Jaden wrote:
I listened to a few tracks, and yes they are bad--I would give them about 35/100. Metalreviewers review things like they're seven year olds however, so every album gets a love it or hate it score.
I don't agree with your logic reviewing this album. It is not metal AT ALL. What the fuck does it matter what label they're on? Blind Guardian is on Virgin, are you going to start reviewing some Virgin release pop stars?
In my opinion, it's not so much that hardcore (atleast hardcore that is completely non-metal-influenced) should not be taking up our review space, but that you're not worthy to give it a score. You don't like the genre, and therefore have no grounds to review it. Your opinion is uneducated in the area and means nothing.
Buddy... let me tell you a few things that will dislodge that great big stick up your butt.
First off i agree with you that there tends to be somewhat of a "love it or hate it" polarization when it comes to reviews... but we aren't perfect and it is mostly due to the fact that we have the liberty to choose what we want to review. we've implmented underscores and reader scores just for that reason... is that not enough?
Second, why does it matter what label they're on? becuase they're on a team that is supposed to represents a different genre of music...duh. Labels are meant to market and distribute music, so the reason why they focus on specific types of music is because they affiliate themselves with specific bands, fans, radio shows, etc with the intention of winning them over and selling them their music. Virgin is bad example because they are a giga-huge and established record label that signs bands that will have a guaranteed return on their investment. I know that Virgin has been mostly Team Cash, but i also thought that Nuclear Blast was mostly team Metal. Why does it matter that NB is signing pure hardcore bands because either A) they are whoring their well established label to hardcore in the name of $$$ or B) they are just stupid and selling refrigerators to eskimos. get it?
third and foremost... I'm not qualified to review a hardcore album? Before spewing out answers solely based on assumption, try finishing my review or reading a few of the bands i have put in my all time favorites. I don't like or know anything punk or hardcore?... dude... how can i convince you.. hmm. How about this.
i can send you by mail approximately 150 ticket stubs from all the punk concerts i've been to.
or
i can photograph my extensive punk/hardcore collection of music for you.
or
send you the drumsticks, picks photographs and autographs (some with me in them too) of bands such as AFI, Lagwagon, Strung Out, Lars Fredriksen and The Bastards, The Deviates, H2O, Raised Fist, Sick of It All, Propagandhi, Leftover Crack, Anti-Flag, Choking Victim, NOFX, Dropkick Murphys, Death by Stereo, Guttermouth, Pennywise, The Bouncing Souls... i could go on and on and on and on....
or
send you my 17 page Integrated Seminar paper on "the deviant behavior of the punk rock subculture... along with the documntary i showed the class to compliment the oral presentation.
or
send you signed testimonials from my old highschool classmates that say " Jason was by all means the biggest punk conaisseur until he graduated"
shall i list more of my "qualifications" that would allow me to assess an album like Barcode's...or is that enough?
Am i being a smart ass? fuckin' right. But don't question my ability to critically evaluate bands, because i'm not reviewing music for the pussy, thats for sure.
Jason