I wouldn't really know how to properly write this as it concerns alot of things and it might be a mess. But it's been messing with my mind heavily lately and it's bugging me;
I'm probably going the wrong way here. But what's with the immense hate for things like groove metal for its simplicity? I mean, I can hear it's watered and dumbed down thrash metal and things like that. But does that automatically make it worse too? Some of the best groove albums around in my opinion are rated so low here on MA, because it's groove metal? I mean what? I get that people might dislike it for the fact it has a weird attitude to it, and the fact it's somewhat repetitive at times, but does it really sound like shit too?
I mean, I don't see it, I don't. I like groove metal for the fact that it's heavy and often really violent-sounding, I have yet to find groove metal bands that really suck in terms of quality. I really don't care if something is stripped down or simple if it sounds good, or that it lacks in metal elements. (Riffs and the like) If something's good, it's good. A prime example of groove that's considered as shit because it's groove is Chaos A.D. I don't really like this album as much as the mainstream critics do. But it's still an album that I'd give an 80%-85% score on MA. While it averages around 60% here. But really...what is the problem? Is it that groove is the end product of the killing of thrash, by thrash? As I said I really don't care for quality if the music's good. And i'll just never get it out of my mouth that Chaos A.D. is a bad (sounding) album. I mean, it's heavy as hell like metal should be, there are riffs and there are solo's and complex(er) parts, but because it's all less it's worse?
I shall name Strappado by Slaughter as an example. Very primitive death/thrash leaning on the death side. Rated 81% on MA because someone rated it at 0% because he didn't like it. That's fine, but the other reviews give it 85% and usually quite a bit higher. Maybe I'm not thinking right but Strappado has to be one of the simplest and watered down produced albums i've ever heard, nothing more than pointless mashing if you look at it from a 'quality-worshipping' pair of eyes, yet if it wasn't for the 0% review it'd have been 92% (!!) on average. I know that album is very fast and riff-heavy but it's also simple as f*ck, just like groove metal right?
Mainly the same idea but here I have another thing. The lyrics. I get that people think it sounds cheesy, and I would agree. But is that a reason to hate a genre coupled with all of the above? Yet again it's probably a matter of taste, but if something sounds good it sounds good. Roots for example, I don't hate this album half as much as most metal 'purists' do, but I do agree with the fact it's painfully cheesy at times. (ending of Lookaway) But outside that it's quite an enjoyable album and I don't really mind the watered-down sound.
I listen to albums the way they should be listened to, as opposed to many people it seems. In other words, I don't look for things to criticize in the 'idea' of the sound, but rather in the execution. I don't really mind if something is simple or watered down, if there's something note-worthy/good shaped around it, I might like the album regardless of these small things.
As in, i'm not gonna listen to Roots and criticize its lack of complexity, but neither am I gonna listen to Human and criticize it because it focuses too much on the 'wrong' things... It's the sound of the album and that's it. I don't think you can hate an album for its ideas, it's the execution that flaws it usually. I think we should criticize albums for what they have, and not what they don't have. I know you can look at this 2 ways (Roots DOESN'T have technicality, so it's stupidly simple | Roots IS watered down, so it's stupidly simple...)
I'm not gonna mention deathcore here because it's practically the same as the things above. Just simple and stripped down... Often coupled with bad or cheesy lyrics...