FrigidSymphony wrote:
IronDuchess wrote:
FrigidSymphony wrote:
IronDuchess wrote:
FrigidSymphony wrote:
Seeing as how the scores always tend to go higher rather than lower, I thought that 30 points for being able to play and going through the hassle of recording something was potentially accurate. I'd only save under 30 scores for albums that had absolutely NOTHING to commend them.
To me being able to "play" an instrument, come up with the same shitty song over and over and record something doesn't really merit any points at all. To me, musically, they offer nothing and if we're going to give points to bands simply for taking the time to record something, even the shittiest myspace bands are "commendable". White noise would be commendable. Some bands use tape recorders to record their material and despite the means of recording the music is solid stuff...Swashbuckle should have saved the money they spent on booking a studio and recorded this release in their bathroom...would have been more fitting
Their technique is strong, however, and it's not the easiest thing to record an album. Of course the songs are boring as fuck, but they did put effort into it and managed to make a record without any obvious fuck ups in production or playing. Which isn't easy.
So this gives them girl guide points or what? Production-wise, being such a gimmick band on a major label I wouldn't say its unexpected. To me production, while production should be discussed in a review, it shouldn't really be what determines the score one gives a review. Do you deduct points from a brilliant band, musically, because the production isn't the best? And if playing without any obvious fuck ups gives added points when the music isn't exactly the most complex nor the composition particularly skilled, I guess you guys'd better raise the the average of the Unspoken King because I think Swashbuckle just may suck greater balls musically than that masterpiece of crap. Maybe they spent time and money on producing the album, but how much time, effort and skill actually went into writing the damned thing?
Different reviewers, different interpretations of the scoring system.
I'm a stickler for production, and I imagine that all bands are involved in production to the same extent Soul's Mirror (my old band) were- i.e, we sat through every single instance of recording, mixing and mastering and worked with the producer to find the exact sound we wanted. I would give more points to a good band with good production than to a good band with bad production, just as a bad band with good production gets more points than a bad band with bad production.
We definitely disagree on this point then. My opinion on an album is dependant on the music, not the production. If I am listening to a raw black metal band that is great musically, but I find the production is too clean for what the band is doing musically I'm not typically inclined to think less of the release itself. I'd probably think that the production isn't ideal for the sound, and if I were writing a review I'd take not of it, but I wouldn't rate the release itself lower just because of that. Same goes if I happen to listen to a symphonic power metal band with a really raw production (for whatever reason), again, I'll think that this band's production doesn't fit, but I'll be basing my opinion (and should I be reviewing it, my rating) on the music not the production.
Some people bitch and moan about how the production ruins an album for them, to me I never got that. Just focus on the music, and its pretty rare that you get something that doesn't fit the music in any way at all, anyway.
BoJay wrote:
Amen to this. When we review studio albums, we should take into consideration all of the aspects of a studio album, and production is a big one. Good producers make tons of money for being good at what they do (even if they produce crappy bands), and I think its important to recognize that.
Besides, many people who like raw production will take points off for something being over-produced, which I think is arguably more unfair.
How is either one more unfair than the other? You're reviewing the album that a band composed, you're not reviewing the producers. Additionally, by placing such an emphasis on production you are inadvertantly opening up the doors to the claim that better known bands on major labels and, therefore, with access to "better producers" deserve more recognition than lesser known bands who might not have that same access, though whose music may be of the same quality or better. To me that's just ridiculous and acts against the genres very roots.
