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).

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Written by RavenKing on 29.12.2010 at 04:25

it's 'too good to be popular'

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.