Review: 21334 Jazz Quartet
Posted by MeganL,
As a jazz aficionado, I was very much looking forward to 21334 Jazz Quartet, the latest entry in the LEGO Ideas line. I'll admit to having mixed feelings when I saw the final version, since I thought the original submission was so excellent.
My reservations were allayed somewhat when I saw that Justin Ramsden and Ollie Gregory were the designers for the project, so I was interested to see what building techniques were in store, and if my feelings would change during the build process.
Summary
21334 Jazz Quartet, 1,606 pieces.
£89.99 / $99.99 / €99.99 | 5.6p/6.2c/6.2c per piece.
Buy at LEGO.com »
A lovely ode to the jazz era - the build is as rewarding as the display
- Attractive display piece
- Advanced building techniques
- Largely faithful to original submission
- Distracting grey ball joints
- Limited articulation of figures
The set was provided for review by LEGO. All opinions expressed are those of the author.
The set is based on this original submission by Hsinwei Chi. I loved the look of this set as soon as I saw it, so was thrilled to see it selected to be made into an official set.
There were some comments along the line that the official set lost the "feel" of a jazz club. I agreed with that somewhat; to me, it was all around the stance of the trumpet player. I thought the bass player and drummer were quite similar, and of course the pianist has been changed. I really like that the designers added a female pianist, it immediately gave me Nina Simone/Hazel Scott vibes.
On opening the box there are 11 numbered bags, two 16x16 black plates, and a folder with the instruction books inside. There were sample pages printed on the outside of the folder; it's the first I'd seen that. There are five booklets inside the folder. Four of them were dedicated to instructions - one for each musician - so four builders can build concurrently. The fifth booklet is an introduction booklet and has some information on jazz, the fan designer and the LEGO designers.
I don't usually post pictures of instructions books, but the artwork on these is awesome.
Trumpet player
The set is build in modular fashion with each musician having part of stage. All four pieces connect together after building. The trumpet player has a small portion of the stage as well as the steps leading up to it. He's clothed similarly to the original submission, though he is facing the opposite direction in the set.
The straight leg of the trumpet player is the only part of him that's anchored to the stage. In the original submission this leg is quite thin. The leg is anchored below the stage level, that provides a very sturdy anchor for the rest of the body. I found while building that the leg was pretty fragile until clipping in place, so I can see why this had to be reinforced for the set, even though it meant the leg looks a little more blocky.
The other aspect of the trumpet player that had bothered me was the angle of his torso - he seemed to be leaning back farther in the original submission. While hinge joints are used throughout the body, you can't really lean the trumpet player back further - the pieces that make up his butt get in the way.
I do like that the designers were able to keep the overall posture and lifted leg of the trumpet player. There are fantastic building techniques throughout the build, but for the trumpet player the construction of the legs was the most interesting to me.
Bass player
The bass player is closer to the original submission. It's in this musician where my biggest peeve about the set makes its first appearance - and that's the grey ball joints. I understand that there are technical reasons why LEGO doesn't use other colours for the ball joints - but I'll still mention it anyway. The original submission doesn't have a ball joint in sight, and it's jarring to see them here.
Regardless, I like the bow tie on the bass player, and the double bass itself is a great build. While the ball joints allow for more articulation, having the double bass in there still limits the arm poses that look realistic for playing. For the bass player, I think the attitude is all in the tilt of the head, which is easy to change on this model.
The bass is locked onto the stage with - what else - a grey ball joint. Here's a look at the bass player on his own.
Drummer
The drummer has had his drum kit augmented in the set, and it looks great. I found this portion of the set to be more fiddly, mostly because of the stands required for the cymbals and the drummer's stool.
The drummer is connected to the stool, which is then connected to the stage by a single stud. Even with the articulated legs, it was a challenge to get the drummer seated and have both feet on pedals. Even in this picture you can see the stool leaning back a tiny bit.
That being said, I appreciate the care taken in making sure the drum kit is accurate.
There's some more articulation with the drummer - he can twist mid-torso, so as to reach to his right more easily.
And here he is without the drum. I love the detail around his feet with white socks and striped shoes. But those grey ball joints make another appearance.
Even with the fiddly bits, this part of the build was enjoyable, and I love how the designers have come up with different ways to build people at Miniland scale.
Pianist
The biggest change to the original submission was making the jazz pianist a woman. Her posture is significantly different to the original musician - he was learning into the keyboard. Many jazz pianists (such as Nina Simone) are vocalists, so I'm envisioning this pianist leaning back and giving her all while singing.
It's not overly clear in this picture, but the recent printed tiles with piano keys are used here. Both the grand piano and the pianist are excellent building experiences.
I particularly like the techniques used to build the pianist's head. If only it wasn't a grey ball joint used as a connection....
There are some nice details included inside the piano.
The pianist on her own is a lovely build - love her hair and headpiece. Because of the structure of her body there are not a lot of options for posing as if she's playing.
All four parts of the model connect together, but don't click, so care has to be taken if moving the final model. Move the four pieces independently, and not together, or else you hazard dropping one of them mid-transport (don't ask me how I know this).
Overall thoughts
I think this is a great display set, coupled with a great building experience. It's an advanced build for sure, with plenty of interesting building techniques and lots of novel parts usage. I've refrained from talking about the specific techniques as I don't want to spoil the experience for you.
It's natural when an Ideas set comes out to focus on the changes that were made. Having built the set, I can see why the changes were made and think the overall product fits the style and ambiance of the original submission. I still wish there was another option to the grey ball joints, though.
I've often mentioned the instructional designers before, but I think they're worth another mention on this set. So much of what we love about LEGO sets is because of the build experience, and the instructional designers are key to that. They're not listed in the booklet, but they've done an outstanding job of making a challenging build fun. I'd rank the building experience among the most enjoyable I've had over the last few years. Also, props to the graphic artist for the phenomenal artwork on the booklet covers.
The end result is fantastic on display. It wouldn't look out of place in one's living room, for instance.
What do you think? Will you be buying the Jazz Quartet? Let us know in the comments.
174 likes
83 comments on this article
It is interesting as a model but clearly not for me.
Looks wonderful. Thank you for detailed review!
Do sloths swing to jazz music?
I am definitely planning to get this one. I will probably queue up some jazz while I build it, as I'm a huge jazz fan. I love the piano player's earrings and the use of the game controller element as the bass player's bow tie.
To be honest - this is one of these rare cases when the original submission looks better for me than the official set. I feel the submission model looks lighter and has more of a musical/ jazz vibes, it's style reminds me of some old comic graphics while the actual set is just blocky...
The exquisite poses of the musicians in the original submission conveyed so much emotion and information, but that has been lost in the final model, which is unfortunate.
Very sweet. I prefer the design of the trumpet player in the original submission, but in other areas the set improves on the original; I’m not sure which I prefer overall, but both are really sweet. I’m not sure yet, but I might get this.
I do think that if I get this and put it on permanent display, I’ll have to put at least one of those gorgeous instruction booklets in a frame to accompany the set. That’s a new idea for me, but I just don’t remember seeing instructions that were such lovely art in and of themselves before. They could easily make a print of that instructions cover art and offer it as a VIP reward or something.
@shedjed said:
"Do sloths swing to jazz music?"
They do, but a picture of them peeking out of the piano got cut in my final edit :-)
> I understand that there are technical reasons why LEGO doesn't use other colours for the ball joints - but I'll still mention it anyway.
What is the technical reason for this?
Yes, I will buy it, ours being a family of jazz players. Father played a great Armstrong-like trumpet, so it'll be a great way to remember him.
Totally agree with the grey ball-joint issue, but a yet more serious problem is the overall feel of the set. Albeit doing a great job, LEGO designers have not been able to deliver the "club" feel of the original rendition. Hsinwei Chi's work made the set move and sound and play as if the players were alive, interacting with one another, playing "in the pocket". With all due respect for a wonderful job from Justin and Ollie, the set doesn't swing like the original. But - hey - first day buy for me, no doubts.
EDIT Looking at the floor, I find the original brown hardwood much more stylish than the light-yellow one.
I have to agree with Huw. Definitely some feel of the original lost in translation. I am a pianist and really appreciate that build - but it alone isn't worth the price.
This final product seems too clinical. Great build techniques in service of a bland design doesn't make a good set.
Having recently build the original trumpet player, I can now understand the changes they made.
The original can fall over by breathing in its direction.
So I would have liked to get this in support of more interesting Ideas sets like this one.
But the tan stage is a dealbreaker for me.
@IgelCampus said:
"> I understand that there are technical reasons why LEGO doesn't use other colours for the ball joints - but I'll still mention it anyway.
What is the technical reason for this?"
I believe some colours of plastic don’t provide the clutch (?) needed for this type of ball joint. Grey is the best, so it’s the only one they use.
The instruction booklet artwork is excellent! Thank you for posting an image of that.
Great review!
Nice set, nice review.
I don’t mind the other changes but it baffles me why they changed the color of the stage. The darker brown looked sooo much better
As a trumpet player, and music teacher, there is something.....off about the trumpet player's hand positioning. It almost looks like he's holding the instrument between his forearms.
I understand that stability of the set is important but the original really looks better. I don't mind the change in the pianist. Also, this is not a play set, so why the excessive use of ball joints?
@dingbat591 said:
"Yes, I will buy it, ours being a family of jazz players. Father played a great Armstrong-like trumpet, so it'll be a great way to remember him.
Totally agree with the grey ball-joint issue, but a yet more serious problem is the overall feel of the set. Albeit doing a great job, LEGO designers have not been able to deliver the "club" feel of the original rendition. Hsinwei Chi's work made the set move and sound and play as if the players were alive, interacting with one another, playing "in the pocket". With all due respect for a wonderful job from Justin and Ollie, the set doesn't swing like the original. But - hey - first day buy for me, no doubts.
EDIT Looking at the floor, I find the original brown hardwood much more stylish than the light-yellow one."
You seemed to imply that your father is no longer with you, Rest In Peace if that’s the case. :(
The set looks great and it provides substantial value for the price but my lack of interest in sets not designed for play or Minifigure scale stays unchanged. I love the build of the pianist and might try something similar with the help of the instructions and Rebrickable.
Would be nice to see a photo of the final build at the same angle as the original submission.
Good review. Though, I still don't think the pianist is up to snuff. She just looks awkward and overly bulky to me.
While the original submission is obviously more intricate (like with so many Ideas sets), I do rather like the more blocky 'Lego like' look of the final result, which I think still looks excellent. A definite buy (although 1 or 2 are ahead in the July queue!)
P.S. Thanks for the time out countdown timer @Huw !
Excellent review! I'm not interested in this for myself, but my father is a huge jazz fan so I'm getting this on day one as a belated Father's Day gift for him.
RE the main changes between the submission and the final set:
1. Trumpeter: prefer the look of the original submission, but clearly it was changed for structural reasons, so I'm fine with that.
2. Pianist: love the change in the final version, not only to include a woman, but also because to my eyes the original pianist looked out of place - for some reason I instantly think "what is a classical pianist doing in a jazz combo?" every time I look at the original pianist and the pose he's in.
3. Floor: I think they lightened the floor to make the players visually pop more, but I strongly prefer the original floor color - I think that's a huge part of what gave the set more of an authentic-feeling club feel. My father will love it regardless, but were I getting this myself, I would immediately go to Bricklink and buy reddish-brown versions of all the tan floor parts, to restore the original submission's floor color.
4. Overall Feel: This is complicated IMHO. The original obtains its wonderful feel not only with the darker floor, but also with what appears to be a darker, more blue color for the trumpeter's pants. The thinner profile of the players also enhances the feel - but I would not actually say those thinner players in the submission are more realistic than the final version. Rather, I'd say the submission's figures look like a stylized painting that gives off a heavy jazz-club vibe, whereas the final version has a more realistic set of body proportions and types that are less stylized.
Overall, I think Lego had to thicken some of the body aspects for stability reasons. And I really appreciate the new, totally different pianist.
But on the down side, it appears that with the trumpeter's lighter pants and the tan stage, they went for a brighter, "lighter" look that might make the parts more visible and vivid, but sacrifices some of the overall feel. Basically I think they just decided to go in a different direction once they thickened up the body parts that had to be structurally improved - they decided to go for a more literal, realistic depiction of players at the expense of the distinctive and cohesive feel of the original submission.
It's not a real Jazz quartet without a saxophone. Who ever heard of a jazz quarter with a piano?
The original submission was much better. All the charm and thematic colors of the original were lost in this set.
The thin line between a blocky toy and a peculiar ornament.
@dingbat591 said:
"Yes, I will buy it, ours being a family of jazz players. Father played a great Armstrong-like trumpet, so it'll be a great way to remember him.
Totally agree with the grey ball-joint issue, but a yet more serious problem is the overall feel of the set. Albeit doing a great job, LEGO designers have not been able to deliver the "club" feel of the original rendition. Hsinwei Chi's work made the set move and sound and play as if the players were alive, interacting with one another, playing "in the pocket". With all due respect for a wonderful job from Justin and Ollie, the set doesn't swing like the original. But - hey - first day buy for me, no doubts.
EDIT Looking at the floor, I find the original brown hardwood much more stylish than the light-yellow one."
Agree with all your comments. On the fence about this, but love Lego and jazz. @Huw is spot on about about the change in attitude negatively affecting the set.
@MeganL thanks for the great review. I really appreciate your discussion and depiction of the ball joint issue. It has really made me question whether to get this. However, I would watch your enthusiastic name-dropping of the designers at the beginning of the article as it raises the issue of favoritism and loss of trust by the reader. Also, I wouldn't hide any positive aspects like building techniques. This isn't a book or movie. Disclosure of cool aspects only fuels the hunger to experience it first-hand (something this set desperately needs).
Thanks for the analysis, Megan, I do appreciate your takes on the ball joints and poses, while trying to be fair and point out the redeeming factors in the current model. All the same, I feel like I'd have a lot more fun trying to build the original design from my own collection of parts. It was a nice idea on paper but the original still just has so much more charm.
At the least, the whole saga around this set has gotten me to try out the jazz genre, and it's quite nice.
@Huw said:
"The exquisite poses of the musicians in the original submission conveyed so much emotion and information, but that has been lost in the final model, which is unfortunate."
I second to that. Plus the dark and decorated stage without the weird studs sticking out helped convey that even more. The classic looking piano player expressed a timeless jazz quartet and less of a street jazz mix we see now. But what I dislike most is how the piano was squished together and got a studded lid which ruins the whole look. Luckily it's LEGO and can be fixed.
What many forget or don't know is that the grey Mixels joints are color locked and will probably remain that way to ensure the exact same friction between the parts. It has nothing to do with LEGO being lazy.
@Huw said:
"The exquisite poses of the musicians in the original submission conveyed so much emotion and information, but that has been lost in the final model, which is unfortunate."
And I much preferred the darker wooden floor (with gold/brass trim) of the original submission
After reading the review I'm a bit more intrigued but..... this was the Ideas set I was most looking forward to in a while, couldn't believe they actually picked it. It was honestly a piece of art, and that sense has been definitely lost.
Not sure if "just" another pretty good set with interesting techniques is going to be a buy esp. since a TON of great new sets are just coming out in the next few months. So for me it went from a Must Buy to a maybe if I have money left over from the Castle / Galaxy Explorer...
I have purchased and built one of the Bricklink Designer Program sets and was mildly disappointed that some areas and techniques were attractive but poorly executed from a solid construction standpoint. I can appreciate that a lot needs to go into an official LEGO set to make it a fun & interesting but (importantly) a sturdy and stable build. While an Ideas design may look great, what makes it really attractive may not be possible to recreate as a mass-market set.
I'm thinking that TLG designers were probably trying to keep the feel and look of the original submission but were not satisfied that the builds would hold up using the original designers methods, or that they wanted to incorporate more articulation/poseability. I'm liking the compromises they came up with although I will admit that finding a better, more color coordinated joint mechanism would have been great.
I feel like the moral of this story is that some MOCs will never translate into sets properly. One like this where every line is perfectly judged and every piece selected - not to mention I suspect the model has a "perfect" viewing angle which it's designed in mind for - was never going to survive the process of making it sturdy and accessible enough for retail.
Lego's designers absolutely can knock the socks off fans nine times out of ten, but the tenth time they've just got their hands tied by the regulations. We get better sets because of it, but this one should probably have been quietly left aside.
This reminds me of Technic. The more you squint, the better it looks.
@MeganL on the box there's a 1-4 persons logo, was there anything else other than splitting the build into 4 separate parts?
Is this set present in the Lego instructions app?
A good portion of the style was lost in the translation, including things that had no structural issues. The drummer's hat, for instance, was hexagonal on the original submission and circular on the final product. Taken by itself that's not a big deal, but lots of those little details add up to make the finished product a bit bland compared to the original.
I still love it and I'll still be getting it, but I wish they'd taken the artistic style more into account. This isn't just another mini-fig grab sitcom set where just having the characters and some in-jokes meets expectation. This set has more in common with Starry Night than Big Bang Theory and I wish it had been treated as such. But I don't want to belittle the job the designers did--it's not easy and many of the changes do make sense.
And yes, that is some great instruction booklet art!
@mhinck said:
"It's not a real Jazz quartet without a saxophone. Who ever heard of a jazz quarter with a piano? "
The Dave Brubeck Quartet? Benny Goodman Quartet? John Coltrane Quartet?
Good review, but it only reinforces my feeling that this is a more substantial step back from the original design than appears at first sight. The essence of the sets simply feels lost, and that's a shame. The original would have been a certain buy, this maybe if I can get it a nice discount.
As a musician myself, I was truly excited when I saw this one coming. I really like both musicians and their instruments. That drumset is a marvel of a Lego rendition to me, the piano and double bass are excellent too. And the piano player is so gorgeous in her colorful outfit! It's a great enhancement to the original submission in my opinion. Bravo to both original Idea designer and Lego team work on this set. And excellent review by the way MeganL, thank you. I now can't wait to receive, open and build it, and then proudly display it close to (or maybe even on) my own bass amplifier, in my music room at home. Excellent set.
I just wish they had kept the brown base as it looked like a floor you'd find in a jazz club, the cream colour is very of distracting to me. Still looking forward to getting it, but as Huw mentioned above, the ambience of the original submission has been lost to some extent unfortunately.
Thanks Megan for the great review :)
Overall great looking model but have to agree with Hew. The bass player should strike the classic pose of ear next to the strings......not sure if that's possible with the new model which looks more like he's gonna dance with it.
Thanks for the excellent review
Off to find my JAZZ HANDS :o)
So the argument for the changes to the trumpet player is to ensure a stable connection to the stage platform whereas the drummer's connection is left mainly unchanged?
Compared to the submitted model, this now looks like an aged reunion session 20 years later after the original pianist left the scene at some point and the band's invited a guest pianist to fill in.
I loved the original submission, but knew that if it were an official set it would be more … substantial. My dad played piano (for 79 years!) so I liked the skinny guy at the keyboard. I echo the thoughts on the stage color.
Nevertheless, I do love this as a display piece, and intend to purchase it. Thanks for the great review.
Thanks for your review, but you haven't convinced me. For me, too much has changed from the original. It's lost it feel, the atmosphere, the tension. I understand the requirements for stability but I don't like what they've lead to.
I will reverse engineer the original rather than buying this set, even if that means missing out on the artwork.
@StyleCounselor said:
"However, I would watch your enthusiastic name-dropping of the designers at the beginning of the article as it raises the issue of favoritism and loss of trust by the reader. "
I don’t understand this complaint. To me, it’s no different than naming the author of a book or a musical artist or the director of a movie in a review. Just as I’d be anticipating a new Martin Scorsese film or David Byrne album, I look forward to each new design by Mike Psiaki or Justin Ramsden or Jamie Berard.
@Mr__Thrawn said:
" @StyleCounselor said:
"However, I would watch your enthusiastic name-dropping of the designers at the beginning of the article as it raises the issue of favoritism and loss of trust by the reader. "
I don’t understand this complaint. To me, it’s no different than naming the author of a book or a musical artist or the director of a movie in a review. Just as I’d be anticipating a new Martin Scorsese film or David Byrne album, I look forward to each new design by Mike Psiaki or Justin Ramsden or Jamie Berard. "
I think it would seem less awkward if the review mentioned the designers at the end of the review or if it was less personal or enthusiastic. But, to me, it was jarring to hear.
It almost sounded as if the set had to be great because these two guys made it. It could also be construed as implying that the set had to be great because my two close friends made it.
Many of the comments in Brickset articles often question the objectivity of the reviews because of the close-knit nature of the Lego-Brickset relationship (e.g., special status, providing sets, providing access to Lego facilities and employees). I don't think it does Brickset a service to highlight the unavoidable personal nature of that closeness at the very beginning of a review. It's not a great look.
The gray balljoints really are jarring. Once you know they are there, you can't look away from them, especially on the piano player, where it's fully exposed. What would be the best way of trying to mod them away?
@gylman said:
"The gray balljoints really are jarring. Once you know they are there, you can't look away from them, especially on the piano player, where it's fully exposed. What would be the best way of trying to mod them away?"
The way the original designer did, I imagine.
@MisterBrickster said:
"I feel like the moral of this story is that some MOCs will never translate into sets properly. One like this where every line is perfectly judged and every piece selected - not to mention I suspect the model has a "perfect" viewing angle which it's designed in mind for - was never going to survive the process of making it sturdy and accessible enough for retail.
Lego's designers absolutely can knock the socks off fans nine times out of ten, but the tenth time they've just got their hands tied by the regulations. We get better sets because of it, but this one should probably have been quietly left aside."
Very well put. Lego has understandable stability standards, but if those standards make it impossible to faithfully produce an ideas set then it should not be chosen.
@StyleCounselor said:
" @Mr__Thrawn said:
" @StyleCounselor said:
"However, I would watch your enthusiastic name-dropping of the designers at the beginning of the article as it raises the issue of favoritism and loss of trust by the reader. "
I don’t understand this complaint. To me, it’s no different than naming the author of a book or a musical artist or the director of a movie in a review. Just as I’d be anticipating a new Martin Scorsese film or David Byrne album, I look forward to each new design by Mike Psiaki or Justin Ramsden or Jamie Berard. "
I think it would seem less awkward if the review mentioned the designers at the end of the review or if it was less personal or enthusiastic. But, to me, it was jarring to hear.
It almost sounded as if the set had to be great because these two guys made it. It could also be construed as implying that the set had to be great because my two close friends made it.
Many of the comments in Brickset articles often question the objectivity of the reviews because of the close-knit nature of the Lego-Brickset relationship (e.g., special status, providing sets, providing access to Lego facilities and employees). I don't think it does Brickset a service to highlight the unavoidable personal nature of that closeness at the very beginning of a review. It's not a great look."
I still don’t understand why it’s a bad thing. Your explanations don’t seem to make sense, and pretty much nobody else had an issue. There’s nothing wrong from expecting good work out of two great designers.
And the majority of people that complain about Brickset reviews are based on ignorance.
I'm definitely agreeing with the final product feeling less emotive and stylized than the submission, but still support the change of the pianist. I also do think the brown floor would've looked better, but it looks like it would've clashed with the other brown elements of the set.
@StyleCounselor: I for one am very partial to anything George Gilliatt has worked on because of our common interest outside of LEGO, beside my highly sublime first impression of his work in 31111, of which I now own four copies. That still doesn't compel me to buy at least one of every set he's worked on. For example I have never had any plans to get 31129, because the subject matter just doesn't interest me.
@IgelCampus said:
"> I understand that there are technical reasons why LEGO doesn't use other colours for the ball joints - but I'll still mention it anyway.
What is the technical reason for this?"
Money. They need to invest into the development of a new process to produce sturdy joints of other colors.
Excellent review as always, thanks. I’m gonna pick this up but likely will customise it a bit further. The drum kit and bass are superb though, worth the set alone in my opinion:
"The original submission doesn't have a ball joint in sight, and it's jarring to see them here."
Lol what? There are obvious ball-joints on the bass-player in the original submission....
Also,...the "technical reasons" for the ball-joint colors is bullsh*t, as other brands have no problems in making them in any color they want...
@Huw said:
"The exquisite poses of the musicians in the original submission conveyed so much emotion and information, but that has been lost in the final model, which is unfortunate."
That and the cheap looking base totally ruin this set for me.
Wouldn't dream of spending money on this. Indeed one of those instances when the original submission was so much better.
Nevertheless, thanks for the excellent review.
I've said it elsewhere and I'll repeat myself here: there is nothing in the official set that is better than the original submission. Too bad. As stated above, the base looks bland and cheap and the stance of the trumpet player was so good in the original idea! Also I don't like the piano player.
@BelgianBricker said:
""Also,...the "technical reasons" for the ball-joint colors is bullsh*t, as other brands have no problems in making them in any color they want..."
Was going to say the same thing.
I wonder why so many people believe LEGO when they say something like that. It is total BS from start to finish, as other manufacturers have proven that it is no issue at all. LEGO is simply cheaping out again, like they do on so many other fronts these days.
Remember, fanboys, this is a company like any other, trying to make as much money with as little effort as possible. They are not your friends, no matter how much some might want this to be true. As a company, they don't care about the single customer, they care about the bottom line.
Designers also are not your friends. They are employees who do this for a living. Some might be very passionate about their job, for others it will be just a job. In any case, they don't do what they do to do us favors, they get assigned to design a certain set, to a set budget and under strict parameters. Sure, some sets might get a little more leeway than others, as might some of the more prominent designers, but the basic principles of any company still apply.
@monkyby87 said:
" @StyleCounselor said:
" @Mr__Thrawn said:
" @StyleCounselor said:
"However, I would watch your enthusiastic name-dropping of the designers at the beginning of the article as it raises the issue of favoritism and loss of trust by the reader. "
I don’t understand this complaint. To me, it’s no different than naming the author of a book or a musical artist or the director of a movie in a review. Just as I’d be anticipating a new Martin Scorsese film or David Byrne album, I look forward to each new design by Mike Psiaki or Justin Ramsden or Jamie Berard. "
I think it would seem less awkward if the review mentioned the designers at the end of the review or if it was less personal or enthusiastic. But, to me, it was jarring to hear.
It almost sounded as if the set had to be great because these two guys made it. It could also be construed as implying that the set had to be great because my two close friends made it.
Many of the comments in Brickset articles often question the objectivity of the reviews because of the close-knit nature of the Lego-Brickset relationship (e.g., special status, providing sets, providing access to Lego facilities and employees). I don't think it does Brickset a service to highlight the unavoidable personal nature of that closeness at the very beginning of a review. It's not a great look."
I still don’t understand why it’s a bad thing. Your explanations don’t seem to make sense, and pretty much nobody else had an issue. There’s nothing wrong from expecting good work out of two great designers.
And the majority of people that complain about Brickset reviews are based on ignorance. "
There is no democracy in logic. An argument is not sound because of the person who makes it or the amount of people who agree with it.
Likewise, a Lego set is not good or bad because of the person who makes it.
There's nothing wrong with mentioning the designers. However, it is wrong to tell us that a set is probably great because of the people who made it. It's a classic falacious ad hominem argument. Moreover, it smacks of sycophancy, elitism, and cronyism.
@StyleCounselor said:
" @monkyby87 said:
" @StyleCounselor said:
" @Mr__Thrawn said:
" @StyleCounselor said:
"However, I would watch your enthusiastic name-dropping of the designers at the beginning of the article as it raises the issue of favoritism and loss of trust by the reader. "
I don’t understand this complaint. To me, it’s no different than naming the author of a book or a musical artist or the director of a movie in a review. Just as I’d be anticipating a new Martin Scorsese film or David Byrne album, I look forward to each new design by Mike Psiaki or Justin Ramsden or Jamie Berard. "
I think it would seem less awkward if the review mentioned the designers at the end of the review or if it was less personal or enthusiastic. But, to me, it was jarring to hear.
It almost sounded as if the set had to be great because these two guys made it. It could also be construed as implying that the set had to be great because my two close friends made it.
Many of the comments in Brickset articles often question the objectivity of the reviews because of the close-knit nature of the Lego-Brickset relationship (e.g., special status, providing sets, providing access to Lego facilities and employees). I don't think it does Brickset a service to highlight the unavoidable personal nature of that closeness at the very beginning of a review. It's not a great look."
I still don’t understand why it’s a bad thing. Your explanations don’t seem to make sense, and pretty much nobody else had an issue. There’s nothing wrong from expecting good work out of two great designers.
And the majority of people that complain about Brickset reviews are based on ignorance. "
There is no democracy in logic. An argument is not sound because of the person who makes it or the amount of people who agree with it.
Likewise, a Lego set is not good or bad because of the person who makes it.
There's nothing wrong with mentioning the designers. However, it is wrong to tell us that a set is probably great because of the people who made it. It's a classic falacious ad hominem argument. Moreover, it smacks of sycophancy, elitism, and cronyism.
"
Good grief
@StyleCounselor said:
" @monkyby87 said:
" @StyleCounselor said:
" @Mr__Thrawn said:
" @StyleCounselor said:
"However, I would watch your enthusiastic name-dropping of the designers at the beginning of the article as it raises the issue of favoritism and loss of trust by the reader. "
I don’t understand this complaint. To me, it’s no different than naming the author of a book or a musical artist or the director of a movie in a review. Just as I’d be anticipating a new Martin Scorsese film or David Byrne album, I look forward to each new design by Mike Psiaki or Justin Ramsden or Jamie Berard. "
I think it would seem less awkward if the review mentioned the designers at the end of the review or if it was less personal or enthusiastic. But, to me, it was jarring to hear.
It almost sounded as if the set had to be great because these two guys made it. It could also be construed as implying that the set had to be great because my two close friends made it.
Many of the comments in Brickset articles often question the objectivity of the reviews because of the close-knit nature of the Lego-Brickset relationship (e.g., special status, providing sets, providing access to Lego facilities and employees). I don't think it does Brickset a service to highlight the unavoidable personal nature of that closeness at the very beginning of a review. It's not a great look."
I still don’t understand why it’s a bad thing. Your explanations don’t seem to make sense, and pretty much nobody else had an issue. There’s nothing wrong from expecting good work out of two great designers.
And the majority of people that complain about Brickset reviews are based on ignorance. "
There is no democracy in logic. An argument is not sound because of the person who makes it or the amount of people who agree with it.
Likewise, a Lego set is not good or bad because of the person who makes it.
There's nothing wrong with mentioning the designers. However, it is wrong to tell us that a set is probably great because of the people who made it. It's a classic falacious ad hominem argument. Moreover, it smacks of sycophancy, elitism, and cronyism.
"
Yikes, you are far, far, far too worked up over something that isn’t an issue at all.
@AustinPowers said:
" @BelgianBricker said:
""Also,...the "technical reasons" for the ball-joint colors is bullsh*t, as other brands have no problems in making them in any color they want..."
Was going to say the same thing.
I wonder why so many people believe LEGO when they say something like that. It is total BS from start to finish, as other manufacturers have proven that it is no issue at all. LEGO is simply cheaping out again, like they do on so many other fronts these days.
Remember, fanboys, this is a company like any other, trying to make as much money with as little effort as possible. They are not your friends, no matter how much some might want this to be true. As a company, they don't care about the single customer, they care about the bottom line.
Designers also are not your friends. They are employees who do this for a living. Some might be very passionate about their job, for others it will be just a job. In any case, they don't do what they do to do us favors, they get assigned to design a certain set, to a set budget and under strict parameters. Sure, some sets might get a little more leeway than others, as might some of the more prominent designers, but the basic principles of any company still apply. "
Ah good, I was waiting for your “other companies do it better” comment.
Call me whatever you want, but it was supposed to be an all-men band.
Boring subject material--to me. The builds are cool I guess, but it's just boring.
@monkyby87 said:
"Ah good, I was waiting for your “other companies do it better” comment. "
Cherrypicking much are we?
I was simply reiterating and confirming what someone else had said with that first part of my comment.
The main part was about something very different, namely that some people believe everything LEGO says because they think the company is more trustworthy than others (spoiler: it isn't) or because they somehow feel more attached to the brand, and are therefore less objective than they would probably be towards some other brand they don't care about as much.
By, the way, it is fact that other companies produce ball joint pieces in other colours, and from personal experience I can say that they work perfectly, at least the ones I have. Perhaps in twenty years they become brittle and fall apart, but I wager to guess that won't be the case.
Not sure I can get over ET playing the piano!
A lot of interesting techniques, but the set is a major letdown over the Ideas project original. Everything popped in the original. The figures are crisp silhouettes. And the colors bring your eyes in. And I’m with others in thinking I kind of preferred the original pianist. The different lighter skin tones and the more formal suit amongst the more laid back musicians presents a story. And feels more of a Jazz story. The female figure is nice but doesn’t really say anything. Other than to shift the color palette along with the horrid tan floor, into something less polished and refined. The dark flooring of the original set the scene. And elevated the piece to art. The final product feels to bright and washed out. It lacks something.
Like the double bass, but that's about it. Not a set that interested me at $100.
And if you look closely, almost every single piece and the build has been changed. So to me lego just borrowed the original idea, the final set could be completely different, even though the idea is the same and look similar from a distance.
@monkyby87 said:
" @StyleCounselor said:
" @monkyby87 said:
" @StyleCounselor said:
" @Mr__Thrawn said:
" @StyleCounselor said:
"However, I would watch your enthusiastic name-dropping of the designers at the beginning of the article as it raises the issue of favoritism and loss of trust by the reader. "
I don’t understand this complaint. To me, it’s no different than naming the author of a book or a musical artist or the director of a movie in a review. Just as I’d be anticipating a new Martin Scorsese film or David Byrne album, I look forward to each new design by Mike Psiaki or Justin Ramsden or Jamie Berard. "
I think it would seem less awkward if the review mentioned the designers at the end of the review or if it was less personal or enthusiastic. But, to me, it was jarring to hear.
It almost sounded as if the set had to be great because these two guys made it. It could also be construed as implying that the set had to be great because my two close friends made it.
Many of the comments in Brickset articles often question the objectivity of the reviews because of the close-knit nature of the Lego-Brickset relationship (e.g., special status, providing sets, providing access to Lego facilities and employees). I don't think it does Brickset a service to highlight the unavoidable personal nature of that closeness at the very beginning of a review. It's not a great look."
I still don’t understand why it’s a bad thing. Your explanations don’t seem to make sense, and pretty much nobody else had an issue. There’s nothing wrong from expecting good work out of two great designers.
And the majority of people that complain about Brickset reviews are based on ignorance. "
There is no democracy in logic. An argument is not sound because of the person who makes it or the amount of people who agree with it.
Likewise, a Lego set is not good or bad because of the person who makes it.
There's nothing wrong with mentioning the designers. However, it is wrong to tell us that a set is probably great because of the people who made it. It's a classic falacious ad hominem argument. Moreover, it smacks of sycophancy, elitism, and cronyism.
"
Yikes, you are far, far, far too worked up over something that isn’t an issue at all.
"
Not at all. You said you didn't "understand." I was merely trying to help you.
Yet, it seems you are only trolling. There's no helping that.
@MisterBrickster said:
" @StyleCounselor said:
" @monkyby87 said:
" @StyleCounselor said:
" @Mr__Thrawn said:
" @StyleCounselor said:
"However, I would watch your enthusiastic name-dropping of the designers at the beginning of the article as it raises the issue of favoritism and loss of trust by the reader. "
I don’t understand this complaint. To me, it’s no different than naming the author of a book or a musical artist or the director of a movie in a review. Just as I’d be anticipating a new Martin Scorsese film or David Byrne album, I look forward to each new design by Mike Psiaki or Justin Ramsden or Jamie Berard. "
I think it would seem less awkward if the review mentioned the designers at the end of the review or if it was less personal or enthusiastic. But, to me, it was jarring to hear.
It almost sounded as if the set had to be great because these two guys made it. It could also be construed as implying that the set had to be great because my two close friends made it.
Many of the comments in Brickset articles often question the objectivity of the reviews because of the close-knit nature of the Lego-Brickset relationship (e.g., special status, providing sets, providing access to Lego facilities and employees). I don't think it does Brickset a service to highlight the unavoidable personal nature of that closeness at the very beginning of a review. It's not a great look."
I still don’t understand why it’s a bad thing. Your explanations don’t seem to make sense, and pretty much nobody else had an issue. There’s nothing wrong from expecting good work out of two great designers.
And the majority of people that complain about Brickset reviews are based on ignorance. "
There is no democracy in logic. An argument is not sound because of the person who makes it or the amount of people who agree with it.
Likewise, a Lego set is not good or bad because of the person who makes it.
There's nothing wrong with mentioning the designers. However, it is wrong to tell us that a set is probably great because of the people who made it. It's a classic falacious ad hominem argument. Moreover, it smacks of sycophancy, elitism, and cronyism.
"
Good grief "
What? No good, Charlie Brown?
Sizewise, I wonder how this set looks next to some of the Expert vehicles?
Now thats interesting! and something I would like to know more about, I guess its also linked to why tan, reddy brown, dark brown generally crack, & split more than other colours (in my experience anyway)
@Slobrojoe said:
" @IgelCampus said:
"> I understand that there are technical reasons why LEGO doesn't use other colours for the ball joints - but I'll still mention it anyway.
What is the technical reason for this?"
I believe some colours of plastic don’t provide the clutch (?) needed for this type of ball joint. Grey is the best, so it’s the only one they use."
@Slave2lego said:
"Now thats interesting! and something I would like to know more about, I guess its also linked to why tan, reddy brown, dark brown generally crack, & split more than other colours (in my experience anyway)
@Slobrojoe said:
" @IgelCampus said:
"> I understand that there are technical reasons why LEGO doesn't use other colours for the ball joints - but I'll still mention it anyway.
What is the technical reason for this?"
I believe some colours of plastic don’t provide the clutch (?) needed for this type of ball joint. Grey is the best, so it’s the only one they use."
"
Yes, that’s exactly the reason, although some choose to ignore it. It’s also why reddish brown pieces generally cost more than others
@Slobrojoe said:
" @Slave2lego said:
"Now thats interesting! and something I would like to know more about, I guess its also linked to why tan, reddy brown, dark brown generally crack, & split more than other colours (in my experience anyway)
@Slobrojoe said:
" @IgelCampus said:
"> I understand that there are technical reasons why LEGO doesn't use other colours for the ball joints - but I'll still mention it anyway.
What is the technical reason for this?"
I believe some colours of plastic don’t provide the clutch (?) needed for this type of ball joint. Grey is the best, so it’s the only one they use."
"
Yes, that’s exactly the reason, although some choose to ignore it. It’s also why reddish brown pieces generally cost more than others"
We don't ignore it, we just live in something called "reality" and the reality is that competing brands make ball-joints in all different colors, with perfect clutch-power. I have never had an issue with ball-joints in other colors...ever...
And besides: LEGO has made ball-joints in other colors in the past. They all still work perfectly today...
@BelgianBricker said:
" @Slobrojoe said:
" @Slave2lego said:
"Now thats interesting! and something I would like to know more about, I guess its also linked to why tan, reddy brown, dark brown generally crack, & split more than other colours (in my experience anyway)
@Slobrojoe said:
" @IgelCampus said:
"> I understand that there are technical reasons why LEGO doesn't use other colours for the ball joints - but I'll still mention it anyway.
What is the technical reason for this?"
I believe some colours of plastic don’t provide the clutch (?) needed for this type of ball joint. Grey is the best, so it’s the only one they use."
"
Yes, that’s exactly the reason, although some choose to ignore it. It’s also why reddish brown pieces generally cost more than others"
We don't ignore it, we just live in something called "reality" and the reality is that competing brands make ball-joints in all different colors, with perfect clutch-power. I have never had an issue with ball-joints in other colors...ever...
And besides: LEGO has made ball-joints in other colors in the past. They all still work perfectly today..."
Well, only the best is good enough, and apparently that’s grey.
Also, you admitted to using knock off brands on a Lego site? Bold move…
Why is the radio on the floor?
"the pieces that make up his butt get in the way"
I'm so mature
@Givememorebricks said:
"Call me whatever you want, but it was supposed to be an all-men band."
Believe it or not I don't think the gender of the performers was a factor in why the project gained the supporters it did. Most people aren't that small-minded.
@monkyby87 said:
" @StyleCounselor said:
" @monkyby87 said:
" @StyleCounselor said:
" @Mr__Thrawn said:
" @StyleCounselor said:
"However, I would watch your enthusiastic name-dropping of the designers at the beginning of the article as it raises the issue of favoritism and loss of trust by the reader. "
I don’t understand this complaint. To me, it’s no different than naming the author of a book or a musical artist or the director of a movie in a review. Just as I’d be anticipating a new Martin Scorsese film or David Byrne album, I look forward to each new design by Mike Psiaki or Justin Ramsden or Jamie Berard. "
I think it would seem less awkward if the review mentioned the designers at the end of the review or if it was less personal or enthusiastic. But, to me, it was jarring to hear.
It almost sounded as if the set had to be great because these two guys made it. It could also be construed as implying that the set had to be great because my two close friends made it.
Many of the comments in Brickset articles often question the objectivity of the reviews because of the close-knit nature of the Lego-Brickset relationship (e.g., special status, providing sets, providing access to Lego facilities and employees). I don't think it does Brickset a service to highlight the unavoidable personal nature of that closeness at the very beginning of a review. It's not a great look."
I still don’t understand why it’s a bad thing. Your explanations don’t seem to make sense, and pretty much nobody else had an issue. There’s nothing wrong from expecting good work out of two great designers.
And the majority of people that complain about Brickset reviews are based on ignorance. "
There is no democracy in logic. An argument is not sound because of the person who makes it or the amount of people who agree with it.
Likewise, a Lego set is not good or bad because of the person who makes it.
There's nothing wrong with mentioning the designers. However, it is wrong to tell us that a set is probably great because of the people who made it. It's a classic falacious ad hominem argument. Moreover, it smacks of sycophancy, elitism, and cronyism.
"
Yikes, you are far, far, far too worked up over something that isn’t an issue at all.
"
No doubt. It's not a big deal at all in my opinion.
But then again I don't even know what sycophancy and cronyism are.
Oh well, back to my building blocks.
Cheers.
@red_dragon_taiyo said:
" @monkyby87 said:
" @StyleCounselor said:
" @monkyby87 said:
" @StyleCounselor said:
" @Mr__Thrawn said:
" @StyleCounselor said:
"However, I would watch your enthusiastic name-dropping of the designers at the beginning of the article as it raises the issue of favoritism and loss of trust by the reader. "
I don’t understand this complaint. To me, it’s no different than naming the author of a book or a musical artist or the director of a movie in a review. Just as I’d be anticipating a new Martin Scorsese film or David Byrne album, I look forward to each new design by Mike Psiaki or Justin Ramsden or Jamie Berard. "
I think it would seem less awkward if the review mentioned the designers at the end of the review or if it was less personal or enthusiastic. But, to me, it was jarring to hear.
It almost sounded as if the set had to be great because these two guys made it. It could also be construed as implying that the set had to be great because my two close friends made it.
Many of the comments in Brickset articles often question the objectivity of the reviews because of the close-knit nature of the Lego-Brickset relationship (e.g., special status, providing sets, providing access to Lego facilities and employees). I don't think it does Brickset a service to highlight the unavoidable personal nature of that closeness at the very beginning of a review. It's not a great look."
I still don’t understand why it’s a bad thing. Your explanations don’t seem to make sense, and pretty much nobody else had an issue. There’s nothing wrong from expecting good work out of two great designers.
And the majority of people that complain about Brickset reviews are based on ignorance. "
There is no democracy in logic. An argument is not sound because of the person who makes it or the amount of people who agree with it.
Likewise, a Lego set is not good or bad because of the person who makes it.
There's nothing wrong with mentioning the designers. However, it is wrong to tell us that a set is probably great because of the people who made it. It's a classic falacious ad hominem argument. Moreover, it smacks of sycophancy, elitism, and cronyism.
"
Yikes, you are far, far, far too worked up over something that isn’t an issue at all.
"
No doubt. It's not a big deal at all in my opinion.
But then again I don't even know what sycophancy and cronyism are.
Oh well, back to my building blocks.
Cheers."
They both mean the same thing: 'read a book now and then.' ;)
Well these comments took an unexpected turn!
Nice review, @MeganL
Fingers crossed for a LEGO Ideas Heavy Metal set.
@alegrippa said:
"Having recently build the original trumpet player, I can now understand the changes they made"
@alegrippa, how did you manage to build the original trumpet player? Are there instructions for the original set out there? I'd love to build that instead.