Anthrax- Volume 8 is awesome
rezi...@hotmail.com
Anthrax's "Volume 8- The Threat is Real" is truely a great album.
They have really gotten more creative on this release. Bush's
voice sounds better than ever. "Inside Out" is one of the best
songs I have heard in a long time. This is my favorite album
I have bought since Sevendust.
Rezilord
http://expage.com/page/rezilords
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Sean Weingartner
Sean M. Weingartner
Brent Huiberts
subsequent record with John Bush, they sound better and better--Volume 8 is
their best yet, and the best metal album of 1998 so far.
Brent Huiberts
huib...@netidea.com
dwillet
>
> On Mon, 31 Aug 1998 17:36:06 -0400 (EDT), Weing...@webtv.net (Sean
> Weingartner) spewed forth:
>
> >i disagree
>
> Heh, me too!! And uhh, so do most people apparently, including most of
> their older fans. I think, along with Iron Maiden Virtual XI it's the
> worst album I've bought this year. But if you like it, by all means
> listen to your hearts content.
I think it is great
Mega-thrasher
Eric Haarbauer
thought I'd say that. The range of songs on the disc is perfect--heavy,
Alice-in-Chains-ish, country, S.O.D.-ish (cupajoe & one other I can't
remember)... but mostly HEAVY.
I'll disagree with one point: I don't think they've gotten consistenly
better. Stomp 442 isn't the disaster some people think it is, but I don't
like it as much as TSOWN or V8. But yes, ditching Joey was the best move
they've ever made.
Are they coming to Atlanta?
-eric
Brent Huiberts wrote in message <6sfqjl$a3d$1...@nr1.ottawa.istar.net>...
Cyco one
rules.
heebee jeebee
THE SENTINEL
> I agree. The best thing Anthrax did was get rid of Belladonna; with every
> subsequent record with John Bush, they sound better and better--Volume 8 is
> their best yet, and the best metal album of 1998 so far.
wrong, the best thing they did was get rid of neil turbin. he was the
original vocalist as i'm sure all you "real" anthrax fans surely know.
it doesn't matter how much cooler bush acts or looks, he can't sing as
well as joey.
THE SENTINEL
> Anthrax's "Volume 8- The Threat is Real" is truely a great album.
> They have really gotten more creative on this release. Bush's
> voice sounds better than ever. "Inside Out" is one of the best
> songs I have heard in a long time.
This is my favorite album
> I have bought since Sevendust.
hahahaha, this says it all!!!!!!!!!!! yeah, thank god they got john bush!
John Chedsey
>
> > I agree. The best thing Anthrax did was get rid of Belladonna; with every
> > subsequent record with John Bush, they sound better and better--Volume 8 is
> > their best yet, and the best metal album of 1998 so far.
>
> wrong, the best thing they did was get rid of neil turbin. he was the
> original vocalist as i'm sure all you "real" anthrax fans surely know.
That's about the truth...his voice was pretty awful. Joey definitely
gave them identity.
> it doesn't matter how much cooler bush acts or looks, he can't sing as
> well as joey.
Technically, no...but hey, I still like them.
Satan Stole My Teddybear
http://www.peakpeak.com/~krazykat/index3.htm
Gringo Starr
: wrong, the best thing they did was get rid of neil turbin. he was the
: original vocalist as i'm sure all you "real" anthrax fans surely know.
I agree with you here. Fistful of Metal would have been an excellent album
if it had a real singer on it.
jde...@yahoo.com
> Heh, me too!! And uhh, so do most people apparently, including most of
> their older fans. I think, along with Iron Maiden Virtual XI it's the
> worst album I've bought this year. But if you like it, by all means
> listen to your hearts content.
And there's also tons of older fans that like it, so saying "most people" just
isn't accurate.
Justin DelPrince
Anthrax Madhouse: http://www.netexp.net/~delpi
DC
>
> > Heh, me too!! And uhh, so do most people apparently, including most of
> > their older fans. I think, along with Iron Maiden Virtual XI it's the
> > worst album I've bought this year. But if you like it, by all means
> > listen to your hearts content.
>
> And there's also tons of older fans that like it, so saying "most people" just
> isn't accurate.
>
> Justin DelPrince
> Anthrax Madhouse: http://www.netexp.net/~delpi
>
I am a long-time Anthrax fan and find the latest album extremely
disappointing. I bought it, left it in my car CD player for about 3 days
and haven't put it back in yet. Just not a lot there to grab me. Very
weak album. Sorry.
-DC
John Chedsey
>
> > Heh, me too!! And uhh, so do most people apparently, including most of
> > their older fans. I think, along with Iron Maiden Virtual XI it's the
> > worst album I've bought this year. But if you like it, by all means
> > listen to your hearts content.
>
> And there's also tons of older fans that like it, so saying "most people" just
> isn't accurate.
From what I've observed at Anthrax live shows and general commentary
outside of this group, quite a few people who have been fans for over a
decade DO like the album. Be care of general statements as you may be
totally wrong.
Robert A. Pierce
"Pieces," and is sung by Frank Bello. It's a tribute to his brother, who
was murdered two years ago.
Hope this helps.
Best,
Bob Pierce
"The Daily Vault" Album Reviews: http://www.dailyvault.com
E-mail: Take out "REMOVE." from Reply-To
Angus Sutherland
I like it very much.
But what is the "hidden song" tacked on the end of the last song
"Stealing From A Thief" it does not sound like Anthrax.
Stealing from a thief is registered by the CD Player with
a length of 13:02
Actual song ends at 5:27
"hidden song" starts at 8:08
Is this done on purpose or is it a mistake from the
editing/pressing etc?
Angus
--
Try and borrow $100 from your bank to pay the rent,
and you're no-good loser.
Ask to borrow fifty million to take over a company,
and you're a respected businessman.
Raise a forced loan of five hundred billion to pay the
interest on the fifty zillion you borrowed last week,
and you're the minister of finance.
Jeremy Ulrey
jde...@yahoo.com wrote:
> And there's also tons of older fans that like it, so saying "most people" just
> isn't accurate.
>
> Justin DelPrince
> Anthrax Madhouse: http://www.netexp.net/~delpi
Certainly don't mean to pick on this particular guy, but seeing this post got me
thinking: has there ever been anyone running a prominent band website that didn't
feel some urge to defend the band he/she was working so hard to support? Just
wondering, I'm sure there have been, but I'd like some examples; these are sites
I'd be interested in looking into.
--
Jeremy Ulrey
BangYrHead Hard Rock & Metal Page
http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Studio/5180
jde...@yahoo.com
> Certainly don't mean to pick on this particular guy, but seeing this post got
me
> thinking: has there ever been anyone running a prominent band website that
didn't
> feel some urge to defend the band he/she was working so hard to support? Just
> wondering, I'm sure there have been, but I'd like some examples; these are
sites
> I'd be interested in looking into.
>
> --
> Jeremy Ulrey
> BangYrHead Hard Rock & Metal Page
> http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Studio/5180
And your point being?
You have a crappy review of the album on your page, so you're just defending
your point of view. (A double standard maybe?) All I am doing is pointing
out an observation I have made about the very general, stereotypical
statement that was made.
A few dumb things I noticed in your review:
"Similarly out of character is the bonus track “Pieces”, which is little more
than a clever pop song which may or may not be a cover. "
---No, it's a song written by Frank Bello mourning the murder of his brother.
It's also the BONUS track, hardly making it a "pop song." Know your facts
before you start slamming the band.
604 and cupajoe are obviously not meant to be taken seriously. They're just
fun little songs to tear through in a few seconds.
"But mostly it just seems Anthrax have lost their sense of direction- they’re
not funny anymore..."
---Ahhh, so they're just comedians?
No sarcasm? How about "Why do I explain myself when everyone's
An idiot but me?" from Born Again Idiot. (I can relate sometimes.)
"You get away with murder, kill me when you're through." from Crush.
"From on top of the world, I'll throw you down a rope. Climb up if the noose
ain't tied." from Hog Tied.
"You asked me can I deliver. Like a monster crossing the Hudson river." from
Big Fat. (I also like the Armored Saint reference.)
The albums is not "inconsistent," it is diverse. Every song is unique. John's
voice is hardly "nondistinct." Just because he doesn't always scream doesn't
mean his voice doesn't fit or give meaning.
still caught in a mosh,
Justin DelPrince
Anthrax Madhouse: http://www.netexp.net/~delpi
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
John Chedsey
> A few dumb things I noticed in your review:
> "Similarly out of character is the bonus track “Pieces”, which is little more
> than a clever pop song which may or may not be a cover. "
>
> ---No, it's a song written by Frank Bello mourning the murder of his brother.
> It's also the BONUS track, hardly making it a "pop song." Know your facts
> before you start slamming the band.
I'd also argue that the song is not out of character when you take
"Black Lodge" or "Bare" into account. Personally I think they should
have proudly listed the song as it's a very good song.
>
> 604 and cupajoe are obviously not meant to be taken seriously. They're just
> fun little songs to tear through in a few seconds.
"Cupajoe" just sounds like something the Descendents would have done.
s'kay, though.
> "But mostly it just seems Anthrax have lost their sense of direction- they’re
> not funny anymore..."
>
> ---Ahhh, so they're just comedians?
In 1988, people were criticizing Anthrax for having a sense of humor in
a genre sorely lacking any. In 1998, people criticize Anthrax for not
having a sense of humor anymore. Get the feeling people just like to
criticize them?
> The albums is not "inconsistent," it is diverse. Every song is unique. John's
> voice is hardly "nondistinct." Just because he doesn't always scream doesn't
> mean his voice doesn't fit or give meaning.
Play three seconds of any song with John Bush singing and it's instantly
recognizable.
Just backing y'all up.
Andrew Berry
THE SENTINEL <URL:mailto:jr...@Ra.MsState.Edu> wrote:
>
> it doesn't matter how much cooler bush acts or looks, he can't sing
> as well as joey.
I think Bush is the _better_ singer (technically), but I can't think of
anyone who would have sounded as good as Joey singing on the "classic"
albums. As for style, I couldn't give a toss how cool or otherwise Bush
is; his voice is all that matters.
Cheers,
--
Andrew Berry (and...@metallinks.com) - ICQ 15521869
http://www.metallinks.com/
At the gates of the ancient light, unblessed darkness burning still
Jeremy Ulrey
jde...@yahoo.com wrote:
> And your point being?
>
> You have a crappy review of the album on your page, so you're just defending
> your point of view. (A double standard maybe?) All I am doing is pointing
> out an observation I have made about the very general, stereotypical
> statement that was made.
>
Jesus Christ! Chill out! I went to great pains to point out in my very first
sentence that my inquiry wasn't directed at you, but was a general question about
metal fans in general (we can have a thread about integrity in bands, but not
amongst the fans?) The only reason I quoted your post in the first place was to
show where my train of thought derived from. If it makes you feel any better, I'm
usually skeptical of recommendations my own friends make if I happen to know that
the respective person is a die-hard fan of the band, and I'm sure I'm not the only
one who feels this way (ever have someone recommend a Christian band to you? Bet
you didn't just rush out and buy it, now, did you?)
> A few dumb things I noticed in your review:
> "Similarly out of character is the bonus track “Pieces”, which is little more
> than a clever pop song which may or may not be a cover. "
>
> ---No, it's a song written by Frank Bello mourning the murder of his brother.
> It's also the BONUS track, hardly making it a "pop song." Know your facts
> before you start slamming the band.
What the hell does being a bonus track have to do with whether or not it's a pop
song? What do the lyrics have to do with whether or not it's a pop song? I'm sorry
to say that the promo copy I got didn't come with lyrics (most promos don't), but
nevertheless that doesn't prevent me from making a personal assessment of the
music. You might want to formulate a counter-argument before you start calling mine
"dumb".
>
>
> 604 and cupajoe are obviously not meant to be taken seriously. They're just
> fun little songs to tear through in a few seconds.
Yeah, so I didn't have much fun listening to them. Anything wrong with pointing out
that fact?
>
>
> "But mostly it just seems Anthrax have lost their sense of direction- they’re
> not funny anymore..."
>
> ---Ahhh, so they're just comedians?
> No sarcasm? How about "Why do I explain myself when everyone's
> An idiot but me?" from Born Again Idiot. (I can relate sometimes.)
> "You get away with murder, kill me when you're through." from Crush.
> "From on top of the world, I'll throw you down a rope. Climb up if the noose
> ain't tied." from Hog Tied.
> "You asked me can I deliver. Like a monster crossing the Hudson river." from
> Big Fat. (I also like the Armored Saint reference.)
I'm sorry, but I don't see either insight or clever humor in any of the lyrics you
quoted. On the contrary, they remind me of Dream Theater's aimless ramblings, in
which they try to cram WAY too many ideas and cross-referenced clichees into one
lyric. Are they comedians? No, and they never were entirely, but it seems to me
they're still trying to pull off that light-hearted attitude they used to have (as
proved by your lyric quotes) but they just don't convince me anymore. It's too
forced... calculated, and again, not really that clever. Obviously you disagree,
but allow me to reiterate that this wasn't meant as a personal attack.
> The albums is not "inconsistent," it is diverse. Every song is unique.
When they try to do too many things and most of them fall flat, that sums up
inconsistent to me. I don't fault the band for wanting to try new things, but if
they don't work they don't work. I do expect a little quality control on the band's
behalf.
> John's
> voice is hardly "nondistinct." Just because he doesn't always scream doesn't
> mean his voice doesn't fit or give meaning.
I say it's nondistinct because it doesn't have the character to draw the listener's
attention to it the way singers like James Labrie or even Joey Belladonna can. Keep
in mind, "distinctness" isn't necessarily a quality issue- even Dave Mustaine has a
distinctive voice, but few would call him a great vocalist. Bush just seems kind of
generic as a vocal presence to me.
Jeremy Ulrey
John Chedsey wrote:
> > "But mostly it just seems Anthrax have lost their sense of direction- they’re
> > not funny anymore..."
> >
> > ---Ahhh, so they're just comedians?
>
> In 1988, people were criticizing Anthrax for having a sense of humor in
> a genre sorely lacking any. In 1998, people criticize Anthrax for not
> having a sense of humor anymore. Get the feeling people just like to
> criticize them?
>
Don't know if you were agreeing with the counter to my own statement or just making
a generalization, but to clarify my own position, I *liked* their old sense of
humor, but these days the humor seems to take the form of lyrics which are
surrounded by dead serious musicianship. The old Anthrax emphasized their upbeat
attitude with hyper rhythms and buoyant vocals. Even so, it's not as if ALL of the
jokes worked back then, either.--
THE SENTINEL
> > it doesn't matter how much cooler bush acts or looks, he can't sing as
> > well as joey.
>
> Technically, no...but hey, I still like them.
even with bush they could still put out a great album with him on it
(which is the way i feel about iron maiden/blaze bayley) but i have yet to
hear them do it.
THE SENTINEL
On 1 Sep 1998, Cyco one wrote:
> I also agree, most of the cds I've purchased this year have sucked but volume 8
> rules.
which ones sucked by comparison to volume 8?
THE SENTINEL
> voice is hardly "nondistinct." Just because he doesn't always scream doesn't
> mean his voice doesn't fit or give meaning.
what about those 4 notes he always sings? people only say he's good
because his voice is somewhat raspy. john bush blows.
> still caught in a mosh,
> Justin DelPrince
nothing from 90s anthrax worth moshing to,
THE SENTINEL
THE SENTINEL
> >
> > it doesn't matter how much cooler bush acts or looks, he can't sing
> > as well as joey.
>
> I think Bush is the _better_ singer (technically), but I can't think of
let's hear them sing each other's songs, or "cut heads", if you will.
i've heard all 4 notes that bush can hit.
> anyone who would have sounded as good as Joey singing on the "classic"
> albums. As for style, I couldn't give a toss how cool or otherwise Bush
> is; his voice is all that matters.
not to most people, look around you.
John Chedsey
>
> > >
> > > it doesn't matter how much cooler bush acts or looks, he can't sing
> > > as well as joey.
> >
> > I think Bush is the _better_ singer (technically), but I can't think of
>
> let's hear them sing each other's songs, or "cut heads", if you will.
> i've heard all 4 notes that bush can hit.
This from the expert who has heard little of Armored Saint's earlier
material. Sheesh. And haven't you only heard a couple songs from Vol
8? (if you have heard the rest of the album since that particular post
where you admitted that, then disregard the statement.) Now, here's the
thing about Anthrax when they brought in Bush. I sincerely doubt if
they wanted a carbon copy of what Joey did. If that was case, why not
hash out all the problems with Joey and continue with him? I recall
articles from magazines in 1990 where Scott Ian stated he was writing
some new songs in a different vein than what they had been doing. Thus,
even 8 years ago they were beginning to move this direction. They
didn't bring in Bush to mimic Joey or stand in his shadow. That would
just be pointless. And besides, Bush can hit six notes. And a memo.
John Chedsey
>
> Don't know if you were agreeing with the counter to my own statement or just making
> a generalization, but to clarify my own position, I *liked* their old sense of
> humor
And the shorts they wore were pretty cool, too.
John Chedsey
>
> nothing from 90s anthrax worth moshing to,
Not even Persistance of Time?
Emohawk
still love everything up to Fear of the Dark...I didn't even know they had
anything new out. And you know what? I didn't even give a rats ass if they
ever did. Can it possibly be worse than X Factor? That was just plain
putrid... I did like Dickenson's last effort though (with Adrian - oh GOD
yes!).
I have heard a track from the New Anthrax though. I liked it. It did sound
basically the same as the previous 2 though. They're going the way of
Aerosmith it seems - just release the same album 3 or 4 times. The
difference being Anthrax hasn't started writing the cutesy radio crap.
Jesus - Joe Perry should be fucking ASHAMED...
Darrin
Mega-thrasher wrote in message <35ee52a5...@news.swbell.net>...
>On Mon, 31 Aug 1998 17:36:06 -0400 (EDT), Weing...@webtv.net (Sean
>Weingartner) spewed forth:
>
>>i disagree
Chris Pedersen
certain crunch..i am not really digging it overall....there are
moments on it, but not enough.
cp
aoa...@tassie.net.au
your leg and bit the inside of your ass!!!!
Your Volume 8 review sucks,Id get my facts straight if i were you
(Gee,why is this hidden track 'Pieces' on the record.Its an obvious pop
song) and like the other guy said its about the death of Franks brother.
Ever heard of SOD???,obviously your too busy with new Metallica,if you
werent you'd probably realise why theirs two little humourous track (604
and cupajoe) on the album.
Ive heard a lot of new metal albums and most almost as good but none are
as good as Volume 8.If you only buy a couple of metal albums this year,be
sure to get this one.
The threat is real at "http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Stage/1931"
Jeremy Ulrey wrote:
>
> jde...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > And there's also tons of older fans that like it, so saying "most people" just
> > isn't accurate.
> >
> > Justin DelPrince
> > Anthrax Madhouse: http://www.netexp.net/~delpi
>
> Certainly don't mean to pick on this particular guy, but seeing this post got me
> thinking: has there ever been anyone running a prominent band website that didn't
> feel some urge to defend the band he/she was working so hard to support? Just
> wondering, I'm sure there have been, but I'd like some examples; these are sites
> I'd be interested in looking into.
>
> --
aoa...@tassie.net.au
arguement is just full of shit.Anthrax have done 3 albums with john bush
that stand up well to their old stuff instead of bowing down believing
they cant beat those "classic" albums and going altern.
Belladonna just wasnt that great,his voice never really changed as
anthrax changed and he wasnt much of a frontman in his last few years in
the band.He simply didnt have the vocal power and the balls that John
Bush has.
Ill defend this band forever cause right now their releasing new music
better than Metallica,Megadeth and even Slayer.
You can bring up the 'old stuff is better than the new stuff" arguement
with Metallica but dont with anthrax.
Andrew Berry wrote:
>
> In article <Pine.SOL.4.02A.98090...@ra.msstate.edu>,
> THE SENTINEL <URL:mailto:jr...@Ra.MsState.Edu> wrote:
> >
> > it doesn't matter how much cooler bush acts or looks, he can't sing
> > as well as joey.
>
> I think Bush is the _better_ singer (technically), but I can't think of
> anyone who would have sounded as good as Joey singing on the "classic"
> albums. As for style, I couldn't give a toss how cool or otherwise Bush
> is; his voice is all that matters.
>
John Chedsey
>
> Jeremy you obviously dont know a good metal album even if it crawled up
> your leg and bit the inside of your ass!!!!
I'm assuming your Aussie good manners are coming out.
>
> Your Volume 8 review sucks,Id get my facts straight if i were you
> (Gee,why is this hidden track 'Pieces' on the record.Its an obvious pop
> song) and like the other guy said its about the death of Franks brother.
Actually, though I'm not entirely in agreement (I like Volume 8), the
review is well written. However, I do feel like donating an HTML book
to Jeremy. For whatever reason, when the page loads up, the white text
over the white background makes it, uh, difficult. I know there's
supposed to be a background image, but it didn't load. Aargh.
>
> Ever heard of SOD???,obviously your too busy with new Metallica,if you
> werent you'd probably realise why theirs two little humourous track (604
> and cupajoe) on the album.
He mentioned SOD in the review.
This is kinda strange...someone else's review is getting attacked in the
newsgroup!
N. Evermind
John Chedsey wrote:
> aoa...@tassie.net.au wrote:
> >
> > Jeremy you obviously dont know a good metal album even if it crawled up
> > your leg and bit the inside of your ass!!!!
>
> I'm assuming your Aussie good manners are coming out.
and this is your american politeness showing, right? :-)
> >
> > Your Volume 8 review sucks,Id get my facts straight if i were you
> > (Gee,why is this hidden track 'Pieces' on the record.Its an obvious pop
> > song) and like the other guy said its about the death of Franks brother.
>
> Actually, though I'm not entirely in agreement (I like Volume 8), the
> review is well written.
not only is it well written, but it is also consistent and an honest opinion
from the author. whether people agree or not is irrelevant. i seriously dont
understand why people bitch about reviews so much.
hell, why doesnt this guy start his OWN site? and then HE can tell the world
about his opinions.
> However, I do feel like donating an HTML book
> to Jeremy. For whatever reason, when the page loads up, the white text
> over the white background makes it, uh, difficult. I know there's
> supposed to be a background image, but it didn't load.
why doesnt anyone think of having naked women as the background? no,
seriously. if the content doesnt interest you, at least the background will...
> Aargh.
>
> >
> > Ever heard of SOD???,obviously your too busy with new Metallica,if you
> > werent you'd probably realise why theirs two little humourous track (604
> > and cupajoe) on the album.
>
> He mentioned SOD in the review.
son of a ditch?
> This is kinda strange...someone else's review is getting attacked in the
> newsgroup!
hmm...and that too NOT by sentinel.
oh well, since you feel left out and dissappointed:
your reviews suck, krazykat! you dont know squat about music! you're not
qualified to do reviews!
> Satan Stole My Teddybear
satan is gay, then.
> http://www.peakpeak.com/~krazykat/index3.htm
--
- nevermind
"Can you see your days blighted by darkness?
Is it true you beat your fists on the floor?
Stuck in a world of isolation
While ivy grows over the door"
- Pink Floyd
THE SENTINEL
> hell, why doesnt this guy start his OWN site? and then HE can tell the world
> about his opinions.
in chedsey's world, everyone's opinions about music are equivalent, yet he
still feels like he needs to have a site full of reviews!
> oh well, since you feel left out and dissappointed:
>
> your reviews suck, krazykat! you dont know squat about music! you're not
> qualified to do reviews!
if he is than anyone is, and therefore album reviews are pointless. got
that big guy, or do i need to explain it again?
> - nevermind
>
> "Can you see your days blighted by darkness?
> Is it true you beat your fists on the floor?
> Stuck in a world of isolation
> While ivy grows over the door"
>
> - Pink Floyd
yee haw
John Chedsey
>
> John Chedsey wrote:
> >
> > I'm assuming your Aussie good manners are coming out.
>
> and this is your american politeness showing, right?
I thought the British were the ones who were overt in politeness.
Americans are uncouth.
> not only is it well written, but it is also consistent and an honest opinion
> from the author. whether people agree or not is irrelevant. i seriously dont
> understand why people bitch about reviews so much.
They only do it when they disagree with the opinion. Then, rather than
presenting an intelligent case or expressing their opinion with
eloquence, they accuse the other of "sucking" and so forth.
> hell, why doesnt this guy start his OWN site? and then HE can tell the world
> about his opinions.
Too much work. It's much easier to tear apart the efforts of others
rather than put your own neck on the line.
>
> > However, I do feel like donating an HTML book
> > to Jeremy. For whatever reason, when the page loads up, the white text
> > over the white background makes it, uh, difficult. I know there's
> > supposed to be a background image, but it didn't load.
>
> why doesnt anyone think of having naked women as the background? no,
> seriously. if the content doesnt interest you, at least the background will...
Yes...naked chicks...
> > This is kinda strange...someone else's review is getting attacked in the
> > newsgroup!
>
> hmm...and that too NOT by sentinel.
He's too busy working on his next "LICA" sarcastic post.
>
> oh well, since you feel left out and dissappointed:
>
> your reviews suck, krazykat! you dont know squat about music! you're not
> qualified to do reviews!
Woo hoo! Validation!
John Chedsey
> > your reviews suck, krazykat! you dont know squat about music! you're not
> > qualified to do reviews!
>
> if he is than anyone is, and therefore album reviews are pointless. got
> that big guy, or do i need to explain it again?
Um, Jimbo, you have explained nothing in the past and nothing in the
future. I'm more qualified than you to write about music since I've
heard much more than you. But hey, I don't feel like making a personal
issue of this. And by the way, N. was being silly.
THE SENTINEL
> > if he is than anyone is, and therefore album reviews are pointless. got
> > that big guy, or do i need to explain it again?
>
> Um, Jimbo, you have explained nothing in the past and nothing in the
> future. I'm more qualified than you to write about music since I've
> heard much more than you.
now how did you calculate this, genius?
But hey, I don't feel like making a personal
> issue of this. And by the way, N. was being silly.
who said it was personal?
John Chedsey
> now how did you calculate this, genius?
It's just common knowledge. Plus I saw that "website" you contributed
to. You have no room to speak ill of others.
>
> But hey, I don't feel like making a personal
> > issue of this. And by the way, N. was being silly.
>
> who said it was personal?
You always try to make it a personal issue or attack. Time for you to
grow up, son.
John
THE SENTINEL
> > now how did you calculate this, genius?
>
> It's just common knowledge. Plus I saw that "website" you contributed
> to. You have no room to speak ill of others.
huh? how does that quanitify all the music i've ever listened to? you're
silly ...
> > But hey, I don't feel like making a personal
> > > issue of this. And by the way, N. was being silly.
> >
> > who said it was personal?
>
> You always try to make it a personal issue or attack. Time for you to
> grow up, son.
if you consider attacks on your webpage or assertions about music to be
personal in nature then i do make personal attacks.
besides, what about your comments "time for you to grow up son" and the
like, am i to consider those personal attacks? if so, why condemn me for
behavior you exhibit yourself?
Ron J. Earl
Stomping along,
Ron
"Volume 8 - The Threat is
Real" Review
There are but a handful of metal bands borne of the '80s that have
survived
this far into the '90s, among them big names such as Metallica,
Megadeth,
Pantera and Slayer. There are fewer still that have not only
survived,
but thrived, while continuing to do essentially what they were
doing
when they started - namely, Pantera and Slayer.
And while the likes of Metallica and Megadeth, and many a lesser band,
have somehow
managed
to solidify their fan bases by undermining them at their very foundation,
there are a select
few who
have done just the opposite - by tightening their focus, cutting the crap
and letting the
music,
and the music only, do the talking. Anthrax are among that select few.
With their eighth and latest release, Anthrax are poised to surprise a
lot of people. Many will
be surprised
just to learn that Anthrax are still among the living, having long ago
written them off as
'80s has-beens.
Of course, those would be the very same metalheads who think that LOAD
and
RE-LOAD
are the best albums Metallica have ever made. Never mind them.
Those in the know - the ones who have stuck with Anthrax as they've jettisoned
their excess
baggage
and excess image - are already aware that the Bronx bombers have put out
two of their
best albums
in THE SOUND OF WHITE NOISE and STOMP 442 during the '90s, long after the
folks
at MTV quit returning their phone calls. Those fans - diehards though they
are - will also be
surprised
by VOLUME 8. Surprised that Anthrax have once again defied the odds and
topped not
only themselves,
but the rest of their genre, as well. THE THREAT is indeed real, and it
may even
be the
best metal album this year. Barring anything new from Pantera, it's hard
to imagine anything
else even
coming close.
Truth be told, the '90s haven't been especially kind to Anthrax. It's a
decade that's seen them
sack longtime
frontman Joey Belladonna, part ways with guitarist Danny Spitz and change
record
labels
twice. Starting over with former Armored Saint frontman John Bush at the
helm, Anthrax
struck
gold status with NOISE, only to have its follow-up all but ignored by their
record company
(Elek-tra).
That it went on to sell in excess of 100,000 copies was testament to the
band's
determined
touring and loyal fans.
Starting anew with the Ignition label, Anthrax are once again in familiar
territory. They've
been underdogs
before, and have always come out grinning. So it should come as no surprise,
then,
that Anthrax
have channeled the turmoil and chaos of recent years into an intense, focused
and
remarkably
diverse album in VOLUME 8. Consider yourself forewarned, however. This
album is
meant
to be played loud.
Opening with the aptly titled "Crush," VOLUME 8 - recorded and produced
by Anthrax
with the
help of auxiliary guitarist Paul Crook - picks up where STOMP left off
and turns up the
levels
a notch or two. All of the Anthrax trademarks are present - speed, power,
energy and, yes,
crushing
hooks. You get away with murder/Kill me when you're through, Bush seethes,
as the
relentless,
double-barreled tempo from drummer Charlie Benante and guest basher Dave
Femia
sets the
tone.
Benante takes the guitar lead on the frenetic "Cathar-sis," as Bush huskily
screams of Angels
in my
heart and devils in my eyes. It's a potent opening salvo, but ultimately
it's just foreplay for the
razor-edged
melody and mayhem that's to follow.
Goddamn nowhere place to be/Dying deep inside of me/Always standing on
the inside
looking
out, comes the refrain of lead single "Inside Out," a surging rocker that
counters its rage with
melodic
interludes, making for a complex, emotional excursion. With a scorching
lead guitar assist
from Pantera's
Dimebag Darrell, this one's a lock to be a hit, regardless of whether or
not radio
embraces
it.
This ain't no peace train that you're jumping on, Bush warns on the aptly
titled "P&V" (short
for piss
& vinegar), as Benante again tackles the guitar lead. For a drummer,
he's one hell of a
guitarist
and songwriter, a fact that comes through loud and clear on VOLUME 8. Emphasis
on
loud.
Anthrax have always been prone to throwing curveballs when the rest of
the world was
expecting
a fastball, and VOLUME 8 is certainly no exception. The first unexpected
twist comes in
the form
of "Toast To The Extras," a hearty, blues harp-driven country tune that
takes its cue not
from Nashville
but through Led Zeppelin, via Chet Atkins. Benante again shows the depth
of his
talent,
turning in a worthy performance on the harmonica.
Dimebag turns up again on "Born Again Idiot," playing lead to guitarist
Scott Ian's whammy.
Why do
I explain myself when everyone's an idiot but me, Bush asks in such a manner
that you're
not likely
to argue. It's another full-speed-ahead barrage of riffs and fists that's
sure to be a concert
favorite.
Bush trades vocals with Pantera's Phil Anselmo on "Killing Box," as Benante
conjures
otherworldly
sounds from his theremin and pounds out a crushing groove. As usual, it's
hard to tell
exactly
what the hell Anselmo's saying, but that's not the point. The tune is definitely
one of
VOLUME
8's highlights.
Throughout, Anthrax continually add to their trademark thrash sound, and
it's usually Benante
at the
eye of whatever storm they're brewing. He turns up on lead and slide guitar
on the gritty
"Harm's
Way," throws down some talk box atop the fat groove of "Hog Tied" and plays
tremolo to
Crook's
lead on the melodic thump of "Big Fat."
"Cupajoe" is trademark Anthrax, and who better than Ian to bring the noise
on this chaotic,
frenzied
fragment of a tune. Ian settles back on his axe to trade riffs with Benante
on the thunderous
"Alpha
Male," his whammy lead doing Spitz proud. Look for this resonating rocker
to be another
concert
fave.
Album closer "Stealing From A Thief" pairs a wicked guitar groove, courtesy
of Crook, with
a somber,
melodic tone, making for a dark, angry delight. I know my name/I know my
pain, Bush
emotes
atop the thick, propulsive rhythm of Benante and bassist Frank Bello. The
tune winds up in
a thunderous
drum solo from Benante, as if anyone needed reminding that he's one of
rock's top
bashers.
Listen closely as the album fades to a close and you'll find one more song,
an atypical ballad
called
"Pieces," that's so poignant and potent it needed to be set off from the
rest of the album, but
so good
that it had to be included. Written and performed by Bello as a tribute
to his recently
murdered
brother, it points back to a time when a heartfelt ballad meant something
special, not just
another
obligatory single.
In the end, it's just one of the many sides of Anthrax that we find on
VOLUME 8. Overall,
it's a
slightly more accessible offering, though that's not to be construed as
soft. The multitudes of
textures
and vibes on VOLUME 8 give the album - and the band - added dimension and
dynamics,
all of
which complement the classic Anthrax sound. Metalheads looking for a real
album, not just
another
derivative Korntones knockoff, should hustle themselves a copy of VOLUME
8 right
quick.
Steven Batten
John Chedsey
>
> > > now how did you calculate this, genius?
> >
> > It's just common knowledge. Plus I saw that "website" you contributed
> > to. You have no room to speak ill of others.
>
> huh? how does that quanitify all the music i've ever listened to? you're
> silly ...
I saw the lack of quality in the "reviews" you wrote. Based on your
comments there and your rather tiresome remarks here on the same
subjects over and over (Anthrax, "LICA", Megadeth, Korn), you truly are
the case study for a kettle meeting a pot...
Gringo Starr
: There are but a handful of metal bands borne of the '80s that have
: survived this far into the '90s, among them big names such as Metallica,
: Megadeth, Pantera and Slayer. There are fewer still that have not only
: survived, but thrived, while continuing to do essentially what they were
: doing when they started - namely, Pantera and Slayer.
This is a bit off subject here, but Pantera aren't doing the same thing
as when they started. If anyone thinks that Metal Magic sounds anything like
The Great Southern Trendkill, I'd have to seriously question that person's
hearing abilities.
OverMuch
>arguement is just full of shit.
Well, I guess I'm full of shit, because Anthrax sounds like heavy
Soundgarden with Bush at the helm. Bush is pretty fucking boring to watch
live, too.
>Belladonna just wasnt that great,
Agreed, couldn't always hit the high notes consistantly, but either can
Geoff Tate or Bruce Dickenson (live, that is).
>anthrax changed and he wasnt much of a frontman in his last few years in
>the band
Bullllllllll - shit! I saw the last show he ever did with Anthrax and he
still kicked ass as a frontman. Joey was everywhere....ya just couldn't stop
the guy. Anthrax had 10 times the energy 6 years ago. I miss it.
>Ill defend this band forever cause right now their releasing new music
>better than Metallica
Bad arguement...even Kip Winger is releasing better albums than Metallica.
Heh.
John Chedsey
>
> >Anyone who brings up the'Old anthrax is better than new anthrax"
> >arguement is just full of shit.
>
> Well, I guess I'm full of shit, because Anthrax sounds like heavy
> Soundgarden with Bush at the helm. Bush is pretty fucking boring to watch
> live, too.
I disagree on both counts. Anthrax, to me, sounds nothing like
Soundgarden in any shape or form. That's possibly the strangest thing
I've heard today. And strangely, when I saw Anthrax a few weeks ago,
Bush was pretty entertaining.
> Bullllllllll - shit! I saw the last show he ever did with Anthrax and he
> still kicked ass as a frontman. Joey was everywhere....ya just couldn't stop
> the guy. Anthrax had 10 times the energy 6 years ago. I miss it.
I saw Belladonna open for Motorhead in '96 and Joey was just the best.
He was so into playing the show even though it was a small crowd and no
longer a 'thraxer. It was fun to watch him. Same with Anthrax a few
weeks ago. Same vibe, same excitement. But to argue the energy point,
I'm sure everyone who is 35 wish they had the energy of a 29 year old.
I certainly don't have the same energy level of six years ago.
N. Evermind
THE SENTINEL wrote:
> > hell, why doesnt this guy start his OWN site? and then HE can tell the world
> > about his opinions.
>
> in chedsey's world, everyone's opinions about music are equivalent, yet he
> still feels like he needs to have a site full of reviews!
>
> > oh well, since you feel left out and dissappointed:
> >
> > your reviews suck, krazykat! you dont know squat about music! you're not
> > qualified to do reviews!
>
> if he is than anyone is, and therefore album reviews are pointless.
I am blinded by the light of your impeccable logic, which i completely fail to
grasp.
what the hell are you talking about?
> got
> that big guy, or do i need to explain it again?
i'm not that big. really.
and yes, please do explain it again.
> yee haw
yeah. i'm a moron, sorry, coz i listen to crap like pink floyd.
judas priest rules!!!!
--
SgnfcntPkl
>> if he is than anyone is, and therefore album reviews are pointless.
>
>I am blinded by the light of your impeccable logic, which i completely fail
>to
>grasp.
>
>what the hell are you talking about?
He's the perfect nihilist: to him, nothing has any objecive/subjective value.
>> yee haw
>
>yeah. i'm a moron, sorry, coz i listen to crap like pink floyd.
Well, you worship TDB, which makes you gay :)
>judas priest rules!!!!
!!!!!!!!1!!!11!!!!1!!!11!
E.
***********************
The Left Tentacle of Chaos,
--a.k.a-- "The Significant Pickle"
***********************
THE SENTINEL
> what the hell are you talking about?
let's start here and i'll wait for your response to continue.
what is the point of an album review in the first place?
answer this then we can go on.
> yeah. i'm a moron, sorry, coz i listen to crap like pink floyd.
me too, but they're overrated.
> judas priest rules!!!!
LONG LIVE JUDAS PRIEST!!!!!!!!!!!!
John Chedsey
>
> > what the hell are you talking about?
>
> let's start here and i'll wait for your response to continue.
>
> what is the point of an album review in the first place?
>
> answer this then we can go on.
It's basically publicity for a band. That's why record companies send
out so many promo copies. Whether the review is favorable or not, the
band still gets some attention. And as any PR agent or Marilyn Manson
accountant will tell you, even bad publicity is better than no publicity
at all. The same thought applies to movie reviews or food critics or
what-have-you. A great band who sends out hardly any promotional
material will never be noticed while an average band can get more notice
by deluging magazines. That's the whole point.
Robert A. Pierce
All an album review is, at least in my mind, is a suggested guidepost of
what someone thinks is worth someone's hard-earned money. Usually,
reviewers should have some knowledge about what they're writing about,
and can back up their opinions with examples from what they've listened
to (as well as experienced). A review is more than a "this sucks" or
"this rules" piece. (I'm not pointing fingers, BTW; that's something I
tell to anyone who applies to be a reviewer with my site.)
The best thing to keep in mind (and I think John will agree with me on
this) is that a review is not meant to be the last word on the subject;
it's just one person's opinion. If you pick up the latest Metallica
discs and love them, that's really all that matters. All people like me
are trying to do is to help you avoid albums you might be disappointed
in, as well as to make you aware of an artist you might never have heard
of before.
Just my two cents, anyway...
Best,
Bob Pierce
"The Daily Vault" Album Reviews: http://www.dailyvault.com
E-mail: Take out "REMOVE." from Reply-To
John Chedsey
>
> Well said, John... if I can build on that a little further...
>
> All an album review is, at least in my mind, is a suggested guidepost of
> what someone thinks is worth someone's hard-earned money. Usually,
> reviewers should have some knowledge about what they're writing about,
> and can back up their opinions with examples from what they've listened
> to (as well as experienced). A review is more than a "this sucks" or
> "this rules" piece. (I'm not pointing fingers, BTW; that's something I
> tell to anyone who applies to be a reviewer with my site.)
My feeling on the matter is that when you boil a review down to its
essence you get the "this sucks" and "this rules" bit. However, a good
review is to expand upon and be clever when explaining why it sucks or
rules. Or why it's just stuck in limbo. For the three people I've got
writing reviews for I don't look for agreement on opinion but the
ability to write.
> The best thing to keep in mind (and I think John will agree with me on
> this) is that a review is not meant to be the last word on the subject;
> it's just one person's opinion. If you pick up the latest Metallica
> discs and love them, that's really all that matters. All people like me
> are trying to do is to help you avoid albums you might be disappointed
> in, as well as to make you aware of an artist you might never have heard
> of before.
That's exactly it...it's an opinion. The propensity some people have to
quickly and rashly attack someone else's opinion gets old after awhile.
As Bob probably knows, putting together such sites is a lot of work and
effort. I know that my site represents literally hundreds of hours of
work and constant effort. But getting back to album reviews, if
everyone quit writing them, you would no longer know how to proceed in
the record shop...
>
> Just my two cents, anyway...
I have four!
THE SENTINEL
> Well said, John... if I can build on that a little further...
did i miss something that john said well?
> All an album review is, at least in my mind, is a suggested guidepost of
> what someone thinks is worth someone's hard-earned money. Usually,
> reviewers should have some knowledge about what they're writing about,
> and can back up their opinions with examples from what they've listened
what about backing up their opinions with playing/recording/songwriting
experience? is this not valid?
> to (as well as experienced). A review is more than a "this sucks" or
> "this rules" piece. (I'm not pointing fingers, BTW; that's something I
> tell to anyone who applies to be a reviewer with my site.)
in your opinion, is this what krazykat is doing?
> The best thing to keep in mind (and I think John will agree with me on
> this) is that a review is not meant to be the last word on the subject;
> it's just one person's opinion. If you pick up the latest Metallica
if it is just purely opinion, what is the point of telling someone what
you think? it would be much better if you could make frequent comparisons
or perhpas outline what you like right upfront in a chart so someone would
know if they had a lot in common with you. i see the concept of album
reviews, especially from someone who has 0 working knowledge of music as
worthless and for the same reason i would never evaluate architecture.
THE SENTINEL
> >what the hell are you talking about?
>
> He's the perfect nihilist: to him, nothing has any objecive/subjective value.
follow the album reviews thread and feel free to criticize my logic, if
you find it flawed. i eagerly await your input.
Robert A. Pierce
> what about backing up their opinions with playing/recording/songwriting
> experience? is this not valid?
Hmm... good point, Sentinel. I can't speak for other reviewers, but I
personally have played guitar, bass & drums (among other instruments) in
my past, and I've written some songs. (Note I'm not claiming I was good
at any of the above.)
Agreed, experience with the above does help. But do you have to know how
to sculpt to have a valid opinion on Michaelangelo's "David"?
> in your opinion, is this what krazykat is doing?
I have not read krazykat's work, so I can't honestly answer that.
Your arguments are valid... but I'd like to think that sites like mine
do serve some purpose other than to piss people off for slamming a band
they like. (If you saw my inbox, you'd understand.)
Not to sound commercial about it (ah, why not, I make nothing off this
anyway), but I'd ask you to check us out. If you think that I'm full of
shit after you read some of my reviews, then you've at least given me my
day in court. (Cmoe to think of it, I think you have checked the site
out on at least one occasion, I seem to remember we corresponded via
e-mail about something.)
SgnfcntPkl
>what is the point of an album review in the first place?
To provide a colourful description of one's opinion of an album.
As for fact: of course you won't get any hard fact out of a record
review.....it's like critiquing an abstract visual painting.
An album review is to offer >your< perspective on a piece, and explain it in
context of your own personality/views.
I've read some of the reviews on John's site, and I must say that I disagree
with at least 1/2 of them. However, the context in which they were presented
made me think twice about certain albums I hadn't heard in awhile. Now, while
they didn't change my mind about how I feel about the albums, they gave me the
appreciation of an outside perspective.
SgnfcntPkl
>what about backing up their opinions with playing/recording/songwriting
>experience? is this not valid?
Of course it's valid. But then you get to the classic case of "editor's
syndrome".
Ever wonder why editors often make very poor writers? They have an
undeniable mastery of the language, and technical stylistic theory and all
that, but when implemented, from them it often feels "forced", rather than
simply inspired.
This runs true for the music industry to after a fashion. I'd rather read a
review from a casual writer without all the technical ability, to see an
"innocent" perspective of the music, not colored by preconceptions and lofty
technical expectaions and all that baggage.
N. Evermind
SgnfcntPkl wrote:
> Nevermind wrote:
>
> >> if he is than anyone is, and therefore album reviews are pointless.
> >
> >I am blinded by the light of your impeccable logic, which i completely fail
> >to
> >grasp.
> >
> >what the hell are you talking about?
>
> He's the perfect nihilist: to him, nothing has any objecive/subjective value.
i dont think he is. he's just been displeased over krazykat's reviews, though how
he concludes that 'album reviews are pointless' is really beyond me..
> >> yee haw
> >
> >yeah. i'm a moron, sorry, coz i listen to crap like pink floyd.
>
> Well, you worship TDB, which makes you gay :)
you probably like the shit like momentary lapse of reason!
> >judas priest rules!!!!
>
> !!!!!!!!1!!!11!!!!1!!!11!
sorry, i forgot to add: 'my ass'.
> E.
> ***********************
> The Left Tentacle of Chaos,
>
> --a.k.a-- "The Significant Pickle"
> ***********************
--
N. Evermind
THE SENTINEL wrote:
> > what the hell are you talking about?
>
> let's start here and i'll wait for your response to continue.
>
> what is the point of an album review in the first place?
since you say they are 'pointless', why dont you try?
> answer this then we can go on.
same here...
> > yeah. i'm a moron, sorry, coz i listen to crap like pink floyd.
>
> me too, but they're overrated.
strangely, i agree...
> > judas priest rules!!!!
>
> LONG LIVE JUDAS PRIEST!!!!!!!!!!!!
KINGS OF METAL FOREVER!!!!!
John Chedsey
> i dont think he is. he's just been displeased over krazykat's reviews, though how
> he concludes that 'album reviews are pointless' is really beyond me..
Don't believe a word when he trashes my site. I've checked the access
logs and he's a regular.
John Chedsey
> what about backing up their opinions with playing/recording/songwriting
> experience? is this not valid?
> if it is just purely opinion, what is the point of telling someone what
> you think? it would be much better if you could make frequent comparisons
> or perhpas outline what you like right upfront in a chart so someone would
> know if they had a lot in common with you. i see the concept of album
> reviews, especially from someone who has 0 working knowledge of music as
> worthless and for the same reason i would never evaluate architecture.
Okay...I've probably written this response three times to Jimbo and this
will be the last time I bother with it as he never has an adequate
response (or any, for the record).
Architecture has nothing to do with this arguement. Throw it out.
Invalid comparison.
Music is something that can be traced throughout the roots of mankind's
evolution up from caveman. 60,000 years ago cavemen were banging rocks
together and howling or making noises. Music is an integral part of the
human soul, an emotional outpouring that all people can relate to.
Everyday you are surrounded by music: music from commercials, from
passing cars, from your stereo, from the radio that is on at work. Your
response to it is found on an emotional and even spiritual level.
Events on your life are sparked in memories by a certain song that may
have been playing at the time. We are stirred up by marching bands at
college football games, armies are inspired by national anthems, you
pick a special song at your wedding that means something, and so on.
Music is very much a part of what makes our form of the primate so
special and possibly gives us the reason to even remotely consider
ourselves intelligent, civilized creatures. From the tribes in Africa
who constantly sing a capella to a four piece cello outfit in Finland to
Mexican mariachi bands to karoake bars, it is a constant language that
flows through all our blood.
To make the argument that the only people with the qualifications to
discuss and critique music are those who make it is inherently going
against what music is all about. Because I can't finger tap out a
harmonic solo doesn't mean I don't understand music. Just because I
can't fathom how one even invented the bagpipes doesn't mean I don't
have a valid emotional response to the music created by it. Do you see
what I'm getting at? Musicians try to undermine criticism with the
tired argument "If you know anything about music let's see you pick up
an instrument" usually to get around the criticism and deflect attention
from their perceived bad effort. It's a defense mechanism that stops
here. It doesn't hold water.
Oh, and by the way, I've sat in the studio with quite a few bands during
the recording process.
Incidentally Jim, since you are constantly attacking my reviews, I've
doubled my subscriptions to my newsletter and almost tripled my hit
count. Thanks!
John Chedsey
> I've read some of the reviews on John's site, and I must say that I disagree
> with at least 1/2 of them. However, the context in which they were presented
> made me think twice about certain albums I hadn't heard in awhile. Now, while
> they didn't change my mind about how I feel about the albums, they gave me the
> appreciation of an outside perspective.
Oh, and here's the other thing about a good chunk of the reviews on my
site: a lot were written about a year and a half ago in a flurry to come
up with nearly 800 reviews to match all the albums I had in my
collection at the time. Some of them could easily be re-written and
made much better. From time to time I'll look at one or two of them and
think, "Wait, that's not how I really feel". Or other albums are so
good that I just can't express myself to degree that the music has
affected me. However, considering I work fulltime, I just don't have
time to rewrite every review that needs it. If one were to pay
attention, though, one could easily tell the diffence between reviews
written during the flurry and ones written afterwards.
THE SENTINEL
> > what is the point of an album review in the first place?
> >
> > answer this then we can go on.
>
> It's basically publicity for a band.
if this is the only purpose that a review is supposed to serve then i
would say there is no such thing as a bad review. it would also make a
review synonymous with a commercial or advertisement in a magazine. i
think most people believe an album review is supposed to be a little more
than that.
THE SENTINEL
> >what is the point of an album review in the first place?
>
> To provide a colourful description of one's opinion of an album.
and what good what that do, if everyone's opinion is totally subjective?
btw, your definition contradicts krazykat's.
> As for fact: of course you won't get any hard fact out of a record
> review.....it's like critiquing an abstract visual painting.
what about critiquing a non-abstract painting?
> An album review is to offer >your< perspective on a piece, and explain it in
> context of your own personality/views.
why would anyone care about someone else's opnion if there own is equally
valid to them (if not more so, since it is their own).
THE SENTINEL
> >what about backing up their opinions with playing/recording/songwriting
> >experience? is this not valid?
>
> Of course it's valid.
not according to many people here.
But then you get to the classic case of "editor's
> syndrome".
>
> Ever wonder why editors often make very poor writers?
who says they do? you? how did you gain this information?
They have an
> undeniable mastery of the language, and technical stylistic theory and all
> that, but when implemented, from them it often feels "forced", rather than
> simply inspired.
> This runs true for the music industry to after a fashion. I'd rather read a
> review from a casual writer without all the technical ability, to see an
> "innocent" perspective of the music, not colored by preconceptions and lofty
> technical expectaions and all that baggage.
you would understanbd it better, same applies for albums. there's only so
much technical mastery you could comprehend before you'd reject it.
David Lloyd
THE SENTINEL <jr...@Ra.MsState.Edu> writes:
>
i've stayed out of these arguments, but just think this is getting silly.
for the record, i do some "reviews" as i do my own zine. whether you like
it or not is not of concern really. it is freely available to anyone.
if people wish to view it, it's up to them, if not, i'm not going to force
it on anyone.
but i just wondered about some things.
this is really quite pathetic.
some points.
people who like music, listen to music etc, may occasionally wish to
read about it as well. discuss it. have views and opinions on it. they
are entitled to do so. personally i would find it extrememly boring if i
couldn't read people's views on music and albums. especially those which
disagree with my view. well, it's fun if it says something other than
good / bad.
do you not take views on anything? after all, anyone's views on anything
is subjective.
did you not take any views or opinions or reviews on which computer to buy?
which software to use? which college to go to? which book to read? which
meal to eat in a restaurant? which guitar to buy?
nothing? really!
because if you did, do you think that all the people you took advice from
where "experts". was that salesman an "expert". was the waiter?
you know enough about everything to make a completely uninfluenced decision
on everything you do or buy. you must be VERY informed, and very rich sometimes
to be able to afford to throw money away like that. however, not all of
us can do that. so some may seek to find others views on them before buying.
maybe they'll read reviews. maybe they'll ask a friends advice.
as i said earlier, i write my own reviews. in answer to another element
of this thread, regarding whether people with musical ability should
write reviews only, i say why? i attempt to play bass and guitar, but
by my own admission i am terrible at them. but it doesn't stop me having
my own valid opinions on something.
does everyone who watches sport and has an opinion on it have to be
of professional playing ability?
no, it's a pointless arguement.
another reason i do reviews, in fact, it's one of the major reasons i
started doing them and my zine, is because there are so many bands around
that i like that don't get reviewed anywhere. don't get featured anywhere.
this means that the majority of people never get to find out about them.
if my reviewing something opens that band up to only a few new people,
then i think that it's been of value.
music is not about elitism. stop treating it as such. treat music for
what it is.
cheers
dave
-
'if living is for learning, then dying is forgetting
once we have forgotten, then we can go on living'
http://www.crg.cs.nott.ac.uk/~dxl/reviews/choices.html
N. Evermind
THE SENTINEL wrote:
> > Well said, John... if I can build on that a little further...
>
> did i miss something that john said well?
;-)
> > All an album review is, at least in my mind, is a suggested guidepost of
> > what someone thinks is worth someone's hard-earned money. Usually,
> > reviewers should have some knowledge about what they're writing about,
> > and can back up their opinions with examples from what they've listened
>
> what about backing up their opinions with playing/recording/songwriting
> experience? is this not valid?
Who says its not? Its valid, but its not NECESSARY to have such experience.
> > The best thing to keep in mind (and I think John will agree with me on
> > this) is that a review is not meant to be the last word on the subject;
> > it's just one person's opinion. If you pick up the latest Metallica
>
> if it is just purely opinion, what is the point of telling someone what
> you think?
Because it gives a descriptive insight into the music. Half of even what you
speak in real life is opinion. What you're saying here is: "Why express
yourself? Why have an opinion when others have a different one?" So whats your
point?
I dont really see what you're trying to accomplish, trying to question the
validity of reviews.
> it would be much better if you could make frequent comparisons
> or perhpas outline what you like right upfront in a chart so someone would
> know if they had a lot in common with you.
You cant "quantify" musical kinship. There are a million things "common" to
the reviewer and the reader, subtle things that...its all irrelevant, anyway.
> i see the concept of album
> reviews, especially from someone who has 0 working knowledge of music as
> worthless
There you go again, talking about fancy stuff like "0 working knowledge" and
all. The point is that music is universal and transcends all other human
qualities, like intelligence, knowledge, age, etc. Response to a musical piece
is a natural reflex from a human being, and basically a 'review', at its
essential purest, is an articulation of this response into words, a common
medium whereby exchange of ideas is possible. As long as a person can hear and
feel, and has the minimal vocabulary of a 4th grader, he's qualified to
review. I can always question your masters of music theory: what makes them
'qualified' to review? In fact, what makes them 'qualified' to formulate a
theory in the first place?
> and for the same reason i would never evaluate architecture.
What do you mean "evaluate"? You're implying that one can actually "quantify"
the aesthetic factor in architecture? If you're talking about "reviewing"
architecture, I dont see a problem with that. You might not know the technical
aspects of the structure, but you have as much right to say whether its good
or bad as an architect. Besides, architecture is nothing like music in any of
its properties, so its again irrelevant, really. You need technical knowledge
to describe architecture, hence a professional architect might make a better
informed "review". However, there is no such equivalence in music. After all,
the very concept of architecture is scientific and man-made, making it nothing
like music.
> > discs and love them, that's really all that matters. All people like me
> > are trying to do is to help you avoid albums you might be disappointed
> > in, as well as to make you aware of an artist you might never have heard
> > of before.
--
John Chedsey
>
> > > what is the point of an album review in the first place?
> > >
> >
> > It's basically publicity for a band.
>
> if this is the only purpose that a review is supposed to serve then i
> would say there is no such thing as a bad review. it would also make a
> review synonymous with a commercial or advertisement in a magazine. i
> think most people believe an album review is supposed to be a little more
> than that.
You must have conveniently snipped or ignored everything else I
discussed upon the topic. Jim, we've argued over this for too long &
I've got bigger fish to fry. I know you won't respond to the other post
I wrote last night & I'm not going to bother with this topic much
longer. You're becoming dangerously boring.
SgnfcntPkl
>and what good what that do, if everyone's opinion is totally subjective?
>btw, your definition contradicts krazykat's.
That could possibly be that I don't really agree with his definition <shrug>.
>> As for fact: of course you won't get any hard fact out of a record
>> review.....it's like critiquing an abstract visual painting.
>
>what about critiquing a non-abstract painting?
I'm going to take a wild leap here and assume that you are one of those who
feel that "abstract art has no merit".
The analogy fits.
>why would anyone care about someone else's opnion if there own is equally
>valid to them (if not more so, since it is their own).
Holy shit, I >really< hope you're not this extreme in person.
Moderation, son.....moderation. Of course I wouldn't value someone else's
opinion over my own, but I >would< care about how someone else feels about
something. It provides perspective.
Looking at everything from a narrow angle is a good way to stay bigoted....no
matter how "open-minded" one might think they are.
SgnfcntPkl
>> >what about backing up their opinions with playing/recording/songwriting
>> >experience? is this not valid?
>>
>> Of course it's valid.
>
>not according to many people here.
Not true. If you actually read what is being posted, they reject the notion
that "playing experience is the ONLY way to have a valid opinion for reviewing
albums".
>> Ever wonder why editors often make very poor writers?
>
>who says they do? you? how did you gain this information?
<rolls eyes> I stole it from the Pentagon.
They have a secret file marked "Editors make bad writers: FACT.
Classified--Read only if you wish to be able to concretely justify a subjective
opinion in alt.rock-n-roll.metal.heavy".
>you would understanbd it better, same applies for albums. there's only so
>much technical mastery you could comprehend before you'd reject it.
You lost me here. Rephrase?
SgnfcntPkl
[snip]
In order to make SURE this point is made, let me add a few analogies.
* Are psychiatrists the >only< ones qualified to make a comment on the human
condition?
* Are trained playwrights the >only< ones qualified to have a valid opinion on
a story?
* Are Siskel and Ebert the >only< ones qualified to review a movie?
....etc. etc. etc, blah blah blahblah.
This is >exactly< what you say, Sentinel. Not in a roundabout way, not
"comparable"
>Exactly<. Exactly. E.X.A.C.T.L.Y.
E.
(...EXACTLY!!!!....for good measure)
SgnfcntPkl
>> He's the perfect nihilist: to him, nothing has any objecive/subjective
>value.
>
>i dont think he is. he's just been displeased over krazykat's reviews, though
>how
>he concludes that 'album reviews are pointless' is really beyond me..
Are you kidding?
He won't take anything seriously that has any subjective side to the argument.
There's always the need for "quantifying/absolute proof" to justify any point
in an argument.
If that's not nihilsm, I'm on crack.
E.
THE SENTINEL
> Agreed, experience with the above does help. But do you have to know how
> to sculpt to have a valid opinion on Michaelangelo's "David"?
if you like it you like it, that's never been the point i'm trying to
make. what can a non-sculptor say about it though?
> Not to sound commercial about it (ah, why not, I make nothing off this
> anyway), but I'd ask you to check us out. If you think that I'm full of
> shit after you read some of my reviews, then you've at least given me my
> day in court. (Cmoe to think of it, I think you have checked the site
> out on at least one occasion, I seem to remember we corresponded via
> e-mail about something.)
yeah, i read your jugulator review, which sounded ok to me but that's it.
i may go back and check it out sometime, and if so you will certainly hear
about it here (only if it's negative!)
THE SENTINEL
John Chedsey
>
> THE SENTINEL wrote:
>
> >> >what about backing up their opinions with playing/recording/songwriting
> >> >experience? is this not valid?
> >>
> >> Of course it's valid.
> >
> >not according to many people here.
>
> Not true. If you actually read what is being posted, they reject the notion
> albums".
That is indeed the intonation behind the Sentinel's constant remarks.
>
> >> Ever wonder why editors often make very poor writers?
> >
> >who says they do? you? how did you gain this information?
>
> <rolls eyes> I stole it from the Pentagon.
I thought it was from the Pentagram.
Satan Stole My Teddybear
http://www.peakpeak.com/~krazykat/index3.htm
(soon to be www.chedsey.com)
James S Kang
> Robert A. Pierce wrote:
> >
> > Well said, John... if I can build on that a little further...
> >
> > what someone thinks is worth someone's hard-earned money. Usually,
> > reviewers should have some knowledge about what they're writing about,
> > and can back up their opinions with examples from what they've listened
> > "this rules" piece. (I'm not pointing fingers, BTW; that's something I
> > tell to anyone who applies to be a reviewer with my site.)
> My feeling on the matter is that when you boil a review down to its
> essence you get the "this sucks" and "this rules" bit. However, a good
> review is to expand upon and be clever when explaining why it sucks or
> rules. Or why it's just stuck in limbo. For the three people I've got
> writing reviews for I don't look for agreement on opinion but the
> ability to write.
It would be a good idea to attempt to describe the sound to a higher than
typical level of detail.
James S Kang
> work and constant effort. But getting back to album reviews, if
> everyone quit writing them, you would no longer know how to proceed in
> the record shop...
?
Not true at all. A lot of places let you listen before you buy, and even
before that there's word of mouth, borrowing CDs from friends, etc. Usually
a review doesn't lean me in any direction on a CD.
James S Kang
John Chedsey (kraz...@peakpeak.com) wrote:
> passing cars, from your stereo, from the radio that is on at work. Your
> response to it is found on an emotional and even spiritual level.
This doesn't seem to be true of everyone, and sometimes some kinds of music
don't reach people at as deep a level as it might when played for others.
Some people don't understand metal at all and shouldn't be reviewing it because
their opinions are as interesting and illuminating as the opinions a dog
might have about it if it could write.
Some people write "politically" motivated reviews. Here is another reason
one might be misqualified to write reviews.
However, I don't think it is necessary (although it would be helpful) to
understand what it feels like to play music and how it is made. Seemingly
the most interesting and useful music reviews I've read come from guitar
magazines, but again, I think it's a result of a focus on music and a
connection with it, rather than technical understanding.
SSMT is not written by people who don't understand metal, but the reviews do
seem a little politically motivated in some cases (not liberal/conservative,
but underground-cool/not underground-cool) and they are of no value in most
cases. I know there is not formal definition for album reviews, but many of
these do pretty much amount to "this sucks/this is good." The reader does
not get any impression of the music at all. For example:
Generally considered the best thrash/speed metal album of all time, I find
this
half hour excursion somewhat excessive and only interesting when I'm in the
mood. Tom Araya has never been much of a singer and has to be the most
mediocre bassist to ever make the bigtime (sorry, metal kids), but the
guitar
interplay and the fantastic drumming of Dave Lombardo makes it all
worthwhile in the end.
Okay - why is it excessive? What does Tom sound like, and what makes him
mediocre? What is so fantastic about Dave Lombardo?
Here's another typical one. It's a bit longer but about as substantive:
Hailing from the noise rock scene that has
blossomed in NYC for the past decade plus,
Unsane presents what is one of the more
palatable platters to come along in some
time. Roughly in the same territory as Today
is the Day, with a bit of Helmet and
Quicksand added to the matter,
-- So far, we get "they are from NYC, they are good, they sound like Today
Is the Day."
Unsane
doesn't fall prey to the noise half of noise
rock, instead relying on powerful grooves
and exceptionally dirty guitars to create a
monster of a record.
-- If I hadn't heard Unsane, I'd think that they sound like Korn with more
distortion, because "groove" is extremely general, but I've heard it most often
in connection with bands like Korn.
Generally I'm not overly
fond of the bands that are involved in the NYC, but Unsane's ability to
write
SONGS makes them a winner.
-- They've got the ability to create easily memorable
verse-chorus-verse-chorus-break-verse-chorus patterns? So many reviewers say
this, and I have to guess at what they mean.
Plus they feature drummer Vinny Signorelli,
who has played alongside NYC Noise Godfather J.G. "Foetus" Thirlwell on
the latter's live outfit and on a couple CDs.
-- Unsane's got street cred.
His inventive rhythms (as in
"Scam") and thundering cascade of percussion drives the music along,
allowing guitarist/singer Chris Spencer and bassist Dave Curran to groove
right along. Perhaps the only negative aspect of the album is the distorted
shouts of Spencer as they tend to get a little monotonous by the album's
end.
-- Ok. This part helps me out some.
However, that's not enough to bring the album down. Next time I pissed off
at roommates, traffic, my job, or anything else, Unsane has provided a
soundtrack for
As far as album reviews in general (they are written by an abysmal standard)
these might be considered decent. They sure are better than Rolling Stone.
At least he singled out who's at fault or responsible for the good parts.
But what do you get out of reading this, especially if you've never heard
these bands?
You have no idea what the sound is like- all you know is whether or not John
Chedsey likes it. I think he said that this is supposed to guide you in the
record store. All it does is provide something for you to compare your
opinion to, provided you've already heard the album. I guess most people feel that reviews like this are sufficient, but I'm not
really interested in opinions unless they have real explanations with them.
I'm in no way saying that SSMT has no right to do this - I'm just saying
that most music critiques are worthless.
John Chedsey
>
> Why Some People Sould Not Write About Music
Yawn.
> As far as album reviews in general
> these might be considered decent. They sure are better than Rolling Stone.
That's all I'm aiming for! Woo-hoo! Thanks for the English 101
critique. It certainly shows that people are going out of their way to
credit or discredit me. Must be doing something right.
But then again, I'm not really searching for validation amongst this
group.
thanks!
Andrew J. Smith
I suppose I agree with a number of the posts. There should be a very
strong atttempt to describe the sound, IMO.
One also mentioned being able to "hear" the music---also usually
important. Comparisons are very worthwhile, as long as they are
*area-specific*. --- "This sounds like Pantera" won't suffice--much
too vague. Pinpoint a specific part of the sound, a specific
album/era from the group of comparison, etc. etc. This should give
the reader a better idea of what to expect.
As for the *purpose* of reviews? Well, John mentioned publicity.
True, I suppose. A large part of it (depending on the source of the
reviews) could also be for simple "helping out" purposes---Simply to
let other metal fans know what is out there, and a little bit about
those products.
--Andy
UMR
--
-->ULTIMATE METAL REVIEWS<--
The Online Metal Resource
http://www.metal-reviews.com
in...@metal-reviews.com
ajsm...@pipeline.com
Athens Drive High School English Department
Raleigh, NC
Jeroen J.-W. Tiggelman
>site: a lot were written about a year and a half ago in a flurry to come
>up with nearly 800 reviews to match all the albums I had in my
>collection at the time. Some of them could easily be re-written and
>made much better. From time to time I'll look at one or two of them and
Why did you do that, then? I wouldn't think there was much value
in those apparently written in a rush.. would seem rather a waste
of time, and lowering the overall standard of the collection, which
wouldn't really lend much credibility??
--Jeroen--------------------------------------------------
Tiggelman jtig...@gironet.nl (private)
THE SENTINEL
On 10 Sep 1998, James S Kang wrote:
> Why Some People Sould Not Write About Music
>
> I'm in no way saying that SSMT has no right to do this - I'm just saying
> that most music critiques are worthless.
uh oh, you said something bad, NEVERMIND and PICKLE and CHEDSEY GET
HIM!!!!!!
John Chedsey
He did a classroom lecture dissection of things I wrote. If that
doesn't make me important, then I don't know what does. Besides, he
said I was better than Rolling Stone.
Satan Stole My Teddybear
http://www.chedsey.com/
John Chedsey
>
> John Chedsey <kraz...@peakpeak.com> wrote:
> >site: a lot were written about a year and a half ago in a flurry to come
> >up with nearly 800 reviews to match all the albums I had in my
> >collection at the time. Some of them could easily be re-written and
> >made much better. From time to time I'll look at one or two of them and
>
> Why did you do that, then? I wouldn't think there was much value
> in those apparently written in a rush.. would seem rather a waste
> of time, and lowering the overall standard of the collection, which
> wouldn't really lend much credibility??
What does it really matter? If I had infinite time, I could revise and
re-write each of those 300 or so that could use it. But...get this, I
have a full time job and bills to pay so life just isn't that pretty.
Got bigger fish to fry...
SgnfcntPkl
>> uh oh, you said something bad, NEVERMIND and PICKLE and CHEDSEY GET
>> HIM!!!!!!
>
>He did a classroom lecture dissection of things I wrote. If that
>doesn't make me important, then I don't know what does. Besides, he
>said I was better than Rolling Stone.
Actually, it would be nice to see you address his arguments by point.
He wasn't attacking your site, and who knows? It could have started a (gasp)
interesting thread!
SgnfcntPkl
>> I'm in no way saying that SSMT has no right to do this - I'm just saying
>> that most music critiques are worthless.
>
>uh oh, you said something bad, NEVERMIND and PICKLE and CHEDSEY GET
>HIM!!!!!!
Awwww, you poor thing :)
Jealousy isn't very becoming.
E.
(....one of the 'posse'....yeah!...)
Sean Weingartner
Sean M. Weingartner
John Chedsey
>
> John Chedsey wrote:
>
> >> uh oh, you said something bad, NEVERMIND and PICKLE and CHEDSEY GET
> >> HIM!!!!!!
> >
> >doesn't make me important, then I don't know what does. Besides, he
> >said I was better than Rolling Stone.
>
> Actually, it would be nice to see you address his arguments by point.
For what reason? I'm not concerned enough with his views to a)get
myself into a tizzy or b)do a line-by-line rebuttal. His opinions &
thoughts are valid but not really worth my time. (Sheesh, now I sound
all elitist rather than too busy. Nevermind)
>
> He wasn't attacking your site, and who knows? It could have started a (gasp)
> interesting thread!
We can't have that.
ALL HAIL GIRLS WITH BIG GAZONGAS WHO LIKE, UM, EMPEROR!!!
James S Kang
> THE SENTINEL wrote:
> >
> > On 10 Sep 1998, James S Kang wrote:
> >
> > > Why Some People Sould Not Write About Music
> > >
> > > that most music critiques are worthless.
> >
> > HIM!!!!!!
> He did a classroom lecture dissection of things I wrote. If that
> doesn't make me important, then I don't know what does.
Man, that's sad.
Besides, he
> said I was better than Rolling Stone.
Like I said, that's not hard. You could have at least read what I've said,
rather than cover your ears and run away.
James S Kang
> James S Kang wrote:
> >
> > Why Some People Sould Not Write About Music
> Yawn.
> > As far as album reviews in general
> > these might be considered decent. They sure are better than Rolling Stone.
> That's all I'm aiming for! Woo-hoo! Thanks for the English 101
> critique.
That had nothing to do with grammar. It just explained why your reviews are
(sorry) worthless.
It certainly shows that people are going out of their way to
> credit or discredit me. Must be doing something right.
Not really - it was pretty easy.
> But then again, I'm not really searching for validation amongst this
> group.
These responses make it seem that you are just seeking attention. Why not
create something worthwhile while doing so - I know you don't agree with
Marilyn Manson philosophy.
James S Kang
> *area-specific*. --- "This sounds like Pantera" won't suffice--much
This is exactly what too many reviewers fall back on.
John Chedsey
> > That's all I'm aiming for! Woo-hoo! Thanks for the English 101
> > critique.
>
> That had nothing to do with grammar. It just explained why your reviews are
> (sorry) worthless.
No, no...I wasn't referring to grammar (though I think mine is usually
pretty decent)...in my college freshman English classes we would
intellectually dissect newspaper columns & stuff like that. So I felt
my writing had just become the subject of English 101.
> These responses make it seem that you are just seeking attention. Why not
> create something worthwhile while doing so - I know you don't agree with
> Marilyn Manson philosophy.
Well, I started posting to newsgroups to get attention for the site.
That's called promotion. I've more than doubled the hit count and
tripled the newsletter subscription. Whether you personally feel I've
created something worthwhile is entirely your problem to deal
with--frankly, I don't give a thin dime. In a way you supply me with
endless amusement.
John Chedsey
> HIM!!!!!!
>
> > He did a classroom lecture dissection of things I wrote. If that
> > doesn't make me important, then I don't know what does.
>
> Man, that's sad.
>
> Besides, he
> > said I was better than Rolling Stone.
>
> Like I said, that's not hard. You could have at least read what I've said,
> rather than cover your ears and run away.
Why? I read what you said and then shrugged. It is amusing to see you
frantically try to discredit me...are you going to begin an anti-SSMT
campaign and stop people from coming to the site? Picket lines? Letter
writing campaigns?
Okay, I'm being facetious. This is totally a case of much ado about
nothing.
N. Evermind
THE SENTINEL wrote:
> > >what is the point of an album review in the first place?
> >
> > To provide a colourful description of one's opinion of an album.
>
> and what good what that do, if everyone's opinion is totally subjective?
It gives a different perspective. I think this has already been repeated a 1000
times, now.
> btw, your definition contradicts krazykat's.
>
> > As for fact: of course you won't get any hard fact out of a record
> > review.....it's like critiquing an abstract visual painting.
>
> what about critiquing a non-abstract painting?
What about it?
> > An album review is to offer >your< perspective on a piece, and explain it in
> > context of your own personality/views.
>
> why would anyone care about someone else's opnion if there own is equally
> valid to them (if not more so, since it is their own).
That statement is ridiculous.
--
- nevermind
"Somniferous whisperings of scarlet fields
Sleep calling me and my dreams and wondrous
My reality abandoned (I traverse afar)
Not a care if I never wake"
- Everwake, by Anathema
N. Evermind
SgnfcntPkl wrote:
> Nevermind wrote:
>
> >> He's the perfect nihilist: to him, nothing has any objecive/subjective
> >value.
> >
> >i dont think he is. he's just been displeased over krazykat's reviews, though
> >how
> >he concludes that 'album reviews are pointless' is really beyond me..
>
> Are you kidding?
>
> He won't take anything seriously that has any subjective side to the argument.
That doesnt necessarily make him a nihilist, though. In fact, isnt subjectivity
deeply rooted in nihilism?
I tell you what he sounds like: a chrisitan.
> There's always the need for "quantifying/absolute proof" to justify any point
> in an argument.
>
> If that's not nihilsm, I'm on crack.
Regardless of his inclinations, you're on crack. ;-)
> E.
> ***********************
> The Left Tentacle of Chaos,
>
> --a.k.a-- "The Significant Pickle"
> ***********************
--
N. Evermind
John Chedsey wrote:
> SgnfcntPkl wrote:
> >
> > John Chedsey wrote:
> >
> > >> uh oh, you said something bad, NEVERMIND and PICKLE and CHEDSEY GET
> > >> HIM!!!!!!
> > >
> > >He did a classroom lecture dissection of things I wrote. If that
> > >doesn't make me important, then I don't know what does. Besides, he
> > >said I was better than Rolling Stone.
> >
> > Actually, it would be nice to see you address his arguments by point.
>
> For what reason? I'm not concerned enough with his views to a)get
> myself into a tizzy or b)do a line-by-line rebuttal. His opinions &
> thoughts are valid but not really worth my time. (Sheesh, now I sound
> all elitist rather than too busy.
ha!
> Nevermind)
Has that been used as an expression or as a proper noun?
> > He wasn't attacking your site, and who knows? It could have started a (gasp)
> > interesting thread!
--
John Chedsey
> Some people write "politically" motivated reviews. Here is another reason
> one might be misqualified to write reviews.
> SSMT is not written by people who don't understand metal, but the reviews do
> seem a little politically motivated in some cases (not liberal/conservative,
> but underground-cool/not underground-cool)
Wow...to me this just seems obvious you really only read a handful of
reviews. I can't speak for the other writers at SSMT (well, maybe a
bit), but my only motivation when writing about an album is the basic:
"I like this", "I don't like this" or "This is rather average". To say
that I only like the underground would be a misrepresentation. There
are positive reviews of Genesis, Peter Gabriel, AC/DC, Tori Amos and
many others who obviously are slightly out of the underground. C'mon, I
get emails from ardent Black/death metallers who accuse me of not being
underground enough.
Oh well, enough of this...I need to go hole up with my untrendy ALL
records and scheme my next politically motivated attack on Manowar.
N. Evermind
James S Kang wrote:
> Why Some People Sould Not Write About Music
>
> John Chedsey (kraz...@peakpeak.com) wrote:
>
> > passing cars, from your stereo, from the radio that is on at work. Your
> > response to it is found on an emotional and even spiritual level.
>
> This doesn't seem to be true of everyone, and sometimes some kinds of music
> don't reach people at as deep a level as it might when played for others.
That still doesnt justify why a person shouldnt be 'qualified' to review.
> Some people don't understand metal at all and shouldn't be reviewing it because
> their opinions are as interesting and illuminating as the opinions a dog
> might have about it if it could write.
Of course, familiarity with the genre in question is taken to be a pre-requisite.
> Some people write "politically" motivated reviews. Here is another reason
> one might be misqualified to write reviews.
>
> However, I don't think it is necessary (although it would be helpful) to
> understand what it feels like to play music and how it is made. Seemingly
> the most interesting and useful music reviews I've read come from guitar
> magazines, but again, I think it's a result of a focus on music and a
> connection with it, rather than technical understanding.
>
> SSMT is not written by people who don't understand metal, but the reviews do
> seem a little politically motivated in some cases (not liberal/conservative,
> but underground-cool/not underground-cool) and they are of no value in most
> cases.
If they're politically motivated, it can be taken as the writer's opinion, and still considered valid. I can say "I hate XYZ" in my
reviews. Sure its irrelevant and ultra-radical, but its an opinion. I really dont see the problem with that.
> I know there is not formal definition for album reviews, but many of
> these do pretty much amount to "this sucks/this is good." The reader does
> not get any impression of the music at all. For example:
>
> Generally considered the best thrash/speed metal album of all time, I find
> this
> half hour excursion somewhat excessive and only interesting when I'm in the
> mood. Tom Araya has never been much of a singer and has to be the most
> mediocre bassist to ever make the bigtime (sorry, metal kids), but the
> guitar
> interplay and the fantastic drumming of Dave Lombardo makes it all
> worthwhile in the end.
>
> Okay - why is it excessive? What does Tom sound like, and what makes him
> mediocre? What is so fantastic about Dave Lombardo?
Ok- so its not descriptive enough. Its a simple case of under-substantiation, which can happen in any ordinary piece of writing and
doesnt really say anything about a person's 'qualification'. (man, i'm sick of that word now).
> As far as album reviews in general (they are written by an abysmal standard)
> these might be considered decent. They sure are better than Rolling Stone.
> At least he singled out who's at fault or responsible for the good parts.
> But what do you get out of reading this, especially if you've never heard
> these bands?
I think you get quite a lot. If you went and read the Opeth review at his site, I think you'd get a pretty clear picture of what
thier music is like.
> You have no idea what the sound is like- all you know is whether or not John
> Chedsey likes it.
Yes. Thats the whole point, along with a description of the kind of music that the band plays.
> I think he said that this is supposed to guide you in the
> record store. All it does is provide something for you to compare your
> opinion to, provided you've already heard the album. I guess most people feel that reviews like this are sufficient, but I'm not
> really interested in opinions unless they have real explanations with them.
>
> I'm in no way saying that SSMT has no right to do this - I'm just saying
> that most music critiques are worthless.
Very true. I usually read reviews for thier description, as I think my taste is usually too damn weird...
James S Kang
> >
> > > He did a classroom lecture dissection of things I wrote. If that
> > > doesn't make me important, then I don't know what does.
> >
> >
> > Besides, he
> > > said I was better than Rolling Stone.
> >
> > rather than cover your ears and run away.
> Why? I read what you said and then shrugged.
As long as you're not using the criticism, it might as well be the same
thing...
It is amusing to see you
> frantically try to discredit me...are you going to begin an anti-SSMT
> campaign and stop people from coming to the site? Picket lines? Letter
> writing campaigns?
> Okay, I'm being facetious. This is totally a case of much ado about
> nothing.
Actually, it wasn't you I was discrediting. I was showing the lack of worth
of standard album reviews.