Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Bands that you want to see reviewed by DLA

Re: Bands that you want to see reviewed by DLA
February 22, 2011, 06:50:48 AM
Obvious observation time:
You cannot "promote only the best" and also give nods to the historically important. They are intrinsically opposed and mutually exclusive. You can do one, you can do the other, or you can half-ass your way between the two.

Well, speaking of promoting the best, any bands on the DLA that really shouldn't be there??
Certainly can't think of any at several glances.
Really? I can't imagine any of the following ever being required listening. I like most of them, to some degree or another, but they are all VERY far from being top-tier on a purely musical level:

Abigor
The Abyss
Acerbus
Angelcorpse
Ancient
Arcturus
Betrayer
Birth A.D.
Dark Funeral
Dimmu Borgir
Drogheda
Eucharist
Gutted
Hypocrisy
Inquisition
Killing Joke
Krieg
Kvist
Luciferion
Magus
Marduk
Massacre
Mythic
Niden Div 187
Nuclear Assault
Ophthalamia
Repulsion
Resurrection
Rotting Christ
Swordmaster
Ulver
Von
Watain
Zyklon-B

And I wasn't looking too closely, either; I'm sure there's a few other bands on the alpha page that didn't get listed simply because I didn't notice their name. In what way do ANY of the releases by any of these bands rival Hvis Lyset Tar Oss or Onward to Golgotha? None, obviously. I'm sure the criticism against that question will be  to ask what the point is of having a reviews page with ten or twenty album reviews total. Fine - lower the standards for what deserves praise. A LITTLE. Do any of the above-mentioned even rival Deicide, Joined in Darkness, In Battle There Is No Law, Panzerfaust, or Worship Him? I still say no(Abigor and Rotting Christ occasionally come close, but never for the entirety of an album), and also say that level of quality is about as low as anyone should ever need to go.

Re: Bands that you want to see reviewed by DLA
February 22, 2011, 07:37:32 AM
Sacred Reich's Ignorance

I remember skimming through a whole heap of bands from this period recently. 99% garbage, pretty sure I sampled something from this band. I was worried about being hasty on something "decent" at the time, so perhaps I missed something. Can you please explain why this is worth our time?

Re: Bands that you want to see reviewed by DLA
February 22, 2011, 07:42:34 AM

In the other thread, I talked about historically important bands... these need to be here, I guess, in short reviews because otherwise the history is lost.
You could put this in a separate section of the site, too.

Personally, I no longer have any reason to listen to "historically important, but mediorce" bands. I'm not an academic as such. I would still recommend that beginner's listen to them and listen to them well though, it gives perspective. Something can be both important and decent too, as well.

Re: Bands that you want to see reviewed by DLA
February 22, 2011, 10:48:47 AM
Sacred Reich's Ignorance

I remember skimming through a whole heap of bands from this period recently. 99% garbage, pretty sure I sampled something from this band. I was worried about being hasty on something "decent" at the time, so perhaps I missed something. Can you please explain why this is worth our time?

No.

Re: Bands that you want to see reviewed by DLA
February 22, 2011, 10:55:09 AM
On a more serious note I agree about cutting the chaff from the B+ album reviews. Also imo more reviews from (semi)relevant eighties albums such as Sacred Reich's Ignorance would be better then exploring the loose ends of black and death metal. I wouldn't even care if the reviews are positive or negative, it just seems more rewarding to me to read about eighties bands because they are in the middle of the chain and not at the end.



Sacred Reich's Ignorance

I remember skimming through a whole heap of bands from this period recently. 99% garbage, pretty sure I sampled something from this band. I was worried about being hasty on something "decent" at the time, so perhaps I missed something. Can you please explain why this is worth our time?


Learn2read dipshit. I mentioned it as an example of an "semi-relevant eighties band" and said I didn't care if the reviews would be positive or negative. And now you want me to defend that album? Get your shit right.


Re: Bands that you want to see reviewed by DLA
February 22, 2011, 01:25:33 PM
Can't you form your own opinion of that band?

Re: Bands that you want to see reviewed by DLA
February 22, 2011, 03:50:42 PM
Obvious observation time:
You cannot "promote only the best" and also give nods to the historically important. They are intrinsically opposed and mutually exclusive. You can do one, you can do the other, or you can half-ass your way between the two.

Well, speaking of promoting the best, any bands on the DLA that really shouldn't be there??
Certainly can't think of any at several glances.
Really? I can't imagine any of the following ever being required listening. I like most of them, to some degree or another, but they are all VERY far from being top-tier on a purely musical level:

Abigor
The Abyss
Acerbus
Angelcorpse
Ancient
Arcturus
Betrayer
Birth A.D.
Dark Funeral
Dimmu Borgir
Drogheda
Eucharist
Gutted
Hypocrisy
Inquisition
Killing Joke
Krieg
Kvist
Luciferion
Magus
Marduk
Massacre
Mythic
Niden Div 187
Nuclear Assault
Ophthalamia
Repulsion
Resurrection
Rotting Christ
Swordmaster
Ulver
Von
Watain
Zyklon-B

And I wasn't looking too closely, either; I'm sure there's a few other bands on the alpha page that didn't get listed simply because I didn't notice their name. In what way do ANY of the releases by any of these bands rival Hvis Lyset Tar Oss or Onward to Golgotha? None, obviously. I'm sure the criticism against that question will be  to ask what the point is of having a reviews page with ten or twenty album reviews total. Fine - lower the standards for what deserves praise. A LITTLE. Do any of the above-mentioned even rival Deicide, Joined in Darkness, In Battle There Is No Law, Panzerfaust, or Worship Him? I still say no(Abigor and Rotting Christ occasionally come close, but never for the entirety of an album), and also say that level of quality is about as low as anyone should ever need to go.

If you ask me, all of those bands (aside from Watain, Ancient, and Dark Funeral) exceed Deicide (who by my view are one of the worst death metal bands ever conceived) AND Samael. Where do we go from here now?

There's no point in nitpicking among the DLA's reviews that are already up. Obviously, whoever decided to put the reviews up put some thought into it, and reviewed only what they considered to be the best bands they had heard from their respective genres. Some bands are missing, true, and that can be remedied. All that is needed is a keen eye for quality, as you mentioned.

Re: Bands that you want to see reviewed by DLA
February 22, 2011, 06:11:49 PM
If you ask me, all of those bands (aside from Watain, Ancient, and Dark Funeral) exceed Deicide (who by my view are one of the worst death metal bands ever conceived) AND Samael. Where do we go from here now?

Yeah, I know, you hate Deicide. Fine, I'll ignore that here, because frankly - you'd ignore early Samael in favor of Von? Or DIMMU FUCKING BORGIR?

The point is *not* that all the mentioned names are inarguably excisable - I am one person, and I cannot avoid the fact that some discrepancies will arise among people simply due to varying tastes. The point is that the DLA reviews are meant, by the site's own admission, to be an overview of the best. Not the decent, not the pretty-good - the BEST.

As for Deicide, I wouldn't find it the least bit unfair for Legion to be the only album mentioned - but that sets the bar a little too high for the overview to be useful to newcomers after more than a month or two. I know you'd disagree with that as well, but I'm making a statement about the level of discernment; the particular albums being named are just examples. Switch album names around if you have to.

There's no point in nitpicking among the DLA's reviews that are already up. Obviously, whoever decided to put the reviews up put some thought into it, and reviewed only what they considered to be the best bands they had heard from their respective genres. Some bands are missing, true, and that can be remedied. All that is needed is a keen eye for quality, as you mentioned.
There's absolutely a point. I too can think of a few other albums that should, without argument, be included among the reviews - but if a large number of the reviews are for albums that, to be perfectly honest, are "if you liked the awesome stuff, you'll probably think this stuff is kinda cool too" then simply adding more just adds to the noise. Excision THEN radiation therapy; destruction THEN creation. How often do threads come up where people start naming off bands/albums that should be added? I haven't been here long, but I've seen it happen at least three or four times. And out of all those incidences, how often are the named albums consistently repeated from person to person - and (since the answer is "never") why is that exactly? Because there's a lot of stuff already on the DLA that falls far short of the mark, which to any rational person would justify the inclusion of a lot of other junk that also falls far short of the mark. And even more to the point, how often have those discussions led to anything? Perhaps a change of perspective would be more useful at this point - a shift from "what's missing?" to "what's removable?"

Re: Bands that you want to see reviewed by DLA
February 23, 2011, 12:59:51 AM
If you ask me, all of those bands (aside from Watain, Ancient, and Dark Funeral) exceed Deicide (who by my view are one of the worst death metal bands ever conceived) AND Samael. Where do we go from here now?

Yeah, I know, you hate Deicide. Fine, I'll ignore that here, because frankly - you'd ignore early Samael in favor of Von? Or DIMMU FUCKING BORGIR?

The point is *not* that all the mentioned names are inarguably excisable - I am one person, and I cannot avoid the fact that some discrepancies will arise among people simply due to varying tastes. The point is that the DLA reviews are meant, by the site's own admission, to be an overview of the best. Not the decent, not the pretty-good - the BEST.

As for Deicide, I wouldn't find it the least bit unfair for Legion to be the only album mentioned - but that sets the bar a little too high for the overview to be useful to newcomers after more than a month or two. I know you'd disagree with that as well, but I'm making a statement about the level of discernment; the particular albums being named are just examples. Switch album names around if you have to.

There's no point in nitpicking among the DLA's reviews that are already up. Obviously, whoever decided to put the reviews up put some thought into it, and reviewed only what they considered to be the best bands they had heard from their respective genres. Some bands are missing, true, and that can be remedied. All that is needed is a keen eye for quality, as you mentioned.
There's absolutely a point. I too can think of a few other albums that should, without argument, be included among the reviews - but if a large number of the reviews are for albums that, to be perfectly honest, are "if you liked the awesome stuff, you'll probably think this stuff is kinda cool too" then simply adding more just adds to the noise. Excision THEN radiation therapy; destruction THEN creation. How often do threads come up where people start naming off bands/albums that should be added? I haven't been here long, but I've seen it happen at least three or four times. And out of all those incidences, how often are the named albums consistently repeated from person to person - and (since the answer is "never") why is that exactly? Because there's a lot of stuff already on the DLA that falls far short of the mark, which to any rational person would justify the inclusion of a lot of other junk that also falls far short of the mark. And even more to the point, how often have those discussions led to anything? Perhaps a change of perspective would be more useful at this point - a shift from "what's missing?" to "what's removable?"

First off - I missed DImmu Borgir??? Ugh. My mistake, never cared for them either. Von though I would prefer over those bands I listed.

Second off - There has been plenty of consensus on works by Portal, Inquisition, Sacramentary Abolishment, Master's Hammer, Root, and others to be considered for a more "official" review. How will we reach a full consensus about what to keep and what to throw out? A majority vote is the only way that comes to my mind. I understand where you're going but I am unsure as to how you would reach that goal.

Re: Bands that you want to see reviewed by DLA
February 23, 2011, 03:31:56 AM
Sacred Reich's Ignorance
I remember skimming through a whole heap of bands from this period recently. 99% garbage, pretty sure I sampled something from this band. I was worried about being hasty on something "decent" at the time, so perhaps I missed something. Can you please explain why this is worth our time?

How can we demonstrate something is worth our (the forum as a group's) time? Taste is subjective, and so then perceived value of time spent is also. It's impossible for someone to make a case that it's for sure worth anyone else's time but theirs.

Learn2read dipshit. I mentioned it as an example of an "semi-relevant eighties band" and said I didn't care if the reviews would be positive or negative. And now you want me to defend that album? Get your shit right.

Wow. Try this:

I only mentioned it as an example of an "semi-relevant eighties band". I'm not saying it's a must-hear, but thought it might be worth a mention.

Even better:

Dear Sir:

I am delighted that you have chosen to converse with me in this joyous wide world of the web. I've found that there is no greater pleasure than the opportunity to consider fresh opinions and get to know new people.

As for "Ignorance," I'm not quite sure if this release should be considered a mandatory listen. I mentioned this musical recording as it might be of some relevance and perhaps inclusion in a footnote on this website for listeners who want to explore it's surrounding genre further.

Since I abhor unnecessary hostility on what is otherwise a perfectly courteous internet, I decided not to assume you were writing with a harsh  or accusatory tone as one might feel the irrational compulsion to. If I ever feel this way, I find it best to give them the benefit of the doubt and consider that maybe he misread or mistyped or I misread, instead of getting upset about nothing.

Your friend in cyberspace,
Umbrage

----------------------------------------------------------

You cannot "promote only the best" and also give nods to the historically important. They are intrinsically opposed and mutually exclusive. You can do one, you can do the other, or you can half-ass your way between the two.

Are there no bands that are historically important and also good? To avoid half-assing your way between these two perspectives, we might write about whats good and also mention, in each case that they were, how they were historically important. Or have two different sections to discuss the two different perspectives. (Somethings like these already exist, I think).

This suggestion would depend on what you mean by "half-ass your way between the two". What would that look like?

Re: Bands that you want to see reviewed by DLA
February 23, 2011, 04:01:58 AM
From a cursory examination of this thread (I didn't read most of it),

it seems there is a push to add more bands to the reviews and a push to remove unnecessary ones. We might make this simpler by instituting a rule that there be a fixed number of reviews in the DLA. The TOP 64/TOP 128 or so. If a new or previously undiscovered release is definitely better than one in the DLA, replace the current album with the new one. That way, the average quality of all releases will only go up and the total number won't become unbearable since it is fixed.

I also think that all reviews in this section should be positive and bad ones be set aside only as examples of what not to do (as a band making music or a listener seeking it).

The first problem that pops up is: We have Album X in the DLA and are considering replacing it with Album Y. There's no clear consensus that Y is better than X. What to do?

Vote? (That's a four-letter word around here)
Expand the DLA to Include both? (They're both Sufficiently Acceptable)
Shrink the DLA to Exclude both? (They're both borderline Not Good Enough)
Arbitration by Editors? (Probably what will happen anyway)

Re: Bands that you want to see reviewed by DLA
February 23, 2011, 05:18:53 AM
Even better:

Dear Sir:

I am delighted that you have chosen to converse with me in this joyous wide world of the web. I've found that there is no greater pleasure than the opportunity to consider fresh opinions and get to know new people.

As for "Ignorance," I'm not quite sure if this release should be considered a mandatory listen. I mentioned this musical recording as it might be of some relevance and perhaps inclusion in a footnote on this website for listeners who want to explore it's surrounding genre further.

Since I abhor unnecessary hostility on what is otherwise a perfectly courteous internet, I decided not to assume you were writing with a harsh  or accusatory tone as one might feel the irrational compulsion to. If I ever feel this way, I find it best to give them the benefit of the doubt and consider that maybe he misread or mistyped or I misread, instead of getting upset about nothing.

Your friend in cyberspace,
Umbrage


Or even better: you start a separate thread to express your butthurt.

Dipshit.

Re: Bands that you want to see reviewed by DLA
February 23, 2011, 06:36:55 AM
Really? I can't imagine any of the following ever being required listening. I like most of them, to some degree or another, but they are all VERY far from being top-tier on a purely musical level:

I'm assuming the intention here is for an archive of the best, is that correct? In my opinion, any such archive requires a number of 2nd tier releases from relevant periods and influential material that may not be excellent. Now these can't be the majority, but surely they are useful for putting the truly brilliant stuff in context?

Re: Bands that you want to see reviewed by DLA
February 23, 2011, 10:49:09 AM



Learn2read dipshit. I mentioned it as an example of an "semi-relevant eighties band" and said I didn't care if the reviews would be positive or negative. And now you want me to defend that album? Get your shit right.


In my world if something is 'semi-relevant' it is also worth my time. I did not specifically ask you to defend the album. You are another poster who likes to jump to random conclusions, perhaps. I do not see how this is a hard question, I assume that you cannot answer it because you do not have an opinion and you're just here to name-drop worthless obscure also-rans like the majority of people here.

That's fine.

I will rephrase my question though in case you are willing to co-operate; why do you think Sacred Reich is semi-relevant?

Re: Bands that you want to see reviewed by DLA
February 23, 2011, 11:00:36 AM
[
How can we demonstrate something is worth our (the forum as a group's) time? Taste is subjective, and so then perceived value of time spent is also. It's impossible for someone to make a case that it's for sure worth anyone else's time but theirs.

I would not use the word subjective, perhaps relative or arbitrary might work better (a highly debated issue, and I assume you are being a smart-arse in opposition to what I said in another thread), but I assume if someone presents a well presented analysis of Sacred Reich's music achievements (if any) and how they are relevant to what we are after (is there any compositional innovation or is it rock junk? is there clever use of melody to set mood and thematic structure?) then I may pursue them for my own individual listening.

That's all; I dont expect him to drop us some purely objective nugget that is beyond any criticism.