The Syndicate

My rating for this album stays solid at 4.5 stars. I love it. It's better than nearly all other music. But it's not 5.0 stars because that's what Together Alone is.

Random sidenote: This album was released the year I was born.

Also, every time I get disappointed when a Crowded House album ends, I just sing to myself HEY NOW, HEY NOW, DON'T DREAM IT'S OVER!

Oh, and I'll take the Finn brothers over The Beatles any day. I know that's blasphemy to many, but that's an easy choice for me. I believe Neil Finn perfected the pop rock sensibilities that Paul McCartney popularized; I emotionally connect with Finn's songwriting much more easily than McCartney's. But I can't speak as someone who really ever developed a serious musical relationship with any Beatles material besides maybe The White Album (which I gave 4.0 stars). I agree with Jay; this is virtuoso songwriting right here. It's just an album full of incredibly well crafted pop rock songs, but I've never heard anyone do that better than the Finn brothers for my taste. It's a shame that Crowded House is so overlooked.

I was wondering why you picked Woodface over Together Alone, Jay, but your reasoning is fair. This is an incredibly solid album nonetheless and I think you chose a good one. It's hard for me to say because I started with Together Alone, became familiar with that record, and then went backward to Woodface and the others after I had only spun them like one time previously. But they're both absolutely outstanding.

But yeah, this was a very enjoyable musical outing. This is a really great album. Thanks much, Jay, not so much for picking this album (because I was already familiar with it, though hopefully others discover it and fall in love it as well) but for being an significant influence in my previous development with it. I had heard Together Alone years ago when I was firmly in my prog-only phase, because I recall a user on PA forums was recommending Split Enz, but it didn't make a huge impression on me then despite being enjoyable. I tried it again a handful of years later, starting getting into it much more, then got talking about CH with Jay, who promptly recommended I check out Woodface and their other albums. Ever since then, I've fell increasingly in musical love with anything Finn-related, but Woodface and Together Alone are still my favorites. So thanks, Jay, I really appreciate your prodding to get me to (re)discover CH.

I'll stop spamming and get back to work now. Lol. Hope you all enjoy it too.

I haven't listened to it yet but reading what's been posted jogged my memory of some things. Though I am familiar with the name Crowded House, I couldn't put a song to the band's name. Unfortunately, that's a common problem for me and 80s music. Nice to put two and two together with "Don't Dream It's Over."

That being said, I was surprised to learn that some of the band were in Split Enz as well. I am much more familiar with Split Enz because my dad was a punk/new waver. He has a couple of their albums, including True Colours. Dad's copy feature laser etching, which was apparently only done on a few records back then, though I don't know if that means it's worth anything.

So yeah, this should be an interesting listen for me given my indirect exposure to some of Crowded House's members.

Golden wrote:Well here's something odd....

Jays YouTube link is geoblocked lol.

It's blocked in the country of origin?

I'll see if I can find a workaround. That's lame.

MovingPictures07 wrote:I remember reading somewhere Neil Finn expressing regret re: "Chocolate Cake" as this album's opener, and I think even as a song in general.

Many people believe that Crowded House's failure to stick in the US was a direct result of Chocolate Cake being the first single on Woodface. The lyrics poke fun at American [over]indulgence and some people apparently didn't appreciate the joke.

For Golden and anyone else having difficulties, here is a track-by-track presentation instead of the geoblocked playlist. Lemme know if there are issues with these:

"Chocolate Cake" "It's Only Natural" "Fall at Your Feet" "Tall Trees" "Weather With You"
The studio version is not on YouTube anywhere else, here's an alternative

"Whispers and Moans" "Four Seasons in One Day" "There Goes God" "Fame Is" -- Unfortunately I cannot find another studio version. This is live, and more subdued. "All I Ask" "As Sure As I Am" "Italian Plastic" "She Goes On" "How Will You Go" [plus hidden track "I'm Still Here"]

A note about the songwriting: Neil Finn is the name you've seen a few times in this discussion as the lead songwriter. He wrote 13 of the 14 tracks on Woodface. The exception is "Italian Plastic", which was written by Paul Hester the drummer.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:I remember reading somewhere Neil Finn expressing regret re: "Chocolate Cake" as this album's opener, and I think even as a song in general.

Many people believe that Crowded House's failure to stick in the US was a direct result of Chocolate Cake being the first single on Woodface. The lyrics poke fun at American [over]indulgence and some people apparently didn't appreciate the joke.

If that's accurate, it's kind of interesting that our most recent international star (Lorde) wrote a song about the exact same thing that was at number one for a while.

This is the kind of music that my parents listen to, so I've actually heard a few of these before. The first few tracks were engaging and I didn't really want to do much else besides sit there and listen, but that feeling started to go away towards the second half. Still, it was great background noise so I give it a thumbs up overall.

Quin wrote:it was great background noise so I give it a thumbs up overall.

I cannot understate how overjoyed I am that Quin is participating in this exericse

I'm just talking out of my ass.

Hm, so I had a first listen but I wasn't very attentive/it was in the background so I can't really say much until I listen again. I suppose I enjoyed some of what I heard and they do seem to have some really lovely ballad-ish melodies -- "Fall At Your Feet" is pretty much the only track that stood out to me during my inattentive first listen, and I also separately listened to "Don't Dream It's Over" (which I don't even think I recognized despite it being apparently their most well-known). I get the impression I've somehow completely missed out on a huge musical institution with a lot of material that a lot of people are familiar with/emotionally connected to, and I'm kind of simultaneously overwhelmed by that and yet so far I-don't-want-to-say-underwhelmed-but-not-particularly-whelmed by what I've heard, it just felt like pretty standard pop rock. That's not a bad thing at all though, it just doesn't really stick out to me as particularly unique, but I do appreciate the songwriting talent that a couple of you have pointed out. I look forward to hearing it again.


On another note, I think I've submitted all my Rico-scale rankings for previous weeks, but I'll try to summarize the way MP did. Even though it feels weird to rank these albums with such varying genres. It seems the lowest I feel capable of giving is 3.0 because I take the description "worth a listen" quite literally and something has to be really really bad for me to not consider it at least worth one listen. I was almost tempted to rank Chuck Berry lower because I found it pretty boring all things considered, but taken in context I really appreciate its influence and I definitely enjoy a lot of the then-innovative guitar work on it. But, it does feel like I should rank it somewhat lower than my other 3.0s (Bish Bosch and Crazy World) because I definitely enjoyed them significantly more than it. So with that in mind here's my attempt at an order:

Beneath the Brine - 10/10 or 5 stars
World Music - 7.5/10 or 3.75 (if it must be in .5s then 3.5)
98.12.28 Otokotachi no Wakare - 7/10 or 3.5
Bish Bosch - 6/10 or 3.0
The Crazy World of Arthur Brown - 6/10 or 3.0
Chuck Berry is On Top - 5.5/10 or 2.75

Some of these could be higher, some could be lower, idk I'm just incapable of ranking things lower than 5/10 unless they're really really really bad, that's just how I am

Ok I'm enjoying it a lot more on second listen, and I understand more of how JJJ described what he sees in it. Awesome songwriting indeed. Very pleasant listening, might end up as 4 stars and I'll probably also check out Together Alone as well since you guys mentioned it was good.

Together Alone is my favorite album in music period. I'd certainly recommend it to anyone who enjoys Woodface. It's a bit more conceptual and a bit less accessible, but the general aesthetic is still there.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:I remember reading somewhere Neil Finn expressing regret re: "Chocolate Cake" as this album's opener, and I think even as a song in general.

Many people believe that Crowded House's failure to stick in the US was a direct result of Chocolate Cake being the first single on Woodface. The lyrics poke fun at American [over]indulgence and some people apparently didn't appreciate the joke.

Pffft, not being able to take a joke. Americans.

nutella, your concerns regarding rating are reasonable, I think. I haven't given any of the albums we've listened to less than 3.0 myself just because I don't feel any of them have been remotely "bad" either, or even totally boring. Off the top of my head I'd characterize my approach to the rating scale as follows:

5.0 -- perfection, the highest connection I can achieve with music, top 10-20 or so albums ever
4.5 -- mindblowing, very solid connection, still definitely rare, but I'm just not quite as intimate with these as I am my 5.0's
4.0 -- favorite, an important release to me
3.5 -- thoroughly enjoyable and solid, not even necessarily a flawed album per se, but I couldn't comfortably call it a "favorite"
3.0 -- OK, sometimes these have enjoyable portions mixed with boring or occasionally unenjoyable stuff, sometimes just OK throughout
2.5 -- completely boring and/or inoffensive, I was probably playing with a pen while listening, total lack of connection
2.0 -- worse than boring, at least somewhat actively bad or repulsive in some way
1.5 -- pretty freaking bad
1.0 -- extremely cringeworthy
0.5 -- anti-music, chop my ears off now please

The descriptions can change, but you get the general idea. So going into listening to something new I'd say my barometer starts in the 3.0-3.5 range usually, then my rating can ascend or descend if the music warrants it. Since I've started rating music a couple months ago, my RYM user stats currently say I give 3.0-3.5 ratings a combined 55% of the time. I think that's reasonable. It should theoretically increase too as I continue to listen to the rest of my music collection; I largely frontloaded a lot of my favorite music to rate first. And pretty sure Jay's 3.0-3.5 rating percentage is even much higher. It's probably 95% or more.

I'd say I only give an album 2.5 if it just completely inspires no reaction out of me, so while my feelings on Chuck Berry were very similar to yours, even slight enjoyment/appreciation I got out of two tracks made me feel OK about awarding it a "light" 3.0, but if we were drilling down further and using .25/.75 increments as well, I'd probably give it a 2.75 too.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Together Alone is my favorite album in music period. I'd certainly recommend it to anyone who enjoys Woodface. It's a bit more conceptual and a bit less accessible, but the general aesthetic is still there.

I couldn't name an all-time favorite single album.

With that said, I'd without hesitation say Together Alone is a top 15-20 album though and absolutely worthy of the 5.0-star rating. I'd comfortably consider it for top 10 as well, but I really have no idea which albums would make it, so I couldn't guarantee it would make it due to stiff competition from my other 5.0 albums.

Alex your rating system is kind of weird and explains why your ratings all skew so high... for me (and I would hazard most reviewers, eg it's the standard we used on PA and MMA), 3* is a good album worth revisiting regularly

I've listened twice now. The first track is pretty dated thanks to the lyrics but overall the album is pleasant. Nothing's gripped me yet but the week is still young.

triceratopzeuhl wrote:Alex your rating system is kind of weird and explains why your ratings all skew so high... for me (and I would hazard most reviewers, eg it's the standard we used on PA and MMA), 3* is a good album worth revisiting regularly

You think my ratings skew high? Weird. It makes intuitive sense to me; I think of it like a number line, and each 0.5 step away in either direction is roughly equal.

Let me explain:

2.5 would be right smack dab in the middle, "average", inspiring no real emotion. On a number line, I think of 2.5 as "0". Everything less than a 2.5 rating goes to the left of the number line (negative numbers); more than 2.5 goes to the right (positive numbers).

Hence:
- Then 3.0 and 2.0 are steps away from the center (2.5) in the "good" and "bad" direction respectively.
- 3.5 and 1.5 are further steps away.
- 4.0 and 1.0 are even further.
- 4.5 and 0.5 are even further.

That just leaves 5.0 for my very special albums. There is no counterpoint for 0.0.

As a result, I find it strange you'd say I skew high; if anything, I would think someone would complain that I skew low, given I seem to have more lower ratings than most of my friends on RYM. I think the way I approach it makes the most sense though. Why would I have more nuanced rankings for stuff I like versus stuff I don't like? That would be the case if I considered 3.0 solidly "good" like you seem to be implying that I should. So what am I missing?

To add to that, perhaps I didn't effectively communicate the way I view 3.0-star ratings. I don't think these albums are typically boring at all. They may have a boring few minutes or a track or two I don't like, or half the album could be mediocre but I really enjoy the other half. They just usually aren't very enjoyable all throughout. I still enjoy them well enough. Otherwise, I can't fathom where our disagreement in perspective is coming from.

I don't think it's this though, considering based on what you said, you seem to think I'm off by 0.5. But if anything, I think I'm skewed slightly low by 0.5 because there is no 0.0 rating. So consider me confused.

G-Man wrote:I've listened twice now. The first track is pretty dated thanks to the lyrics but overall the album is pleasant. Nothing's gripped me yet but the week is still young.

Yeah I have no idea who Tammy Baker is, but apparently she likes cake.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

G-Man wrote:I've listened twice now. The first track is pretty dated thanks to the lyrics but overall the album is pleasant. Nothing's gripped me yet but the week is still young.

Yeah I have no idea who Tammy Baker is, but apparently she likes cake.

Shoot. You just made me feel old. Jerk.

Tammy Faye Bakker was the wife of televangelist and huckster Jim Bakker. They made millions selling their brand of Christianity and lived large. She had big hair. In the 80s, the more hairspray you used, the more powerful your connection was to Gawd, praise Jeez-us!

I'm with trice... you skew high. i'd put 'average' at probably 1.5 stars... it's the only way I create a meaningful range to distinguish between different levels of good things. Putting it at 50% is an artificial thing we learn from that being the pass/fail mark at school.

Golden wrote:I'm with trice... you skew high. i'd put 'average' at probably 1.5 stars... it's the only way I create a meaningful range to distinguish between different levels of good things. Putting it at 50% is an artificial thing we learn from that being the pass/fail mark at school.

You all are crazy.

That's not right to me at all. I don't need to be able to differentiate that much between only the good stuff; if I did, I would just use a 100-point scale with my 4.5-5.0 star range going from 9.0, 9.1, 9.2, ..., 10.0, so I could differentiate more between all the good and bad stuff simultaneously.

And I can't stand the idea of one range (good vs. bad) being more uneven than the other.

Why not, when there isn't an even spread of what you consider good and bad?

Seriously, Golden, you can rate however you want, but that's insane.

Think about it this way. If I asked you how your day is going on a scale of 1-10, and you told me "2" or "1.5" even, I would think, "Wow, he must be having a really bad day!"

Never in a million years would I equate "1.5" with average.

Golden wrote:Why not, when there isn't an even spread of what you consider good and bad?

It's not natural and doesn't have any remote pretense of symmetry. I don't choose my rating scale in accordance with making a bell curve; I set the rating scale in advance, then stuff falls however it falls.

If that means I have 1,000 3.5-star albums and only 2 1.5-star albums, so be it. That's how it should be rated IMO.

True, but there's no problem saying 55% of my days are the same! I'm not ranking them. It feels like you are giving yourself an artificially small range in which you're actually going to rank most albums

Yawn.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Golden wrote:Why not, when there isn't an even spread of what you consider good and bad?

It's not natural and doesn't have any remote pretense of symmetry. I don't choose my rating scale in accordance with making a bell curve; I set the rating scale in advance, then stuff falls however it falls.

If that means I have 1,000 3.5-star albums and only 2 1.5-star albums, so be it. That's how it should be rated IMO.

Haha you are a product of your sphere of expertise!

It's funny to me that you can't imagine using a ranking scale without symmetry but it doesn't bother you that things don't end up in a bell curve. We're just picking different places in which to create our symmetry.

Golden wrote:True, but there's no problem saying 55% of my days are the same! I'm not ranking them. It feels like you are giving yourself an artificially small range in which you're actually going to rank most albums

I guess that's the difference in our perspective. I'm not ranking my albums either; I'm just rating them. I'm just saying to myself every time I listen to something, "On a scale of 0.5-5.0 (1-10), how would you rate this thing?", just like I'd ask you how your day was.

And yeah, like I said, there's some clustering. I have 55% of albums so far between 3.0-3.5, but that's to be expected. I don't love/hate most albums.

I just think it's completely unnatural to rate on a scale like you're proposing. But by all means, more power to you for having more nuanced ratings I suppose. It's the opposite of intuitive for my taste.

Epignosis wrote:Yawn.

About the music or the conversation?

Because if it's the former...

Golden wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Golden wrote:Why not, when there isn't an even spread of what you consider good and bad?

It's not natural and doesn't have any remote pretense of symmetry. I don't choose my rating scale in accordance with making a bell curve; I set the rating scale in advance, then stuff falls however it falls.

If that means I have 1,000 3.5-star albums and only 2 1.5-star albums, so be it. That's how it should be rated IMO.

Haha you are a product of your sphere of expertise!

It's funny to me that you can't imagine using a ranking scale without symmetry but it doesn't bother you that things don't end up in a bell curve. We're just picking different places in which to create our symmetry.

You joke, but honestly that probably does influence my perspective.

Because as an auditor I had to make risk assessments, typically on a 5-point scale (but depending on what I was assessing, it could be more nuanced than that).

It doesn't bother me that things don't end up in a bell curve, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't want one. And I'd say I have a nice little curve going myself, so it's win-win.

Only in this conversation did I realise that in a scale between 0-5, 3 is not the middle ground.

I gave Chuck Berry a 4. I also changed The Family Crest to 4 and Goat to 3.5.

Sorry to be a pain in the ass.

Quin wrote:Only in this conversation did I realise that in a scale between 0-5, 3 is not the middle ground.

practically every 5 star system is 1-5 not 0-5

I think I'm going to have to join this Rate Your Music thing and set you all straight.

Running a rating listen on Woodface. We'll see how it shakes out the first time through grading it.

G-Man wrote:I think I'm going to have to join this Rate Your Music thing and set you all straight.

Running a rating listen on Woodface. We'll see how it shakes out the first time through grading it.

YES, DO IT. I'll add you as a friend.

One of the most hard-ass and hard-core reviews I follow on RYM (mostly anything besides atonal contemporary music and Morrissey is banished to the Land of Suck) expresses his rating system in philosphers and whisky.

5.0 foucault / laphroaig
4.5 adorno / lagavulin
4.0 levi-strauss / ardbeg
3.5 freud / talisker
3.0 bourdieu / macallan
2.5 zizek / balvenie
2.0 popper / highland park
1.5 bauman / glenmorangie
1.0 habermas / caol ila
0.5 baudrillard / glenfiddich

Ricochet wrote:One of the most hard-ass and hard-core reviews I follow on RYM (mostly anything besides atonal contemporary music and Morrissey is banished to the Land of Suck) expresses his rating system in philosphers and whisky.

5.0 foucault / laphroaig
4.5 adorno / lagavulin
4.0 levi-strauss / ardbeg
3.5 freud / talisker
3.0 bourdieu / macallan
2.5 zizek / balvenie
2.0 popper / highland park
1.5 bauman / glenmorangie
1.0 habermas / caol ila
0.5 baudrillard / glenfiddich

Lol, who is this? I love seeing all the unique rating tags that everyone develops. I had legitimate descriptions for a while but recently changed mine to academia positions.

Ricochet wrote:One of the most hard-ass and hard-core reviews I follow on RYM (mostly anything besides atonal contemporary music and Morrissey is banished to the Land of Suck) expresses his rating system in philosphers and whisky.

5.0 foucault / laphroaig
4.5 adorno / lagavulin
4.0 levi-strauss / ardbeg
3.5 freud / talisker
3.0 bourdieu / macallan
2.5 zizek / balvenie
2.0 popper / highland park
1.5 bauman / glenmorangie
1.0 habermas / caol ila
0.5 baudrillard / glenfiddich

>zizek is 2.5
>baudrillard is .5
ok

ardbeg is obviously better than lagavulin

I don't care about philosophers but Freud at anything other than 0 can't be right

This is a weird way to describe this but please don't be offended. The majority of these songs sound like the kind of music you hear on someone's stereo or during the emotional build-up in a romantic comedy, particularly 90s romantic comedies that were still trying to be hip and not just shamelessly corny or take themselves too seriously.

It's pretty music, no denying that. I wasn't indifferent to a single track but I also didn't hear anything I would call a great song. There are a few standouts but nothing smashes through like the Kool-Aid Man.

I understand, G-Man. I think that's just how it goes especially with pop music. To some people it is going to sound rather ordinary, and even though I don't feel that way at all -- I completely see how it could sound that way to other people. Music tastes are bizarrely arbitrary.

I just appreciate y'all giving the album a listen. I know it won't affect most people the same way it has affected me.

For your ratings thing, Rico, I give Woodface a 4.5.

Does that make me the first person to submit an album that I wouldn't give a 5?

I am a bigger hardass about 5-star ratings than almost everyone alive.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:For your ratings thing, Rico, I give Woodface a 4.5.

Does that make me the first person to submit an album that I wouldn't give a 5?

I am a bigger hardass about 5-star ratings than almost everyone alive.

I only gave Chuck Berry a 4.5 out of 5, so you're in good company.

I'm not sure what I could submit that I'd give a 5. I'll have to think about it.

I can think of maybe two albums that I can say I'd give a 5/5 without question. A true 5/5 ought to be extremely rare.

My perspective of rating definition is closer to MP's. I perceive the scale to be balanced from worst to best, with the "midpoint of average" being invisible at 2.75.
The ratings don't slant high because of my definition. They slant high because I listen to music I expect to like. I'm usually correct.