Encyclopaedia Metallum: The Metal Archives

Message board

* FAQ    * Search   * Register   * Login 



Reply to topic
Author Message Previous topic | Next topic
MRmehman
Metal newbie

Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2015 1:34 pm
Posts: 72
Location: Painted World of Ariamis
PostPosted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 4:47 pm 
 

I haven't read metal reviews from large sites in awhile. There's a lot of people here who can meld their talents at creative writing and love for metal together and I've enough trust for the community to take what they say seriously. I read a handful of metal archive reviews every week to keep myself entertained and informed, the site usually strikes a good balance of both.

I have very little desire to read reviews from places like Blabbermouth or Metal Sucks, mostly because I don't visit those sites often enough for news and I'm not exposed to their stuff in any other way. Today though, I needed to write a report on the media industry and the impact critics have on entertainment for my college course. I decided to check out some reviews for Death Thy Lover by Candlemass because it was an EP I wanted to listen to again soon, me and my friend had a differing opinion on it and I figured I'd kill two birds with one stone. Jesus Christ though, mainstream metal reviews have clearly fallen a long way:

http://www.metalsucks.net/2016/06/01/ep ... andlemass/

http://www.blabbermouth.net/cdreviews/d ... -lover-ep/

The first review is heavy on the filler and spends more time making jokes about hipster shit than describing and commenting on the music, while the second tries to disguise a very shallow opinion with flowery language. I really feel like I made a better assessment of their writing in that one sentence than they did Candlemass' whole EP. I doubt either of these reviews would make it onto the site and I certainly wouldn't proudly show that shit off as an achievement in my writing career, much less a triumph in music journalism.

Why are these reviews so awful? Is it just a bad sample size? Blabbermouth and Metal Sucks are big sites, why do I end up trusting the opinions and writing ability of 16-year-old Brazilians over people who get payed to review music? Feel free to weigh in.
_________________
"He who is tired of Candlemass, is tired of life."

Top
 Profile  
Ace_Rimmer
Metal newbie

Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2017 11:30 am
Posts: 153
PostPosted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 5:23 pm 
 

Metal Sucks is a horrific site but in general too many reviews I read are just snark laden, poor excuses for writing.

Top
 Profile  
Twisted_Psychology
Veteran

Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 8:22 pm
Posts: 3656
Location: United States
PostPosted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 5:32 pm 
 

As a "professional" music reviewer myself (Apparently somebody in a thrash group on Facebook thought I got paid for my Conformicide review?), the biggest metal sites like those listed tend to have mediocre content because they're usually reviewing releases that they "have to do." They may either have their bands they're legitimately passionate about, the ones they'll write about because they know people will have strong opinions about it, and (Most often in the case of MetalSucks specifically) the straight up clickbait. Unless they care or can guarantee that readers will care, they'll phone in what basically amounts to a flowery Wikipedia article.

There's also concerns of promotion as well as conflicts of interest with most of those sites. Since free promos are involved, they tend to not want to bite the hand that feeds with a review that is either unfavorable or "too" honest to an album. That's why so many reviews are so middle of the road bland in opinion unless the fan outcry is too overwhelming to ignore. If I'm not mistaken, Blabbermouth is also affiliated with Roadrunner in some way, which is why their 8/10 review of Dedicated to Chaos exists complete with a preemptively defensive attitude throughout.

As a musician, having my works reviewed on the sites would only satisfy me in the sense that it would reflect some sort of international recognition. But in terms of actual content and criticisms, I take reviews by fans and underground blogs run by a friend or two much more seriously.
_________________
Spirit Division (Stoner/Doom): http://spiritdivision.bandcamp.com
My solo acoustic project (Dark Folk/Blues): http://christophersteve.bandcamp.com/
Lavaborne (Heavy/Power/Doom): https://lavaborne.bandcamp.com

Top
 Profile  
Diamhea
Eats and Spits Corpses

Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 7:46 pm
Posts: 8869
Location: At the Heat of Winter
PostPosted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 5:37 pm 
 

These reviews suck because they are written the bands promotional interests in mind. They are rarely impartial.
_________________
nuclearskull wrote:
Leave a steaming, stinking Rotting Repulsive Rotting Corpse = LIVE YOUNG - DIE FREE and move on to the NEXT form of yourself....or just be a fat Wal-Mart Mcdonalds pc of shit what do I give a fuck what you do.

Last.fm

Top
 Profile  
MRmehman
Metal newbie

Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2015 1:34 pm
Posts: 72
Location: Painted World of Ariamis
PostPosted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 7:54 pm 
 

Why does industry always suck the passion out of everything?
Twisted_Psychology wrote:
Since free promos are involved, they tend to not want to bite the hand that feeds with a review that is either unfavorable or "too" honest to an album. That's why so many reviews are so middle of the road bland in opinion unless the fan outcry is too overwhelming to ignore.

I wish things were more like the film industry. If your film won't be well received critically, you don't pre-screen it. If you know critics will love it, you do. There's plenty of grey area in there too but it helps sort the overall quality of a film. Says a lot as well if a studio is willing to put their film in front of people who could cost them millions. I guess "metal" (music really) is a smaller circle and bad reviews can ruin everything.
Twisted_Psychology wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, Blabbermouth is also affiliated with Roadrunner in some way, which is why their 8/10 review of Dedicated to Chaos exists complete with a preemptively defensive attitude throughout.

I don't even know how to respond to that. That just shouldn't be a thing.
Diamhea wrote:
These reviews suck because they are written with the bands promotional interests in mind. They are rarely impartial.

Well, there's my answer I guess. I just know reading that review made Candlemass sound boring as fuck. If I wasn't already a fan, I'd probably avoid them, especially if the reviewer isn't interested enough to talk about their music.
_________________
"He who is tired of Candlemass, is tired of life."

Top
 Profile  
raumr
Metalhead

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 7:11 pm
Posts: 854
Location: Norway
PostPosted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 10:16 pm 
 

I don't understand the demand for reviews from metal magazines when sites like metal-archives exist. Even the "shitty ones" on this site blows them out of the water, because they are written by someone who has something to say, and not just doing hidden promotion. Bands like Taake like to link to reviews of their newest albums on their Facebook pages, and they're all the same. Sometime it's as if they just copy each others descriptions.

Top
 Profile  
ShaolinLambKiller
King Asshole

Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2007 6:10 pm
Posts: 13113
Location: United States
PostPosted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 11:27 pm 
 

Every single review site that exists now pretty much is paid to play into their publishing. all the sites that used to have reviews i respected everyone gave up on and the websites abandoned since no one really bothers with reviews anymore when they can just sample the entire album illegally or not off youtube. i really loved going to metaljudgement, metalreviews that went into lastrites before they just up the ghost and aversionline. pretty much all are dead in one form or another.
_________________
A bunch of mp3s is not a collection of anything.
http://www.cavepaints.com <--Horrid art and musics.
http://www.facebook.com/MaulerCustomCabs <--- huge heavy/loud boxes I build.
http://speedritualrecords.storenvy.com/ Check out my music here

Top
 Profile  
TrooperEd
Metalhead

Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2004 6:18 pm
Posts: 1412
Location: United States
PostPosted: Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:13 am 
 

Twisted_Psychology wrote:
As a "professional" music reviewer myself (Apparently somebody in a thrash group on Facebook thought I got paid for my Conformicide review?), the biggest metal sites like those listed tend to have mediocre content because they're usually reviewing releases that they "have to do." They may either have their bands they're legitimately passionate about, the ones they'll write about because they know people will have strong opinions about it, and (Most often in the case of MetalSucks specifically) the straight up clickbait. Unless they care or can guarantee that readers will care, they'll phone in what basically amounts to a flowery Wikipedia article.

There's also concerns of promotion as well as conflicts of interest with most of those sites. Since free promos are involved, they tend to not want to bite the hand that feeds with a review that is either unfavorable or "too" honest to an album. That's why so many reviews are so middle of the road bland in opinion unless the fan outcry is too overwhelming to ignore. If I'm not mistaken, Blabbermouth is also affiliated with Roadrunner in some way, which is why their 8/10 review of Dedicated to Chaos exists complete with a preemptively defensive attitude throughout.

As a musician, having my works reviewed on the sites would only satisfy me in the sense that it would reflect some sort of international recognition. But in terms of actual content and criticisms, I take reviews by fans and underground blogs run by a friend or two much more seriously.



Speaking of flowery Wikipedia articles. Why is it article editors always delete anything about negative fan reception to Load? They can't act like it didn't happen, Load is one of the most hated Metallica albums, and your opinion of those fans "intelligence" is irrelevant, its still something that should be mentioned, particularly since Wikipedia is all about before and afters.
_________________
Empyreal wrote:
BastardHead wrote:
My scoring system is based entirely on whether or not I think I could beat the band in a pie eating contest.


This is why Babymetal would get a straight up 0%.

Top
 Profile  
mjollnir
Metalhead

Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 4:14 pm
Posts: 1626
Location: Boswell, PA USA
PostPosted: Sat Nov 18, 2017 3:20 pm 
 

Blabbermouth and MetalSucks are not only awful sites they promote more false metal than anything else. When I go to Blabbermouth and see articles on Korn and Five Finger Death Punch, their credibility goes right out the window. Sites like this is where you will find metal reviews that have honesty and integrity. Avoid sites like those.
_________________
The Elitist Metalhead
The Elitist Metalhead on Facebook

Top
 Profile  
John_Sunlight
President Satan

Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 4:41 am
Posts: 6083
Location: Kansas City
PostPosted: Sat Nov 18, 2017 3:52 pm 
 

mjollnir wrote:
Blabbermouth and MetalSucks are not only awful sites they promote more false metal than anything else.

Someone finally used the "f" word. "Professional" sites are full of jobbers and shills. They are false. True Metal reviews come from true Metalheads and true Metaldom is a cottage industry.
_________________
"Dave, we have to kill monsters."

Top
 Profile  
MRmehman
Metal newbie

Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2015 1:34 pm
Posts: 72
Location: Painted World of Ariamis
PostPosted: Sat Nov 18, 2017 5:32 pm 
 

John_Sunlight wrote:
mjollnir wrote:
Blabbermouth and MetalSucks are not only awful sites they promote more false metal than anything else.

Someone finally used the "f" word. "Professional" sites are full of jobbers and shills. They are false. True Metal reviews come from true Metalheads and true Metaldom is a cottage industry.

Let's start a site called "True Brutal Blackened Death Grind Central". All we do is post articles about bedroom black metal bands and how much Metallica suck now.

I fully see and support where you guys are coming from though. These sites are build to appeal to the lowest common denominator, to the point of pushing away metal fans. If you listen to anything other than Killswitch Engaged (who are a guilty pleasure for me right now) or if you just want something well written to read on a band you like, you're going to have to wade through a lot of crap. Metalion would be rolling in his grave, if he were dead that is.
_________________
"He who is tired of Candlemass, is tired of life."

Top
 Profile  
gasmask_colostomy
Metal newbie

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 5:38 am
Posts: 66
Location: Behind the wall of fire
PostPosted: Sat Nov 18, 2017 10:30 pm 
 

I'm strongly opposed to reviews like the MetalSucks one posted above, because it seems more like an exercise in promotional awareness than a real review of the content. The biggest issue with that is that there are several mentions of the coffee table book, which isn't even really relevant to the Candlemass review, while the writer admits that they've never listened to Candlemass before and seem to have done just enough research to find out the band's year of formation and original line-up. If I were doing this as a job, I would have found out about the band's recent history (in what way 'Death Thy Lover' is a stop-gap I don't know, since the band said they wouldn't release any more studio albums) and had a good listen to at least the last couple of full-lengths so I could compare it to something. Naturally, I fucking love Candlemass so that wouldn't be necessary, but if my website paid me to do the review, I would think that was the least that was expected. That review is really lazy.

On the other hand, I used to be a big reader of Metal Hammer magazine, which is probably the biggest print magazine on metal (in the UK anyway). It's pretty clear that they wanted to keep the big bands sweet, always giving Metallica scores of 8 or 9 and Machine Head claiming album of the year at least once, but the reviews did generally contain comments about musical substance, specific songs, and the band's development, crucially even when they were only 100 words in length. I haven't read the magazine in a while and would probably find some of the main articles boring because I have little interest in Avenged Sevenfold or Five Finger Death Punch, but when I write I still keep in mind the style that their writers used.

Therefore, I suggest that the websites reviewing metal releases are probably concerned more with trends and clickbait and attracting people in general, but you mind find more quality content in magazines, since the readership tends to stay loyal as they can trust that when they open the packaging the writing will be of decent quality.

Top
 Profile  
gasmask_colostomy
Metal newbie

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 5:38 am
Posts: 66
Location: Behind the wall of fire
PostPosted: Sat Nov 18, 2017 10:44 pm 
 

mjollnir wrote:
Blabbermouth and MetalSucks are not only awful sites they promote more false metal than anything else. When I go to Blabbermouth and see articles on Korn and Five Finger Death Punch, their credibility goes right out the window. Sites like this is where you will find metal reviews that have honesty and integrity. Avoid sites like those.


This comment puzzles me the most out of any I've seen so far.

I'm not going to get into the "false metal" argument because that would probably get the page locked and then MRmehman wouldn't be able to do his assignment, but how does a website publishing articles on Korn and FFDP affect their honesty and integrity? I think we would all agree that Candlemass are definitely not an example of "false metal", yet the reviewers have clearly used no integrity to comment on that release. The reason why the articles are awful is because they don't actually review the content at all, just give very broad comments about the music that could have been guessed without even listening to it, then add in issues that are not relevant to pad out the words and grasp for entertainment value.

I'm pretty sure that if MA let users write reviews on Korn albums (not only for April Fool's Day this time), some of them would be interesting and informative and entirely credible. There are many metal bands I like that are not included on this site and it would not be a stretch for me to imagine that metal buyers and listeners also like some of them; therefore, just because other websites choose to include content about them does not make them any less "metal" than the bands included here, it simply means that there are different sources available for different tastes within our genre.

I would embrace any example of good, honest writing and responsible journalism rather than read only about my favourite bands in the words of some hack who doesn't give a shit.


P.S. Sorry for the double post.

Top
 Profile  
mjollnir
Metalhead

Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 4:14 pm
Posts: 1626
Location: Boswell, PA USA
PostPosted: Sat Nov 18, 2017 11:08 pm 
 

gasmask_colostomy wrote:

This comment puzzles me the most out of any I've seen so far.

I'm not going to get into the "false metal" argument because that would probably get the page locked and then MRmehman wouldn't be able to do his assignment, but how does a website publishing articles on Korn and FFDP affect their honesty and integrity? I think we would all agree that Candlemass are definitely not an example of "false metal", yet the reviewers have clearly used no integrity to comment on that release. The reason why the articles are awful is because they don't actually review the content at all, just give very broad comments about the music that could have been guessed without even listening to it, then add in issues that are not relevant to pad out the words and grasp for entertainment value.

Any publication that tries to pass off FFDP and Korn as metal has no integrity....period.

Quote:
There are many metal bands I like that are not included on this site and it would not be a stretch for me to imagine that metal buyers and listeners also like some of them; therefore, just because other websites choose to include content about them does not make them any less "metal" than the bands included here, it simply means that there are different sources available for different tastes within our genre.

If the aforementioned sites don't even know what metal is, how is anything they say credible?

If they are not included here, they are not metal. If you think Korn or FFDP is metal then there is no need to take this any further.

Edit: I guess my bias shows through because I don't consider anything -core to be metal at all, including metalcore. So take that as you may.
_________________
The Elitist Metalhead
The Elitist Metalhead on Facebook

Top
 Profile  
gasmask_colostomy
Metal newbie

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 5:38 am
Posts: 66
Location: Behind the wall of fire
PostPosted: Sun Nov 19, 2017 2:20 am 
 

mjollnir wrote:
If the aforementioned sites don't even know what metal is, how is anything they say credible?

If they are not included here, they are not metal. If you think Korn or FFDP is metal then there is no need to take this any further.

Edit: I guess my bias shows through because I don't consider anything -core to be metal at all, including metalcore. So take that as you may.


I guess that's where we differ. I've always thought nu metal (mallcore) and metalcore to be very much metal, likewise with industrial metal stuff. Largely because "core" on its own isn't a genre. I guess these publications take the same view.

However, I insist it's the quality that's important, not the specific choice of bands covered. I mean, we have bands on here like Mortiis and Storm Corrosion that are not even slightly metal.

Top
 Profile  
FasterDisaster
OMG WAT DOES THIS CAPS LOCK KEY DO

Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 2:08 pm
Posts: 8021
PostPosted: Sun Nov 19, 2017 2:34 am 
 

I'm not sure the name of prominent YouTube reviewer, kid with short black hair and black-rimmed glasses, he reviews all kinds of music, but I was watching his review of Nightmare Logic and he said something along the lines of like, "I'm waiting for them to develop their own style," and I just scratched my head in utter confusion. Their first record was some of the most devastating thrash to be released in like a decade, and Nightmare Logic just expands upon that greatly, and I just don't even understand that critical point. To me, waiting for a band to "develop their own style" signals they don't know what the fuck they're talking about beyond hearing something similar to something else, and knowing not enough to make a critique based on those factors, so a catch-all "develop their own style" is applied as a sort of tepid "I don't like it, but I can't contextualize it within the sound of the record".

Some reviews can be pompous and inconsequential, others can be informative. Reading reviews by people privy to a band or style (or that you trust) can be a good way to get different senses, but nothing really replaces just hearing it and talking to other people about it.

Top
 Profile  
pfk505
Metal newbie

Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:04 am
Posts: 126
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Sun Nov 19, 2017 7:01 pm 
 

The thing about reviews is that most of the time, the writers of them have no idea what they're doing. I've taken issue with a couple reviews lately on a certain well known review site, where the lack of knowledge and research about the album/artist/genre at hand is painfully obvious. Criticism is a very, very difficult genre to write in. To do it right demands careful attention, thoughtful discourse, and above all, knowledge about what one is fucking writing about. The best reviewers (and I'll use autothrall as an example - even if you find him boring you can't argue with his encyclopedic metal knowledge) are able to make an argument about an album and back it up in their writing. It seems like many reviewers, even on the bigger sites, put very little effort into their work and are just in it to fill content.

Top
 Profile  
2Eagle333
Metal newbie

Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 8:24 am
Posts: 277
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 4:02 am 
 

Those reviews are generally of low quality, nonetheless there are worse examples than the first of those. Other than official ties, such reviews are usually lacking in the passion typical to the music. MA's culture relies on unwritten rules and so on, so honestly it's not usually any better.

Top
 Profile  
GTog
Metalhead

Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 8:35 pm
Posts: 745
Location: United States
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 3:08 pm 
 

Classifying some bands as metal when they are clearly not (they also throw Tool and Slipknot in there a lot) is just an unfortunate byproduct of their business. It doesn't necessarily means they're idiots. They're trying to get clicks, get pageviews. So they have to write about popular or at least well known bands. Also, bands that are relevant to their audience. Also, releases that you have a fighting chance of actually buying somewhere. Reviewing the latest death/black act from Peru or wherever just ain't gonna do it.

If I had to guess, I'd say that the reviewers themselves are probably pretty reluctant to call some of those bands "metal" too.
_________________
Metalheads never get old. We just become legendary.

Top
 Profile  
TheArchivist
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 9:35 pm
Posts: 7
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 11:45 pm 
 

gasmask_colostomy wrote:

I'm pretty sure that if MA let users write reviews on Korn albums (not only for April Fool's Day this time), some of them would be interesting and informative and entirely credible.


I think this is pretty interesting. A separate reviews section on nu-metal, alternative and grunge albums by Korn, Limp Bizkit, Tool, Nirvana and other such non-metal bands would be a great addition to the archives if only to show an outsider's perspective on these releases. It could be the Tavern equivalent of the Metal Archives main metal reviews section. I'd like to know what metalheads think of these records as I'm sure a lot of them listened to these bands somewhere along their musical journey.

For example, someone could write a series of reviews tackling each of the albums of Korn from their debut to their fifth record, Untouchables. The review rules would be that these albums should be evaluated within the standards of the particular non-metal genre and not based on the standards set by the metal/heavy metal genre.

Top
 Profile  
gasmask_colostomy
Metal newbie

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 5:38 am
Posts: 66
Location: Behind the wall of fire
PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:46 am 
 

TheArchivist wrote:
For example, someone could write a series of reviews tackling each of the albums of Korn from their debut to their fifth record, Untouchables. The review rules would be that these albums should be evaluated within the standards of the particular non-metal genre and not based on the standards set by the metal/heavy metal genre.


This is basically what every review should be. Evaluating an album within its particular genre or sub-genre is the only way to do it. If I review a Nirvana album and say that it isn't as technical as Metallica, that would be missing the point.

However, it's never going to happen on this site because the metal bands are picked and chosen for their particular credentials, not being metal in a general sense.

Top
 Profile  
MRmehman
Metal newbie

Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2015 1:34 pm
Posts: 72
Location: Painted World of Ariamis
PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 10:25 am 
 

As much as I'd love to vomit my opinions on bands like The Doors and Nirvana onto you guys, that'd devalue the site as being an archive of metal. If you host reviews for these albums, you likely need to host the information on them too, pushing us further away from being an archive of metal music. Even if you could solve all the technical and resource issues, I don't think reviews for non-metal albums would add that much to the site.
_________________
"He who is tired of Candlemass, is tired of life."

Top
 Profile  
mjollnir
Metalhead

Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 4:14 pm
Posts: 1626
Location: Boswell, PA USA
PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 7:02 pm 
 

gasmask_colostomy wrote:
However, it's never going to happen on this site because the metal bands are picked and chosen for their particular credentials, not being metal in a general sense.

I'm sorry but what do you mean by metal in a general sense? The bands here are not picked because of any credentials. There is a strict criteria for inclusion here...metal riffs! I actually believe this site has gotten much more lenient when it comes to inclusion because I do not think ANY metalcore should be here....but that is just me. It sounds to me like you think that just because a band has distorted guitars, plays fast and sounds "heavy" they should be included here.
_________________
The Elitist Metalhead
The Elitist Metalhead on Facebook

Top
 Profile  
TheArchivist
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 9:35 pm
Posts: 7
PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 11:20 pm 
 

mjollnir wrote:
I actually believe this site has gotten much more lenient when it comes to inclusion because I do not think ANY metalcore should be here.....


I feel the same way. I think even deathcore, grindcore, post-metal and drone bands shouldn't be on this site.

MRmehman wrote:
Even if you could solve all the technical and resource issues, I don't think reviews for non-metal albums would add that much to the site.


Fair enough. While I hate nu-metal with a passion, I am sometimes drawn to it the way I sometimes enjoy watching a fucked-up, bad movie like Tommy Wiseau's The Room.

Top
 Profile  
gasmask_colostomy
Metal newbie

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 5:38 am
Posts: 66
Location: Behind the wall of fire
PostPosted: Thu Nov 23, 2017 1:07 am 
 

mjollnir wrote:
gasmask_colostomy wrote:
However, it's never going to happen on this site because the metal bands are picked and chosen for their particular credentials, not being metal in a general sense.

I'm sorry but what do you mean by metal in a general sense? The bands here are not picked because of any credentials. There is a strict criteria for inclusion here...metal riffs! I actually believe this site has gotten much more lenient when it comes to inclusion because I do not think ANY metalcore should be here....but that is just me. It sounds to me like you think that just because a band has distorted guitars, plays fast and sounds "heavy" they should be included here.


So metal riffs make a band metal, eh? Let's backtrack a moment and look at Black Sabbath's debut, supposedly one of the birthplaces of metal. Most of the songs on that album use fairly typical rock patterns. Compare that to Iron Maiden's early albums or Overkill's most recent. There's not much similarity between those "metal riffs", is there? So who is to say where the line is drawn?

I'm not saying that any band that has "distorted guitars, plays fast and sounds "heavy"" is metal (I'd question "plays fast" as a criterion anyway), just that the supposedly clear definition you are talking about doesn't exist. There are metalcore bands (not all) playing tons of metal riffs that come from melodeath or death metal, though elements of their songs like breakdowns don't really qualify as heavy metal in a traditional sense. Likewise, I'd be interested to know what kind of riffs you think a band like Korn or Slipknot are playing - if they aren't metal, what would you classify them as? Maybe their aesthetic doesn't seem metal, but this isn't about their image: this is the Metal Archives, not the Heavy Metal Archives or the True Metal Archives. I'm genuinely interested to hear more about this.

Top
 Profile  
TheArchivist
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 9:35 pm
Posts: 7
PostPosted: Thu Nov 23, 2017 12:03 pm 
 

gasmask_colostomy wrote:
I'd be interested to know what kind of riffs you think a band like Korn or Slipknot are playing


Gasmask, you do have some valid points. While your question was not addressed to me, I want to offer my own two cents on the matter. There is a very thin line differentiating metal and non-metal riffs. Maybe a mere 10% difference; I don't want to sound like these arrogant thrash elitists or tech death elitists who says their opinion are the end all be all (authority) of what is considered "pure metal". But I do believe that true metal/heavy metal is a real authentic genre with several branches/subgenres. It is an artform that has solidified its identity and therefore those who wish to practice or use it as a medium of expression should at least adhere to a few basic rules or follow certain standards that were set by the masters or pioneers, so to speak.

One of the defining characteristics of true metal are the riffs but they have to be of a certain quality to be qualified as genuine "metal riffs" as opposed to a "core" riff or "djent" riff. I think what qualifies a riff as a metal riff is the way its played. Tremolo picking and palm mutes are very prevalent in thrash, death or black metal. Also, guitar solos are a staple of true metal. Technical shredding, sometimes with a neo-classical bent as opposed to just ordinary pentatonic soloing that could be found in garden variety hard rock like Kiss or ACDC is a distinct characteristic of real metal. The drumming and the vocals are also prime factors in determining and measuring the "metalness" of a song.

On nu-metal riffs or songs, I think the most noticeable traits are the downtuned guitars, lack of guitar solos and integration of hip hop elements such as rapping and beats as well as incorporating hardcore punk traits such as breakdowns. Also, the inclusion of funk, reggae or techno is very rampant in nu-metal which makes it a fusion genre and not a metal subgenre.

Also, metal sprung from the traditional metal movement/NWOBHM of the late 70s while nu-metal traces its roots to 80s hardcore punk and the indie scene spearheaded by the Subpop, Washington DC and Seattle scenes of the late 80s and early 90s.

Top
 Profile  
mjollnir
Metalhead

Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 4:14 pm
Posts: 1626
Location: Boswell, PA USA
PostPosted: Fri Nov 24, 2017 1:00 am 
 

Gasmask, if you really think that Slipknot and Korn's non riffing chugs and breakdowns sound anything like the riffs of Sabbath, Priest, Maiden, etc. then you clearly have no understanding of music and I am no longer going to derail this thread any longer.

My main point was that sites like Blabbermouth, Metalsucks, and Metal Injection like to label clearly non metal bands as metal and, therefore, have no credibility. That said, any review on those sites are done by people who clearly have no idea what metal is. I can not take any reviewer seriously if he/she writes a review for a Korn album and calls it metal!
_________________
The Elitist Metalhead
The Elitist Metalhead on Facebook

Top
 Profile  
gasmask_colostomy
Metal newbie

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 5:38 am
Posts: 66
Location: Behind the wall of fire
PostPosted: Fri Nov 24, 2017 1:12 am 
 

TheArchivist wrote:
On nu-metal riffs or songs, I think the most noticeable traits are the downtuned guitars, lack of guitar solos and integration of hip hop elements such as rapping and beats as well as incorporating hardcore punk traits such as breakdowns. Also, the inclusion of funk, reggae or techno is very rampant in nu-metal which makes it a fusion genre and not a metal subgenre.

Also, metal sprung from the traditional metal movement/NWOBHM of the late 70s while nu-metal traces its roots to 80s hardcore punk and the indie scene spearheaded by the Subpop, Washington DC and Seattle scenes of the late 80s and early 90s.


I think the second quoted paragraph is the part I'm closest to agreeing with. I can absolutely see that the lineage of Korn is not from any of the traditional metal bands and does come from other areas of rock. However, that gets confused when we look at other bands in the genre such as Slipknot, who have always used harsh vocals and (looking back to the first two albums) seem to be influenced more by death metal than anything from Sub Pop or hip-hop. Also, while I kind of accept the definition of nu metal as a "fusion genre", it does lead to the question of whether it should be treated the same way as metalcore - another supposed fusion genre - and bands who are more "metal" than "nu" would be classified as metal bands. That would arguably mean welcoming Slipknot, Mudvayne, and Coal Chamber as metal, but dismissing Korn, Limp Bizkit, and Deftones as more influenced by other genres.

I'm still wary of saying that guitar solos make heavy metal because we all know some bands on this site that don't use them (a whole slew of black metal bands for starters), as well as the differences in style by bands on the thrash side of things and the doom side, which tend towards technical and pentatonic respectively. If we really go back to the question of heavy metal, the initial distinction was in the "heaviness" of the music, meaning the qualities of sound, atmosphere, and themes that made the music of a greater density and gravity to rock music. Compare comments from the early '70s about "heavy" lyrical subjects in Black Sabbath (war, drugs, the supernatural) to some of those in AC/DC and Kiss, which were more about "light" subjects such as parties, girls, and having fun.

It's a complex distinction, no doubt.

Top
 Profile  
gasmask_colostomy
Metal newbie

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 5:38 am
Posts: 66
Location: Behind the wall of fire
PostPosted: Fri Nov 24, 2017 1:16 am 
 

mjollnir wrote:
Gasmask, if you really think that Slipknot and Korn's non riffing chugs and breakdowns sound anything like the riffs of Sabbath, Priest, Maiden, etc. then you clearly have no understanding of music and I am no longer going to derail this thread any longer.

My main point was that sites like Blabbermouth, Metalsucks, and Metal Injection like to label clearly non metal bands as metal and, therefore, have no credibility. That said, any review on those sites are done by people who clearly have no idea what metal is. I can not take any reviewer seriously if he/she writes a review for a Korn album and calls it metal!


I think that nu metal chugs sound closer to Black Sabbath than a Burzum album does.

In any case, I think we can conclude from our debate that some metal sites think like you do and some think like I do. Just don't read the reviews you don't care about and scorn Blabbermouth with your rejection!

Top
 Profile  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], MutantClannfear, ThanatosUK and 14 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

 
Jump to:  

Back to the Encyclopaedia Metallum


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group