|
 |
|
|
Name: e-dogg
Subject: In Reverse
-- Mar 27, 2001 at 10:26PM
"100% Fun" went gold too!And Phil Collins? Blasphemy! You're stretchin', man....
Name: {A-Before-E) Baer
Subject: In Reverse
-- Dec 8, 1999 at 2:44AM
This album is great. If you want to buy a copy don't forget to get it from Matthew's site so he gets a larger cut of the profit: http://www.matthewsweetdirect.com
Hi Anita, Linda and Rax.
Name: The Editors Respond
Subject: Re: In Reverse
-- Dec 7, 1999 at 7:25PM
> Roy: I won't be
> recommending your
> website to a friend
> anytime soon.
Roy's Web site? We (those whose Web site it is) find that just grand.
Although that's not why we popped in. We just came to say that Rax may need to reference a tome thicker than G/E/B to get his p's and q's organized. We quote:
"you can't say if p then q without first proving p, or disproving ~p."
Obviously you *can* make the statement "if p the q", whenever the hell you want. Maybe you meant that given that statement you can't prove q without proving p or disproving ~p (we're guessing here, just trying to make sense of it)? If so, or either way really, ~p doesn't say shit about q given p -> q. p does, but not ~p.
You're trying to introduce a little mathematical logic into the argument, which we respect, but more careful next time, please: some of us are actually paying attention.
Name: Rax The Vulpine
Subject: Re: In Reverse
-- Dec 7, 1999 at 6:46PM
You're welcome. I appreciate your opinions and your right to hold them. I also thank you, and your still-silent editorial staff for the oportunity to now thrash you and your article. I do not take your sarcastic reply to my post lightly. I was going to be kind. My tongue is no longer held.<BR> In high school, I take an honors-level writing class called College Comp. In this class, they teach you that if you want your writing to have merit, you have to accomodate and refute opposing arguments. The term used to define an argument in which all that is given is the author's point of view is "logical fallacy". In terms of Godel, Escher, Bach... you can't say if p then q without first proving p, or disproving ~p. In other words, this is opinion, so you can't PROVE it. if you don't offer an alternate viewpoint, you fail to do your duty as a journalist and as a trusted figure. would you trust a rabid fan to give you an objective evaluation of In Reverse? probably not. would you trust someone who didn't listen to it? of course not. so what evidence do you give the reader to trust you?? <BR> None. When trying to point out the flaws of "In Reverse", which is a legitimate enterprise, you give as little support as you do when saying what you thought was good. Anyone can write words. You have to mean them. Only 3 or four of your article's shorter paragraphs even have to do with In Reverse. Are you trying to write an article about Matthew Sweet and 90's rock? then fine, you just wrote a bad article about that. You need supporting details. You do not quote the lyrics once. Your descriptions of the album's sound are less than stellar and vaguer than your overall opinion. This "review" is nothing more than you rambling idly about your feelings on the album. Apparently your editorial staff encourage this. Great! I guess Roy Opochinski is now the official decreer of what is and is not good music. "midtempo with a nice beat"? If someone told you a song was "midtempo with a nice beat", would you be able to tell ANYTHING about it? Is this what redaers are expected to go by in determining whether or not to purchase an album???<BR> Akh, I digress. Your evaluation is your own, and your lack of writing ability and education is not my problem. Footnote this fact, Roy: I won't be recommending your website to a friend anytime soon.<BR> Have a foxy day! Rax the Vulpine, artiraxin@aol.com
Name: Roy Opochinski Responds
Subject: Re: It is true
-- Dec 7, 1999 at 3:37PM
okay, sort of lied. i'll reply to anita and again offer her the last word...
i agree that an artist needs to grow and mature and sometimes with growth comes growing pains.
one example that comes to mind (and i'll admit that it's a bit of a stretch) is the period Bruce Springsteen went through in the early 90s when he dumped his band and released 2 albums (Lucky Town and Human Touch). while there were a number of excellent songs from the two albums, the two albums come nowhere near approaching Springsteen's other albums. I've seen Springsteen live over 50 times, have every album (and half the bootleg shows) ever released, and do everything i can to convert new listeners to his music. but i'll admit when something he writes isn't up to par and i make a point of steering people towards his strengths.
maybe i expected too much from Sweet. while i don't expect or want him to recapture "Girlfriend" it's not disingenuous to say that i hope he's one of the people who can save pop music.
thanks to everyone for the fun discussion. i'll keep listening to the album. just because i didn't love doesn't mean that i don't listen to it. there's not a ton of stuff out there worth listening to. Matthew Sweet at his most inconsistent is still infinitely more worthy of repeated spinnings than anything by any of the shit teeny bands out there today.
Name: Roy Opochinski Responds
Subject: Re: In Reverse
-- Dec 7, 1999 at 3:27PM
I offer the following disclaimer to anyone who has read any of my reviews or who will read any reviews I write in the future.
The words that combine to form sentences that combine to form paragraphs that combine to form my reviews are words that express my opinions. Opinions. In the future, I'll footnote any facts.
Thanks for listening and Rax, thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify my position.
Name: Rax the Vulpine
Subject: In Reverse
-- Dec 7, 1999 at 1:11AM
OK... this is such a kind and friendly discussion! lemme throw in my two dollars... i'm too verbose to try to put it in terms of pennies. I personally found In Reverse to be a better album than Girlfriend. In an aesthtic, fannish (is that even a word) sense, i would defend that claw and fang to the death. BUT... while you may be a fan on the side, Roy, you are acting as a critic in this article. You did a good job of pointing out what you perceive as flaws in the work. I do not agree with you on most of the counts (and I must say, if that's what you think Millenium Blues is about, one of us is WAY off. I see it as leading thematically into Thunderstorm. The horns, "it's not about you anymore"... i could write an essay! in fact i did) but i digress... that's your call, and your article. Does "Worse To Live" sound like solo Phil Collins to you? fine! i'm not arguing. But I personally must voice my opinion that "Worse To Live" sounds absolutely nothing like any music by Phil Collins I have ever heard. I am not a big Collins fan, so I could be off the mark? I don't know. I have no problem with your review, or your opinions, i merely stand in dissension. could you have been a little more clear that this is your opinon and not "fact"? maybe, but hey, i'm twice as stubborn. THAT said... could you perhaps replace your editors?? if you're the new guy, you should get promoted fast. "Eventually we'll get around to listening to this new one"? The discussion here, sirs, is about the Matthew Sweet album In Reverse, not about how much you like Richard LLoyd or your assumptions about Vince's identity. I am listening to "the soporific 10 Percent Fun" at the moment, although I am considering tossing in some "Knowing People". And your corporate-sponsored website is hardly an example of the proletariat (learn to spell! you're supposed to be editors!) Roy, do me a favor and make these editors listen to "Write Your Own Song". If you haven't even listened to the album, what business do you have critiquing it? or does liking Altered Beast make you official Matthew Sweet Experts? I'm not afraid to put my name to this, unlike certain "Editors." Rax The Vulpine (Artiraxin Abak'lef Morgant) artiraxin@aol.com Flames WELCOME. and by the way, you can't outfox me.... don't bother.
Name: Linda
Subject: RE: Roy vs. Anita
-- Dec 7, 1999 at 1:08AM
I think that In Reverse is Matthew's greatest accomplishment to date. It is not Girlfriend II as I believe has already been established. But I want to stress that it also is NOT a backwards effort for Matthew in any way, shape, or form. It is a glorious achievement (with stones I might add) that does take some patient listening to truly appreciate the complexity and beauty of this album. Sure, some tracks are better than others (and that is wholly dependent upon the listener), but that can be said of any collection of songs from any artist.
It upsets me to see Matthew get constantly run into the ground for what people *think* he should have recorded instead - for what they wanted, expected, and/or hoped to hear. I admire him for writing what he wants to write. I know this has been said before, but Matthew has the talent and know-how to write the kind of "hits" that our airwaves are currently polluted with. Thank God that isn't what he wants. Integrity anyone?
How is his mastery of harmony, arrangement, emotion, and complete honesty lost on so many? How can anyone listen to one of his albums and not find something to relate to? He writes about life as most of us know it and live it. How do so many miss that? That is something I will never understand.
Roy, give the CD a few more spins. If you are the true fan you say you are, I think Matthew deserves that much from you. And, if you prefer music that is readily accessible and doesn't need time to "age," then I know of a few N'Sync records you might be interested in. :)
Name: The Editors Respond
Subject: Re: Curiosity&c
-- Dec 6, 1999 at 9:56PM
Okay, folks, let's not all pounce on Roy....he's still the new guy here.
We the editors always considered "Altered Beast" to be a better album than "Girlfriend" anyway, so maybe that should shut all o' youse up. Eventually we'll get around to listening to this new one, but once Mr. Sweet parted company with Richard Lloyd, much of the allure or Sweet's oevre seemed to vanish (as was made evident in the soporific "10 Percent Fun")
Anyhow, the real point we wanted to make on the matter is directed to the reader Vince, who quips:
"there's more to life than ditties (see the recent success of Rage Against Aesthetics, I mean Rage Against Melody, - oh,forget it"
We invite him to hit the Guy Movie Icon back to reviews to read our review of "The Battle of Los Angeles." Were we to rename the band it might be change to Rage Against Our Proliterean Boot Kicking Vince's Male White Corporate Oppressive Ass.
But thanks for the comments!!
Name: Vince
Subject: Curiosity&c
-- Dec 6, 1999 at 9:40PM
"Girlfriend" is an album more famous as what it wasn't (a platinum best seller) than what it was (the opening shot in the pop-revival revolution. It didn't make Matthew Sweet rich, or a household name. It DID kick down the door barricaded shut by the grunge and post-grunge scene in order to to breathe a little melody and a little sweetness into rock and roll.
I hope Emily (and I'm sure she speaks for many) won't let one review spoil the joy of "In Reverse" - every great record has songs on it that SOMEONE doesn't like.
So why spend your $15 at all? Because it's the best pop record for grown-ups this year. I agree with Roy that Sweet is THE master of the three-minute pop-rock song - but there's more to life than ditties (see the recent success of Rage Against Aesthetics, I mean Rage Against Melody, - oh,forget it).
The instant gratification of "Faith in You" and "Split Personality" are self-evident, but many of the songs on "In Reverse" ALSO reward patient listening (For example,"Millenium Blues" is not as vapid and simple as anyone thinks it is upon a first listen). Sweet's songs are almost never as simple as they seem (see "Girlfriend")...
Name: Anita
Subject: It is true
-- Dec 6, 1999 at 8:31PM
When it comes to the music of Matthew Sweet, I can't agree with negative reviews...they all seem to be using his back catalog to rate him (not as good as Girlfriend, etc). I certainly feel calling you a hack was a lot nicer than using Phil Collins and Chris Gaines in your review - two names that are NOT to be connected to Matthew Sweet.
I stand by my previous assertions. Overwhelmingly, your review was negative - saying he is at his best when he does 3 minute pop songs is like saying he should stick to Girlfriend material(Roy, examine you subconscious...it IS what you want from him).
I vehmently disagree that this album won't woo new fans. IN FACT, I know of 3 people I personally converted to Matthew's music by giving them this album.
You and I will have to agree to disagree about what constitutes a true fan. I myself have never heard a Matthew Sweet song I didn't like. I have a web site and fanzine devoted to Matthew Sweet. I enjoy his music live in concert and while listening to tapes in my car. I try to promote his music whenever I can. If I said someone must do all that to be a true fan, would't you feel that was an unfair standard?
I don't think a "true fan" needs to do all that...but certainly, a true fan would allow an artist to grow and mature. What you have done was basically hold him to an impossible yardstick - he can't save pop music single-handedly, nor can he recapture that moment in time when in between a divorce and a new romance, he wrote some cool love songs.
That's all I have to say.
Name: Roy Opochinski Responds
Subject: Re: I Did Read It Roy
-- Dec 6, 1999 at 8:01PM
I read some of those same reviews. I'm sorry I didn't agree. There's nothing I like more than promoting my _favorite_ artists (Sweet being one of them), especially those artists that I think do not generally get the attention they deserve. I couldn't do that here. But I respect the opinions of those other writers. I don't go around calling them hacks because I don't agree with them.
I've learned that and try to go in with an open mind. I had a tough time writing this review (as Jordan can attest) because I do like Sweet so much. I don't like artists who repeat or mimic their past glories. The last thing I was looking for was Girlfriend II.
Perhaps because the dearth of good music out there, I am holding Sweet up to an unfair standard.
As for your comment about "trashing an artist" (which I don't think I did--I think I called the album an inconsistent mess) and still calling oneself a "big fan", I think you're totally wrong.
A true fan of someone's music can admit when the new album hasn't reached the artist's potential.
Not liking a particular album doesn't make me any less of a fan. I think that my review notes that there are a number of outstanding tracks on the album and I even wrote in my review that Sweet is at his best when he writes three-minute pop songs like he does on “Write Your Own Song.” Ironically, I thought that was a phenomenal song.
I'm glad Matthew Sweet doesn't listen to people like me. I hope that he follows his muse and continues to put out great albums.
Unfortunately, Anita, you come off as someone who only accepts positive feedback about one of her favorite artists and anyone who writes anything negative is a hack.
As a fan of Sweet I'd hesitate to recommend this album to someone unfamiliar with his catalog. I don't think this album would encourage a new listener to buy his back catalog and that's the last thing I want to do.
The way I heard the album (and what I wrote in the review that you claim to have read) is that when he sticks to hard-charging pop songs on "In Reverse," this is ONE OF THE MOST ENTERTAINING ALBUMS OF THE YEAR. I just didn't like the Phil Collins songs. I'm sorry that I thought that experiment wasn't as successful as the rest of the album. That doesn't sound like a slam of the album.
We're all entitled to our opinions and I hope you respect mine as much as I respect yours. Feel free to reply.
I think I'm going to end the conversation right here, though, with the disclaimer that this is my opinion and my opinion only.
Name: Anita
Subject: I Did Read It Roy
-- Dec 6, 1999 at 7:30PM
Roy, I have read some VERY glowing reviews of this album from Wall of Sound, Uncut, Rolling Stone, etc...I don't consider these "kissy-face reviews for some ass-kissing sycophants." I consider them legitimate, right-on examinations of this great album. I did read your entire review...and my opinion is that you put it on your player with a preconceived notion of what you expected (Girlfriend II) and wrote this review feeling the album was inferior because it wasn't what you expected at all...but a bold experiment. You are holding him up to an unfair standard...had he kept the same sound and attitude and guitar licks he had in Girlfriend, he would be stagnant, boring, and uninventive. A true musician does not recycle old gimmics/thoughts/ideas over and over again. I am saddened that your review turned away one potential fan from buying this album. I am sorry that you haven't a clue about what a "big fan" is either...you cannot trash an artist so thoroughly and call yourself a "big fan." THANK GOD Matthew doesn't listen to people like you, who would love for him to remain stuck forever in '91. BTW...please listen to "Write Your Own Song" a few more times; I think you'll get the message.
Name: Roy Opochinski Responds
Subject: Re: Bad Review
-- Dec 6, 1999 at 5:55PM
But to give Anita credit, at least she got the part about me being a no-talent hack right. It's a shame she didn't read the rest of my review.
Name: Roy Opochinski Responds
Subject: Re: Bad Review
-- Dec 6, 1999 at 5:51PM
i so enjoy name-calling. Matthew Sweet is one of the few great singer/songwriters. which is why I was disappointed by the inconsistent nature of this album. Sweet has come a long way since his "Girlfriend" days and on subsequent albums, I've always been entertained by his talents. I just think that on this outing, he has an album with a few excellent songs--something i mentioned in the review--and a bunch of duds--challenging, engrossing duds, but duds nonetheless.
As for the issue of respect, I respect his work a great deal. I own all his stuff and am a big fan--which is what disappointed me even more about this album.
This album won't stop me from buying his next album the day it comes out.
If you were looking for a kissy-face review from some ass-kissing sycophant, you've come to the wrong place. But if you're looking for an opinion from someone who owns all his stuff and has seen him live a bunch of times, you got it.
Simply put, I was disappointed when I know he can do so much better.
And if you're looking for a new album that captures the best elements of the Beach Boys and Phil Spector (on certain songs) check out the new Smithereens disc.
Name: Anita
Subject: Bad Review
-- Dec 6, 1999 at 3:20AM
I don't think it's fair to diss this brilliant album because it isn't "Girlfriend." This reviewer isn't taking into the fact that Matthew Sweet has evolved and challenged himself constantly as an artist. "In Reverse" captures the best elements of the Beach Boys and Phil Spector, back when a well-constructed pop song wasn't a rare bird. Matthew Sweet is one of the true musicians we have left, a great singer/songwriter. He deserves more respect than he gets from hacks like you, Roy.
Name: Emily
Subject: Curiosity Won't Kill this Cat
-- Oct 25, 1999 at 7:04PM
I must admit that hearing about a new Matthew Sweet album renewed my curiosity about the boy. So here I was wondering what Matthew-dear has done with his sound 8 years after "Girlfriend." From this review it sounds like it's not worth the 15 bucks to satisfy my curiosity assuming I'd probably find out that "Girlfriend" of 1991 still is the only Matthew Sweet album I really need.
|
