| Metal Reviews https://www.metalreviews.com/phpBB/ |
|
| Underground Gem classification https://www.metalreviews.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=25344 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Tehom [ Mon Sep 03, 2012 8:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Underground Gem classification |
A few years ago we all had an interesting discussion about the creation of a new classification for albums that may not necessarily meet the criterion for genre classic, but had enough sway on perhaps a niche aspect of a subgenre to be considered either an underground gem or a noteworthy album of its subgenre of metal. While the discussion was productive we kind of failed to get the ball rolling, though for reasons I'm still not quite sure of though perhaps relating to a working definition of "underground gem". Could I get some of the reviewers takes on this new classification, how exactly could it be implemented during reviews? What exactly separates simply a quality and unsung metal album, compared to an album that is well composed yet falls off the radar and fails to be noticed or even a series of great albums from bands that haven't been addressed yet? Does further research need to be done in the aspect of the album being "influential", or do great songs and a top knotch performance accompanied with a few bands mimicking the aforementioned album in a regional scene merit the tag enough? Just some food for thought considering I think Zad was on the verge of making a tag like this, but for whatever reason it just kind of floated away. I think with the amount of newer writers coming in and with the vast breadth of musical preferences to consider, that lots of forgotten albums can be reviewed and perhaps even a few earn the status if we can develop a working definition. |
|
| Author: | The Annoying Frenchman [ Mon Sep 03, 2012 8:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
If I remember well, this was solved by saying underground gems were either archives or classics. Case closed. |
|
| Author: | Tehom [ Mon Sep 03, 2012 8:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The Annoying Frenchman wrote: If I remember well, this was solved by saying underground gems were either archives or classics.
Case closed. Archive only applies if the band has never had any material reviewed at all, i,e declaring a band like Scanner Archived worked at least initially due to lack of material reviewed but what about bands that had an influential niche of the sound and carved out their own scene and released seminal work. |
|
| Author: | The Annoying Frenchman [ Mon Sep 03, 2012 9:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Don't get me wrong Stevie, I was among those advocating the idea but, as you might have noticed, things ever hardly change at Metal Reviews and, maybe, that's the way it should be. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC + 1 hour |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|