Essay: Manifesto for the moderates - 83%
Perhaps it's just the internet, the Metal Archives itself, or the newcomers who wish to define themselves as something they think the surroundings will appreciate. Maybe there is a rift accross the field of metal, or possibly the world of metalheads is splintering into groups that all fend for themselves and find "the other side" somewhere where it never was before. Perhaps it's just an illusion. Or perhaps the old days are indeed gone and "metal" alone is not good enough for the generation that has downloaded the things people in the 80s had to spend some serious money on, or were forced to see the trouble of tape trading without the benefit of email and cell phones.
"I think Napero has lost it, and he's just mumbling."
"Yeah, that's it, his walker has been confiscated by the Domestic Coyote, and he thinks he's back in the 80s."
"Durrr...."
The Metal Archives have been corrupted by a strange phenomenon lately. There's something rotting under the floorboards, and something gnawing on the beams that keep the shack upright. Somehow, some confused individuals have failed to appreciate the greatness of Holy Diver, found fatal flaws in Death's works and rated them somewhere below 10%, and even stated their serious dislike of such monuments as Altars of Madness. More often than not, the keyword is "overrated". What, it must be asked, the fuck is this? Have the really important works suddenly been turned to crap by the likes of Dying Fetus and Trivium making something more precise and more brutal? Have the real, original blueprints of metal been surpassed by the skills of newcomers so profoundly that the new generation finds nothing to appreciate in them any more?
"Nappy needs to take his medication and empty his colostomy bag before he goes to bed."
"I think he's demented. Probably drives a Harley Parkinson these days."
"Durrr...."
The new breed of reviews and opinions finds its manifestation in the low scores instead of the positive ones, and that's the worrying part in the strangeness going on. The positive scores are reserved for the obscure demos of bands that, in the final analysis, too often play something with a "retro" tag in front of them, and essentially bring nothing new to the table: their value is in the very obscurity. The negative scores, when given to essential works in the history of metal, seem to serve as the separating thing between the reviewer (and his kind) and the rest of the metal crowd. So, instead of finding a suitable classic or well-known album and giving it a positive score, a lot of eager and ambitious guys take the easier way of defining themselves and making their mark, and bash something. And behold! they often find the choir they wish to preach to. What an odd way of making a name for oneself, indeed!
"He had better start talking about Opeth soon, or I'll contact the owners and get him fired."
"Yeah, I'm not wasting my time on this, he'll be talking about the pea soup he had during the Winter War soon... but that's better than Opeth, right?"
"Durrrrr...."
Opeth has been one of the focal points of this oddity for half a decade already. Why is that? Well, of course, a certain somebody started the Tr00ness Olympics (TM) by making a value-laden attack on Master of Puppets, but for some strange reason, Opeth is the battleground to many. The averages on their albums tend to remain in the higher end of the spectrum, but the variance is incredible. There are the 92...100% reviews, and the 1...17% reviews, and very little in between the extremes. The fanboys - and Opeth has a lot of fanboys - of course rave on the excellence with foam in the corners of their mouths, as is the case of any fanboy of any of the 60 000+ bands on the MA... of which roughly 500 is worth anyone's fanboyism, to be honest. But the amount of extremely negative reviews is staggering, and the scores are often way too low to be truly honest.
"He's circling it. Not brave enough to tackle Opeth. Loser..."
"It's, like, look mom no hands! I'm reviewing Opeth without mentioning Opeth! What a coward!"
"Durrr...."
Assuming that progressive metal in the form that it's often seen on the MA is considered metal in the fundamental sense, there's actually very little that can objectively be levelled against Opeth. It's OK to dislike them, and it's easy to see that they are not meant for a thrash metal maniacs or deathmetalheads. But in the essence, despite the excessive acoustic parts and sometimes sleep-inducing mellow sections, Opeth plays metal, and it's difficult to consider them anything but progressive. Extreme? Depends on the definition, but in the eyes of a lot of people, certainly. In the eyes of a long-time thrash and death metal fan, not really.
"That was mellow... He's afraid to say anything, just believe me."
"Mellow? Durrr... Napero is an acoustic part on a swedish album...."
"Durrr...."
Once the objective objections have been forgotten, it's time to see what the real beefs against Opeth are. Yes, indeed, they have written the same album about 11 times now. The usual path of progression of a metal band is there, and they have mellowed and polished the product a bit from the days of My Arms, Your Hearse, for example, losing some of their edge, but the basic product still is the same album. So they are repetitive, and making one of the albums acoustic in a mid-career goofiness crisis does not change that. Also, Opeth still is sleep-inducing, especially once they undertake one of their excessive acoustic sections with clean vocals. But on the other hand, Opeth obviously aims for "atmospheric" music, and those mellow sections are just that, atmospheric. Sure, they are not to be listened to when driving a truck for the 14th hour in the middle of Kansas at 3 am, but in suitably small dozes, they can be rather emotionally charged pieces of musical scenery.
"Told you! He's an emo! I win!"
"OK, the next Bud is on me."
"Budweiser! The best beer in the world!"
"Napero probably drinks some belgian monk-piss."
"Durrr...."
The progressive part is difficult to describe without getting technical, and since being technical in this context is difficult and requires a functional brain and some esoteric knowledge of such things as "time signatures", "notes" and "music", that shall be skipped for now. Suffice to say that Opeth's music is not the standard fare for the most part, but they still concetrate on the atmosphere more than on wankery or metallic fury, and the comparisons to 70s prog rock are not far-fetched, either.
"He's a moron, too! Ignoranite dullard!"
"Yeah, my cousin is writing a new über-patriotic sludge album in 9/11 time, I'd love to see the loser reviewing THAT!"
"Durrr...."
OK, so the albums of Opeth are progressive, atmospheric, either boring or brilliant depending on the listener's attitude, and somewhat complex pieces of work. Now we arrive on the shores of the Big Question: why is this worth hating by so many? Why do a lot of people take the time and pain to listen to it, write a review that most probably takes some serious effort to become the 21st approved review on the album, and then simply bash it and rate it at 7%? Because no matter how you look at it, Opeth is far from being offensive or abysmal; the music is actually extremely inoffensive, mostly works well as background music for a game of Carcassone or chess, and it sure doesn't fill the definition of "crap" in any dictionary. It's not something you're supposed to like, but if you really think Blackwater Park is worth 6%, you've obviously never heard BAD music. The stuff on many MySpace pages is worth 6%, but that rating, subjectively, assumes that the music is indeed unlistenable, offensive to the ears, and in large dosages, causes hemorroids. Burzum's Dauði Baldrs is such music, as is Vomit Sodomy's only glam metal album Lipstick Menuette, but finding such lousiness in music with Opeth's level of professionalism is a strange idea. Are you really sure this is the worst thing you've ever heard? Seriously?
"I knew it. He's an Opeth fanboy. Likes Åkerfeldt's starry eyes and sad poetic face, I tell you."
"That little circle on top of that A looks like a sphincter..."
"Durrrr...."
So, the motivation for the extremely low scores is hardly the low quality of the music, unless we are talking about reviewers who either like Barbie Girl by Aqua more than metal, or have grown up in a plastic bubble to avoid infections and have since childhood been subjected to heavy bombardment of True Metal only. And as far as that remained a feature of Opeth's discography, all was well; but once it started to infect the rest of the albums of well-known bands, it became obvious that the motivation is to be found somewhere else. The main hypothesis here is is cruel: it's obviously much easier to find your 15 minutes in the spotlight by bashing something a lot of people like than by writing a good positive review on something. And what could possibly be a better target than Opeth, a band with a relatively fanatical fanbase that is easy to get yelling on the ramparts and flinging feces at the author of a review with a single-digit score? None. Except... hey, even more people like Black Sabbath than Opeth here... Get the power drill and the toilet brush! We have a septic tank to stir here!
"He's gone off the deep end now."
"I didn't know septic tanks have a deep end."
"Durrr...."
Is there a message here? Should the approval criteria be tweaked a little, or the most obvious trollings be nuked? Should we adopt a narrower view of the reviewing process and try to please the middle of the road more? Should we discourage extreme views, and perhaps even take a more critical rejection stance on negative reviews on popular albums. Well, duh, no. For Lucifer's sake, no! The heart of the message is simple and quite opethian, in the sense that it's really inoffensive and blends into the ambience: when reading the reviews, take the extreme rating with a grain or a spoonful of salt. There might be something else in work if the scores have a huge variance in them. In Opeth's case, it's rabid fanboys vs the people with virginal minds when it comes to actually crappy metal. Or something to show to a group of others, perhaps. Kind of like Bart Simpson jumping that canyon on a skateboard...
"No harsh new policies after all that ranting? That sure was an anticlimax..."
"Yeah... Durr.... Eh... I like to climax... How do I do that backwards?"
"Durrr...."
Blackwater Park is very much like the rest of the Opeth discography: mostly mellow progressive metal with some pretty nicely executed semi-extreme parts to provide a nice contrast, all performed in a very tightly controlled and professional manner to keep the atmosphere intact and the mood of the album in one piece. If you've heard one, you've heard most of their full-lenghts, really, but they do have an original and instantly recognizable way of writing their songs. That much is evidenced by the number of reviews in the MA with a title that suggest "Opeth emulation" or "Opeth worship" or something to that effect; a song written and performed in opethian manner is bound to sound like Opeth, and anyone straying down that path will get the deserved mentions of emulation in reviews here. The production is very polished and virtually perfect for the purpose, and even Åkerfeldt's growls are restrained to near inoffensiveness.
Not absolute shit by any honest standard, but nothing that makes the ground shake, either. Decent music, professionally executed, for a purpose that probably isn't even close to being the most brutal band on the planet. And certainly nothing to get your knickers in a twist over, more like completely harmless. Perfect for a 100 km drive in the night when the rest of the family is sleeping, or perhaps for a night shift in a grocery store or a gas station.
Is it really that hard to have a moderate opinion on things?