment. We learn this by learning about the art form at hand. I don't think either of you would deny how your personal "tastes" became more "refined" as you started listening to broader styles of music, listening more intently, and learning more about music history. David Hume would argue that this was actually the process of you moving further from taste toward judgment. In the same way that perfect judgment is unattainable, our tastes can't be wholly left behind: hence the difference between the "best" films and our "favorites."

To directly address your initial comment, @sophos34, that if someone believes there's such thing as good and bad "then this conversation will go nowhere," I actually think quite the opposite. If everyone on the site had the mindset of, "My tastes are my tastes and there's nothing you can do about it," then why do we discuss music in the forums at all? If you're set in your own personal ways, I in mine, then that is truly the end of all meaningful conversation. Sure, we can all sit around sharing how we feel, but it won't teach anyone, won't persuade anyone, won't give a new perspective to anyone. However, if we all enter into the music conversation admitting the possibility of some objectivity within art, then we can actually begin to have conversations of, "Why do you think this is good? Tell me more--maybe you see something I don't see! Let me learn from you, and maybe you can learn something from me, too."

 

"Pol Roger," absolutely.

 

^^^ @Craig Ismaili curious about your thoughts on my comment two spaces up

 

Nickelback's earlier stuff was actually decent to good - if you haven't heard "Breathe" by Nickelback, its genuinely a great rock song. Things started to get iffy when they got massively popular.

I actually get the sentiment mentioned a few pages back about a band sounding like they're trying too hard, I know I've mentioned it before about Jimmy Eat World too - a band nails a certain sound or aesthetic and keeps returning to it without the emotion that generated that sound in the first place. One thing I find JEW has used improperly in the past is string sections - the epic sound doesn't come across properly if the strings are poorly recorded or sound overly manufactured.

All that said, I've definitely been ignoring "Dizzy" for too long - great tune.

 

Wow this said all the things I was thinking earlier in this thread better than I could have possibly said them. Thank you for this post.

I'll dive deeper into this later on when I have more time after work and respond, but...wow

 

i meant the conversation about objectivity vs subjectivity will go nowhere. we post on forums because everyone's opinions are different. thats why we discuss music at all. i thought that was obvious. you can absolutely teach and persuade people by discussing your opinions and realizing no one's opinions, on music, are objective. i dont see how thinking music is subjective means people cant change their opinions. if anything that proves its subjective.

 

This review is a shame to the existence of writing. Oh my goodness.

 

We aren't actually talking about Nickelback in a JEW thread, right?

 

Pol Roger is pronounce "Poll Ro-zhay" by the way (Though this is a completely unrelated comment)

 

I stopped reading that review after I read "Unlike Sum 41’s seminal recent album, a lot of the songs seem to be filler rather than killer"

 

That's fair. Full disclosure, I love arguing the objective side of art because I've seen too many people hold to subjective opinions with no desire to change. This frustrates me to my core, not just because I genuinely want people to have open minds toward the music I love, but because of how dangerous this habit can be when it rolls over into other parts of life. As has been said in other parts of this thread, opinions can be wrong. The world isn't flat, we either did or did not land on the moon, God either does or does not exist, etc. etc. I suppose a willingness to change one's opinion or to learn from others is the most I can ask for. What I'd love to never see again, though, is the person who has an opinion, can't back up their opinion with anything other than "that's how I feel" or "because I said so," yet stubbornly refuses to hear other people out and consider other possibilities.

 

I thought we had an official Nickelback thread but I mixed them and Thrice up again

 

Sorry to break it to ya...

 

Worst post in this whole thread filled with them lol