Metal Storm logo
The Originality Paradox



Posts: 150   [ 1 ignored ]   Visited by: 88 users

Original post

Posted by , 14.12.2010 - 21:10
It's come to me that when Power Metal bands release albums that are the typical melodic [guitar solo's, extensive keyboard usage, high pitched vocals etc] European metal type all the feedback that these albums receive are comments such as

'flower metal'
'unoriginal'
'cheesy'

Why? Is my question. Surely it's logical that the old Power Metal bands such as Stratovarius; Rhapsody of Fire and Helloween set certain foundations of metal. These new bands follow the foundations because they work and are dubbed clones and all the aforementioned ridiculous names. Now here comes the intense deep thinking, a pioneer is someone who starts or greatly contributes to something, now in a metal context a generally accepted pioneer of Power Metal such as Stratovarius will have a lot of 'clones' because people emulate what works. right? So how can people criticise these new bands when all they're doing is using a formula that works? How can EVERY band bring ground breaking music to the field? It simply isn't possible, you have to judge them on the quality of THEIR music, not the distinct relation that music shares to a former band :s

This has been going through my mind for some time, but the two catalysts for this topic was a comment I received for one of my reviews of an album from a Power Metal band called Alliance of Bards. The commenter stated that the band was nothing more than a Rhapsody of Fire rip off [of course, every new Power Metal band from Italy MUST be ripping of Rhapsody right?]. While I wholeheartedly agree that there a lot of similarities between the two bands I have to say that ONE album from Alliance of Bards moved me musically more than any Rhapsody [Of Fire] album ever did, yet that band will forever be a clone and cheesy flower metal band because of a pioneering band.

The second catalyst was the review of an album by an unknown Power Metal band called Winter's Verge. The album was dubbed 'unoriginal' because it was too typical of the genre...thinking about that....doesn't it seem weird? What's the point of being in a genre if you don't stick to it?? Would you all still bum Opeth so much if they suddenly started going pro Industrial metal? No, of course you bloody wouldn't!

What is the cause of this paradox? Simply put, expectancy. People expect too much from new bands because of the 'standards' set by old bands. Like I said previously, it is not possible for every album to be ground breaking in its genre.

And this doesn't just go for Power Metal, in ALL genres metal you'll find the same old bigots who will bum the leading bands to extinction and shoo away all the upcoming bands untill...BANG! All the bands of old have disbanded, and finally, the no longer new bands will become the norm. Sadly, Power Metal being my favourite genre it's all I can talk about in excess, so I'll provide another example.

Stratovarius, as I've said, are considered a highly influential band in European Melodic Metal. Sonata Arctica, and band that came into existence while Strat were in their prime borrowed a lot of ideas, musically, from Stratovarius and really came into their own at the beginning of the 21st century, interestingly, whenever Sonata have released an album, it has never been dubbed cheesy or flower metal, sometimes, even by the greatest hater of Power Metal. Why is that exactly? There is very little difference between the two bands!

Thoughts?
27.12.2010 - 07:18
Guib
Thrash Talker
Written by RavenKing on 27.12.2010 at 02:29

Written by King Bonzo on 27.12.2010 at 00:30

Your opening question was:

"It's come to me that when Power Metal bands release albums that are the typical melodic [guitar solo's, extensive keyboard usage, high pitched vocals etc] European metal type all the feedback that these albums receive are comments such as

'flower metal'
'unoriginal'
'cheesy'

Why? Is my question."



Lets discuss the matter in a way that will be more related to Powermetal.


About Flowermetal: Not all Powermetal can be called Flowermetal but the stuff released by some bands nowadays definitely can be called Flowermetal. It would be ridiculous to label early Blind Guardian or Helloween when Kai Hansen was still in the band as Flowermetal. However, recent Edguy or Sonata Arctica are Flowermetal. Bands like Power Quest, Narnia and most of the stuff released by the PM genre after the millenia is Flowermetal from my point of view. Why?

Because it has no roughness, no bite of any kind, it is generally slow, the polished production makes it sound pop-ish, etc. In other terms, it has barely anything in common with melodic speed metal, which is what Powermetal originally was. It has no power at all. It sounds like hard rock and even pop rock at times, not like metal.


About unoriginal: Lots of PM bands are unoriginal because, compared to Thrash, Black or Death Metal, the riffs are more simple and basic on many occasions. Keep in mind I'm talking about riffs and not solos. I don't give a fuck at guitar solos and if music features great solos it is not a redeeming quality at all for me. I will go as far as saying that guitar solos are often an annoyance. It is riffs who give moods and character to a song, not solos.

Bass is usually more inaudible in PM than in extreme genres (though it can depend on bands and albums).

But, Imo, the weakest point (and the element I probably hate the most in PM), is drums. Drums are generic in PM and the same from band to band. Most drummers only alternate the bass drums right-left-right-left without doing any pattern, while barely doing anything with their hands. The snare usually hits at the same time with no variation. Not much tempo variation in lots of cases and they play at a comfortable speed. Drums are boring and repetitive in PM, they lack originality. Add to this that they often are recorded over the top of everything else (way too loud) and you get songs where all you remember is a tac-tac snare and the rest leave no mark in your mind.

Also, PM usually is not great at all when it comes to atmosphere. Normal from a genre that tries so much to be catchy and easy listening for the more mainstream masses. If you look past the initial catchiness, you can see how shallow PM usually is. The overpolished production doesn't help at all either. Old PM albums at least had some echo that gave some depth, some tri-dimensional feeling to the songs.

The song structure also often makes modern-day PM unoriginal because the music is simple, basic, easy to play and extremely predictable. It is a well-known fact that most people prefer simple and basic music, so PM bands who try to appeal to the masses begin to compose much simplier music. The fact that PM focuses so much on 'catchy choruses' doesn't help either, as it tends to cause songs to revolve solely around the chorus. And this adds to repetitiveness, another obstacle to originality.


As for cheesy, lots of PM fans themselves even acknowledge that PM is quite often cheesy. PM is often over-the-top childish. Sometimes, it is so childish, over-the-top happy or fantasy for kids that it is impossible for a grown-up to take it seriously.
However, cheesiness is not necessarily an issue. Some people admit themselves that they like cheesiness and enjoy it when it is cheesy. It depends on tastes as if cheesiness is an issue or not. For me, it is. If I find music so cheesy I can't take it seriously (as much as music can be taken seriously, that is) or too childish, I will dislike it and dismiss it as "too fucking cheesy for my tastes". But you can find people who like cheesiness and are not ashamed at all to admit it (and they don't have to).


A Much better answer...

I agree that not alot of PM bands exploit the Atmosphere in their music but take a look at Iced Earth for instance, they do put a great atmosphere in their songs (not all obviously but most of them). I know you were not generalizing but I was just mentioning.

And for the cheezy part I totally agree with you... It is more of an annoyance than something I personally enjoy, in fact I don't pay much attention to most of the PM bands lyrics precisely because of this. To me, they lose all credibility and it Irritates me like you wouldn't believe (... Manowar -_-) enough said.

@BitterCold - About my last post, It was not directed at you but to the people dissin eachother. And I would have thought that staff members would know better than prone getting off topic, don't you think ?
----
- Headbanging with mostly clogged arteries to that stuff -
Guib's List Of Essential Albums
- Also Thrash Paradise
Thrash Here
Loading...
27.12.2010 - 07:48
Angelic Storm
Melodious
Hmm... Im not sure if people who openly admit to hating certain genres, are really the best people to be critiquing those genres. I hate so-called "symphonic metal" with female vocals for example, so obviously any critique I gave on that genre would be extremely biased. lol
Loading...
27.12.2010 - 14:25
RavenKing

Written by Angelic Storm on 27.12.2010 at 07:48

Hmm... Im not sure if people who openly admit to hating certain genres, are really the best people to be critiquing those genres. I hate so-called "symphonic metal" with female vocals for example, so obviously any critique I gave on that genre would be extremely biased. lol


I'm probably not the best person when it comes to criticizing Powermetal, as I pretty much hate the genre nowadays. However, I was a Powermetal fan in the 90s (along with a fan of other genres, I've never been almost exclusively into PM - even when I listened to lots of PM, I also listened to lots of more extreme music), so I know a lot about the genre. Much more than any PM fanboy who got into the genre 2-3 years ago, I can ensure you.
Also, I still like some melodic Speed Metal. Trouble is PM bands took a different direction long ago, abandoning the more raw melodic Speed Metal we were used to in favor of hard rock-ish stuff and other barely-metal crap I dislike. If we still got something comparable to "Follow The Blind", "Tales From The Twilight World", "Walls Of Jericho", "Keeper Of The Seven Keys", "Land Of The Free" or "Somewhere Out In Space", my opinion on the genre would be different.

I would add that people who don't like a genre are better people to criticize it than blind fanboys.
Perhaps the criticism will be more negative than needed but at least they will bring valid points.
Even haters are more realistic than fanboys. There's no more blind and unrealistic than fanboys.


@Guib: I see what you mean by atmosphere in Iced Earth. However, I don't consider Iced Earth as typical Powermetal. More like a mix of Power and traditional Heavy Metal. It was Power/Thrash until "The Glorious Burden" but almost any trace of Thrash has disappeared on "Framing Armageddon". There's not the slighest Thrashy touch on TCOM.
----
They shake your hand and they smile and they buy you a drink
They say we'll be your friends we'll stick with you till the end
But everybody's only looking out for themselves
And you say who can you trust I'll tell you nobody
Loading...
28.12.2010 - 01:50
Guib
Thrash Talker
Written by RavenKing on 27.12.2010 at 14:25

Written by Angelic Storm on 27.12.2010 at 07:48

Hmm... Im not sure if people who openly admit to hating certain genres, are really the best people to be critiquing those genres. I hate so-called "symphonic metal" with female vocals for example, so obviously any critique I gave on that genre would be extremely biased. lol


I'm probably not the best person when it comes to criticizing Powermetal, as I pretty much hate the genre nowadays. However, I was a Powermetal fan in the 90s (along with a fan of other genres, I've never been almost exclusively into PM - even when I listened to lots of PM, I also listened to lots of more extreme music), so I know a lot about the genre. Much more than any PM fanboy who got into the genre 2-3 years ago, I can ensure you.
Also, I still like some melodic Speed Metal. Trouble is PM bands took a different direction long ago, abandoning the more raw melodic Speed Metal we were used to in favor of hard rock-ish stuff and other barely-metal crap I dislike. If we still got something comparable to "Follow The Blind", "Tales From The Twilight World", "Walls Of Jericho", "Keeper Of The Seven Keys", "Land Of The Free" or "Somewhere Out In Space", my opinion on the genre would be different.

I would add that people who don't like a genre are better people to criticize it than blind fanboys.
Perhaps the criticism will be more negative than needed but at least they will bring valid points.
Even haters are more realistic than fanboys. There's no more blind and unrealistic than fanboys.


@Guib: I see what you mean by atmosphere in Iced Earth. However, I don't consider Iced Earth as typical Powermetal. More like a mix of Power and traditional Heavy Metal. It was Power/Thrash until "The Glorious Burden" but almost any trace of Thrash has disappeared on "Framing Armageddon". There's not the slighest Thrashy touch on TCOM.


Once again I agree but In my heart it is what a real PM band should sound like *(Its all in my opinion of course)* They might not be traditional but who said that a band has to be traditional to fit into a genre. I only find it better when they mix different metal styles.
And Angelic is right about the fact that someone who dislikes a genre is not the best person to judge it, im not saying fanboys are better of course but you can be blinded by hate aswell. Its when you're able to fit right in the middle of things that you expose more thoughtful critics.
----
- Headbanging with mostly clogged arteries to that stuff -
Guib's List Of Essential Albums
- Also Thrash Paradise
Thrash Here
Loading...
28.12.2010 - 11:31
Angelic Storm
Melodious
Written by Guib on 28.12.2010 at 01:50
And Angelic is right about the fact that someone who dislikes a genre is not the best person to judge it, im not saying fanboys are better of course but you can be blinded by hate aswell. Its when you're able to fit right in the middle of things that you expose more thoughtful critics.


Yep, that's exactly the point I was trying to make. Of course I wasn't suggesting that blind fanboys would do better critiques, but someone who really dislikes a genre isnt really the best person to be critiquing that genre either. Its like giving someone who hates Helloween, a Helloween album to review. It's foolish, and wouldnt serve any practical purpose. The critique would also be highly flawed coming from someone in that position.
Loading...
28.12.2010 - 22:03
ForeverDarkWoods

Written by Angelic Storm on 28.12.2010 at 11:31

Its like giving someone who hates Helloween, a Helloween album to review. It's foolish, and wouldnt serve any practical purpose. The critique would also be highly flawed coming from someone in that position.

If one dislikes Helloween, why wouldn't they have a right to state that opinion if they can back it up? I could imagine doing reviews of tons of bands that I dislike.

I could vividly imagine slamming bands like Opeth, Agalloch, Wolves In The Throne Room and Lifelover really hard. People writing negative reviews is a good thing (as well as people writing positive reviews for genrally disliked albums), when done intelligently, even for the "holy grails" so to speak. It presents a different point of view than the standard one, and while it might be useless to you, it might not be to everyone.

Also, while I don't hate Helloween (one of my favourite PM bands in fact), I don't see why simply disliking this particular band would make your criticism flawed (unless, of course, you are an idiot and question their historical importance).
----
Free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction!
- George W. Bush, ex-president of the United States of America
Loading...
28.12.2010 - 22:24
Angelic Storm
Melodious
Written by ForeverDarkWoods on 28.12.2010 at 22:03
If one dislikes Helloween, why wouldn't they have a right to state that opinion if they can back it up? I could imagine doing reviews of tons of bands that I dislike.


Dont put words into my mouth, I never said they wouldn't have a right to state their opinion.

Quote:
I could vividly imagine slamming bands like Opeth, Agalloch, Wolves In The Throne Room and Lifelover really hard. People writing negative reviews is a good thing (as well as people writing positive reviews for genrally disliked albums), when done intelligently, even for the "holy grails" so to speak. It presents a different point of view than the standard one, and while it might be useless to you, it might not be to everyone.

Also, while I don't hate Helloween (one of my favourite PM bands in fact), I don't see why simply disliking this particular band would make your criticism flawed (unless, of course, you are an idiot and question their historical importance).


Simply, someone who hates a genre is going to have a very biased viewpoint about bands/albums in that genre, just as blind fanboys do. I think the best critques/reviews are from those who have an element of impartiality, towards a certain genre/band. They may like the genre, but they aren't afraid to state they dont like something in that genre. I stated earlier that I hate the genre of "symphonic metal with female vocals". I am quite free to voice my opinions on that genre, and say I dont like it. But by the same token, I wouldnt be the best person to be critiquing that genre, because the best viewpoints, are ones that are unbiased. Anyone that is extremely biased towards a certain genre, be that positive or negative, isnt the best person to take recommendations from.
Loading...
29.12.2010 - 00:25
RavenKing

Written by Angelic Storm on 28.12.2010 at 22:24

Simply, someone who hates a genre is going to have a very biased viewpoint about bands/albums in that genre, just as blind fanboys do. I think the best critques/reviews are from those who have an element of impartiality, towards a certain genre/band. They may like the genre, but they aren't afraid to state they dont like something in that genre. I stated earlier that I hate the genre of "symphonic metal with female vocals". I am quite free to voice my opinions on that genre, and say I dont like it. But by the same token, I wouldnt be the best person to be critiquing that genre, because the best viewpoints, are ones that are unbiased. Anyone that is extremely biased towards a certain genre, be that positive or negative, isnt the best person to take recommendations from.


Well, I think I could write a FAIR review about a Powermetal album. However, I'd need to be very careful not to transform it into a rant about everything that is wrong with modern-day Powermetal and everything that went wrong in the last 10 years or so, from my own point of view.

Problem is, by doing so, I would throw away my integrity because I can't write an HONEST review about a Powermetal album I dislike, other than by being very negative about it and about the genre it belongs to. I can't write an HONEST review (one that would reflect my own opinions and thoughts) and a FAIR one at the same time, because to be FAIR and politically correct, I would have to tone down and lie.

In other terms, I could write a FAIR review about a Powermetal album but it would not be an HONEST review. The only way to be HONEST in this situation would be to write a long rant about all that is wrong from my point of view and tell how much I hate the genre for all those reasons.

See the problem? That's why, even if I know I could write a FAIR review about a Powermetal album, I will never do it because I would feel hypocritical by doing it.


P.S. People often confuse being 'fair' and being 'honest' when it comes to reviews. And I think when you have to choose between being fair and being honest, it's not a pleasant situation.
----
They shake your hand and they smile and they buy you a drink
They say we'll be your friends we'll stick with you till the end
But everybody's only looking out for themselves
And you say who can you trust I'll tell you nobody
Loading...
29.12.2010 - 02:00
Angelic Storm
Melodious
Written by RavenKing on 29.12.2010 at 00:25
Well, I think I could write a FAIR review about a Powermetal album. However, I'd need to be very careful not to transform it into a rant about everything that is wrong with modern-day Powermetal and everything that went wrong in the last 10 years or so, from my own point of view.

Problem is, by doing so, I would throw away my integrity because I can't write an HONEST review about a Powermetal album I dislike, other than by being very negative about it and about the genre it belongs to. I can't write an HONEST review (one that would reflect my own opinions and thoughts) and a FAIR one at the same time, because to be FAIR and politically correct, I would have to tone down and lie.

In other terms, I could write a FAIR review about a Powermetal album but it would not be an HONEST review. The only way to be HONEST in this situation would be to write a long rant about all that is wrong from my point of view and tell how much I hate the genre for all those reasons.

See the problem? That's why, even if I know I could write a FAIR review about a Powermetal album, I will never do it because I would feel hypocritical by doing it.


Great post, which pretty much ties in exactly with the example I used of me not being in the best position to critique a genre Im open about hating. (I used "symphonic metal with female vocals as an example) xD

There is no way any review I did of a band in that genre would be fair, because I simply dislike it. It would be riddled with my own personal biases, and like you, I would not be able to keep a lid on that, because it would compromise my integrity to sugar coat how I feel about the genre. And I would have to do that in order to make it a fair review. Someone who is niether a blind fanboy, nor a outspoken hater of a certain genre, are the best placed to give informed reviews on bands in that genre, as there is no pre-disposed bias there.
Loading...
29.12.2010 - 02:22
RavenKing

It doesn't mean I could not write a fair and accurate review of a Powermetal album but I would have to keep all my personal opinions about the genre (as long as my personal and more subjective opinion of the album - my appreciation, we could say) away. And, Imo, a good review should also reflect the point of view of its author.
----
They shake your hand and they smile and they buy you a drink
They say we'll be your friends we'll stick with you till the end
But everybody's only looking out for themselves
And you say who can you trust I'll tell you nobody
Loading...
29.12.2010 - 03:37
Introspekrieg
Totemic Lust
Written by RavenKing on 29.12.2010 at 02:22

It doesn't mean I could not write a fair and accurate review of a Powermetal album but I would have to keep all my personal opinions about the genre (as long as my personal and more subjective opinion of the album - my appreciation, we could say) away. And, Imo, a good review should also reflect the point of view of its author.


Exactly. When reading a fanboy's review that lightly "hints" on faults it is really boring. When reading a hater's review that simply trashes the album it can get a rise out of people but is basically uninformative. The usual method I use is to get an idea of a person's tastes and look at the album/review from their perspective. But in the end, I waste a lot of money on CD's that I eventually sell back after discovering they are not my cup of tea... the listening experience seems to be what counts.
Loading...
29.12.2010 - 03:43
King Bonzo

Or you could bypass the whole issue by disregarding reviews. If you want to buy an album the bands myspace profile will undoubtably have samples from said album. If not every song on earth is ripped to you tube somewhere. Personally I've never once bought an album off the basis of a review, all a review will do is encouragement me to explore further. If I'm interested I listen to some songs online, if I like what I hear I buy the album. Simples.
Loading...
29.12.2010 - 03:50
Introspekrieg
Totemic Lust
Written by King Bonzo on 29.12.2010 at 03:43

Or you could bypass the whole issue by disregarding reviews. If you want to buy an album the bands myspace profile will undoubtably have samples from said album. If not every song on earth is ripped to you tube somewhere. Personally I've never once bought an album off the basis of a review, all a review will do is encouragement me to explore further. If I'm interested I listen to some songs online, if I like what I hear I buy the album. Simples.


Yes, but still, when you have an enormous wishlist of albums, reviews can be helpful in prioritizing albums to buy. Yet, as you said, I have been disappointed more times by taking the reviews into account. The more hype an album has the more critically you listen to it, and this often backfires.
Loading...
29.12.2010 - 03:58
King Bonzo

Free yourself from reviews. Music is the most subjective art form in existence and as such one persons opinion shouldn't really come into it. And as I say with you tube et al there's no need for it to. I will confess I may use Metal archives to decide which order to buy, say, Black Sabbath's back catalogue in, but the decision will have already been made to get those albums regardless of the scores given.
Loading...
29.12.2010 - 04:25
RavenKing

Written by King Bonzo on 29.12.2010 at 03:43

Or you could bypass the whole issue by disregarding reviews. If you want to buy an album the bands myspace profile will undoubtably have samples from said album. If not every song on earth is ripped to you tube somewhere. Personally I've never once bought an album off the basis of a review, all a review will do is encouragement me to explore further. If I'm interested I listen to some songs online, if I like what I hear I buy the album. Simples.


I never ever give a fuck at reviews when it comes to buying albums. If I first hear of an album via a review and I have the feeling it is something that could please me, I will check it by myself (listen to songs on MySpace and Youtube). The only help a review can give me is by making me aware of the existence of an album, that's all.

Anyway, I'm not someone who will buy based on hype, as I know my tastes are anything but mainstream and I kinda feel that most of the time the more popular something is the more it sucks.
Sometimes, when I find something really great, I have this thought that it's 'too good to be popular'.

Sorry for the certain level of elitism in this post but that's the way I feel on the matter.
----
They shake your hand and they smile and they buy you a drink
They say we'll be your friends we'll stick with you till the end
But everybody's only looking out for themselves
And you say who can you trust I'll tell you nobody
Loading...
29.12.2010 - 04:33
King Bonzo

Written by RavenKing on 29.12.2010 at 04:25

it's 'too good to be popular'


Truer word were never spoken.
Loading...
29.12.2010 - 04:41
RavenKing

Written by King Bonzo on 29.12.2010 at 04:33

Written by RavenKing on 29.12.2010 at 04:25

it's 'too good to be popular'


Truer word were never spoken.


We must not make it a generalization but sometimes it seems people have a nasty knack at taking crappy things and make them very popular.
At times, popularity is really justified. But in lots of cases, it is not.
----
They shake your hand and they smile and they buy you a drink
They say we'll be your friends we'll stick with you till the end
But everybody's only looking out for themselves
And you say who can you trust I'll tell you nobody
Loading...
29.12.2010 - 08:43
Angelic Storm
Melodious
Written by King Bonzo on 29.12.2010 at 03:43

Or you could bypass the whole issue by disregarding reviews. If you want to buy an album the bands myspace profile will undoubtably have samples from said album. If not every song on earth is ripped to you tube somewhere. Personally I've never once bought an album off the basis of a review, all a review will do is encouragement me to explore further. If I'm interested I listen to some songs online, if I like what I hear I buy the album. Simples.


Ive never taken much stock in reviews to be honest. At least not as some kind of final, definitive statement about an album. Im sure a lot of reviewers, especially professional ones, somehow think that their reviews are rooted in fact, and not opinion. ALL reviews at the end of the day, are merely one person's opinion, and should be treated as such. Years ago, (before I had access to the internet) I mainly read reviews only to find out the style of metal that a band played, not to find out if they were any good or not. In fact, I remember seeing very harsh, and low reviews in Kerrang for Primal Fear's debut album, and Iced Earth's "Something Wicked...", and then deciding to get those albums, just because the style of metal sounded like something Id be into, and the reviewer was just spouting his bias at how that type of metal was "dead" and "irrelevant". *rollseyes* lol

I have written reviews, but I only ever do so for fun. While I am always completely honest when I review, I never lose sight of the fact, that Im merely voicing an opinion with it. And that's all reviews are. Long winded, personal opinions.
Loading...
29.12.2010 - 09:22
Marcel Hubregtse
Grumpy Old Fuck
Written by Angelic Storm on 29.12.2010 at 08:43

I remember seeing very harsh, and low reviews in Kerrang for Primal Fear's debut album, and Iced Earth's "Something Wicked...", and then deciding to get those albums, just because the style of metal sounded like something Id be into, and the reviewer was just spouting his bias at how that type of metal was "dead" and "irrelevant". *rollseyes* lol



What would you expect of Kerrap? The only time they were moderately good was in the early 80s.
Terrorizer f.e. hailed Something Wicked.
----
Member of the true crusade against European Flower Metal

Yesterday is dead and gone, tomorrow is out of sight
Dawn Crosby (r.i.p.)
05.04.1963 - 15.12.1996

Loading...
29.12.2010 - 09:40
Angelic Storm
Melodious
Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 29.12.2010 at 09:22
What would you expect of Kerrap? The only time they were moderately good was in the early 80s.
Terrorizer f.e. hailed Something Wicked.


To be fair, up until the late 90's they still featured some real metal bands. The last 10/12 years or so though, its unrecogniseable as the Kerrang I grew up with. (which regularly contained features on bands like Nuclear Assault, Helloween, Annihilator, etc...) its now more or less a pop mag masquerading as a metal mag. Some point in the late 90's was when I stopped buying it.

Terrorizer was a mag I regularly bought (in fact, I still own the second issue that has Jeff Walker on the front cover lol) but I never saw their review of "Something Wicked...", only the crappy Kerrang one. The sad thing is, a lot of people reading that would see the "irrelevant" and "dead" crap as gospel, because they are so influenced by what mags and reviewers say. Especially trendy (and that is what it is now) ones like Kerrang.
Loading...
29.12.2010 - 09:51
Marcel Hubregtse
Grumpy Old Fuck
Written by Angelic Storm on 29.12.2010 at 09:40

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 29.12.2010 at 09:22
What would you expect of Kerrap? The only time they were moderately good was in the early 80s.
Terrorizer f.e. hailed Something Wicked.


To be fair, up until the late 90's they still featured some real metal bands. The last 10/12 years or so though, its unrecogniseable as the Kerrang I grew up with. (which regularly contained features on bands like Nuclear Assault, Helloween, Annihilator, etc...) its now more or less a pop mag masquerading as a metal mag. Some point in the late 90's was when I stopped buying it.

Terrorizer was a mag I regularly bought (in fact, I still own the second issue that has Jeff Walker on the front cover lol) but I never saw their review of "Something Wicked...", only the crappy Kerrang one. The sad thing is, a lot of people reading that would see the "irrelevant" and "dead" crap as gospel, because they are so influenced by what mags and reviewers say. Especially trendy (and that is what it is now) ones like Kerrang.



I already gave up on Kerrap back in 1984/85 when they totally missed the thrash boat and gave Slayer a zero or one star rating for Show No Mercy, slagging off thrash as pure noise and the like Siwtched to Metal Forces (forerunner of Terrorzier) back then.
----
Member of the true crusade against European Flower Metal

Yesterday is dead and gone, tomorrow is out of sight
Dawn Crosby (r.i.p.)
05.04.1963 - 15.12.1996

Loading...
29.12.2010 - 10:06
Angelic Storm
Melodious
Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 29.12.2010 at 09:51
I already gave up on Kerrap back in 1984/85 when they totally missed the thrash boat and gave Slayer a zero or one star rating for Show No Mercy, slagging off thrash as pure noise and the like Siwtched to Metal Forces (forerunner of Terrorzier) back then.


Woah! Well, I wasn't reading it back then, because I wasn't into metal yet in 84/85. I started getting it in the late 80's, and although they did also have features on more traditional heavy metal, and glam, there was also regular features on thrash bands and power metal as I just stated. Once I started getting mags like Terrorizer and Metal Maniacs (A similar US mag to Metal Forces I think) though, I saw that they were much more suited to my personal metal tastes than Kerrang.

A one star rating for "Show No Mercy"? Okay, Im now officially shocked! Even with the joke that mag has now become... that is pretty astonishing. lol
Loading...
29.12.2010 - 14:25
RavenKing

Written by Angelic Storm on 29.12.2010 at 08:43

Years ago, (before I had access to the internet) I mainly read reviews only to find out the style of metal that a band played, not to find out if they were any good or not.


That's still exactly what I'm doing. I check to which genre the album belongs and then I decide to listen to a few songs or not, to know how it sounds.
If it belongs to a genre I have absolutely no interest in, I will simply not loose my time checking music I won't like anyway.

About reviewers: Imo, the reviews written by metal fans who post reviews on metal boards (like here) can have credibility. However, I can't give any credibility to a review written by a professional reviewer because they sold out to the industry for the sake of their career.
Since I have the internet, I never care for magazines.
----
They shake your hand and they smile and they buy you a drink
They say we'll be your friends we'll stick with you till the end
But everybody's only looking out for themselves
And you say who can you trust I'll tell you nobody
Loading...
29.12.2010 - 23:05
Angelic Storm
Melodious
Written by RavenKing on 29.12.2010 at 14:25
That's still exactly what I'm doing. I check to which genre the album belongs and then I decide to listen to a few songs or not, to know how it sounds.
If it belongs to a genre I have absolutely no interest in, I will simply not loose my time checking music I won't like anyway.


Ditto that here.

Quote:
About reviewers: Imo, the reviews written by metal fans who post reviews on metal boards (like here) can have credibility. However, I can't give any credibility to a review written by a professional reviewer because they sold out to the industry for the sake of their career.
Since I have the internet, I never care for magazines.


I wouldnt go that far, but I do think professional reviewers are much more likely than people like me who do them for fun, to think that their reviews are definitive statements of fact on the albums they're reviewing. At the end of the day, reviews, no matter who they are done by, are just personal opinions on albums. And in this instance a "professional" reviewer is no different, or better than someone who just reviews for the fun of it.

I also dont buy magazines any more, since I got the internet. lol
Loading...
29.12.2010 - 23:58
IronAngel

I disagree with you on the subjective opinion thing, Angelic Storm. The options "definite statements of fact" and "just personal opinions" aren't the only ones, that's unnecessary polarization. Clearly music criticism is based on fact: it's roughly the same music everyone hears when playing an album. Seondly, whether an album is experienced as good or bad depends on what's actually on it, not just subjective reaction: two objectively identical pieces of music will provoke the same reaction from the same person. (The technical term is "supervenience".) How we experience music is determined by a number of things. Much of it is personal, but a greater part is something people have in common. Our brains are wired pretty much the same, we share a culture and society, and the context of the music, that is the musical field we're familiar with, is varying degrees of similar to us. Good music criticism makes good use of facts, context and honest personal response in a transparent (and thus fair) but evaluating and asserting way (and in that way, biased). It can't be reduced to personal experience, but of course it's not a presentation of facts either. Rather it's a matter of balancing personal opinion with cultural norms and shared experiences. Good music criticism also considers the audience; you have to speak the same language as your reader. Because despite what I just said, we don't all share the same musical and cultural context. The closer we are to eachother, the better we can communicate.

So while technically and metaphysically speaking there is no objective quality to music, there definetely is a vague intersubjective consensus. While we will never agree on everything, we can talk about music and more or less understand what others are trying to say. The fact that a forum like this exists is proof of that. It's also pretty evident that some albums and artists are intersubjectively (and from our perspective, objectively) "better" than others. There are works of music that enjoy overwhelming appreciation across the board. If there were no objective criteria which determine whether people enjoy and appreciate an album, every album should receive roughly equal praise, proportionate to how much people have been exposed to it. This is not the case.


If that's tl;dr here's the short of it: the quality of music (and consequently the validity of criticism) is not a matter of fact, but neither does it boil down to personal opinion without objective basis. It's a subjective experience firmly rooted in objective fact filtered through (shared) conventions and expectations.
Loading...
30.12.2010 - 00:06
Angelic Storm
Melodious
^^ Im sorry, your post and points make absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Loading...
30.12.2010 - 00:08
RavenKing

Written by Angelic Storm on 29.12.2010 at 23:05

I wouldnt go that far, but I do think professional reviewers are much more likely than people like me who do them for fun, to think that their reviews are definitive statements of fact on the albums they're reviewing. At the end of the day, reviews, no matter who they are done by, are just personal opinions on albums. And in this instance a "professional" reviewer is no different, or better than someone who just reviews for the fun of it.


The problem with them and the reason they have no credibility as far as I'm concerned is not that they take their opinions as definitive statements but that I'm convinced they write lots of crap they don't believe themselves. If a band is famous, chances are high they will write a politically correct review even if they believe the album sucks and they will probably write a very negative review about a band that is hated by the majority. In other terms, they will give the masses what they want to hear because there is money involved. As soon as money is involved, 99% of humans have less than zero integrity and will gladly sell their ass. There's barely any honesty left if people are paid to write reviews and it's the exact reason why I have zero respect for professional reviewers. They're part of the corporate machine.
----
They shake your hand and they smile and they buy you a drink
They say we'll be your friends we'll stick with you till the end
But everybody's only looking out for themselves
And you say who can you trust I'll tell you nobody
Loading...
30.12.2010 - 00:12
IronAngel

Haha. Point is: good music criticism (and reviews) isn't a matter of pure opinion. It's evaluation based on fact and cultural conventions. People tend to have roughly similar ideas of what a good album is like, or at least they know what the general consensus is even if they don't agree. Even if you absolutely love a genre and even its mediocre or below-average representatives, you still probably understand what's expected of a great symphonic power metal or traditional doom metal album. You can describe and evaluate music in a way other people can understand and relate to, because there's an objective basis you share.

Basically, your extreme opinion invalidates art criticism if it's accepted strictly, and actually all communication. Subjectivity is a fact of life, but it seems we experience things pretty similarly within our cultural context and therefore we can have meaningful dialogue. And that's what music criticism should be, dialogue.

Or even shorter: of course our experience of music is technically subjective. All our experiences are. Our experiences of mathematics and natural phenomena are subjective, strictly speaking. That doesn't mean there isn't common ground to be found, and good reviews operate on that common ground.

I'm probably stating the obvious here. It's just that you (and others) have been so insistent on repeating the fallacy "it's all just subjective/personal opinion", even if you didn't mean it literally.
Loading...
30.12.2010 - 00:31
ForeverDarkWoods

Written by IronAngel on 30.12.2010 at 00:12

Haha. Point is: good music criticism (and reviews) isn't a matter of pure opinion. It's evaluation based on fact and cultural conventions. People tend to have roughly similar ideas of what a good album is like, or at least they know what the general consensus is even if they don't agree. Even if you absolutely love a genre and even its mediocre or below-average representatives, you still probably understand what's expected of a great symphonic power metal or traditional doom metal album. You can describe and evaluate music in a way other people can understand and relate to, because there's an objective basis you share.

Basically, your extreme opinion invalidates art criticism if it's accepted strictly, and actually all communication. Subjectivity is a fact of life, but it seems we experience things pretty similarly within our cultural context and therefore we can have meaningful dialogue. And that's what music criticism should be, dialogue.

Or even shorter: of course our experience of music is technically subjective. All our experiences are. Our experiences of mathematics and natural phenomena are subjective, strictly speaking. That doesn't mean there isn't common ground to be found, and good reviews operate on that common ground.

Not for me. Good reviews for me operate on the listening experience mostly. Who cares if it's well crafted or influential or anything if you don't like it? The thing with checking out reviews is that generally (if you use like MA) you can find a reviewer with tastes similar tou your own somewhere, and read more reviews from that person to find some new things you might like. Sure, the common ground is important, but not more so than the actual listening experience. A review telling us about the listening experience might also tell you about in what light the album should be viewed for maximum enjoyment (more or less, how the album should be listened to).

This could be anything from

"This is nothing specially original or deep, but boy, those riffs get stuck in your head so easily."

to (from an MA review)

"Yes, well, it's hard to rate such an album - are you meant to rate its musicianship (there's none), its atmosphere (there's heeeeaps), or the complete package of audio/visual evil (which is intense)?"
----
Free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction!
- George W. Bush, ex-president of the United States of America
Loading...
30.12.2010 - 00:46
IronAngel

ForeverDarkWoods: Hmm, all that is good. I don't see why your examples would conflict with what I wrote. If you say the riffs get stuck in your head, I can understand that and (especially if many people have said so) probably believe that I might like them, too. I'm mostly thinking of compact, informative reviews (that I typically write) that don't just describe, but also evaluate. And evaluation by its nature needs some standards. Of course, I've also read great reviews that are more like a column or even a story. But even then there has to be something I can relate to, some "objective" ground that makes me understand what it's all about. Random descriptions of your first period and your neighbor mowing his lawn are probably not very interesting to anyone else.

Anyway, what I'm advocating is balance. In individual reviews, it can be heavily skewed one way or another, and that's fine. But in general, it's possible for a review to be both objective and subjective, and it's fine too. Mainly I object to the polarization between those who supposedly believe their reviews are statements of fact and those who "understand" it's all nothing but personal opinion. It's simply not true, music like all communication is interaction between the subjective and the objective.

Personally, I find reviews very interesting and usually helpful. They inspire me to get to know new music better. I mainly use RateYourMusic (and write my own reviews there, too) and read a non-commercial magazine and some webzines/blogs. The important thing is not to agree with a review; it's to understand the point and get some new ideas.

(Meh, new page. Should've quoted instead.)
Loading...