P4K recently posted a review of the newest Nachtmystium album. They gave it a 8.5. That is an absurdly high score for a turd, but not any worse than the glowing reviews being given to Opeth or Protest the Hero by the various webzines lately. Of course, there really aren't any notable webzines dedicated to metal, so you basically have to find sources you can trust, like Metal Archives or Sputnik. And even there, you have to weed out the idiots (you know, mallcore kids) by "calibrating" your own opinions with reviewers who appear to be like-minded.
I guess crap metal will always be more popular than good metal (glam was more popular than thrash, after all) - but it doesn't help that popular webzines like P4K or PopMatters don't really do their homework when it comes to reviewing metal like they do for all the johnny-come-lately indie bands.
Thoughts? Rebuttals?
********************** Metal-Archives POTD
quote:
I'm looking for Russian Militant Black Metal. Semi-good production is a plus, as are clean vocals (if kept to a minimum). Also looking for vocals in Russian. Basically like a Russian version of Absurd...
Posts: 938 | Location: Ain'T it stiLl obvious? | Registered: 22 August 2006
I've played in so many underground metal bands I can't remember and bad reviews were a rarity, even when we ourselves thought the recording/gig was a disaster.
After a fashion, I came to the conclusion that many of these webzines are run by thoroughly nice blokes who are just trying to promote their favourite style of music by any means neccessary. Occasionally you'd get writers who simply wouldn't review an album if they didn't like it, so the websites would just be full of glowing reviews.
Needless to say, I liked these people a lot. After all, we could use their quotes as promotional material and they would support anyone, anywhere, in any way.
The down side was that when the audience finally laid their eyes and ears on some of these bands, the lack of quality was absolutley apparent. The webzines eventually lost kudos and a lot of the scenes they were promoting never took off.
It's unfortunate, because these blokes were great at hyping things, not so good at hyping the right things.
I think they should stop being independent journalists and go and ask a record label if they need a hand generating interest. Most of them don't get paid anything and as the decent folk they are, they deserve the work!
Of course this doesn't go for ALL webzines, but I find a lot of the metal community are often too polite and friendly for their own good. They need to do a course in assertiveness!
Metal kind of has that air of being a novelty (I don't think of it that way) and, as such, it seems like whenever a webzine reviews metal, it's always going to be a good review. I don't think pitchfork reviews anything metal that they don't give at least a 7.5 or higher. That may be because they figure most of their audience won't care about bad metal reviews, so certain writers probably have to lobby to get any metal on their site at all.
I mean, there's a lot of metal out there to be reviewed, so I would say the answer to your question is yes, it can. Hell, I'd rather see glowing reviews of Tool than Opeth, but i think Opeth might be the Tool for people who are so dangerously cool that they won't risk being caught listening to Tool.
P4k's metal reviews are extremely safe, and i can't really say they have too much of an impact on the metal i like (hell, they don't even review the metal i like %90 of the time).
I fear that the answer is yes because upcoming bands that want that crossover appeal will simply look to bands like Opeth or Protest the Hero or other turd-burglars that wish they could be Dream Theatre. I was sort of hoping Boris, Sunn 0))), Baroness, and Pig Destroyer would at least influence so new bands and cause for celebration, but NO!!!! Metal is getting more and more noodly. (Those bands are the more popular of the metal i like, and i can't really stand their indie appeal)
Posts: 395 | Location: California | Registered: 06 March 2008
Yeah, I think you have a point here ezatldude. A place like Pitchfork doesn't necessarily appeal to metal heads, and the editors themselves are probably not metalheads, so the stuff they champion has to be taken with a grain of salt. I'm not sure why they decided to give Opeth coverage or who they got to review their album, but they're probably not going to tear it to shreds, because like clevernames said, why bother tearing something down if no one who reads your website will care. But once your reviewed favorably by Pitchfork you're officially one of them, and they reserve the right to hand your ass in a overwritten and condescending review of your next album. I bet Mastodon gets a 5.5 for their next album.
Roadrunner and Megaforce, as well as Relapse and several other labels have very dedicated street teams that market their stuff heavily, so bands from those labels are likely to get more reviews. A lot of borderline mainstream metal like Opeth and Meshuggah are on those labels.
I just go to metal-archives. They're actually very stringent about who they even consider metal, and the vast majority of metalcore and nu-metal isn't even included. Plus they encourage well thought out reviews, so the reviews typical give reasons why they like it and it's not always fanboy gushing.
So I guess the point is don't get metal recommendations from Pitchfork or Popmatters. And Opeth isn't that bad, I enjoy Still Life and My Arms, Your Hearse. But Protest the Hero deserves your scorn, absolutely worthless.
I agree with you all on many many counts. My take is that Mastodon, Sunn O))), and most highly lauded black metal tends to suck pretty hard. I have always claimed that p4k will find one good band in a specific genre (Wolves in the Throne Room for (shoegazing) black metal) and then review an absurd number of albums from that small subsection for no reason. Don't believe me? Why do they have a "This Month in Dubstep" column (Burial is their ace in the hole). A lot of people read an love pitchfork so strange niches get overrepresented.
Also, webzines in general are always going to have sweet spots. Look at Jesu and scenepointblank. I personally hate Jesu but they are untouchable on spb (and p4k for that matter). I am a staff reviewer at sputnikmusic (and ezcatl tossed out there as a good metal site) and it's interesting to look at staff reviews versus regular reviews. Our regular reviewers are idiots and fall trap to poopty metal bands all the time, but the staff have pretty refined tastes. I think the Top 50 of 2007 lists shows that.
On the list are Neurosis, Between the Buried and Me, The Pax Cecilia, Moonsorrow, Sigh, and Primordial. That's a pretty varied list (though I don't necessarily like all of those albums). This short list also doesn't include other "heavy" albums sputnik included on the list (Kidcrash, Hot Cross, Thrice, etc.). Heavier music is notably missing from the most popular webzines and their forays into reviewing heavier music feel gratuitous and uneducated (p4k digging epic black metal for no reason).
Our regular reviewers are idiots and fall trap to poopty metal bands all the time, but the staff have pretty refined tastes.
Hopefully, none of your regular reviewers read this forum!
I often think about reviewing albums that I really like for either Sputnik or MA, but then I think, who am I really doing this for? I used to read reviews because I wanted someone to tell me what I should like. Then I started reading reviews just to get suggestions for bands that I hadn't heard before. Then I started reading reviews after I found a new band, just to see what other people thought about them. Now, I don't really care what anyone else thinks, because I know pretty much as much as any reviewer I've actually read. I suppose that's the problem with P4K - or really any music review site - the reviews are really for people who need to read reviews.
********************** Metal-Archives POTD
quote:
I'm looking for Russian Militant Black Metal. Semi-good production is a plus, as are clean vocals (if kept to a minimum). Also looking for vocals in Russian. Basically like a Russian version of Absurd...
Posts: 938 | Location: Ain'T it stiLl obvious? | Registered: 22 August 2006
Our regular reviewers are idiots and fall trap to poopty metal bands all the time, but the staff have pretty refined tastes.
Hopefully, none of your regular reviewers read this forum!
I often think about reviewing albums that I really like for either Sputnik or MA, but then I think, who am I really doing this for? I used to read reviews because I wanted someone to tell me what I should like. Then I started reading reviews just to get suggestions for bands that I hadn't heard before. Then I started reading reviews after I found a new band, just to see what other people thought about them. Now, I don't really care what anyone else thinks, because I know pretty much as much as any reviewer I've actually read. I suppose that's the problem with P4K - or really any music review site - the reviews are really for people who need to read reviews.
Myeh whatever. I tell them pretty regularly that they suck. Let me say that reviews are nice for defining the way people think about an album. Not in some narrow, confining way, but a lot of time people listen to albums and don't really hear everything. Other people's versions of why the album is good or bad, aka their listen, is a good way to contextualize one's own listen. It's just a richer way to experience an album. It's not for people who need reviews but for people who want a larger musical experience. Also, it's a great platform to give artists you love some more credit. Have a Nice Life had a nonexistant google footprint until I wrote a review for their album Deathconsciousness and now their buzz is picking up nicely.
Originally posted by DFelon204409: Look at Jesu and scenepointblank. I personally hate Jesu but they are untouchable on spb (and p4k for that matter)
No disrespect intended, but I always thought Jesu were pretty good. I'm a big fan of Justin Broaderick since his work with Godflesh. I can understand why they'd get a good review.
When Justin lived in Birmingham, he was pretty pissed off. It's a rough area and you can hear his frustration in the music of Godflesh. By the time he came to work on Jesu, he'd moved off to fairly isolated and scenic areas in North Wales and you can hear the calm and resolution in the sounds of Jesu. I always found them quite moving. It's devastatingly heavy, but there's this weird optimism running through everything, like it's the conclusion to a long struggle.
Maybe I have a different view of the music because I've been to those areas, but I find the music conveys the feel of those places very effectively.
Indeed, a friend of mine found an interview with Broaderick where he talked about the ambient sound being connected with his new life in Wales - It's a very beautiful area.
Justin is one of those unsung heroes in the UK music scene. He started Napalm Death, so he's always going to be worth a listen.
I don't know if your reviewers picked up on any of this, but those are my personal opinions.
Broaderick is phenomenal, and i don't think he gets enough praise with his work as he deserves. Jesu is amazing, and their brand of shoegazy metal has pretty much become the standard for so many others. His work with Jesu alone is ridiculously solid, but add Napalm Death and Godflesh to that, and you got yourself a living legend on your hands. But a 7.9 rating from Pitchfork hardly makes for a glowing review from those fellows. Hell, the new Harvey Milk just got tagged as Best New Music, and i think of it as nothing that the Melvins and Harvey Milk of years past had already done before... not to mention the more recent bands like Neurosis (recent as in MORE recent than Harvey Milk) that took on that pyschedelic-droney-devastatingly-heavy sound.
That turned into a Harvey Milk rant, but my point was that Broaderick makes genuinely intelligent music, and the fact that it's metal (and intelligent metal is pretty scarce at times) makes it all the more exciting.
Posts: 395 | Location: California | Registered: 06 March 2008
Originally posted by CleverName84: Broaderick is phenomenal, and i don't think he gets enough praise with his work as he deserves. Jesu is amazing, and their brand of shoegazy metal has pretty much become the standard for so many others. His work with Jesu alone is ridiculously solid, but add Napalm Death and Godflesh to that, and you got yourself a living legend on your hands. But a 7.9 rating from Pitchfork hardly makes for a glowing review from those fellows. Hell, the new Harvey Milk just got tagged as Best New Music, and i think of it as nothing that the Melvins and Harvey Milk of years past had already done before... not to mention the more recent bands like Neurosis (recent as in MORE recent than Harvey Milk) that took on that pyschedelic-droney-devastatingly-heavy sound.
That turned into a Harvey Milk rant, but my point was that Broaderick makes genuinely intelligent music, and the fact that it's metal (and intelligent metal is pretty scarce at times) makes it all the more exciting.
I don't want to dive too deep into the Jesu argument because I've only heard Conqueror and the Envy/Jesu split (which I'll mention in a minute). All I was doing was mentioning the hype surrounding him by webzines. Even scenepointblank knows what they're doing (read the part about Jesu http://www.scenepointblank.com/features/179). I don't know where the whole shoegazing metal thing precisely comes from (I'm thinking the post-metal of bands like Isis), but I know it's being done better right now. And by none other than albummates Envy. Envy are a Japanese band who deserve a lot of attention for mixing in post-rock with heavy music, most notably emo and doom. Also, they've been refining their sound for years, making Broaderick sound like a relative whelp (ignoring ND and other projects of course).
Originally posted by CleverName84: ... not to mention the more recent bands like Neurosis (recent as in MORE recent than Harvey Milk) that took on that pyschedelic-droney-devastatingly-heavy sound.
Check the history. Neurosis have been around a long time - since 1990. Granted the first couple of albums were more hardcore/punk but by 1992 they were headed in the heavy/drone/ambient metal direction with Souls at Zero. Anyway, I think Harvey Milk are much more influenced by The Melvins than Neurosis.
********************** Metal-Archives POTD
quote:
I'm looking for Russian Militant Black Metal. Semi-good production is a plus, as are clean vocals (if kept to a minimum). Also looking for vocals in Russian. Basically like a Russian version of Absurd...
Posts: 938 | Location: Ain'T it stiLl obvious? | Registered: 22 August 2006
Originally posted by cuneyt81: Anyone saying that Jesu or Mastodon sucks needs to have his ears checked for WRONGness.
Jesu and Mastodon are two bands that people who don't listen to metal love and claim are the saving grace of a genre they don't know crap about.
I listen to a lot of metal, and I love Mastodon. I'm not a huge fan of Jesu, but then again, I think Burzum were the originators of what we now call shoegaze metal. I always find it hard to believe that Varg Vikernes said he had never heard of My Bloody Valentine. At least, that's what I read somewhere.
********************** Metal-Archives POTD
quote:
I'm looking for Russian Militant Black Metal. Semi-good production is a plus, as are clean vocals (if kept to a minimum). Also looking for vocals in Russian. Basically like a Russian version of Absurd...
Posts: 938 | Location: Ain'T it stiLl obvious? | Registered: 22 August 2006
Originally posted by cuneyt81: Anyone saying that Jesu or Mastodon sucks needs to have his ears checked for WRONGness.
Jesu and Mastodon are two bands that people who don't listen to metal love and claim are the saving grace of a genre they don't know crap about.
I listen to a lot of metal, and I love Mastodon. I'm not a huge fan of Jesu, but then again, I think Burzum were the originators of what we now call shoegaze metal. I always find it hard to believe that Varg Vikernes said he had never heard of My Bloody Valentine. At least, that's what I read somewhere.
Well it's not like you liking Mastodon is a counterexample. I'm just saying that on a whole a ton of non-metal people love those bands as if that is representative of "what is good" in metal or something. They are catchy bands that have a surface relation to other artists and bands that are not metal and make easy crossovers.
Originally posted by DFelon204409: Well it's not like you liking Mastodon is a counterexample. I'm just saying that on a whole a ton of non-metal people love those bands as if that is representative of "what is good" in metal or something. They are catchy bands that have a surface relation to other artists and bands that are not metal and make easy crossovers.
You're equating an easy crossover with being a bad thing, and while sometimes I might agree (rap-metal, for example), I don't think it applies here. If you're too much of a genre purist, you close yourself off to some of the most interesting stuff.
