Also:
Publishing reviews of anything on the internet is a responsibility, as obviously pretty much anyone can see them. I slag any number of things off as much as the next person over a beer in a pub for my and my friends' amusement - as many of us do, I guess. But, once other people can see what you've written, it's different. In part, readers might actually be visiting your site to get informed about releases they might be interested in checking out. And they deserve better than they (or Maxdmyz) received at the hands of your review.
If I commissioned a review, say, of the iphone, I would want the writer to know about the subject - to be a journalist specialising in the field. Just being able to use an iphone does not make you an expert on it - likewise, being a fan, listening to music - even if you love it to death - does not qualify you to write a review. Simply having tastes and strong likes and dislikes is not enough.
I used to review bands and LPs etc. The approach I always took was as follows. I would distinguish between my taste, and what someone potentially interested in the band might want to know. It really is poor journalism when the writer is more concerned at highlighting his cleverness or wit - rather than illuminating the subject under discussion (it's a cheap laugh, especially when you're sheltering behind a mouse).
Now, there's no accounting for taste - I would readily agree that Cindy Crawford is more beautiful than Brigitte Fonda objectively speaking - but I'd still rather spend the night with Brigitte. So, Freddie Mercury in terms of dynamic, range and technique is vastly the vocal superior of Bob Dylan - but Freddie makes my teeth hurt and I love Bob. To conclude, if you still can't tell the difference between taste and objectivity - if someone asked me to commission a history of the seminal moments of the last twenty years of metal, Korn's first album would be one of the first I'd mention - but, do I want to listen to it, the answer's no? Geddit?
But I wouldn't waste my readers' time in telling them that, as they deserve to hear an objective account, rather than me self-indulgently foisting on them my likes and dislikes - or if they do want to hear what the reviewer thinks he or she should be honest and civil enough to make the distinction clear. What you need to do in future is commission reviewers who will judge a band on its own terms, against some more objective criteria, and try to adopt the point of view of a reader who potentially might like the band. The review should be concentrating on whether, according to the conventions of the genre the band sits in, they are doing well or badly - that's why the reviewer has to be qualified to make his or her comments. It would appear this reviewer is quite young. and maybe lacks a certain knowledge of the world, so I can easily forgive him - but what of his elders if not betters (I don't think he's an idiot, incidentally - I have no right to make that judgement (I don't know the guy) - but the review is idiotic.
A review should give reasons for the comments it makes, so that interested potential listeners can make their own judgement on whether they want to check the band out or not. The problem is that as he says he is not qualified. Can he tell if the vocals were double tracked, or if the drums were quantised - I doubt it? As it happens the answer is yes and no, respectively. I'm the singer so let me address his points about the vocals.
The term hilarious is one which implies a value judgement - most people immersed in the genre and liking this kind of music wouldn't find it funny - and that's whom you should be writing for. So don't use the word - it's waffle. As for bad, that can imply a value judgement too - but that's not what I think your reviewer meant. The vocals were double tracked, which is a technically difficult thing to do - the range is over four octaves, which is remarkable. The vocals show proficiency in a range of styles - barking, growling, shouting and, yes, singing. All the notes are in tune - and the lyrics are intelligent and on a range of topics, not always addressed in metal (so developing the genre). The dynamic range is also impressive. And all this without cheating in the studio. The reviewer may not like it - fine, but as a punter I'm not interested in what he might think, I'm interested in the music and whether I might like it or not. His not liking it doesn't leave me any the wiser about the tunes - but that's because he's more interested in drawing attention to his own ingenuity (actually in this case ignorance, arrogance and rudeness). The reviewer should work as hard at his craft as we do at ours - but reviewer. band and reader alike have all been let down editorially (presumably the kid wasn't paid for writing this - if he were, you (along with your readers) were ripped off. You shouldn't have commissioned this reviewer or published this review. It's not that the reviewer doesn't like the band - it's that he doesn't give reasons. I've had bad, well-written and constructive reviews in the past which have really helped us build and get better, incidentally. Crucially, they were respectful and took into account what we were trying to do - even if were failing.
And, lastly, while I love the internet, sometimes the standard of debate is poor, and descends into insult and abuse masquerading as exchange of ideas. People seem to have a lot of spare cruelty, which they love to inflict on others. The point about the reviewer sharing a drink with us is that I'm sure face-to-face he wouldn't express himself so disparagingly - next time he writes a review, he should retain a tone of respect, which I'm sure he would afford us if we were in the same room - the kind of review currently in question just debases the currency of the web - and as I say, your readers and my band deserve better.
To see a better written review of Cosmic Hearse click
http://www.metal-rules.com/review/viewr ... 010&pos=54 (it was written by an actual musician).[/url]
