tldr.anus.com

[Conservationist]

I think we should create a new part of the site:

http://tldr.anus.com/

It would be like every other part of the site, but in 10-second-summary mode.

Burzum page:

Burzum/Aske - awesome discursive songs and really intense vocals, totally organic
Det Som Engang Var - concept album, half-ambient, with really excellent individual songs
Hvis Lyset Tar Oss - complete concept album, uses tiny riffs to make big atmosphere
Filosofem - odinpop, like the second album but more poppish, with awesome 25min instro track
Daudi Baldrs - casio keyboard version of dead can dance done viking, moving
Hlidskjalf - improved keyboards, more layers, lush depth and mood
Belus - worse than shit, total faggotry, panders to idiots, ghosted by Drudkh

See how easy that is?

[istaros]

Troll or not, this is a good idea. As should be made apparent by listening to Immortal's first four full-lengths, brevity offers the potential of opening up whole dimensions of implication Going into too much detail can have an effect opposite to the one intended, making the reader bored or -worse- dependent on the writer's opinion, instead of leading him to form his own conclusions.

[Conservationist]

If we get enough people interested, it'd be easy enough to create a Wiki or Wordpress on tldr.anus.com to make it easy to enter stuff.

[Parasite]

I agree with your idea 100%. Itd be alot easier to get out alot more new reviews, and skim over the DLA reviews.

[AnHero]

One thing that's always bothered me about the DLA reviews is that while they are very sophisticated, when I done reading them, I still don't know how good the album is or what it even sounds like. After hearing the music in question, I understand them, but they don't make much sense if you haven't heard the album or anything similar before.

So the tldr idea would help cut through the fluff and get to describing what the album actually is, as music. The goal here should be helping a new listener prepare for a work they have not heard and make them receptive to it.

About the example:

Burzum/Aske - awesome discursive songs and really intense vocals, totally organic
- No Burzum sounds "organic" to me, it usually sounds very mechanical (riff... riff... riff...)
Filosofem - odinpop, like the second album but more poppish, with awesome 25min instro track
- I never though it sounded poppish, is it any moreso than other albums? More like "song structures are more streamlined"
Daudi Baldrs - casio keyboard version of dead can dance done viking, moving
- I've heard this one several times, that doesn't describe it at all. Review by comparison doesn't help much.
Hlidskjalf - improved keyboards, more layers, lush depth and mood
Accurate, though it should be pointed out that this record is noticeably less melodic than it's predecessor, maybe "borders on noise ambient"
Belus - worse than shit, total faggotry, panders to idiots, ghosted by Drudkh
Doesn't even attempt to describe album.

A glossary of words used to describe abstract music concepts, moods and feels would be useful and keep individual review lengths down.

And we need to stop the whole "Sounds like [Band X/Album X] as played by [emo-pop band/polka band/Band Y] using [ARE YOU TALKIN TO ME? riffs/i dont know what else]". It doesn't help one understand at all. Neither does "it sucks". If we really don't want to encourage an album, just don't have it on the reviews page. Review only good albums and ignore bad ones. That way the list of tldr's would just be a list or recommended albums with a description that an individual can compare to their existing sense of taste.

Even better, longer reviews might include interpretations of what the album means, more or less, and symbols used in it and how it fits into other works by the same artist or what place it has in the lineage of metal. This would aid one's appreciation, even on the first listen.

[Athanasius contra mundum]

One thing that's always bothered me about the DLA reviews is that while they are very sophisticated, when I done reading them, I still don't know how good the album is or what it even sounds like. After hearing the music in question, I understand them, but they don't make much sense if you haven't heard the album or anything similar before.

So the tldr idea would help cut through the fluff and get to describing what the album actually is, as music. The goal here should be helping a new listener prepare for a work they have not heard and make them receptive to it.

About the example:

Burzum/Aske - awesome discursive songs and really intense vocals, totally organic
- No Burzum sounds "organic" to me, it usually sounds very mechanical (riff... riff... riff...)
Filosofem - odinpop, like the second album but more poppish, with awesome 25min instro track
- I never though it sounded poppish, is it any moreso than other albums? More like "song structures are more streamlined"
Daudi Baldrs - casio keyboard version of dead can dance done viking, moving
- I've heard this one several times, that doesn't describe it at all. Review by comparison doesn't help much.
Hlidskjalf - improved keyboards, more layers, lush depth and mood
Accurate, though it should be pointed out that this record is noticeably less melodic than it's predecessor, maybe "borders on noise ambient"
Belus - worse than shit, total faggotry, panders to idiots, ghosted by Drudkh
Doesn't even attempt to describe album.

A glossary of words used to describe abstract music concepts, moods and feels would be useful and keep individual review lengths down.

And we need to stop the whole "Sounds like [Band X/Album X] as played by [emo-pop band/polka band/Band Y] using [ARE YOU TALKIN TO ME? riffs/i dont know what else]". It doesn't help one understand at all. Neither does "it sucks". If we really don't want to encourage an album, just don't have it on the reviews page. Review only good albums and ignore bad ones. That way the list of tldr's would just be a list or recommended albums with a description that an individual can compare to their existing sense of taste.

Even better, longer reviews might include interpretations of what the album means, more or less, and symbols used in it and how it fits into other works by the same artist or what place it has in the lineage of metal. This would aid one's appreciation, even on the first listen.

While I pretty much agree with most of what you stated, I disagree on two points.

- I don't think its wrong for the DLA to make a statement of personal preference, because they explain their system of merit many times over within both the reviews and articles present at the website. As such, the regular readers will know what standards the DLA are referring to when they state something sucks or doesn't suck. I do, however, always prefer a clear explanation of the mechanics of the music as opposed to a vague statement of preference. I know this seems contradictory.

- I hear many meta-fragments of rhythm and melody that are expanded upon within further iterations of theme, or introductions of new theme within Burzum's early work. Because of this, I think Burzum is actually very complex and very organic, at least in structural growth.

[radiant]

One thing that's always bothered me about the DLA reviews is that while they are very sophisticated, when I done reading them, I still don't know how good the album is or what it even sounds like. After hearing the music in question, I understand them, but they don't make much sense if you haven't heard the album or anything similar before.

Incisive criticism of an important work of any kind will always only be understood after one has really experienced the work in question. The main reviews in the DLA are not written merely to tell the reader if they should listen to the album in question -- they are attempts to place the music in a wider context and explore how the musical structure develops the musicians' artistic vision. This has led to some occasionally obtuse and silly reviews, but also to the most interesting metal criticism written thus far and made the DLA one of the best resources for metal. I used to listen to Reign in Blood on a daily basis and I don't need someone to tell me it's fucking brilliant, but I can read the DLA review multiple times partly because I like the writing and style, but mainly because I come away from the article with a better sense of the construction and the artistic vision of the album. Of course these elements will only be appreciated by those who have listened to album and taken time to digest it -- that's what makes the reviews here worthwhile.

This tldr nonsense won't help experienced listeners who crave intelligent discussions on a particular album, and I don't see it helping metal newbies much, either. They will either pay attention to more popular opinions at other sites, and the ones who do value the site's opinions would be better served listening to some of the stuff on the "Best of" lists and using that experience to judge the music.

[Conservationist]

While that's all true, humanity is organized this way:

90% need to be told what to do
9% can be given a goal and will fulfill it
1% can formulate a realistic, idealistic goal

In order to reach that 10% who are functional, you sometimes need to make your message available to 100%

Otherwise, the 10% will have no idea how to find it!

Besides, http://tldr.anus.com/ would be the greatest self-parody ever.

[Parasite]

I appreciate the in-depth dynamic reviews DLA offers.  For the music I enjoy I like reading over DLA's review a second time for comparison.  There isnt many new reviews though, of new bands and albums.  Maybe rather than have a shortened review section, we put a thread for new albums/bands that havent yet been reviewed through ANUS and have more people review them.   

[rapidshare]

Speaking for ANUS High Command (otherwise known as "people who always capitalize the A in Asperger's"):

We like this idea, but not for anus.com.

Instead, it should be a new site dedicated to a form of metal that we recognize but haven't named yet, including bands as diverse as:

• Demilich
• Voivod
• early Incantation
• Obliveon
• Supuration
• The Chasm

This type of metal fulfills not only a "rock-style" role as popular music, but an artistic one. It should be celebrated as such. We do not want "elitism" per se, but a sense of taking a different path, and believe it should be written in the tl;dr style: short sentences, heavy on metaphor, reflecting the artistic nature of these works.

We need writers, a site administrator, graphic artists and any musicians interested in creating in this style.

Apply to kazorp [ta] suna [tod] moc

[Sammaellofi]

Some questions:

-Why is this neccessary?
-Is this not pandering to lowest common denominator?
-Am I the only one that thinks "excellent individual songs" is a poor description of Det Som Engang Var?

[duamtef]

Good idea. Stop alienating your biggest potential audience. Reach more people. Be effective. The sermons on anus.com/metal are good for people like Samael but bad for the remaining 98.6% of the population.

[Cargést]

1.4% of the population is all that deserves to exist, my populist friend.

[duamtef]

That may be true, but in the meantime, you've got to work with what's there now. And if you want to reach that 1.4%, you've got to become more popular than 1.4% so you remain around.

Some brand of electronics, if only 1.4% of buyers like it, won't remain around long enough to reach the deserving 1.4%. They'll just get a random 1.4%

[Cargést]

You seem not to understand that allegory requires isomorphism.