"LDOH's compositions" is a meaningless term because the band went through multiple very distinct phases over the course of their career. What compositions? Off "Rancid?" "Hymns?" "Putrefaction?" That could mean anything. They also sound almost nothing like Paracocci; the bands are almost at polar opposite ends of the goregrind scene.

What is "effort?" Both bands take years between albums and are pretty well known in their respective corners of the scene, so if they were capable of releasing albums so easily, they could simply do one or more a year and make some decent money. It clearly takes effort to write, record, and publish an album no matter how simple the music within might be. And how can you distinguish what takes effort versus what doesn't? It seems paradoxical to me that LDOH/Paracocci would not expend effort on their music and yet somehow both come up with unique, unusual sounds in the goregrind scene.

What would be a more distinct display of effort to you? Neoclassical soloing? I thought Paracocci showed off a lot of effort doing ambitious 5+ minute goregrind songs, but perhaps not.

Other than effecting the overall mark of an album, who cares? Every time I see a review start with "I really hate this genre blah blah blah", I can safely stop reading it and disregard it as being written by someone who's tastes don't cross over with my own. You should too.

So why write it down in the first place?

I actually do the same for the sake of sanity, but it's tiring to see people giving crap reviews based on ignorance. When I don't have enough background or acknowledgement of a scene or sub-genre I tend to avoid reviewing it until I do, because the way I view it a review is only effective if the person behind it knows what he/she is writing about. Otherwise how are you going to explain why it's good or bad other than personal taste? Personal taste is a part of a review, but then you must have your facts straight about the music itself.

I can only assume it's an outlet for people seeking attention for their rants against x genre. The mods obviously condone it so why bother arguing it?

True, but then again this wouldn't be a proper internet forum without someone complaining about something!

Sometimes peoples' hatred of an entire genre can be founded on sound logic and lines of reasoning. A work in that genre is bound to manifest the features that they have then rationally expounded as in conflict with their enjoyment and understanding of the methodology of artistic expression or as being unable to expand that understanding in an affective or appreciable way. They can usefully develop a sketch of the form these features take and their varied permutations within that specific work. All of this can be useful, or at least interesting, information and analysis for fans and non-fans of the genre in question.

Dismissing a review for that smacks of willful intellectual insulation.

I think the issue is more about people reviewing music from genres that they don't understand, not genres that they hate, since obviously it's possible to hate a genre that you understand. It just happens to be more annoying to some people when people review genres that they don't understand negatively rather than positively.

Ok, I agree that reviewers should take the time and trouble to understand what they review as much as they can before attempting to analyze it in a way deeper than recounting their gut reaction. Their gut reactions may still have their use, as the practice of finding reviewers with tastes similar to yours and finding out what their basic feelings towards various things are is a useful way of finding stuff you would and wouldn't like.

Yes, I'm sure in their own minds, they believe this too. I could write up a review of Sunn O))) and criticize them for making drawn out riffless garbage labelled as atmospheric songs and being untalented scam artists, but every single fan of drone would quickly skip it and rightfully so. I don't like the genre and it would be very apparent. I don't expect anyone to listen to me complaining about how shitty x band is for several paragraphs and it's a bit silly to expect me to do so as well. What's the point? If I'm thinking of buying or even downloading an album, I'd rather read a scathing review from someone who actually liked the band/genre, than from someone with an axe to grind.

I quibble with the phrase "axe to grind" so I'll go ahead and say that "hate" is the wrong word to have been using all along. It's exceedingly rare for reviewers to really hate things they negatively review, even things they affect to "hate". We've all watched and learned from the AVGN, so to speak, the theatrics that pique review viewer interest.

Anyway, I'm sure that in your own mind you believe they all just don't get it. I suspect they overwhelmingly do and the only real problem in any of this is people reading too much into others' motivations and people affording (if not encouraging) them every opportunity to do so (the hubbub over Nok's DSO review comes to mind, both in how it manifested and how each party behaved). It'd be very helpful and advance the goal of universal understanding and total elucidation if we would all give our reviewing fellows a shred of credit. As you pointed out earlier, some of it is for attention, but even people with meaningful things to say crave attention and that doesn't stop them from having meaningful things to say.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't prefer material coming from a standpoint of being a fan of the style in general, or that other perspectives inherently generate superior analysis of the material at hand, but the idea that such alternative perspectives automatically invalidate the conclusions people may come too and prevent them from being capable of providing valuable (or at least interesting) insights is definitely false.

No I believe they hate the genre for whatever valid reason, tastes being subjective and all, but it doesn't matter to me. Any review where someone's tastes obviously conflict with my own is not a review that will have any effect on whether I purchase that album. Let's say I read one of Emp's reviews on some power metal band that he gave 90-100%. Straight away, I know that that album will more than likely appeal to me, because I happen to like that kind of music. Emp, being the coinesseur of heavy metal has more than likely written an review where I'll read and think "hmm, catchy melodies, powerful vocals, yes, that sounds great". I can make an educated guess by his other reviews that he is talking about what I will find to be an amazing album. If he makes a review of power metal album and tears it apart, then I'll probably stay away from the album. By that same token, the review he did on Wintersun is entirely worthless to me, because he has stated several times that he finds melodeath utterly soulless. I don't see how he can come to that conclusion but he obviously does and that's that. It's immaterial to me because, I don't find it soulless or even any more "samey" than any other genre. The review has not affected my opinion or whether I will buy the album. How can it? Do you expect me to say "hmm, Emp can't stand anything I like in this genre, I better not touch this one".
Now that's just me. I'm sure you read every negative review of whatever bands you like by people that don't like the genres those bands fit into and maybe they impact on your opinion of those bands and what yo decide to buy that's great. For me, it's a waste of my time to read them, so, I generally don't.

I'm completely certain that we are talking around each other and that you are thinking only from a buyer's perspective...

Why else would I read a review? Unless it's extremely witty.

To be entertained and enjoy a good piece of literature? It's not like that's some alien concept around here...

My main hope going into a review is to gain insight and perspective on an album that I've usually already heard or have been intrigued by. The usefulness of reviews as functional recommendations has been seriously curtailed by the internet age and mp3s, so I tend to prefer reviews that are more than simply "if you like this, this, and this, you will like this".

Reviews are literature now? I guess in the strictest sense of the word.

Check out my posts on the last page of the review discussion thread, the subject matter is related to that question.

People put thought into the way they construct the reviews and take care to word their opinions in the best and most articulate ways possible. These are not mechanical grocery-lists of an albums pluses and minuses, but actual essays and articles on the music that serve to entertain, inform and make people think. So yeah I'd say they count.

Dude. We're not talking about something truly thought-provoking and life affirming like Harry Potter here, we're talking about random strangers writing whatever they feel about an album.

I'd say that's a pretty narrow way of looking at it. For one you're putting words in my mouth with this "thought provoking, life affirming" business, I never said that at all. I said reviews can definitely be more than just buyers' guides.

UltraBoris changed my life maaaaan.

Edit: For a douchier version:
ANUS changed my life maaaan.

It was a joke. Well, not that Harry Potter isn't the ultimate literary achievement of our lifetime.

The interesting part of this is that the reviews in this site are generally very well written. - Rarely just a bad buyer's guide (amazon).

This man speaks the truth. In fact I find Empyreal's reviews good reading even if I completely disagree with them, just because they're so well-written.

BastardHead's review of that Diamond Plate album is actually a really great example of what I've been talking about.

Thanks, Emp. I haven't been all that vocal here but I completely agree with what you've been saying, why hone your skill if in the end you could be replaced with heavy metal mad libs?

I get what you're saying. I also believe a balance of positive and negative points in a review is helpful. Some people seem to misunderstand your message. Your title says it all "Can people stop reviewing for genres they Hate?" If you don't like something, say so. If you like something and there's a part in it that's off to you, say so. But if you hate something and can't find a positive thing in it, then don't write a review, 'cause all you're doing is writing down a hatchet job.

Right. I saw where the OP was coming from, and I sympathized: I too have felt upset in the past when looking at one of my favorite albums with a mediocre score, when most reviews were above a 90% except for one with a flat-out 0% that bashed every aspect of the album.

Of course I disregarded this review entirely, which is what everyone has been trying to tell the OP. They could have told it a bit nicer.

That's retarded.

Seconded. As long as you put thought into a review you should be able to write about whatever you want. Wether you're acting like a fanboy or hating a release.

Greetings,

I wonder what pleasure people find in discrediting whole music genres. Sometimes it's almost as if the review is only a pretext to insult the minority of fans of a metal subgenre.

If Metalhead say to me try Manowar, I don't say "you stupid power metal poser", but I investigate Master's claim.

That's why today I like songs like "Secret Of Steel" and "Battle Hymn".

Me I can also write a very positive review that recommends an album of a metal genre that is not really of my preference.

And I don't like pizza.

Oh for fuck's sake, there's not a single fucking reviewer on this whole site that intentionally flags down bands of a certain sub-genre just to degrade them with reviews. However, if a user listens to an album he or she doesn't like, they can - get this - write a review on their experience, whether it be good or bad!

If this concept doesn't get through to you, just leave. This is not organic chemistry, nor is it calculus. It requires an IQ of 20 or above to understand. And if you have a problem with a review or multiple reviews, write your own damn review.

THANKS GUNTHER NOW EVERYTHING'S SOOOOOOOOO MUCH EASIER!

And, we're done.