Encyclopaedia Metallum: The Metal Archives

Message board

* FAQ    * Search   * Register   * Login 



Reply to topic
Author Message Previous topic | Next topic
Lord_Of_Diamonds
Metal newbie

Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2018 5:23 pm
Posts: 244
PostPosted: Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:51 am 
 

On a more negative note, the new Fear Factory "Digimortal" review is pretty bad. Seems like the guy thinks that sound is the only thing that matters, if the production is good n' heavy, then the bad music can be ignored.
_________________
BastardHead wrote:
Nice to See Your Name In Red sounds like a mid 2000s screamo band.

Top
 Profile  
gasmask_colostomy
Metalhead

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 5:38 am
Posts: 1028
Location: Behind the wall of fire v.2
PostPosted: Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:00 am 
 

Lord_Of_Diamonds wrote:
On a more negative note, the new Fear Factory "Digimortal" review is pretty bad. Seems like the guy thinks that sound is the only thing that matters, if the production is good n' heavy, then the bad music can be ignored.

I don't think that's what he said. He definitely notes that the production and tones work well, but also says that the songs are diverse and pleasing. I note that Annable Courts seems to be one of the more open-minded guys on the forum too.
_________________
Five_Nails wrote:
unfuckable long-haired muffin-top titty-boy suburbanite I was

Top
 Profile  
Slater922
Metal newbie

Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2020 6:24 pm
Posts: 41
PostPosted: Thu Jul 09, 2020 6:46 pm 
 

Someone finally wrote a review for "Blackened 2020".

Honestly, I didn't even want to write a review for this single either. I did agree with the reviewer on how awful that single was. Honestly, I'd rather listen to the worst songs off of RTL and MOP than go through that crap again.
_________________
FLORIDIAN DEATH METAL AND NORWEGIAN BLACK METAL IS KING

Check out my reviews

Top
 Profile  
kluseba
Making Metal Archives Reviews Great Again!

Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 2:36 am
Posts: 737
Location: Germany
PostPosted: Thu Jul 09, 2020 8:12 pm 
 

That was one of the silliest reviews I have read in a very long time and it's not because I'm disagreeing because I haven't even listened to that song.

Quote:
Speaking about guitars, oh man here comes something destructive, WHAT IN THE EVERLIVING CRISPY DIVINE INSANE FUCK WAS THAT SOLO? I mean, I call it solo but it can perfectly be called as ass pain, or a 3-year old kid playing guitar but sped up so it can sound like he's playing a fast solo.


Quote:
In conclusion we have two options:

1. Listening to "Blackened 2020".

2. Butchering your fingers with a nail clipper and uncork your glans with your own teeth (and haven't brushed them in 10 weeks) then having an infection that won't kill you, so you will suffer in pain and agony for days that you will want to tear the skin of your face off so you do it and you also pour some salt on it and lemon extract in your eyes while you push some broken glass pieces against them.

I would choose the second one without hesitation.


Quote:
It's really hard for me to say this when we speak about one of my favorite bands but you can't just be a fanboy or a fangirl and say that everything they do is the best because they did it. Before this song there were like 20 bands I liked more than Metallica, now after this shit that number ascends to 50 probably.


To be fair, I have to admit that the review is at least passionate. Keep the passion but get rid of the hyperboles and swear words. It doesn't make you look edgy.
_________________
My most recent short story:

''Hanako and the Suicide Forest'': http://kluseba.eklablog.com/hanako-and-the-suicide-forest-a187892062

Top
 Profile  
Twisted_Psychology
Metal freak

Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 8:22 pm
Posts: 5086
Location: United States
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 8:46 am 
 

Oh hey, it's every other Metal-Archives review circa 2006. The only thing missing is some arbitrary reference to Ulysses Siren.
_________________
Spirit Division (Stoner/Doom): http://spiritdivision.bandcamp.com
My solo acoustic project (Dark Folk/Blues): http://christophersteve.bandcamp.com/
Lavaborne (Heavy/Power/Doom): https://lavaborne.bandcamp.com

Top
 Profile  
droneriot
incelgender

Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 1:17 pm
Posts: 10499
Location: Spahn Ranch
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 3:13 pm 
 

I just read the review and I honestly have no idea what it was trying to tell me. It's a lot of words but they don't really say anything. I guess the song sounds different from the original and he doesn't like it, saying that didn't need all that amount of text. Maybe caspian could review it in three sentences and say a lot more about what it sounds like.
_________________
Why modern black metal objectively sucks
Deutschpunk - Why German Punk Rock Is... Different - [A Zero Budget Documentary]
- (droneriot drinks and rants...)

https://conservativetentacles.bandcamp.com/

Top
 Profile  
Lord_Of_Diamonds
Metal newbie

Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2018 5:23 pm
Posts: 244
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 6:38 pm 
 

gasmask_colostomy wrote:
Lord_Of_Diamonds wrote:
On a more negative note, the new Fear Factory "Digimortal" review is pretty bad. Seems like the guy thinks that sound is the only thing that matters, if the production is good n' heavy, then the bad music can be ignored.

I don't think that's what he said. He definitely notes that the production and tones work well, but also says that the songs are diverse and pleasing. I note that Annable Courts seems to be one of the more open-minded guys on the forum too.

I'm not saying that he implied that the music was bad and the sound was good, I just think he put a little too much emphasis on the sound for me to really take the review seriously.
_________________
BastardHead wrote:
Nice to See Your Name In Red sounds like a mid 2000s screamo band.

Top
 Profile  
caspian
Wanderer of the Wastes

Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:29 pm
Posts: 6328
Location: Australia
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:32 pm 
 

The blackened review was indeed fairly bad, but it inspired me to listen to the blackened remake .. which also sucked!!!

screw you, rando reviewer!

Honestly I just don't understand why Metallica picked the least convertable-to-acoustic song in their catalogue. I feel like literally every other song they've done would be easier to rearrange.
_________________
https://kybaliondoom.bandcamp.com/album/poisoned-ash big ugly death doom by and for big ugly dudes

https://strangercountry.bandcamp.com/al ... the-chebar new album! Power shoegaze? Dream-doom???

Top
 Profile  
Slater922
Metal newbie

Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2020 6:24 pm
Posts: 41
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2020 10:15 am 
 

caspian wrote:
The blackened review was indeed fairly bad, but it inspired me to listen to the blackened remake .. which also sucked!!!

screw you, rando reviewer!

Honestly I just don't understand why Metallica picked the least convertable-to-acoustic song in their catalogue. I feel like literally every other song they've done would be easier to rearrange.

Your review was more well-written and mature. However, I still can't stop laughing at this line:

Quote:
In conclusion we have two options:

1. Listening to "Blackened 2020".

2. Butchering your fingers with a nail clipper and uncork your glans with your own teeth (and haven't brushed them in 10 weeks) then having an infection that won't kill you, so you will suffer in pain and agony for days that you will want to tear the skin of your face off so you do it and you also pour some salt on it and lemon extract in your eyes while you push some broken glass pieces against them.

I would choose the second one without hesitation.
_________________
FLORIDIAN DEATH METAL AND NORWEGIAN BLACK METAL IS KING

Check out my reviews

Top
 Profile  
droneriot
incelgender

Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 1:17 pm
Posts: 10499
Location: Spahn Ranch
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2020 6:17 pm 
 

caspian wrote:
The blackened review was indeed fairly bad, but it inspired me to listen to the blackened remake .. which also sucked!!!

screw you, rando reviewer!

Honestly I just don't understand why Metallica picked the least convertable-to-acoustic song in their catalogue. I feel like literally every other song they've done would be easier to rearrange.

I'm like a prophet. And I'm writing this post before reading your review. I didn't even realise it was an acoustic cover from the rando reviewer, I thought he was comparing it to other Metallica acoustic versions to name examples of bad Metallica song remakes. Reading the original review I thought it was the song like it is by the band today and it was a bad version of it, and he cited some of their other remakes as examples for how they badly remake their songs. Just from your post I learned more than from that review.
_________________
Why modern black metal objectively sucks
Deutschpunk - Why German Punk Rock Is... Different - [A Zero Budget Documentary]
- (droneriot drinks and rants...)

https://conservativetentacles.bandcamp.com/

Top
 Profile  
caspian
Wanderer of the Wastes

Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:29 pm
Posts: 6328
Location: Australia
PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2020 2:28 am 
 

Slater922 wrote:
Your review was more mature.


Gross! I will make sure my next review fixes that
_________________
https://kybaliondoom.bandcamp.com/album/poisoned-ash big ugly death doom by and for big ugly dudes

https://strangercountry.bandcamp.com/al ... the-chebar new album! Power shoegaze? Dream-doom???

Top
 Profile  
CHAIRTHROWER
Methed-burnt rogue babelfish

Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2015 7:10 pm
Posts: 589
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2020 10:09 am 
 

Oh, man, that wicked Paul Chain(e) review by metal_on_the_ascendant blew my mynd.

I don't recall the last time a fellow reviewer's write-up so induced me towards an ineluctable sampling...

Top
 Profile  
Empyreal
The Final Frontier

Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 6:58 pm
Posts: 28044
Location: Where the dead rule the night
PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2020 10:24 am 
 

Yeah, that Paul Chain one is good... I reviewed his debut like 10 years ago for some sort of challenge we were all having. But I never got around to anything else. I'll have to give it a shot - apparently a lot of it is on bandcamp.
_________________
Cinema Freaks latest reviews: Friend Request

Top
 Profile  
Sweetie
Metalhead

Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2014 1:19 am
Posts: 929
Location: United States
PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2020 10:12 pm 
 

Steelwitch... that looks so compelling, but Chair's review was so difficult to read that I'm not entirely sure what to expect.
_________________
"It's not the kill, it's the thrill of the chase" - Deep Purple

Top
 Profile  
Twisted_Psychology
Metal freak

Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 8:22 pm
Posts: 5086
Location: United States
PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2020 9:35 am 
 

I gotta give Chair props for turning me onto some solid bands. He'd be a real tastemaker with a proper translator.
_________________
Spirit Division (Stoner/Doom): http://spiritdivision.bandcamp.com
My solo acoustic project (Dark Folk/Blues): http://christophersteve.bandcamp.com/
Lavaborne (Heavy/Power/Doom): https://lavaborne.bandcamp.com

Top
 Profile  
gasmask_colostomy
Metalhead

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 5:38 am
Posts: 1028
Location: Behind the wall of fire v.2
PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2020 10:07 am 
 

Twisted_Psychology wrote:
I gotta give Chair props for turning me onto some solid bands. He'd be a real tastemaker with a proper translator.

Maybe someone could start a new account to provide that service.
_________________
Five_Nails wrote:
unfuckable long-haired muffin-top titty-boy suburbanite I was

Top
 Profile  
Sweetie
Metalhead

Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2014 1:19 am
Posts: 929
Location: United States
PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2020 4:37 pm 
 

No doubt about that. I always try to read his. But like.... wow!
_________________
"It's not the kill, it's the thrill of the chase" - Deep Purple

Top
 Profile  
CHAIRTHROWER
Methed-burnt rogue babelfish

Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2015 7:10 pm
Posts: 589
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2020 7:14 pm 
 

Ha, my alter eg(g)o shall provide said serve...

In a nutshell, S-witch plays its cards close to its chest, a very by the numbes/slumbers, or rather, innocuously tame, albeit darker and more sinister Iron Maiden (and its derivatives).

The vocals, I'd say, are most certainly the band's Achilles heel
Just the fact it's hard to find things to extrapolate on in its regard - a still considerable 27 min - demonstrates its anodyne sparcity...

You dig?!

Chairbear

Top
 Profile  
Five_Nails
Metalhead

Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 1:34 pm
Posts: 634
PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2020 11:32 pm 
 

CHAIRTHROWER wrote:
Ha, my alter eg(g)o shall provide said serve...

In a nutshell, S-witch plays its cards close to its chest, a very by the numbes/slumbers, or rather, innocuously tame, albeit darker and more sinister Iron Maiden (and its derivatives).

The vocals, I'd say, are most certainly the band's Achilles heel
Just the fact it's hard to find things to extrapolate on in its regard - a still considerable 27 min - demonstrates its anodyne sparcity...

You dig?!

Chairbear


As colloquially charming as spastic shorthand can generously genuflect to the absurd angles obsequiously observed in intriguing instrumental indulgences, one cannot help but find such similarly ebullient elocutionary exercises generally grating without the wherewithal to definitively deliver discussion despite drudging design through thunderously tiresome tirades over overt stylized storms. Luckily lugubrious laid-about laurels are annulled by boisterous bravado in Chairzy's chaotic calisthenics circumventing any irascible insistence that this insanity is innately insipid.

http://www.public-library.uk/ebooks/72/30.pdf
_________________
I'm Nobody! Who are you?
Are you - Nobody - too?
-Emily Dickinson

Top
 Profile  
CHAIRTHROWER
Methed-burnt rogue babelfish

Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2015 7:10 pm
Posts: 589
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2020 1:46 pm 
 

I pray (not prey) one day to find fugacious femme fatale flame so inclined towards died-in-the-gruel crypto-speak of this (flamboyantly rocking) Natur(e)!

Btw dig, with iron spade, both Bayern (Tapestry)'s edacious vyus on Spectral Incursion, as well as chew tubes respective sampling of said titular lumber -- no tumbler...

Top
 Profile  
Lord_Of_Diamonds
Metal newbie

Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2018 5:23 pm
Posts: 244
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2020 4:02 pm 
 

CHAIRTHROWER wrote:
I pray (not prey) one day to find fugacious femme fatale flame so inclined towards died-in-the-gruel crypto-speak of this (flamboyantly rocking) Natur(e)!

Btw dig, with iron spade, both Bayern (Tapestry)'s edacious vyus on Spectral Incursion, as well as chew tubes respective sampling of said titular lumber -- no tumbler...

I've always wondered if your... unique style of posting and writing is a gimmick, or if you really do talk and write like that.
_________________
BastardHead wrote:
Nice to See Your Name In Red sounds like a mid 2000s screamo band.

Top
 Profile  
CHAIRTHROWER
Methed-burnt rogue babelfish

Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2015 7:10 pm
Posts: 589
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2020 7:07 pm 
 

I appreciate the inquiry (or banter);
I've actually been going back and editing past writes to make them less over the top, childish or tumescent (turgid OK whence done with panache and verse, er, verve).

Nope, I nary speak thus in true (fake?) Lyfe!

Top
 Profile  
Acrobat
Eric Olthwaite

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 8:53 am
Posts: 8480
Location: York, North Yorkshire
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2020 6:09 am 
 

https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... die/264381

For a 90% review, this really doesn't seem all that positive in its appraisal. Emotionally detached and pretty 'muted' writing.

Unrelated, but my new pet peeve is people saying something "isn't really an album" because of its 30 minute running time.
_________________
'Sometimes you have to be a bigot in order to beat bigger bigots' - G. Marenghi.

Uncolored wrote:
non 80's wodos members are enemies of teutonic beatles hairstyle thrash

Top
 Profile  
Absinthe1979
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 3:06 am
Posts: 18
Location: Australia
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2020 10:38 pm 
 

Acrobat wrote:
https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/Marduk/Opus_Nocturne/1721/we_hope_you_die/264381

For a 90% review, this really doesn't seem all that positive in its appraisal. Emotionally detached and pretty 'muted' writing.

Unrelated, but my new pet peeve is people saying something "isn't really an album" because of its 30 minute running time.


It seems to me that the reviewer doesn't actually know the album very well, despite some detailed discussion of the instrumentation. Perhaps a couple of quick play-throughs while writing. Nor do they seem to understand Marduk's recent works which actually change pace quite frequently. Definitely doesn't feel like a 90% album from his or her perspective.

Top
 Profile  
Absinthe1979
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 3:06 am
Posts: 18
Location: Australia
PostPosted: Fri Jul 17, 2020 9:45 am 
 

I'd be interested to hear what the established minds think about the following observation.

Many reviews feel immature and not at all thought through. Any review that prefaces itself with "I finally decided to listen to band x", or, "I've never been a fan of genre x, yet I've decided to review this album", is invariably problematic in my eyes.

There are so many reviews written by people who have swooped in to share their two cents with the public, yet they have no interest in the genre at all, no understanding of its purpose, and no appreciation of its historical context. They just apply 2020 musical values to any old release and find that the old release comes up short. It's almost a symptom of the Twitter generation - share your opinion even if it's not founded on true experience or understanding.

An example of this is with Amorphis's 'Tales from the Thousand Lakes'. https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... n666/68424

The number of reviews from people who appear to have played a youtube upload a couple of times and then went ahead and explained why the album is deficient is troubling. One guy's talking about 'Dawson's Creek'. Another has trouble with the lyrics, clearly not understanding their significance.

You also see it in reviews of bands as disparate as King Diamond and Deicide. https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... nds/491990

I'd prefer to see reviewers choose albums that they find intriguing, that they listen to them several times over a few weeks, and that they consider the context and then make a call, good or bad. Stop with the hair trigger "the clean vocals are so weird to me and therefore suck". And if they don't like death metal as a general rule, don't bother reviewing death metal albums - otherwise it's a fait accompli.

Top
 Profile  
Empyreal
The Final Frontier

Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 6:58 pm
Posts: 28044
Location: Where the dead rule the night
PostPosted: Fri Jul 17, 2020 10:09 am 
 

That stuff has been happening for a long time. We discussed it a few pages back - this is all part of the 'I need to bash stuff on the internet to seem edgy' mantra that started with Angry Video Game Nerd and those types of things from the late '00s. People just love being snarky/funny and mean all at once. But that stuff's got a short shelf life and can easily be done badly. It's cooler to actually be sincere and try to really understand something.
_________________
Cinema Freaks latest reviews: Friend Request

Top
 Profile  
CHAIRTHROWER
Methed-burnt rogue babelfish

Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2015 7:10 pm
Posts: 589
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Fri Jul 17, 2020 12:32 pm 
 

On the opposite end of the spectrum, you've jolly word (m)anglers such as I who can't help but promote bands/albums which tickle his fancy...If and when something genuinely pejorative needs to be addressed i.e. some flaw or anachronistic whimsy (i.e.flight of, ah, fancy), I try to do so with tact and or diplomacy - not petty/petulant monkeyshines...

Btw need to dig up some Savage Blood, now. (thanks, Ed!)

Top
 Profile  
bayern
Metal newbie

Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2006 10:11 pm
Posts: 97
Location: Bulgaria
PostPosted: Fri Jul 17, 2020 1:25 pm 
 

to stay on the Savage Blood review some more: Steel Prophet are from the States, not from Germany

Top
 Profile  
hells_unicorn
Metalhead

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:32 pm
Posts: 2483
Location: United States
PostPosted: Fri Jul 17, 2020 10:10 pm 
 

Absinthe1979 wrote:
I'd be interested to hear what the established minds think about the following observation.

Many reviews feel immature and not at all thought through. Any review that prefaces itself with "I finally decided to listen to band x", or, "I've never been a fan of genre x, yet I've decided to review this album", is invariably problematic in my eyes.

There are so many reviews written by people who have swooped in to share their two cents with the public, yet they have no interest in the genre at all, no understanding of its purpose, and no appreciation of its historical context. They just apply 2020 musical values to any old release and find that the old release comes up short. It's almost a symptom of the Twitter generation - share your opinion even if it's not founded on true experience or understanding.

An example of this is with Amorphis's 'Tales from the Thousand Lakes'. https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... n666/68424

The number of reviews from people who appear to have played a youtube upload a couple of times and then went ahead and explained why the album is deficient is troubling. One guy's talking about 'Dawson's Creek'. Another has trouble with the lyrics, clearly not understanding their significance.

You also see it in reviews of bands as disparate as King Diamond and Deicide. https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... nds/491990

I'd prefer to see reviewers choose albums that they find intriguing, that they listen to them several times over a few weeks, and that they consider the context and then make a call, good or bad. Stop with the hair trigger "the clean vocals are so weird to me and therefore suck". And if they don't like death metal as a general rule, don't bother reviewing death metal albums - otherwise it's a fait accompli.


My take on the phenomenon you are describing is largely one of annoyance, but also one that is now along the lines of a stoic dismissal. (temporary Chairthrower moment there lol)

This approach to reviewing kinda goes with the open forum territory that MA has leaned toward since its inception, and it's not really anything new (some reviews from the early days of the site that have since been nuked suffered from similar flaws). Over time there has been a greater emphasis on better syntax and avoidance of outright falsehood when describing an album, but generally reviewers here are given a fair degree of latitude in making their points. I wouldn't have it any other way since this is where I got my start as a writer, but there are times where I would personally like it if certain reviews were sent back to the author for revision due to playing loose with the description of the music, and that King Diamond review is a prime example.

To be fair, if someone wishes to bash an album because they don't like the style, provided that they provide a clear rationale, I don't have a problem with it, but I draw the line at referencing deathcore solos in relation to an album recorded in freaking 1987. I gave Lord Of Diamonds a hard time about that very point when the review was first published, but since he and I tend to go in different directions stylistically speaking, I haven't really paid much attention to his writing in general. With regard to Human666's Amorphis review, I stopped paying attention to said author's writing a while ago, but that review's point is so poorly argued that I may have to listen to that album again (it's been about 5 years since the last time I heard it) just to fully understand how lousy Human's understanding of it is.

I'm of two minds regarding whether or not writers should simply stick to what they know, on the one hand a lot of poor reviews have come about due to someone testing the waters outside of their comfy little tide pool, while on the other, personally speaking, my horizons became much broader when I started venturing outside of my favorite sub-genres. I guess just take the good with the bad.

P.S. - As an ongoing rule for the past four or five years, and particularly since I started writing for Sonic Perspectives, I've made a point of try to avoiding referring to myself when writing a review, and if it does happen occasionally, I tend to refer to myself in the 3rd person. Something about giving an abridged biography of myself makes me feel like I'm not approaching things professionally, not to mention that I don't think my life is interesting enough to constantly inject it into a review of someone else's work.
_________________
My projects:
Frost Giant
Ominous Glory

My reviews.

R.I.P. Ronnie James Dio (July 14, 1942 - May 16, 2010)

Top
 Profile  
Lord_Of_Diamonds
Metal newbie

Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2018 5:23 pm
Posts: 244
PostPosted: Fri Jul 17, 2020 10:52 pm 
 

hells_unicorn wrote:
To be fair, if someone wishes to bash an album because they don't like the style, provided that they provide a clear rationale, I don't have a problem with it, but I draw the line at referencing deathcore solos in relation to an album recorded in freaking 1987. I gave Lord Of Diamonds a hard time about that very point when the review was first published, but since he and I tend to go in different directions stylistically speaking, I haven't really paid much attention to his writing in general.

I've been thinking about re-writing that review, or just getting rid of it outright. The "deathcore solo" thing actually sounds pretty stupid to me now, although my general opinion of the album hasn't changed much.
_________________
BastardHead wrote:
Nice to See Your Name In Red sounds like a mid 2000s screamo band.

Top
 Profile  
Absinthe1979
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 3:06 am
Posts: 18
Location: Australia
PostPosted: Sat Jul 18, 2020 3:02 am 
 

hells_unicorn wrote:
Absinthe1979 wrote:
I'd be interested to hear what the established minds think about the following observation.

Many reviews feel immature and not at all thought through. Any review that prefaces itself with "I finally decided to listen to band x", or, "I've never been a fan of genre x, yet I've decided to review this album", is invariably problematic in my eyes.

There are so many reviews written by people who have swooped in to share their two cents with the public, yet they have no interest in the genre at all, no understanding of its purpose, and no appreciation of its historical context. They just apply 2020 musical values to any old release and find that the old release comes up short. It's almost a symptom of the Twitter generation - share your opinion even if it's not founded on true experience or understanding.

An example of this is with Amorphis's 'Tales from the Thousand Lakes'. https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... n666/68424

The number of reviews from people who appear to have played a youtube upload a couple of times and then went ahead and explained why the album is deficient is troubling. One guy's talking about 'Dawson's Creek'. Another has trouble with the lyrics, clearly not understanding their significance.

You also see it in reviews of bands as disparate as King Diamond and Deicide. https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... nds/491990

I'd prefer to see reviewers choose albums that they find intriguing, that they listen to them several times over a few weeks, and that they consider the context and then make a call, good or bad. Stop with the hair trigger "the clean vocals are so weird to me and therefore suck". And if they don't like death metal as a general rule, don't bother reviewing death metal albums - otherwise it's a fait accompli.


My take on the phenomenon you are describing is largely one of annoyance, but also one that is now along the lines of a stoic dismissal. (temporary Chairthrower moment there lol)

This approach to reviewing kinda goes with the open forum territory that MA has leaned toward since its inception, and it's not really anything new (some reviews from the early days of the site that have since been nuked suffered from similar flaws). Over time there has been a greater emphasis on better syntax and avoidance of outright falsehood when describing an album, but generally reviewers here are given a fair degree of latitude in making their points. I wouldn't have it any other way since this is where I got my start as a writer, but there are times where I would personally like it if certain reviews were sent back to the author for revision due to playing loose with the description of the music, and that King Diamond review is a prime example.

To be fair, if someone wishes to bash an album because they don't like the style, provided that they provide a clear rationale, I don't have a problem with it, but I draw the line at referencing deathcore solos in relation to an album recorded in freaking 1987. I gave Lord Of Diamonds a hard time about that very point when the review was first published, but since he and I tend to go in different directions stylistically speaking, I haven't really paid much attention to his writing in general. With regard to Human666's Amorphis review, I stopped paying attention to said author's writing a while ago, but that review's point is so poorly argued that I may have to listen to that album again (it's been about 5 years since the last time I heard it) just to fully understand how lousy Human's understanding of it is.

I'm of two minds regarding whether or not writers should simply stick to what they know, on the one hand a lot of poor reviews have come about due to someone testing the waters outside of their comfy little tide pool, while on the other, personally speaking, my horizons became much broader when I started venturing outside of my favorite sub-genres. I guess just take the good with the bad.

P.S. - As an ongoing rule for the past four or five years, and particularly since I started writing for Sonic Perspectives, I've made a point of try to avoiding referring to myself when writing a review, and if it does happen occasionally, I tend to refer to myself in the 3rd person. Something about giving an abridged biography of myself makes me feel like I'm not approaching things professionally, not to mention that I don't think my life is interesting enough to constantly inject it into a review of someone else's work.


I certainly don't like the idea of simply sticking to one's personal genre of preference, which would be, as you correctly point out, very limiting. It's more when people make no attempt to learn a little bit about a genre or artist with which they are unfamiliar prior laying into it. It's like our dads yelling through the bedroom door that our music is terrible because he can't understand the vocalist. Obviously this can't be quantified and policed - it's more a gauge by which I personally appreciate or disregard a review.

The review I quoted of King Diamond's 'Abigail' is an example of that problem. Without being disrespectful to its author, you would have thought a person new to King Diamond - indeed, someone who has clearly never even heard of him before - and who acknowledges the manifold high-rating reviews already published, would exercise caution before diving into the shallow end of the pool with disgusted astonishment at the use of falsetto vocals. It's entirely possible to dislike the theatrical flamboyance of the wacky Dane, and King Diamond shouldn't be a sacred cow, but a bit of circumspection and even acclimatisation might have been applied before making such a forthright dismantling of the album. Having said that, there's a degree of enthusiasm in the review that I do enjoy reading.

Regarding personal references in reviews: one tends to find third-person references to oneself slightly pretentious.

As an abject amateur, I do reference myself in some reviews - especially of older albums - for a couple of reasons. The first is if I feel that to do so would provide some specific context for my appraisal of the album. My review of Paradise Lost's 'One Second' is an example of that, because I feel that by explaining my thoughts and feelings as a fan back in 1997 at the time of its controversial release, a reader would have an understanding of why my assessment is what it is. Where I'm coming from, as it were. If someone was around in 1986 when 'Reign in Blood' came out and is able to explain its impact at the time, I would find that much more interesting than a kid today saying it sucks cause it only has two good tracks and lacks a Trivium production (or whatever). It certainly doesn't mean one review is correct and the other is incorrect, it just makes for a more interesting read in my opinion.

The second reason is because I tend to appreciate when reviewers explain their personal connection to an album in some way. I find it endearing. A connection to an album over the decades is interesting to me, as being a metal fan is a lifelong journey and albums often come to define certain points in a person's life. Hence my proclivity to review mid-90s albums, when I was a wide-eyed teenager. Sometimes straight-ahead analytical style reviews can seem a little dry. But that's just me - and I'm not sure I'd appreciate the personal history strategy in a formal publication, for instance. Of course, some probably find it tedious even here. One simply tries one's best.

Top
 Profile  
Liquid_Braino
Metalhead

Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:25 am
Posts: 536
PostPosted: Sat Jul 18, 2020 9:24 am 
 

Absinthe1979 wrote:
The review I quoted of King Diamond's 'Abigail' is an example of that problem. Without being disrespectful to its author, you would have thought a person new to King Diamond - indeed, someone who has clearly never even heard of him before - and who acknowledges the manifold high-rating reviews already published, would exercise caution before diving into the shallow end of the pool with disgusted astonishment at the use of falsetto vocals. It's entirely possible to dislike the theatrical flamboyance of the wacky Dane, and King Diamond shouldn't be a sacred cow, but a bit of circumspection and even acclimatisation might have been applied before making such a forthright dismantling of the album. Having said that, there's a degree of enthusiasm in the review that I do enjoy reading.


I think criticizing King's vocals is fair game, in that as much as I think they work out great in Abigail, it's certainly no surprised that his vocals aren't for everyone. The problem I have with the review is the second main paragraph describing the music. It reads like there was a predetermined agenda beforehand to bash a classic for attention since the musical description is so off that it sounds like the review was formed after listening to 30 second snippets of some tracks.


1. Predominant four-on-the-floor patterns concerning drums: Total bullshit. There's shifts into 6/8 tempos all over the place, and the MAIN RIFF of "The 7th Day of July 1777" is friggin 9/4. Even if you can't tell a 6/8 from a 4/4, a 9/4 should be jarring enough for anyone to think this aain't your typical dance beat.

2. Song structures too complicated for their own good: Plenty of these songs have verse-chorus-verse structures that only diverge after the second chorus for some adventurous changes. Hardly too complicated by metal standards, and easy to follow. Shit, "Omens" is simple as hell, with only a switch to 6/8 for the solo providing any "complexity" if you even want to call it that. There's nothing "riff-salad" going on, and comparing the riff patterns to Cannibal Corpse is more than a stretch.

3. Bass does nothing at all: That's just ridiculous. Listen to the damn album (RIP Timi).

4. Saying the entire album and every musical aspect is lifted from Iron Maiden is hyperbole. The deathcore reference is hilarious.

Saying the riffs suck and the songs suck is one thing, but since the musical description is so factually off-base in a sheet music/technical sense, it comes across like the reviewer didn't listen to the album and just wanted to ruffle feathers.

Top
 Profile  
Empyreal
The Final Frontier

Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 6:58 pm
Posts: 28044
Location: Where the dead rule the night
PostPosted: Sat Jul 18, 2020 1:25 pm 
 

He's entitled to his opinion, but the lame thing about that KD review is just the insinuation that the reviewer wanted to hear something more extreme in a modern context and then was disappointed when it sounded like the 1980s heavy metal album it is. Also the talk about 'originality' is offbase because it comes from a reference point of the modern day instead of taking into context what it was at the time. It's not a Maiden ripoff - it's just that that was a popular sound back then for metal, with the high-flying, busy arrangements and melodic/wailing aspects. That was the standard for a lot of bands. It's like criticizing pop for being in the same mode as The Beatles - it's just an archetypal, basic sound format.

There were certainly bands in the 80s that just rode on the coattails of Maiden or Priest in a more derivative way, but an artist as iconoclastic as King Diamond wasn't just some basic ripoff.
_________________
Cinema Freaks latest reviews: Friend Request


Last edited by Empyreal on Sat Jul 18, 2020 1:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top
 Profile  
droneriot
incelgender

Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 1:17 pm
Posts: 10499
Location: Spahn Ranch
PostPosted: Sat Jul 18, 2020 1:26 pm 
 

Lord_Of_Diamonds wrote:
I've been thinking about re-writing that review, or just getting rid of it outright. The "deathcore solo" thing actually sounds pretty stupid to me now, although my general opinion of the album hasn't changed much.

The opinion doesn't matter much. What makes a big difference is whether you do a Human666 style thing where you set out to write a negative review, pick a random album you never heard before, skim through it in ten minutes and fill in the gaps in the review you've mostly already pre-written before listening when you decided to write a random negative review, and (run on sentence alert) writing a review after you heard the album a few times and feel like you really can't get into that kind of stuff. One is dishonested trolling, the other is genuine dislike. If your opinion didn't change much, but your method shifted from the former to the latter, all is good.
_________________
Why modern black metal objectively sucks
Deutschpunk - Why German Punk Rock Is... Different - [A Zero Budget Documentary]
- (droneriot drinks and rants...)

https://conservativetentacles.bandcamp.com/

Top
 Profile  
Luvers
Metal newbie

Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 10:34 pm
Posts: 327
Location: United States
PostPosted: Sat Jul 18, 2020 6:39 pm 
 

I have never understood why people think this album is inconsistent is a valid criticism in a review. While I understand fully what the words this is inconsistent means, I am not sure how that could qualify as an objective fact. With the possible exception of tempos, what exactly is the consistency they are looking for?

They could not possibly be about the consistency in quality because that is subjective and not at all an 'objective' conclusion. Are they referring to the lyricism? The complexity or lack thereof in the compositions? The number of times the compositions feature a 4/4 time signature? The amount of distortion to the instrumentation?

Maybe I am missing something and am welcome to read rebuttals but it seems people use the phrase whenever they do not have a valid thing to say, good or bad, about an album. Perhaps, if that is the case, they should not have done a review in the first place.

Any ideas?
_________________
[My Soundcloud || My Last.fm || Concerts I've Attended]

Top
 Profile  
droneriot
incelgender

Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 1:17 pm
Posts: 10499
Location: Spahn Ranch
PostPosted: Sat Jul 18, 2020 6:48 pm 
 

Reviews are not objective. My god you're over a decade older than me and have been here for 14 years, you have not realised that yet? Not one single review is ever objective or can ever be objective. Every review is written by a person with an opinion.
_________________
Why modern black metal objectively sucks
Deutschpunk - Why German Punk Rock Is... Different - [A Zero Budget Documentary]
- (droneriot drinks and rants...)

https://conservativetentacles.bandcamp.com/

Top
 Profile  
Napalm_Satan
Ever-Opening Flower

Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2015 4:27 pm
Posts: 3548
Location: London, England, United Kingdom
PostPosted: Sat Jul 18, 2020 7:01 pm 
 

Just saying 'this album is inconsistent' on its own isn't of much use because there are indeed many things about a crop of songs that can vary in quality; all you can glean from that statement in isolation is that 'the overall quality of each song varies significantly' and nothing else. You generally want to qualify such a statement with the ways the album is inconsistent - be it the guitarwork, the vocals, the lyrics, the songwriting, etc. It's not an invalid thing to say though, as indeed no review is objective; to hold a reviewer's criticisms to that standard is misguided.
_________________
Review Lads!

Top
 Profile  
droneriot
incelgender

Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 1:17 pm
Posts: 10499
Location: Spahn Ranch
PostPosted: Sat Jul 18, 2020 7:05 pm 
 

Yeah totally but that's kind of the point of reviews, you say what the album is and then you say why. If you don't say why it isn't really a review and probably won't be accepted.
_________________
Why modern black metal objectively sucks
Deutschpunk - Why German Punk Rock Is... Different - [A Zero Budget Documentary]
- (droneriot drinks and rants...)

https://conservativetentacles.bandcamp.com/

Top
 Profile  
Napalm_Satan
Ever-Opening Flower

Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2015 4:27 pm
Posts: 3548
Location: London, England, United Kingdom
PostPosted: Sat Jul 18, 2020 7:15 pm 
 

Precisely... which renders that kind of a moot point, thinking about it. 'The album is inconsistent' doesn't really hold up as a point in your review if you don't actually back it up with anything, at which point it basically isn't a review, or at least an incomplete one.
_________________
Review Lads!

Top
 Profile  
droneriot
incelgender

Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 1:17 pm
Posts: 10499
Location: Spahn Ranch
PostPosted: Sat Jul 18, 2020 7:25 pm 
 

Well yeah but Luvers wasn't really specific on if she referred to reviews that say just that, or if she referred to reviews using that as a starting point and going into detail. She just said inconsistent quality isn't objective which of course it isn't because who would you make a music review objective unless you don't have any personal taste in music.
_________________
Why modern black metal objectively sucks
Deutschpunk - Why German Punk Rock Is... Different - [A Zero Budget Documentary]
- (droneriot drinks and rants...)

https://conservativetentacles.bandcamp.com/

Top
 Profile  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic Go to page Previous  1 ... 425, 426, 427, 428, 429, 430, 431  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

  Print view
Jump to:  

Back to the Encyclopaedia Metallum


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group