A review worthy of it's own thread...

Apr 24, 2002
4,616
10
38
52
Chicago, Illinois
www.novembersdoom.com
Author: Caspian
Heathenharvest.com

Death/ Doom's general history through it's 19 or so years of existence is a somewhat strange one. Whereas thrash, death, black, doom etc etc. got progressively more extreme as bands fought over who could go the fastest, who could fit the most riffs in, who could down tune the most etc. death/doom started off as this brutal, utterly inaccessible genre (Flower Withers, Transcendence, Eternal Darkness, Into the Autumn Shade etc etc) and then preceded to water itself down to hell over time. Whereas those albums explored the very depths of, y'know, torment and stuff, November's Doom sort of remind me of Opeth, but a slightly more generic version of them.

Well, they're not an exact ringer of Opeth; as much as I dislike that band at least they tried something different with their whole "throw in random acoustic sections" schtick. November's Doom aren't really into doing anything new; why do that when this sort of stuff gets so well received? Essentially, this is a bland and incredibly boring mix of sort-of death metal, with a few sort of slower sections that are probably meant to be doom, but come out more as "sad rock", often with harsh vocals.

The band sort of try to make things interesting; there's a few tempo changes, a bunch of clean parts scattered throughout each song, Despite that though I remained supremely uninterested throughout; the vocalist never really sounds that interested, and short of one particularly vicious bit of drums/guitar interplay (2nd verse in "The Harlot's Lie", really does it for me for some reason) nothing really gets me nodding my head, let alone banging it.

Perhaps the main problem is that the band seem to be stuck in a stylistic rut. There's that cool little strange time sig jazz/ prog bit in "The Fifth Day of March" (a really effective ballad that's probably the best song here) but for the most part things follow a very repetitive formula- with the additional problem being that the template they're working with isn't that great in the first place. It sounds like these guys know it, too; they all sound heartily sick of the music they're playing. The guitars just never grab your attention, going from one boring Opeth styled riff to another, with the occaisonal and similarly boring slower part and clean (again, a heavy Opeth influence, along with perhaps some old prog) section, and the vocalist... Well, he's not awful; it's just that he never sounds all that interested. He's trying to sing in too deep a register, for one; and while perhaps he sounds a bit manlier he isn't really able to put much force in it as he would if he went a bit higher and got his wailing on. Likewise, his attempts at death vocals fall flat, although to be fair they're difficult to pull off when they're over riffing that's as flat and boring as it is on here.

I guess I should add that this band is hardly actively terrible. They're all competent musicians, the production's good, the lyrics aren't cringeworthy. However, they lack any sort of spark; there's no motivation, no drive, and most importantly, nothing that really connects with the listener. All a load of fluff, really.
 
OK... I have no problem with people not liking what we do. I know it's not for anyone. Negative reviews don't bother me for that exact reason. What I find insulting, is a 22 year old kid, writing a review, saying there's no motivation, no drive, is a load of fluff, and once again tossing out the lazy Opeth comparrisons, even at one point saying "a heavy Opeth Influence", all from a kid who wasn't even born when the first incarnation of this band hit it's first note.

I have discussions with Sasha all the time about reviews, since he himself reviews CD's for zines, and THIS is a perfect example to back up my thoughts on the matter.

If you kids out there are going to attempt to be a music critic, then please do your homework.
 
this is awfull, I spent a week writing a three page review of the new album, with a page on band history, for my school paper, then some dilweed quite possible gets paid to spend five minutes at his computer dising a band he knows nothing about. I can understand not liking the music, to each their own and all that, but even my MOM can hear the emotion and passion in the music.
 
Good lord, that review is so bad in so many respects it's not even worth my ranting about it. lol Welcome to the internet folks, every uninformed kid with an opinion is now a bonafide "critic". Great.
 
Oh I gotta say though, my favorite part is when he compliments/insults Opeth for trying "something different" by throwing in a bunch of "random" acoustic sections. LMFAO. One of the most retarded comments I've ever heard. 'Cause yknow, there's no rhyme or reason to their music either, just boring progressive death metal with some random acoustic sections thrown in as part of their "schtick". Wow, that's unbelieveably retarded.

I feel sorry for people who read reviews like the ones he writes and actually let it influence their choices, they might wind up missing out on something they'd really like, and I'm not even just talking about ND, I mean generally.

I refuse to write reviews of music that I don't really understand or artists that I don't have any authorative knowledge of or at least do my homework beforehand. There's loads of music out there I don't care for, don't understand or just can't appreciate because it's not my thing. So why on Earth would I waste my time or anyone else's by talking about it then?
 
We'll chalk up this review under the "personal vandetta" reviews.....there are over a millions ways one can review something they dont like tactfully...this wasnt even close! My thoughts after reading this: "Who would read this and want to read more reviews by this kid?"
 
There seem to be two types of reviewer, those who make the music the focus of their writing and those who make themselves the focus. This type of review just reflects badly on the writer - lack of knowledge of the band, genre, trying to be a wise-ass at the expense of the band, etc.
 
OK... I have no problem with people not liking what we do. I know it's not for anyone. Negative reviews don't bother me for that exact reason. What I find insulting, is a 22 year old kid, writing a review, saying there's no motivation, no drive, is a load of fluff, and once again tossing out the lazy Opeth comparrisons, even at one point saying "a heavy Opeth Influence", all from a kid who wasn't even born when the first incarnation of this band hit it's first note.

Well what does his age have to do with it? I'm only 18, probably one of the youngest people on the ND forum, and so what if I wasn't born when ND, or Laceration, formed? I'm still a huge fan and I think I do know quite a bit about the music I listen to. Obviously this guy doesn't, but age shouldn't be "insulting" by any means, ignorance and stupidity should.
 
The guy clearly doesn't understand subtlety and nuance. Of course, any band that mixes death growls with more melodic vocals or has time and mood changes in their songs is ripping off Opeth. :rolleyes:

As Paul said, he's entitled to his own opinion, but what we have here is someone reviewing (or attempting to review), something they clearly don't understand.
 
Here's the part that got me... "nothing that really connects with the listener"

Ummm, dickwad, are you in my head and every other listener out there to know that "nothing really connects"? MANY MANY ND songs have connected with this dude and I have to believe many of you have a connection to the songs as well. Too bad this line wasn't at the beginning of the review - I would have stopped reading then.

Note to reviewers - don't shyte our your OPINION as everyone elses facts, m'kay? :Smug:
 
Had we thrown in more time signature changes, over the top screaming, faster guitar solos, etc., he would've likely found this to sound more "inspired" and like we weren't so "uninterested". I can read between the lines. Again really, it's a "to each their own" thing, if he finds us to be uninspiring and boring and what have you, then that's ok, that's his opinion he's entitled to have. He's just not a good enough writer to be able to put forth these thoughts and feelings without coming off a bit naff about it all.

Yknow really, as I've said before, reviews like this just bother me less and less as time goes by. It's gotten to the point where I can predict what certain people's criticisms are going to be, not because I agree with them or find truth in them, but because alot of people's tastes and opinions are just as trendy and lacking inspiration as some of the music they're criticising, so they claim. We're not going to start "screaming in a higher register" or adding more fast solo guitar stuff or odd time changes just for the sake of making those people think we're more relevant or something. If our songwriting seems to follow a "pattern" then that's really what you'd call "having a style/sound", and you're either gonna like it or you don't. If you don't then that's ok, plenty of other music to listen to out there, move along.
 
Well what does his age have to do with it? I'm only 18, probably one of the youngest people on the ND forum, and so what if I wasn't born when ND, or Laceration, formed? I'm still a huge fan and I think I do know quite a bit about the music I listen to. Obviously this guy doesn't, but age shouldn't be "insulting" by any means, ignorance and stupidity should.

I understand what you're saying and you're correct.

However I think Paul's point is that too often today you get alot of younger people who not only have not done their homework but also don't have the luxury of being able to say "I was there back in the day" to have any sort of real insight into the things they're discussing and claiming to have some authoratative opinion on. Someone like yourself might only be 18 and not have that firsthand experience of having been around back in the day, but I'd wager that you at least would do your homework and research before trying to put forth any kind of strong opinions or "facts" as a definitive word of sorts. But unfortunately there's a whole lot of other younger guys like this writer we're discussing, who don't have the background knowledge nor the experience to back up the things they say, but they still try to come off as experts.

You look at someone like Cameron Crowe, who was only in his mid-teens when he started professionally writing articles and reviews for major publications. Here was a guy who did alot of homework and research before he put his words into print, and the artists he covered could tell this to be true, even if they didn't always concur with his opinions on things, they at least respected his opinion. Just like you can say that "not everyone is cut out to be an artist, or a rock star" or whatever, I believe you can also say "not everyone is cut out to be a good writer/critic". I have alot of respect for talented writers, even if they DONT like my music haha! I've seen negative reviews of us before where I've taken what they've said more into consideration because it was clear that they had a more informed and insightful opinion than many others.

Anyhow the point I'm getting at is that people like Crowe got good writing jobs because he did the hard work and research and really had a knack and love for what he was doing and it showed. Guys like this critic we're discussing would never get a serious writing gig the way he puts stuff across. But in today's age, he can be heard via the internet quite easily. And just as the internet has made a zillion shitty bands able to be heard, the same can be said for poor journalism as well.
 
Well what does his age have to do with it? I'm only 18, probably one of the youngest people on the ND forum, and so what if I wasn't born when ND, or Laceration, formed? I'm still a huge fan and I think I do know quite a bit about the music I listen to. Obviously this guy doesn't, but age shouldn't be "insulting" by any means, ignorance and stupidity should.

With age comes experience and knowledge. There are exceptions to this rule, but in general, it holds true. When I have been doing something longer then someone has been alive, I tend to believe I have more knowledge and understanding of the process, a bit more so then the young guy. This kid wasn't alive when I played in my first band and he's going to point out my "obvious" influences? That's just inexperienced youth.
 
Im 17, im going to be 18 in december, I am often considered an expert on metal because I DO MY HOMEWORK!!! i try and find as much out about a band I like as possible, so I can hold an inteligent conversation with someone who has followed them since the begining.

A little while ago I was talking with the lead guitarist of the red chord after a show about influences, he was impresed that I was able to talk intelegently about Chuck Shuldiner and Steavy Ray Vaugn. He told me that back on the Mayhem tour, he was talking with the members of suicide silence and they hadnt even heared of the guy who basicly invented death metal.

sorry about my horrible spelling.
 
Just thought I would throw my two cents in as I review albums very frequently. Alot of the time I recieve albums to review that are not totally my thing. I try to only review things of genre's I am familiar with and do as much objective writing as possible. There are a few things when I read other people's reviews that make me smile a)the avoidance of the use of "I" or "my" (this is a new game for me), and b) actually explaining the album - where it comes from and what makes it good or bad. Simply to say the things this guy does leaves alot of room, and like larry said "reading between the lines". This does not a good writer make, and furthermore I can tell you this guy got a damn good CD for free and then shit all over it - fuck this guy. Where is Marty Rytkonen???? lol