....

[inverno_bellezza]

It's abit sad, that now a-days, the only way a critic can describe a band is without mentioning another old band, saying, they copyed that, or they listend to alot of that.. yada yada. Yes, there are different styles you can say , well, it's kind of like that band, But there are other ways to describe it as well. Unique catastrophe of it's sound,. . i think.. are they so incredibly stupid, they cannot think of a way to do so?.. Well.. whatever. But if i was in a band, and read a review of the likes, i'd be abit mad, and disgusted, i'd rather be known for my own band, not mentioning every other band out there( like 1,000) that use the same style), than the help of anothers, and most likely, most rockers out there are the same, especially if music is there life.
Sorry, had to get this out, i see it so much. . I say, if a new band interests you so much, go out and find it, listen to it.. Do not take someone elses word. Maybe it's just me, but alot of reviews i see that says a band is bad, i check it out, and it's not as bad.. so fuck sake, I don't read those anymore =)
Take care all.

 

[Novembers Paul]

AMEN brother. I couldnt agree more.

 

[ShadowLioness]

Well said.

 

[inverno_bellezza]

It would be sister , not brother. lol >=)

 

[Novembers Paul]

Originally posted by inverno_bellezza
It would be sister , not brother. lol >=)

DOH!


I'm sorry my lady!

 

[turnloosetheswans]

i honestly see nothing wrong with using another band so people can get a frame of reference...[i am guilty of saying you guys are kinda like my dying bride to those who have never heard you... so they get an idea] and while a band should be based on its own merit...alot of the bands on the scene right now basically steal from other bands[have you heard dead to fall yet? they basically should pay at the gates royalties...] and in some cases i think cuz people like to have something they can relate too[ i had a galfriend who,after seeing neurosis with me on the thru silver and blood tour[eyehategod opened and it ruled]...she compared them to sepultura, cuz both bands used tribal style drums. anyone who is familiar with either band knows they sound nothign alike but to her... that was a good reference.] but i do agree...to many reviews lately just baste bands for being to similiar to other bands... but in honesty... alot of bands do wear their influences to boldly on their sleeve[your band is not guilty of this so dont think im coming after you]... so i dont think its totally reviewers fault... some bands should maybe just... not be so obvious

 

[Novembers Paul]

Originally posted by turnloosetheswans
i honestly see nothing wrong with using another band so people can get a frame of reference...[i am guilty of saying you guys are kinda like my dying bride to those who have never heard you... so they get an idea] and while a band should be based on its own merit...alot of the bands on the scene right now basically steal from other bands[have you heard dead to fall yet? they basically should pay at the gates royalties...] and in some cases i think cuz people like to have something they can relate too[ i had a galfriend who,after seeing neurosis with me on the thru silver and blood tour[eyehategod opened and it ruled]...she compared them to sepultura, cuz both bands used tribal style drums. anyone who is familiar with either band knows they sound nothign alike but to her... that was a good reference.] but i do agree...to many reviews lately just baste bands for being to similiar to other bands... but in honesty... alot of bands do wear their influences to boldly on their sleeve[your band is not guilty of this so dont think im coming after you]... so i dont think its totally reviewers fault... some bands should maybe just... not be so obvious

In a case where you are describing the sound to someone who hasnt heard the music before, maybe, but when you just released your 4th full length, and STILL get the same comparisons on the new CD as you did on your first CD, which neither sound alike, and you have been around just as long, if not longer then most of the bands your are being compared to, and they list 6 bands, who sound NOTHING like each other, it's gets quite old, and in my eyes, it's lazy reviewing.

 

[FrostGiant]

Using other bands to describe a band in general is alright for people like me cuz I'm not writing a review. But when you are writing a review of an album, using another band to describe an album does absolutely nothing. After 4 full length cds the only thing that should be compared is maybe the 4 cds to each other. Leave the other bands out of it.

 

[turnloosetheswans]

Originally posted by Novembers Paul
In a case where you are describing the sound to someone who hasnt heard the music before, maybe, but when you just released your 4th full length, and STILL get the same comparisons on the new CD as you did on your first CD, which neither sound alike, and you have been around just as long, if not longer then most of the bands your are being compared to, and they list 6 bands, who sound NOTHING like each other, it's gets quite old, and in my eyes, it's lazy reviewing.

i agree...the comparisions your band gets to the big 3 in lotza reviews is pretty pathetic...im a huge fan of your band and i think the music you create stands on its own...their may be some similarities but very few....and i agree you should be judged on your own merits... not if you put this next to my dying bride blah blah blah... you have made some great music and you all deserve the respect...but most reviewers[and i know... i used to be one] are pretty much ill qualified to do reviews[i honestly know im not really qualified...]but i dont think its lazy reviewing...to me it seems like unknowledgeable reviewing...come swinging at me if you wish

 

[NvmbrsDoom5]

Yeah, I think the main problem I have with reviewers (and I have mentioned this before in this forum) is not that they compare us to other bands, but that they don't seem to really make logical sense when they do compare us. I mean come on, you know damn well alot of reviewers dont even listen to the whole cd, they read the bio sheet, they look up a bit of info on the net maybe, and they go from there. Not ALL reviewers do this, mind you. Some are quite thorough and good at what they do. But I just dont understand how someone can review our first cd, that came out eight years ago, and say its very influenced by the British 3, and then listen to our newest cd, and say its influenced by the British 3, and anyone with ears can tell you that our first cd and our newest cd dont sound ANYTHING ALIKE! So I mean, its got to be one or the other, right? If people out there genuinely think we sound like Bride or P. Lost, thats fine, and I would be really interested to hear what it is they are hearing. On the first couple of cds of ours, the similarities are definately there, its understandable. But I just think alot of people throw those comparisons at our new cds out of laziness and lack of respect. There's alot of people out there who think we must be copycats purely based on the fact that we are from the U.S. Even though we've been around since 91/92. *shrug*
Ah well, we have people saying we remind them of "Silent Enigma" era Anathema. And yet, why doesnt anyone scream about how obviously they borrowed from Celtic Frost "Into The Pandemonium" on that album? And I'm not dismissing them for that either. Did it ever occur to anyone that I myself am directly influenced by the "...Pandemonium" album, and NOT "Silent Enigma"? But see, I don't mind if people say it reminds them of something, as a guide to the reader to get an idea of what the cd sounds like. I just hate it when its done in an accusatory fashion, like "oh they borrowed heavily from..." and so on. Oh well, people will always have their opinions and people hear things differently than the next person, and I guess thats what makes music so damn interesting.