Encyclopaedia Metallum: The Metal Archives

Message board

* FAQ    * Search   * Register   * Login 



Reply to topic
Author Message Previous topic | Next topic
BastardHead
Worse than Stalin

Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 7:53 pm
Posts: 9825
Location: St. Charles, Illinois
PostPosted: Sat Jul 18, 2020 7:31 pm 
 

A purely objective review would just be a lengthy list of key sigs and tempos and that would absolutely suck shit. Pointing out that a review is subjective is an infinitely more useless criticism than anything a review could say to trigger that criticism in the first place. Might as well point out that Boromir isn't a real person and Sean Bean is actually alive.
_________________
Lair of the Bastard: LATEST REVIEW: Vader - Litany
The Outer RIM - Uatism: The dogs bark in street slang
ALBUM OF THE DECADE RESULTS

Top
 Profile  
Luvers
Metal newbie

Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 10:34 pm
Posts: 327
Location: United States
PostPosted: Sat Jul 18, 2020 7:43 pm 
 

droneriot wrote:
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.
Calm down sir, I was just asking a question.

You do not need to tell me reviews are subjective, I know this. I spelled that out in my post, I guess I did not do it as well as I thought.
Napalm_Satan wrote:
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.
First, that is what most people do, they just state it and never mention why. Second, how exactly do they 'qualify' the claim of consistency when it comes to the guitarwork, vocals, lyrics and songwriting? What one person finds consistent, another person might find to be repetitive and boring. Elementary level guitarwork (which I can state OBJECTIVELY since I am a guitar player) will seem too generic to some but others will (with complete validity) feel that intricate and complex level guitarwork is too self-indulgent. If both people are completely valid then it would not be possible to say the guitarwork was consistent or not.

Is there something else I am missing here?
_________________
[My Soundcloud || My Last.fm || Concerts I've Attended]

Top
 Profile  
droneriot
incelgender

Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 1:17 pm
Posts: 10520
Location: Spahn Ranch
PostPosted: Sat Jul 18, 2020 7:48 pm 
 

I'm calm, but yeah I did not get that from your post, and as I hope you got from my response I know you know better than what your original post let on. But yes, the divide is simply between reviews that let you know what they mean by inconsistent and reviews that neglect to let you know what they mean and the latter obviously suck, but not because they call something inconsistent, but because they neglect to go into detail about what that means for them with the album reviewed. Every statement made in a review should be able to stand up to a "why is that?" and the answer to that should also be in that same 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  
Twisted_Psychology
Metal freak

Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 8:22 pm
Posts: 5091
Location: United States
PostPosted: Sat Jul 18, 2020 11:43 pm 
 

Whenever I personally refer to inconsistency in an album review, it’s usually in regard to a band’s repertoire of styles, musicians, or songwriting styles. Examples being if a singer can’t find a delivery that works for them over the course of an album or if a band is good at writing certain types of songs and bad at writing others.
_________________
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: 1030
Location: Behind the wall of fire v.2
PostPosted: Sun Jul 19, 2020 12:34 am 
 

Yeah, if we’re talking inconsistency in general, it’s more the feeling that the album never settles down and keeps changing things that are going well. For instance, a lot of Annihilator’s albums have a random funk song or something in, plus there are usually some real clunkers mixed in with excellent material.
_________________
Five_Nails wrote:
unfuckable long-haired muffin-top titty-boy suburbanite I was

Top
 Profile  
Metantoine
Lazy Wizard

Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 5:00 pm
Posts: 11884
Location: Montréal
PostPosted: Sun Jul 19, 2020 12:59 am 
 

Inconsistencies to me can mean both that the songwriting differs in quality from song to song or that the style is inconsistent throughout the album. It's easy to throw that word and be done with it but I think it warrants some more elaboration when someone is using it.
_________________
Derigin wrote:
You look like you lift. Nice.

Metantoine's Magickal Realm

Top
 Profile  
BastardHead
Worse than Stalin

Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 7:53 pm
Posts: 9825
Location: St. Charles, Illinois
PostPosted: Sun Jul 19, 2020 8:22 am 
 

Luvers wrote:
What one person finds consistent, another person might find to be repetitive and boring. Elementary level guitarwork (which I can state OBJECTIVELY since I am a guitar player) will seem too generic to some but others will (with complete validity) feel that intricate and complex level guitarwork is too self-indulgent. If both people are completely valid then it would not be possible to say the guitarwork was consistent or not.


I think the bolded part is where I disagree, because at the end of the day it frankly doesn't matter if two differing-yet-valid interpretations exist, because a review is written from only one point of view: the writer's. For example, let's take a look at the first album that jumps to mind when I think "inconsistent": Blind Guardian's Nightfall in Middle-Earth. Half of the tracks are meaningless twenty second interludes, half of the remaining tracks are ballads, and the leftover tracks are speedy anthemic rockers. That alone is inconsistent based on style, and it goes double since of the "real" songs on display, half of them are droning and dull while the remaining six or seven songs are some of the best songs Blind Guardian ever wrote. So it's inconsistent in terms of style and quality to me, and that lack of consistency makes the album incredibly frustrating to sit through. There are tons of people who see this exact same thing that I think is unfocused and hit-or-miss and think it's incredibly varied and awesome across the board. The existence of those people wouldn't make my criticism invalid or unhelpful. That's kinda the whole point of reviews.

If they don't bother going into detail, then it's exactly like drone says, that would be the reason the review isn't useful, not simply because they're using inconsistency as a criticism.
_________________
Lair of the Bastard: LATEST REVIEW: Vader - Litany
The Outer RIM - Uatism: The dogs bark in street slang
ALBUM OF THE DECADE RESULTS

Top
 Profile  
Empyreal
The Final Frontier

Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 6:58 pm
Posts: 28054
Location: Where the dead rule the night
PostPosted: Sun Jul 19, 2020 8:33 am 
 

The problem is you can't really apply the same standards for everything across the board. If people love that kind of metal opera stuff with the interludes and fantasy story and everything, Nightfall in Middle Earth is great - others like me will just go to Virgin Steele's House of Atreus for that since I'm not in any great need for just any old album in that vein.

And simple guitarwork can be bad in some cases but really work in others. There's no one standard. It depends on writing, the effect the music has on you, etc.
_________________
Cinema Freaks latest reviews: Friend Request

Top
 Profile  
Slater922
Metal newbie

Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2020 6:24 pm
Posts: 41
PostPosted: Sun Jul 19, 2020 3:30 pm 
 

Finally wrote the review to "Blackened 2020".

Listening to that single again just for the review was a pain. I had the AJFA version of Blackened playing as well not only to make comparisons, but to also remind myself on what good Metallica sounds like.
_________________
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: 10520
Location: Spahn Ranch
PostPosted: Sun Jul 19, 2020 7:37 pm 
 

Praising the bass playing in the original strikes me as a bit odd.
_________________
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: Sun Jul 19, 2020 9:32 pm 
 

gasmask_colostomy wrote:
Yeah, if we’re talking inconsistency in general, it’s more the feeling that the album never settles down and keeps changing things that are going well. For instance, a lot of Annihilator’s albums have a random funk song or something in, plus there are usually some real clunkers mixed in with excellent material.
Right, but the 'going well' is subjective. If there was anything objective about it then your favorite metal band is on par with, say, The Waitresses. Say what you will but the tone of that song is 'consistent' and as a result, should it not be a masterpiece?
Twisted_Psychology wrote:
Whenever I personally refer to inconsistency in an album review, it’s usually in regard to a band’s repertoire of styles, musicians, or songwriting styles. Examples being if a singer can’t find a delivery that works for them over the course of an album or if a band is good at writing certain types of songs and bad at writing others.
Who are you to objectively state the vocalist cannot find the delivery though? Ozzy is one of the worst vocalists of all time, even at his absolute highest standard, he can still not remain in key when performing a vocal melody. If you ever scan over Ozzy's vocal melodies, they will drop out of key and I doubt the drunken middle school educated Ozzy has the cognitive functions to purposely cause that. Just one of many examples that can be given, so perhaps you can objectively show that a vocalist is incapable of finding a delivery that works for them.
BastardHead wrote:
Luvers wrote:
What one person finds consistent, another person might find to be repetitive and boring. Elementary level guitarwork (which I can state OBJECTIVELY since I am a guitar player) will seem too generic to some but others will (with complete validity) feel that intricate and complex level guitarwork is too self-indulgent. If both people are completely valid then it would not be possible to say the guitarwork was consistent or not.
I think the bolded part is where I disagree, because at the end of the day it frankly doesn't matter if two differing-yet-valid interpretations exist, because a review is written from only one point of view: the writer's. For example, let's take a look at the first album that jumps to mind when I think "inconsistent": Blind Guardian's Nightfall in Middle-Earth. Half of the tracks are meaningless twenty second interludes, half of the remaining tracks are ballads, and the leftover tracks are speedy anthemic rockers. That alone is inconsistent based on style, and it goes double since of the "real" songs on display, half of them are droning and dull while the remaining six or seven songs are some of the best songs Blind Guardian ever wrote.
I respectfully have to disgaree with you but also to state that I think you may have missed my point. I never wrote that you were 'wrong' for what you like, how could I possibly demonstrate that? More important, why would I even want to?

But, again, who are you to objectively state that the inerludes are meaningless? What is wrong with blending rockers with ballads? Perhaps the compositions are more impactful when the tempo is slower. Why are the other songs some of their best? I happen to think Nighfall In... is not one of Blind Guardians best albums. Is that objective? No. If I were to utilize my knowledge of compositions and instruments to demonstrate that a composition has too little of riffs, that the rhythm is comprised of many power chords, etc... would I be subejctive? No, because I would be stating a fact that could be demonstrated with evidence.
BastardHead wrote:
So it's inconsistent in terms of style and quality to me, and that lack of consistency makes the album incredibly frustrating to sit through. There are tons of people who see this exact same thing that I think is unfocused and hit-or-miss and think it's incredibly varied and awesome across the board. The existence of those people wouldn't make my criticism invalid or unhelpful. That's kinda the whole point of reviews. If they don't bother going into detail, then it's exactly like drone says, that would be the reason the review isn't useful, not simply because they're using inconsistency as a criticism.
I do not disagree with you sir and you are 100% right on this matter but only on a subjective level. I guess the point I am clumsily getting to is that, 'this album is inconsistent' is a really poor reason to give, even if it is subjective, but especially if trying to be/claim is objective.

I am not some celebrated reviewer so maybe I am just dumb, who knows, but I am just trying to understand how that claim is a valid form of critique. I believe in the guidelines for reviews there is an emphasis placed on describing the music since there might be someone who has never heard, needs to revisit or wants to reevaluate the album. Writing, "this album is inconsistent" just seems to me to be lazy and I feel it gives off this vibe of being closed-minded.
_________________
[My Soundcloud || My Last.fm || Concerts I've Attended]

Top
 Profile  
gasmask_colostomy
Metalhead

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 5:38 am
Posts: 1030
Location: Behind the wall of fire v.2
PostPosted: Sun Jul 19, 2020 10:24 pm 
 

Luvers, either you're trolling or just not getting the point. No one is trying to say that a claim of inconsistency needs to be objective, because we all accept that reviewing is subjective. Sure, many of us try to be more balanced in our criticism, but we cannot mathematically prove that an album is poor, we can only subjectively rate it as poor, or inconsistent. Remember when droneriot wrote that "Reviews are not objective" post on the last page? That was where this discussion climaxed.
_________________
Five_Nails wrote:
unfuckable long-haired muffin-top titty-boy suburbanite I was

Top
 Profile  
BastardHead
Worse than Stalin

Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 7:53 pm
Posts: 9825
Location: St. Charles, Illinois
PostPosted: Sun Jul 19, 2020 10:35 pm 
 

I think this is really just boiling down to a hyper-focused annoyance with the perpetually blurred line between objective and subjective, which is something that I think simply doesn't matter all that much because either the context will make it clear or if, in the worst case, the reviewer is using the words incorrectly, it's just a simple misuse of words and really doesn't devalue the obvious point somebody is hypothetically trying to make. It would be a factual inaccuracy to say that Nightfall is full of one type of song, it would not be a factual inaccuracy to say the quality is consistently high, consistently low, or an inconsistent mix of the two. Because judgments of quality are opinions by nature and reviews are inherently opinion pieces. If we were to discourage opinions then we'd just get rid of reviews entirely.

Luvers wrote:
I am just trying to understand how that claim is a valid form of critique. I believe in the guidelines for reviews there is an emphasis placed on describing the music since there might be someone who has never heard, needs to revisit or wants to reevaluate the album. Writing, "this album is inconsistent" just seems to me to be lazy and I feel it gives off this vibe of being closed-minded.


I think there's an unspoken needle being thread with reviews where you need to accurately describe the album while also honestly judging its quality as it pertains to your perception. It's not a matter of "objective critique vs subjective opinion" as much as it's "getting the basic facts right + whether or not you think it's good". If there are reviews here that just say "this is inconsistent" and don't go into any further detail, then yeah that's a problem and we'll take a look at them, but as long as they say "this is inconsistent because of x" then there really isn't a problem.

The idea of there being an immovable objective correctness to art is something that's never jived with me anyway because that feels antithetical to the emotional experience of art in the first place. If we could judge music by checking boxes and measuring the amount of riffs per song and the complexity of the structuring or something then we'd just have an unwavering consensus and no need for reviews in the first place. But it doesn't work that way, and frankly it shouldn't.

I have a second account that I was going to roll out as a joke but to this day I haven't touched, named "TheObjectiveReviewer". My plan was to hit a bunch of classic albums and write lengthy, detailed reviews that had absolutely zero qualitative judgments and would merely dryly rattle off technical data like time signatures, tempo, and key signatures. The idea was to show that by taking them to their logical extreme, purely objective essays weren't even really reviews in the first place and would be completely worthless and unhelpful. The reason that account has been languishing and I never actually did it is because it turns out it's incredibly fucking boring to even write in the first place and somehow even less interesting to read.
_________________
Lair of the Bastard: LATEST REVIEW: Vader - Litany
The Outer RIM - Uatism: The dogs bark in street slang
ALBUM OF THE DECADE RESULTS

Top
 Profile  
hells_unicorn
Metalhead

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:32 pm
Posts: 2483
Location: United States
PostPosted: Mon Jul 20, 2020 12:04 am 
 

Slater922 wrote:
Finally wrote the review to "Blackened 2020".

Listening to that single again just for the review was a pain. I had the AJFA version of Blackened playing as well not only to make comparisons, but to also remind myself on what good Metallica sounds like.


Decided to get in on the action with this song, and found myself hating it a tad less than everyone else here does. I think James' vocals are the main thing that killed this song, though Lars' drumming was also pretty subpar even by his own standards. I'm basically over this acoustic blues/country obsession that Metallica has been nursing and am hoping they do something with a little more edge soon, Hetfield looking old enough to be my dad (who is 20 years older than him) notwithstanding.
_________________
My projects:
Frost Giant
Ominous Glory

My reviews.

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

Top
 Profile  
Luvers
Metal newbie

Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 10:34 pm
Posts: 327
Location: United States
PostPosted: Mon Jul 20, 2020 12:41 am 
 

gasmask_colostomy wrote:
Luvers, either you're trolling or just not getting the point. No one is trying to say that a claim of inconsistency needs to be objective, because we all accept that reviewing is subjective.
I don't like trolling, it is a waste of time. I would much rather be engaging. Maybe I am missing the point here, I can accept that. As for no one saying it needs to be objective, well I AM stating that. I KNOW reviewing is subjective but just because something is subjective in nature does not mean it is impossible to be objective about it.
gasmask_colostomy wrote:
Sure, many of us try to be more balanced in our criticism, but we cannot mathematically prove that an album is poor, we can only subjectively rate it as poor, or inconsistent.
gasmask, either you're trolling or just not getting the point here. Let me try it this way:

I became familiar with Iron Maiden in '82 with their Number of the Beast album, that means I have been familiar with every Iron Maiden album that has dropped since Piece Of Mind in '83. Still with me? After Seventh Son in '88 I stopped caring much about the band, however I have still heard the nine studio albums they have released since then. Of those nine studio albums, six of them I heard without prior knowledge on who it was, and yet I have NEVER in my life heard an Iron Maiden song and thought it was anyone but them. Despite refusing to buy their albums and finding the band incredibly lame in the overall I can still identify it is them 100% of the time. Why? BECAUSE THE BAND CONSISTENTLY STICKS TO ONE STYLE AND FORMULA. If you were to slice open the arm of Iron Maiden, you would not get blood you would get monotony.

Would that statement be subjective? Absolutely! After all I have already stated that I understand reviews are subjective. Can it, however, be objectively proven that Maiden has been using the same formula for the past 30 years? Absolutely! Would this qualify as consistent? Sure! Would it also qualify as incredibly boring as a result? Absolutely!
gasmask_colostomy wrote:
Remember when droneriot wrote that "Reviews are not objective" post on the last page? That was where this discussion climaxed.
No that is where you think it should have ended but thanks for rendering my view here as so vacuous that it could be ended with one sentence. Nothing says respect quite like that.
_________________
[My Soundcloud || My Last.fm || Concerts I've Attended]

Top
 Profile  
CHAIRTHROWER
Methed-burnt rogue babelfish

Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2015 7:10 pm
Posts: 589
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Mon Jul 20, 2020 1:45 am 
 

Ha! Hell's opening p-graph to Blackened syntheses
slayed me...I've now an agoraphobic nosebleed to attend to...

Top
 Profile  
gasmask_colostomy
Metalhead

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 5:38 am
Posts: 1030
Location: Behind the wall of fire v.2
PostPosted: Mon Jul 20, 2020 1:55 am 
 

Luvers wrote:
gasmask_colostomy wrote:
Luvers, either you're trolling or just not getting the point. No one is trying to say that a claim of inconsistency needs to be objective, because we all accept that reviewing is subjective.
I don't like trolling, it is a waste of time. I would much rather be engaging. Maybe I am missing the point here, I can accept that. As for no one saying it needs to be objective, well I AM stating that. I KNOW reviewing is subjective but just because something is subjective in nature does not mean it is impossible to be objective about it.
gasmask_colostomy wrote:
Sure, many of us try to be more balanced in our criticism, but we cannot mathematically prove that an album is poor, we can only subjectively rate it as poor, or inconsistent.
gasmask, either you're trolling or just not getting the point here. Let me try it this way:

I became familiar with Iron Maiden in '82 with their Number of the Beast album, that means I have been familiar with every Iron Maiden album that has dropped since Piece Of Mind in '83. Still with me? After Seventh Son in '88 I stopped caring much about the band, however I have still heard the nine studio albums they have released since then. Of those nine studio albums, six of them I heard without prior knowledge on who it was, and yet I have NEVER in my life heard an Iron Maiden song and thought it was anyone but them. Despite refusing to buy their albums and finding the band incredibly lame in the overall I can still identify it is them 100% of the time. Why? BECAUSE THE BAND CONSISTENTLY STICKS TO ONE STYLE AND FORMULA. If you were to slice open the arm of Iron Maiden, you would not get blood you would get monotony.

Would that statement be subjective? Absolutely! After all I have already stated that I understand reviews are subjective. Can it, however, be objectively proven that Maiden has been using the same formula for the past 30 years? Absolutely! Would this qualify as consistent? Sure! Would it also qualify as incredibly boring as a result? Absolutely!
gasmask_colostomy wrote:
Remember when droneriot wrote that "Reviews are not objective" post on the last page? That was where this discussion climaxed.
No that is where you think it should have ended but thanks for rendering my view here as so vacuous that it could be ended with one sentence. Nothing says respect quite like that.

In principle, I think I agree with everything you've said, so I'm not really sure why we were having difficulty understanding each other. I agree that it's very annoying when people use "inconsistent" as a criticism without anything to back it up, and I agree that you can be - let's say - "more objective" about making that point. Apologies if my last reply was a bit rude, but it seemed as though you were conflating the idea of consistency with objectivity. This sentence in your last post is the only part that really confuses me, because it seems contradictory:
Luvers wrote:
I KNOW reviewing is subjective but just because something is subjective in nature does not mean it is impossible to be objective about it.
_________________
Five_Nails wrote:
unfuckable long-haired muffin-top titty-boy suburbanite I was

Top
 Profile  
Twisted_Psychology
Metal freak

Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 8:22 pm
Posts: 5091
Location: United States
PostPosted: Mon Jul 20, 2020 8:53 am 
 

Luvers wrote:
Twisted_Psychology wrote:
Whenever I personally refer to inconsistency in an album review, it’s usually in regard to a band’s repertoire of styles, musicians, or songwriting styles. Examples being if a singer can’t find a delivery that works for them over the course of an album or if a band is good at writing certain types of songs and bad at writing others.
Who are you to objectively state the vocalist cannot find the delivery though? Ozzy is one of the worst vocalists of all time, even at his absolute highest standard, he can still not remain in key when performing a vocal melody. If you ever scan over Ozzy's vocal melodies, they will drop out of key and I doubt the drunken middle school educated Ozzy has the cognitive functions to purposely cause that. Just one of many examples that can be given, so perhaps you can objectively show that a vocalist is incapable of finding a delivery that works for them.[quote="Luvers"]

I mean, I am a vocalist with albums to my name if you want to play the game. But in terms of judging a vocalist, context is just as integral to a performance as actual ability in my opinion. To take the Ozzy example, there are pretty extreme differences between being creepy in the background Ozzy, shrieking mid-70s Ozzy, 80s pop idol Ozzy, and autotuned robot Ozzy even though they all occupy similar ranges. Lemmy was a great vocalist because his swagger and personality worked with Motorhead, not because he could've gotten away with singing Queensryche.

EDIT: Quoting didn't turn out right. I hope my point is still articulated.
_________________
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  
Empyreal
The Final Frontier

Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 6:58 pm
Posts: 28054
Location: Where the dead rule the night
PostPosted: Mon Jul 20, 2020 9:26 am 
 

1970s Ozzy was great, and worked well for the music he sang over. Just another example why you can't have a universal standard toward only clean/polished/proficient material.
_________________
Cinema Freaks latest reviews: Friend Request

Top
 Profile  
BastardHead
Worse than Stalin

Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 7:53 pm
Posts: 9825
Location: St. Charles, Illinois
PostPosted: Mon Jul 20, 2020 10:22 am 
 

I'll occasionally reference this vague triad of elements of clean vocalists in my reviews, the points of which being range, power, and control, but really it's just a referential device more than a measure of quality. Like I think Jens Carlsson has a lot of power and versatility in his voice but he controls himself about as well as a junkie, but it doesn't hinder my enjoyment at all because I think he sounds fuckin' rad in the context of Persuader.

Basically my thesis here is "You can't perfectly express complex opinions numerically, so keep math out of reviews".
_________________
Lair of the Bastard: LATEST REVIEW: Vader - Litany
The Outer RIM - Uatism: The dogs bark in street slang
ALBUM OF THE DECADE RESULTS

Top
 Profile  
Empyreal
The Final Frontier

Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 6:58 pm
Posts: 28054
Location: Where the dead rule the night
PostPosted: Mon Jul 20, 2020 10:31 am 
 

I love some Roy Khan and Daniel Heiman, but I'm also not gonna knock Tim Baker or Mark Shelton when they're doing their thing. Art is expression. It's using certain tools to achieve an effect which can be any limitless number of things. You never know what'll work.
_________________
Cinema Freaks latest reviews: Friend Request

Top
 Profile  
caspian
Wanderer of the Wastes

Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:29 pm
Posts: 6328
Location: Australia
PostPosted: Mon Jul 20, 2020 10:34 am 
 

BastardHead wrote:
Basically my thesis here is "You can't perfectly express complex opinions numerically, so keep math out of reviews".


There's a reason why people who try to review "mathematically" (giant airquotes etc) aren't praised all that often.

I like the idea of trying to express numerical problems the other way around though. The "number 9 is incomplete and I hate it" is the closest MA has ever come to this idea, alas.
_________________
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: Mon Jul 20, 2020 3:27 pm 
 

Nice, jocund, and on point Sloth review, there, Caspian. (Although, your ruefully wry, sardonic and/or despotic, er despondent, write-up for Tarot - not Carrot - put me (as well as perhaps Metantoine) in a rabid figure four, nary demanding more...).

Top
 Profile  
Luvers
Metal newbie

Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 10:34 pm
Posts: 327
Location: United States
PostPosted: Mon Jul 20, 2020 3:36 pm 
 

Twisted_Psychology wrote:
I mean, I am a vocalist with albums to my name if you want to play the game. But in terms of judging a vocalist, context is just as integral to a performance as actual ability in my opinion. To take the Ozzy example, there are pretty extreme differences between being creepy in the background Ozzy, shrieking mid-70s Ozzy, 80s pop idol Ozzy, and autotuned robot Ozzy even though they all occupy similar ranges. Lemmy was a great vocalist because his swagger and personality worked with Motorhead, not because he could've gotten away with singing Queensryche.
Okay but as a trained vocalist then, you would be able to verify if the vocals were sung in a melody the way they were supposed to be. There is a reason why the vocal melody is so important to the creation of a composition, even if it is an instrumental.
gasmask_colostomy wrote:
This sentence in your last post is the only part that really confuses me, because it seems contradictory:
Luvers wrote:
I KNOW reviewing is subjective but just because something is subjective in nature does not mean it is impossible to be objective about it.
I do not understand how it is contradictory. Reviews are opinions so stating, "This album sucks because of X" is still 100% subjective. Stating "X song is placed as track 3 instead of track 5 and this disrupts the flow of the record because the lyrical theme does not work with the different placement," is entirely objective. First, one would be pointing out a fact (different track placement). Second, one would be pointing out a fact (narrative disruption). Third, they are not placing their opinion on the matter over relaying the information.

To use a popular example to make this easier, imagine if on The Wall the track Young Lust was five tracks later. It has always sat as track nine and, more importantly, occupies a specific place in the narrative. If this song was five tracks later (which would be following Hey You) it would seriously splinter the narrative and timeline. So a subjective review would be, "That song is awesome," whereas an objective review would be, "This song works where it is because anywhere else would disrupt the flow of the narrative, since it works in a very specific way." OR "If the band had used the '7 single version the song would be less impactful because that version does not utilize the phone call at the end, which informs the listener of where they are in the narrative."
BastardHead wrote:
Basically my thesis here is "You can't perfectly express complex opinions numerically, so keep math out of reviews".
Was this meant for me?
_________________
[My Soundcloud || My Last.fm || Concerts I've Attended]

Top
 Profile  
oneyoudontknow
Cum insantientibus furere necesse est.

Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 6:25 pm
Posts: 5174
Location: Germany
PostPosted: Mon Jul 20, 2020 3:50 pm 
 

Sloth is doing some form of "community service", then?
_________________

My website which contains reviews as well as interviews:
http://adsol.oneyoudontknow.com/index.php/wiki/A_dead_spot_of_light
Some analysis on the metal scene (data taken from the Metal Archives):
http://oneyoudontknow.com

Top
 Profile  
gasmask_colostomy
Metalhead

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 5:38 am
Posts: 1030
Location: Behind the wall of fire v.2
PostPosted: Mon Jul 20, 2020 10:58 pm 
 

Luvers wrote:
gasmask_colostomy wrote:
This sentence in your last post is the only part that really confuses me, because it seems contradictory:
Luvers wrote:
I KNOW reviewing is subjective but just because something is subjective in nature does not mean it is impossible to be objective about it.
I do not understand how it is contradictory. Reviews are opinions so stating, "This album sucks because of X" is still 100% subjective. Stating "X song is placed as track 3 instead of track 5 and this disrupts the flow of the record because the lyrical theme does not work with the different placement," is entirely objective. First, one would be pointing out a fact (different track placement). Second, one would be pointing out a fact (narrative disruption). Third, they are not placing their opinion on the matter over relaying the information.

To use a popular example to make this easier, imagine if on The Wall the track Young Lust was five tracks later. It has always sat as track nine and, more importantly, occupies a specific place in the narrative. If this song was five tracks later (which would be following Hey You) it would seriously splinter the narrative and timeline. So a subjective review would be, "That song is awesome," whereas an objective review would be, "This song works where it is because anywhere else would disrupt the flow of the narrative, since it works in a very specific way." OR "If the band had used the '7 single version the song would be less impactful because that version does not utilize the phone call at the end, which informs the listener of where they are in the narrative."

In your first example, I would say it's still a subjective view to say that a song "disrupts the flow" of the record. Maybe I would feel it works just fine in that order. Obviously, in the Pink Floyd example, there's a reason why that track would be in the wrong place, yet it's a weird point to bring up, since who would praise a band for getting the sequencing of their concept album right?

In terms of liking and disliking stuff, I will always say that there's a measure of subjectivity to it.

oneyoudontknow wrote:
Sloth is doing some form of "community service", then?

Sloth fill a space in the universe. And you're not a proper reviewer until you've given Sloth a score marginally to one side of 0.
_________________
Five_Nails wrote:
unfuckable long-haired muffin-top titty-boy suburbanite I was

Top
 Profile  
Lord_Of_Diamonds
Metal newbie

Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2018 5:23 pm
Posts: 249
PostPosted: Mon Jul 20, 2020 11:27 pm 
 

oneyoudontknow wrote:
Sloth is doing some form of "community service", then?

You read the review too, huh? Maybe if we suddenly start giving their singles high scores, they'll quit wasting Bandcamp server space.

Ahhh, who am I kidding. They'll probably just laugh all the way to the Audacity noise generator.
_________________
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: Tue Jul 21, 2020 1:11 am 
 

Luvers wrote:
Reviews are opinions so stating, "This album sucks because of X" is still 100% subjective.

Stating "X song is placed as track 3 instead of track 5 and this disrupts the flow of the record because the lyrical theme does not work with the different placement," is entirely objective.


Do you have any idea what subjective and objective mean? Damn dude, you're embarrassing yourself. Both those opinions are completely subjective.

If you're going to pick a way to look like a moron, at least find an entertaining subject to do it with.
_________________
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  
caspian
Wanderer of the Wastes

Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:29 pm
Posts: 6328
Location: Australia
PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2020 1:31 am 
 

Another brief note: liked Hells' take on live shit, thought "metal was defeated by final victory" was quite a well put take, surprised that there was no mention of the long, painful solo spots and the 10 hour marathon that's Mexico City's (I think?) Seek and Destroy. I should dig out that boxset at some point, it's a lot of fun. The '89 show is still the peak of music as far as I'm concerned.
_________________
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  
gasmask_colostomy
Metalhead

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 5:38 am
Posts: 1030
Location: Behind the wall of fire v.2
PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2020 11:02 am 
 

So I decided to delete my old review of Supercharger and repost it, since about 2/3 of the content changed, plus the score moved a bit too. I don't know if anyone else has old reviews that they wrote under the pressure of pandering to this site's perceived readership, but I'm trying to bring a few of my early ones in line with my true views.
_________________
Five_Nails wrote:
unfuckable long-haired muffin-top titty-boy suburbanite I was

Top
 Profile  
Luvers
Metal newbie

Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 10:34 pm
Posts: 327
Location: United States
PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2020 11:27 am 
 

gasmask_colostomy wrote:
In your first example, I would say it's still a subjective view to say that a song "disrupts the flow" of the record. Maybe I would feel it works just fine in that order. Obviously, in the Pink Floyd example, there's a reason why that track would be in the wrong place, yet it's a weird point to bring up, since who would praise a band for getting the sequencing of their concept album right?

In terms of liking and disliking stuff, I will always say that there's a measure of subjectivity to it...
How is this so hard to grasp? Not every time someone is reviewing something are they only discussing their like or dislike of it. Yes, you are correct, anytime someone discusses their own enjoyment of something, they are being subjective. If they are not discussing feelings or opinions and only representing facts they are being objective. It is true that you can subjectively think the song has better placement somewhere else, but it is objective when stating the song needs to be placed where it is for narrative. I guess you just enjoy reading the middle of a book before the beginning. Do you randomly skip to the middle of a film and ignore the beginning until you are ready for it? ... This topic has gotten very far away from where it started.
caspian wrote:
Do you have any idea what subjective and objective mean?
Yes
Subjective: Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
Objective: Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
caspian wrote:
Damn dude, you're embarrassing yourself. Both those opinions are completely subjective. ... .If you're going to pick a way to look like a moron, at least find an entertaining subject to do it with.
_________________
[My Soundcloud || My Last.fm || Concerts I've Attended]

Top
 Profile  
CHAIRTHROWER
Methed-burnt rogue babelfish

Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2015 7:10 pm
Posts: 589
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2020 11:47 am 
 

Oi! Gas, I believe you're overly generous with your 62% score for Ice War's latest...The vocals are so shit(e) I couldn't even get past the first song, never mind the "clammy" (as you say) guitars...

What a terrible production! A 36%, about, if you ask me...

*Yeah! I managed to surpass number of reviews over forum posts...(let's keep it that way)

p.s. Which sounds better (as title for my cheesy review, there): "Straight Shootin' Tatterdemalion", or "Hip Shootin' Tatterdemalion"?

P.P.S Nice Ghoul(ish) review, squire!

Top
 Profile  
Napalm_Satan
Ever-Opening Flower

Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2015 4:27 pm
Posts: 3549
Location: London, England, United Kingdom
PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2020 1:55 pm 
 

gasmask_colostomy wrote:
So I decided to delete my old review of Supercharger and repost it, since about 2/3 of the content changed, plus the score moved a bit too. I don't know if anyone else has old reviews that they wrote under the pressure of pandering to this site's perceived readership, but I'm trying to bring a few of my early ones in line with my true views.


I have at least a few where I've done a 180 on an album (usually going from hating a controversial album to liking it) as my taste changed - for the better, honestly. Supercharger definitely isn't one of those albums though, lol.
_________________
Review Lads!

Top
 Profile  
hells_unicorn
Metalhead

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:32 pm
Posts: 2483
Location: United States
PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2020 2:54 pm 
 

caspian wrote:
Another brief note: liked Hells' take on live shit, thought "metal was defeated by final victory" was quite a well put take, surprised that there was no mention of the long, painful solo spots and the 10 hour marathon that's Mexico City's (I think?) Seek and Destroy. I should dig out that boxset at some point, it's a lot of fun. The '89 show is still the peak of music as far as I'm concerned.


Thanks mate, I had a feeling that this was one of those rare moments where you and I were in agreement on a Metallica release. I started reminiscing on my high school days as a bassist in a Metallica tribute band (everybody played guitar in my school so it was the only way I would have gotten the gig, though it did afford me the opportunity to have about as much fun as most guitarists do on stage lol) after reviewing the Blackened 2020 debacle and got inspired to do a write up on one of the most notoriously massive box sets every put out. I had many epic arguments with my friend who did all of Hetfield's parts over whether or not the Load albums were worthy of Metallica's legacy when they dropped (I hated them, he loved everything Metallica did regardless of stylistic changes), but overall it was a good time, and us binge watching the Seattle and San Diego concerts on VHS remains one of my happiest memories of what was otherwise a royally shitty high school experience.

While I still continue to hold the latter day grunge scene in contempt and blame its cultural ubiquity for traditional media shunning metal, I really think that Metallica staying on the road for so long milking their newfound superstardom shifted the paradigm significantly and made things all the more difficult for metal to remain viable in the Continental U.S. and a few other places. I do believe metal still had and continues to have a lot to say to a larger audience than it currently enjoys, I'm less bitter about it since the fall of traditional media in favor of the internet has made my access to it much easier.

Anyway, part of why I didn't feel the need to get too focused on the excessive solo slots and the 10-minute extended Seek And Destroy jam session (yeah, that was the Mexico City concert, and I'm pretty sure that Jason Newstead sang about 90% of it) was because I didn't want to go too long on the review. As I was typing everything out I felt that old inclination to pen a novella rather than a proper review that I was notorious for 12 years ago (one of my old 2007 reviews cracked the 4,000 words mark) and decided to keep things as general as I could. It is a release that could justify a long review, but I'll leave that to someone who is a more consistent Metallica fan.
_________________
My projects:
Frost Giant
Ominous Glory

My reviews.

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

Top
 Profile  
Sweetie
Metalhead

Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2014 1:19 am
Posts: 930
Location: United States
PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2020 6:34 pm 
 

My reviews are all projective.
_________________
"It's not the kill, it's the thrill of the chase" - Deep Purple

Top
 Profile  
Vadara
Metal newbie

Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 11:14 pm
Posts: 237
Location: United States
PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2020 9:17 pm 
 

I'm thinking of writing a review of Defeated Sanity's Chapters of Repugnance. Or maybe their new album because there's no way I'm getting this thing out before it drops and I want to write a critique of the band's style as a whole and it doesn't really matter what album I pick. Still, I don't want to wonkily fuck up the score of the new album so maybe I'll review CoR since my review won't screw up that one's score too much.

EDIT: I wrote the whole thing actually. Hoo boy people are not gonna like this one lmao I'm flying dangerously close to the sun here.

Top
 Profile  
gasmask_colostomy
Metalhead

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 5:38 am
Posts: 1030
Location: Behind the wall of fire v.2
PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2020 11:52 pm 
 

CHAIRTHROWER wrote:
Oi! Gas, I believe you're overly generous with your 62% score for Ice War's latest...The vocals are so shit(e) I couldn't even get past the first song, never mind the "clammy" (as you say) guitars...

What a terrible production! A 36%, about, if you ask me...

*Yeah! I managed to surpass number of reviews over forum posts...(let's keep it that way)

p.s. Which sounds better (as title for my cheesy review, there): "Straight Shootin' Tatterdemalion", or "Hip Shootin' Tatterdemalion"?

P.P.S Nice Ghoul(ish) review, squire!

Eh, it's one of those albums I couldn't quite get my head around. Not too bad in terms of songs and style, but just quite wet delivery. Strange, because by all reports the earlier albums were much better. I might bring it down a notch if I listen again and don't dig it, especially since I was pretty critical. I think I just wanted to like it, really.

I'd shoot straight iiwy.

Sweetie wrote:
My reviews are all projective.

What did this mean, by the way?
_________________
Five_Nails wrote:
unfuckable long-haired muffin-top titty-boy suburbanite I was

Top
 Profile  
colin040
Metal freak

Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 6:00 pm
Posts: 5961
Location: Netherlands
PostPosted: Wed Jul 22, 2020 4:37 am 
 

gasmask_colostomy wrote:

Sweetie wrote:
My reviews are all projective.

What did this mean, by the way?


I'm sure he was joking. :P

Top
 Profile  
CHAIRTHROWER
Methed-burnt rogue babelfish

Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2015 7:10 pm
Posts: 589
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Wed Jul 22, 2020 1:02 pm 
 

Nice Demolition (Man) review by luvers, there...I'd a probably never have given it token whirl ("Bloodsuckahs" playing, now) without it...

Top
 Profile  
Twisted_Psychology
Metal freak

Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 8:22 pm
Posts: 5091
Location: United States
PostPosted: Wed Jul 22, 2020 1:26 pm 
 

That glowing Anathema review is enough to make me overlook my concerns with that Demolition review. Both are pretty solidly written regardless.
_________________
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  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic Go to page Previous  1 ... 426, 427, 428, 429, 430, 431  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 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