Quote:
Quote:
if it's competent it doesn't warrant mention.
Yes it does, you could say it's competent
do you honestly expect that not to be implied? should I comment on the drums if they aren't significant? if they exist but don't matter? (and if you think they matter, you can write a review about how they matter...but supposedly my opinion is what you want, and my opinion is implicit in my silence)
should I also say 'the drummer is good at drumming' just because he hits the right drums, as if he knows more than you or I?
and if I say nothing, do you really think 'hmm, he didn't mention the drummer, I wonder if there's a drummer, and drums, or if they're conspicuously absent and yet he didn't think their absence worthy of note, I just have no concept of plausibility, I really wish he'd write as though he knew I was an ignoramus'.
Quote:
preferably something more detailed than that. For all I know they could have more chops than Symphony X or less than early Sarcofago.
they <i>could</i>, for all I know, too--it's not relevant to some of us. If you want to write reviews about that, because that's what you like, then you can do that. But this is all about my opinion, right? so shouldnt I give my opinion on things I actually have an opinion on?
Quote:
Quote:
And who is the judge of a good musician?
You are, dumbass, you're the one writing the review! Judging things is your job as a reviewer!
I'm not reviewing the band member's musicianship, I'm reviewing the music.
Quote:
The album is a product of the band members; their skill, playing style, and the way their instruments sound will greatly affect the album.
sometimes it doesn't. If it's competent and nothing special, it doesn't warrant mention; one can take for granted that it isn't so bad that it had to be pointed out as a problem.
Quote:
There is no such thing as an "objective" or "unbiased" review.
Your vocabulary is insufficient to discourse on such matters.
There is such a thing as epistemic objectivity, otherwise there would be no trend of writing reviews that dispute the contents of prior reviews, or griping about the ignorance of the youngens doing misguided reviews (on par with the 'why aren't [mallcore band xyz] on Metal-Archives, they're metal'--the admins didn't say 'we're just biased against them', nor did they say 'you say tomayto, I say tomahto', they say 'you don't know shit'.). While including ontologically subjective remarks may be a human propensity, it's hardly what makes a review worth reading--we don't say 'oh, the king like's Bach, therefore I shall like Bach', you aren't the king, and people don't want to be like you and like what you like, they want to know if something sounds like the things they like the sound of.
Quote:
Quote:
if I don't think there are any?
If there aren't any, that means it's a boring fucking album. If you liked the album than certainly some things caught your attention, right?
bullshit. consistency isn't necessarily monotony. Some elements might catch my attention, but they don't necessarily have to all be better in one or two songs than all the rest.
Moreover, suppose it is a boring album, is it not worth reviewing? If it's boring to me, does that mean it must be boring to you? That I don't like one song above the rest means you won't, or means that I shouldn't bother to say anything at all about the way the album sounds?
Quote:
Because reviews are opinion pieces. A dry, clinical categorization of an album is not a review. If you like something, talk about what you like about it. If you hate something, talk about what you hate about it. If it bored you, talk about why it was boring.
I write reviews so that people know what to expect--so that they can find music they like, not so that they can get to know my preferences on a more intimate level... 'dear adoring fans, my favorite color is green and I love Bach; since I'm such a huge celebrity, I just thought you guys would be dying to know that'.
If YOU read reviews because you just desperately want to get to know all about the preferences of anonymous stranger x or y, you're fuckin' crazy, and you have no good reason for reading reviews of music you like than music you would never listen to in a thousand years.
Quote:
Irrelevant. The review is about YOUR impression of the music.
my ontological subjectivities with the music ('my taste') are irrelevant. You will like or dislike the music irrespective of how I feel about it.
All that matters is the epistemically objective impression of the music (i.e., 'how it sounds'--what the album contains).
You can pretend all you want that your taste is good or important, but you're not special, and what you like is completely irrelevant and unhelpful to know about.
Readers are not friends who're looking for something to get you for your birthday, they're not searching for what YOU like, but for what THEY like.
Quote:
Quote:
length is moot. If you can say what it sounds like in two paragraphs, why bore people to tears pontificating for five paragraphs?
Because you can't. I learned almost nothing about Galar's music from your review.
And if you don't speak English you'll learn nothing from a review written in English.
You aren't my target audience. I'm no more going to explain in every review on Pagan Metal what Pagan Metal consists of than I'm going to explain English grammar in my reviews so that foreigners can from scratch--from a position of complete ignorance--read my reviews.
If you don't know that Pagan Metal sounds a particular way, why on earth would you be tracking down reviews on Pagan Metal bands? Would you not, instead, simply listen to the bands?
Did you read about Classical, or Rap, or Death Metal and then go 'holy fuck, that description is awesome, I think it's time to actually _hear_ this for myself'? I doubt this is how most readers operate. More likely, they already like a genre, find bands of that genre, and want reviews to give them some idea how they sound.
Quote:
Taunusheim. An obscure one-album wonder with a single review to their name. Why would you expect anyone to know who Taunusheim are? Draw parallels to well-known and recognized bands in the scene and to whatever parts of the scene it draws from the most.
I don't expect 'anyone' to, I only expect anyone looking up Galar to be familiar with the notable albums in the genre Galar are following in.
Quote:
Also "generic" is generally not a positive thing to call something. Generic means it's bland, undistinguished, not notable, boring, threadbare, etc. If something is good than it is not generic.
generic explains exactly how some parts of their music sound. But certain segments are not their entire repertoire.
one detracting trait doesn't necessarily negate all the positive qualities and invalidate the consideration of a band as 'good'.
Alternatively, if TO YOU it does, then you have learned that TO YOU the band might not sound good, since not all the transitions in their songs are noteworthy or special. Further evidence that my taste is irrelevant and is to be a mere happenstance addition here and there when I can't restrain my need to talk about me and what I like, rather than say what needs to be heard, not a necessity.
If I thought my preferences were what needed to be heard, I'd be writing reviews on Death Metal bands evangelizing about why I love Black Metal, and why other people should buy the Black Metal albums I buy instead of listening to Death Metal.
It's utterly absurd.
Woolie_Wool wrote:
"Pagan" is a very nebulous term. Early Satyricon, early Borknagar, Burzum, Enslaved, Amon Amarth, and Cauldron Born all have pagan themes and imagery, and they sound very different
.
another pathetic straw man.--I never said Pagan themes or imagery.
You may as well be saying 'some metal is iron, some copper, calling this band metal doesn't tell me whether they're more like aluminum or tin!'--If you don't know what metal means, why are you on a band's page reading a review about them?
Woolie_Wool wrote:
the latter two aren't even black metal.
and since you know Galar ARE black metal, you can triangulate, as I described earlier, on what bands you know of that they will or won't sound like.
Woolie_Wool wrote:
"Pagan" doesn't mean a goddamn thing. Is he particularly raspy? Gurgly? Deep? Strained? Shrieky? Melancholy? Furious? Goofy?... Are his cleans in a high, low, or mid register? Does he have a wide range? Are his cleans grunting and abrasive, high-pitched wailing, operatic, smooth Garmish monk chants, what? I don't know any of these things.
exactly--you don't know.
Do you really expect me to explain what distortion on an electric guitar sounds like, in detail sufficient for someone who has never heard distortion before?
if you knew the genre--if you were someone likely to read the review, i.e., if you were my audience--you would most likely already have the answer in your background as surely as 'black metal' would be descriptive to you, even though it means NOTHING at all to anyone who has never heard black metal. It would be a complete insult to the audience to explain the differences between Power and Death and Prog and Black Metal rather than just take the shortcut expecting that they know the basics of the genres into which they're inquiring for bands that [in terms of their taste preferences] are worth hearing.
Quote:
How about both? Your ultimate job, you know, is to say whether it's a good record or not, that's why the review has the score right at the very top. I could write a three paragraph review talking about how Rust in Peace is a thrash metal album with an "odd" production and "drawled" vocals, and how they have "epic" moments, and nobody would learn anything about Rust in Peace or if they should buy it or not.
A positive review for the new Britney Spears album doesn't tell you that _you_ should buy it.
If they know what Thrash sounds like, and they know what they like, they will know if they want to hear it (and upon hearing it they'll know whether or not they want to buy it).
The only thing they don't know is whether or not YOU want to buy it.
Quote:
your job is to tell a reader, who has not heard of this band before, and doesn't know anything about what they sound like, what this album sounds like in great detail, and its quality or lack thereof.
which I've done.
Quote:
You can't take your audience for granted.
of course I can. This isn't a magazine--the only people who find the reviews are those who are specifically looking for information about the band. Presumably there is a reason why they chose that band rather than one of the other 70,000. Presumably that reason is because they think that band will sound like other bands they like. Presumably they won't get amnesia prior to reading the review.
Quote:
Don't assume that they know exactly what a Norwegian folk/black metal band will sound like, especially since there are tons of Norwegian folk/black metal bands that sound nothing alike.
granted. I could have said more in that instance, and usually I do distinguish clean and raw production, compare them to similar bands, and do the same for the vocals. In this instance, it wasn't the most pertinent, but deserves a slight mention...just in case a Black Metal fan is going to dislike an album because the production is poor LMAO.
what of the rest, though? you seem to have fixated exclusively on the issue of their production--it's Black Metal and it's good by Black Metal standards, but you want to know more. Ok, that's fine...odd, but fine.