That I can understand. But the first few replies to the message didn't seem to reflect this at all. A few of them did, but a lot of the messages were filled with assumption, projection, and name-calling, which isn't generally associated with objectivity.
Read This Guy
- Thread starter Katatonic
- Start date
That I can understand. But the first few replies to the message didn't seem to reflect this at all. A few of them did, but a lot of the messages were filled with assumption, projection, and name-calling, which isn't generally associated with objectivity.
luke
Messianic Subliminal Mind
this is getting a bit hardcore here....
If everyone spent more time banging their heads we wouldn't get so petty... (doesn't help when you're trying to do math, I admit, but why the fuck not?)
If everyone spent more time banging their heads we wouldn't get so petty... (doesn't help when you're trying to do math, I admit, but why the fuck not?)
I think some of the confusion comes from the fact that there are two reviews in question.
the review I am defending is Rahul Joshi's Morningrise. True, he may have had his "biase" (Rahul's Dream Theater review shows he definitely is capable of that), but I thought some of what he had to say was valid.
as for John's, well, I do like John's reviews, but I do AGREE that his opening sentence did seeth with biase and the fact is, John has publicly stated how he thinks Opeth are the most overrated band in the world for the last year. I wasn't focusing so much on his reviwe, though.
Wolff
New Metal Member
- May 9, 2001
- 2,794
- 1
- 0
http://www.chedsey.com/list/opeth.htm
Allright, Chedsey's reviews are decent. A bit too harsh for BWP, but I can honestly say that BWP is a weak album by Opeth's standards. I much more appreciate the sudden progressions that left me wondering. I've also said many times that I prefer Farfalla and Nordin to the Martins. Lopez might be a faster drummer, but I get the feeling that he is pure brute force/speed. Nordin was much more mellow, creative. Same goes for Farfalla. He could have been a cunt in real life, but his bass stands out.
Rahul comes across a s a complete tit. His assessment of Morningrise is completely off.
As a sidenote, I appreciate the fact that there are differing opinions on Opeth's reviews. It's healthy.
Allright, Chedsey's reviews are decent. A bit too harsh for BWP, but I can honestly say that BWP is a weak album by Opeth's standards. I much more appreciate the sudden progressions that left me wondering. I've also said many times that I prefer Farfalla and Nordin to the Martins. Lopez might be a faster drummer, but I get the feeling that he is pure brute force/speed. Nordin was much more mellow, creative. Same goes for Farfalla. He could have been a cunt in real life, but his bass stands out.
Rahul comes across a s a complete tit. His assessment of Morningrise is completely off.
As a sidenote, I appreciate the fact that there are differing opinions on Opeth's reviews. It's healthy.
D Mullholand
[project closed]
E V I L and YaYoGakk : good points, I agree with the things both of you wrote.
Rahul Joshi has this pseudo-conceptual attitude in his reviews, positive or negative. He apparently has an inferiority complex of listening to metal (being exposed to other musics), and thus tries to justify it somehow by selecting some bullshit criteria to decide which metal is "high art" (mostly not the most advanced specimens of metal). The guy has a good way with words, but he has clearly got a problem - he needs to finally decide whether he will allow himself to like metal, or will he forever repress his "shame" of being a metal fan. See his other reviews, then you'll know what I mean.
I respect Chedsey for owning the best review-resource on the net, and there was a time when his opinions on the bands I was listening to were exactly the same as mine. But - he made a couple of steps which removed my trust in his insight. His review for "Apollo Ends" by Sculptured is a clear case of him being too lazy to understand the music. And when you don't understand it, it's better not to review it at all. His problem is also that he is wasting too much time on reviewing average music, instead of paying attention to the more interesting bands. When I don't understand some music, I'm always very intrigued and listen to it again and again, and only then decide whether I like it or not.
The clear contradiction between his early Opeth and later Opeth reviews is apparent and was noted by others. He surely had a very "important" dilemma - he liked the music but his pre-conceptions were whispering into his other ear : "You can't make music by just sequencing riffs without repeating them. No, you cannot. Especially when there's many of them. You will be confused, you will. That's right. You can't enjoy this, it is bad music." And somewhere at the time of BWP's release he decided to fall to one of the sides of the fence. Too bad. I won't say that he's a moron or accuse him of some terrible sacrilege - I still regularly visit the site, knowing his ways of choosing music I can see how they relate to mine.
Now comes my sacrilege : I do think that Morningrise is by far Opeth's worst record, it seems worse on every listen to me, and I don't see any logic in the pieces at all (except To Bid You Farewell and some other scattered parts). This is my subjective opinion. I think BWP is a transitional album, but it's still one of my all-time favourites. There's a clear development on that album, and a shift in focus : complexity of riffs gives way to complexity of texture and more intense musical imagery. I see perfect logic in every song on that album (maybe except some parts of Leper Affinity). Yet I don't claim my opinions about Opeth, based on my own listening experience and my own criteria for good music, are the absolute truth.
There's no thing like an objective review. Chedsey often compromises himself, giving praise to the average bands, which he will ultimately admit to be average, all for the sake of "objectivity". Fuck objectivity. It's impossible to achieve it without causing impotency of words.
Here's a link to the Opeth review I submitted to the Gibraltar Encyclopedia of Progressive Rock :
www.gepr.net/o.html#OPETH
This review is NOT objective; it's also directed at an audience other than the metal listeners. Feel free to shred it to pieces (except the BWP-part, which I have re-wrote and which will appear in the next update
).
D Mullholand
Rahul Joshi has this pseudo-conceptual attitude in his reviews, positive or negative. He apparently has an inferiority complex of listening to metal (being exposed to other musics), and thus tries to justify it somehow by selecting some bullshit criteria to decide which metal is "high art" (mostly not the most advanced specimens of metal). The guy has a good way with words, but he has clearly got a problem - he needs to finally decide whether he will allow himself to like metal, or will he forever repress his "shame" of being a metal fan. See his other reviews, then you'll know what I mean.
I respect Chedsey for owning the best review-resource on the net, and there was a time when his opinions on the bands I was listening to were exactly the same as mine. But - he made a couple of steps which removed my trust in his insight. His review for "Apollo Ends" by Sculptured is a clear case of him being too lazy to understand the music. And when you don't understand it, it's better not to review it at all. His problem is also that he is wasting too much time on reviewing average music, instead of paying attention to the more interesting bands. When I don't understand some music, I'm always very intrigued and listen to it again and again, and only then decide whether I like it or not.
The clear contradiction between his early Opeth and later Opeth reviews is apparent and was noted by others. He surely had a very "important" dilemma - he liked the music but his pre-conceptions were whispering into his other ear : "You can't make music by just sequencing riffs without repeating them. No, you cannot. Especially when there's many of them. You will be confused, you will. That's right. You can't enjoy this, it is bad music." And somewhere at the time of BWP's release he decided to fall to one of the sides of the fence. Too bad. I won't say that he's a moron or accuse him of some terrible sacrilege - I still regularly visit the site, knowing his ways of choosing music I can see how they relate to mine.
Now comes my sacrilege : I do think that Morningrise is by far Opeth's worst record, it seems worse on every listen to me, and I don't see any logic in the pieces at all (except To Bid You Farewell and some other scattered parts). This is my subjective opinion. I think BWP is a transitional album, but it's still one of my all-time favourites. There's a clear development on that album, and a shift in focus : complexity of riffs gives way to complexity of texture and more intense musical imagery. I see perfect logic in every song on that album (maybe except some parts of Leper Affinity). Yet I don't claim my opinions about Opeth, based on my own listening experience and my own criteria for good music, are the absolute truth.
There's no thing like an objective review. Chedsey often compromises himself, giving praise to the average bands, which he will ultimately admit to be average, all for the sake of "objectivity". Fuck objectivity. It's impossible to achieve it without causing impotency of words.
Here's a link to the Opeth review I submitted to the Gibraltar Encyclopedia of Progressive Rock :
www.gepr.net/o.html#OPETH
This review is NOT objective; it's also directed at an audience other than the metal listeners. Feel free to shred it to pieces (except the BWP-part, which I have re-wrote and which will appear in the next update
).D Mullholand
D Mullholand
[project closed]
Tu quo que. It seems if I disagree with someone else's reveiw then I must be an elitist moron right? Instead of dispensing with these bland and meaningless insults, why don't you ask me to elaborate? YOu seem to have this very stingy- if not childish- tolerance for differing opinions yourself.
My previous statement stands- there's a highly stuctured set of principles behind it. And if you ask me nicely I might dignify you with an elaboration.
Belial
Rainbow Demon
I criticized the shit out of Still Life once. I'm very open minded when it comes to debates in aesthetics. I'm sure plenty here have hurled the kind of criticism that Rahul has at Morningrise, towards Orchid- it makes sense, as Orchid is the most "progressive" in the sense that it's the most "meandering" of all Opeth albums. But what in the case of a reviewer (i.e Chedsey) who says the same of BP, Opeth's album with the most organized and linear songs; that it's the most "meandering," that the last three albums feel "cut and pasted together in a garage," oblivious to the fact that two of them (MAYH, STill Life) are extremely cohesive *concept* albums, and the other (BP), again, has the most strucutred songs that even evince a sonata form? To object to such a review is not a knee-jerk- or "dishonest" as Armeggon would imply- reaction to a differing opinion. It's a perception of a factual error. Namely, don't call Opeth's albums "lazy" or "aimless"-- descriptions, btw, many on this board would append to Orchid, their first album- when two of them are (extremely intellgent) concept albums, and the other (BP) is the first to implement an overt use of sonata-like song writing structures.
I agree biased fanatics fans (not to be redundant) who can't tolerate negative criticisms are bad, but people (read Slayer) who would be so arrogant to negligently presume and dismiss others as such simply because they post on a dedicated fan web site are probably worse.
my two cents.
Being off-key can be proved scientifically by transcribing the notes somebody sings or plays. Being aimless is a matter of opinion. I won't comment on the latter, but I do have a thing to say about the former. I don't believe that Mikael is ever off-key, but that's not saying much -- he just sings notes that belong to the scale of the underlying harmony, which pretty much everybody does.
The issue is whether Mikael is off-pitch, not off-key. This also can be tested scientifically, by measuring the frequency of his voice and comparing it to the canonical frequency of the intended note, so there's really no debate here. I can tell you with absolute certainty, as a musician with (dare I say) excellent pitch, that Mikael's pitch is not always dead-on. In addition, his vocal technique is really unimpressive; his range is small, his high notes are strained, his vibrato is non-existent, and his pitch wavers when he's trying to hold a note, all signs of an untrained voice. Just ask any music teacher.
I love Still Life and BWP to death, but Mikael is really not a good clean singer, and I'm ok with that. Just listen to Bumblefoot to get an idea of what an excellent trained voice is capable of.
--Rog
Misanthrope
Latin, NOT Mexican.
Hehehe have you ever listened to the live Opeth bootlegs? there is some vibrato there i just think vibrato is not something that should come into your formula. Besides you make a pretty technical judgement about his voice considering Mikael is an amateur and does not has vocal traninng as far as i know, you are measuring him like you would measure Pavarotti, the fact is that Metal is an Amateur genre nonetheless and there is but a handful of trained musicians around. Try comparing him to other clean vocals around metal and you will find far worst singers out there Mikael is above average clean singer in metal terms, considering his background as a guitar player his effords are more than good.
Ive been watching the page it seems to me that is not so much a reviews page but a deeply personal opinion about the band page that often misleads from an objetive review. Far too many reviews have admitted parciality and far too many around try to coexist with personal opinions so different. It gets really frustrating when you see 3 different reviews of Cryptopsy's Whisper supremacy for example, by far all 3 reviewers have preconceptions and expectations about the album making the last 2 reviewers really innecesary, the first one getting as close as anyone in your page can get to impartial but he wastes most of the time putting the background and surroundings about the relase and saying little to none indepth details about it. The second one is totally out of place, while his opinions could be valid he admits this is not his kind of thing how can he be objective? he does not even try to. The third one spends most of his time complaining about the problems the album has for he and the expectations about Flo Mourner and Lord worm, going out of his way to make it obios that he dislikes the vocal style instead of stating is vastly different and not for everyone tastes.
This is but an example the whole site represents what is wrong about reviewers to me: Personal opinions. If you like to review something you gotta keep an imparcial outlook and expose the features of the album along with its weak points techically speaking, and living subjective opinions open to interpretation something everyone there tries to acomplish but almost inevitable fails to do.
Ive been watching the page it seems to me that is not so much a reviews page but a deeply personal opinion about the band page that often misleads from an objetive review. Far too many reviews have admitted parciality and far too many around try to coexist with personal opinions so different. It gets really frustrating when you see 3 different reviews of Cryptopsy's Whisper supremacy for example, by far all 3 reviewers have preconceptions and expectations about the album making the last 2 reviewers really innecesary, the first one getting as close as anyone in your page can get to impartial but he wastes most of the time putting the background and surroundings about the relase and saying little to none indepth details about it. The second one is totally out of place, while his opinions could be valid he admits this is not his kind of thing how can he be objective? he does not even try to. The third one spends most of his time complaining about the problems the album has for he and the expectations about Flo Mourner and Lord worm, going out of his way to make it obios that he dislikes the vocal style instead of stating is vastly different and not for everyone tastes.
This is but an example the whole site represents what is wrong about reviewers to me: Personal opinions. If you like to review something you gotta keep an imparcial outlook and expose the features of the album along with its weak points techically speaking, and living subjective opinions open to interpretation something everyone there tries to acomplish but almost inevitable fails to do.
No. And you know from my previous explanations that wasn't my issue. But some of the people attacked the review simply because it bashed Opeth.
I'm not entertaining any sparring with you, however, if you're not going to actually pay any attention.
first of all, any joe schmo can DO vibrato. Vibrato is easy to fake. It doesn't mean you're a good singer. Natural vibrato is not necessarily all vibrato either. Listen to old Maiden albums, with Bruce forcing his vibrato on every note, practically. It isn't natural.
Second of all, I'm not comparing him to Pavarotti. Dynamics and inflections are not exclusive to virtuoso singers. ADmittedly, I've studied voice for over a decade, but even Hansi Kursch is FAR from technically being a good singer, and he isn't guilty of what I accused Mikael of.
I don't see how you can say personal opinions is what is wrong with reviewers because that's all reviewing is--stating your opinion. Why would you state something you didn't believe about an album? I agree about being subjective and it's something I try to do, but there's no writing a review without bias. You don't give glowing reviews to albums you don't like.
However, and I think you're mostly on the right track, you can be subjective in that you write "I don't like this myself, but I see how somebody else could" or admitting the style isn't your favorite. The one main criticism I will always espouse about SSMT is that too many times (and this is mostly due to the fact that back in the day, Chedsey was swamped with promos that he would either only send to Matt Cummings, or review only himself, before he spread them around to us) people review albums in genres they admittedly aren't fans of, and extreme bias comes across in them. I don't think most of Chedsey's death metal reviews are very helpful, as he doesn't like death metal. It would be like me reviewing trance.
I don't see what's wrong with expressing a personal opinion on an album, though, as long as extreme bias isn't shown. Rahul is not scot-free, like I said, read the Dream Theater review...atrocious. But you're not going to see reviewers giving glowing accolades to albums they don't like simply because that's not the point of reviewing. If all reviewing is is saying what an album sounds like but not commenting on the quality, then it's summarizing, not reviewing. OPinions are a heavy part of reviewing.
as for being "off pitch", I think you're mostly referring to singing flat or sharp or being not quite at the intended note. I always understood being off pitch as missing the note more than by a small amount, as in, singing the incorrect note. Semantics issue mostly likely tho.
You said exactly what I meant about his voice, though. Thanks.
as a side note, though, in these days of studio magic, flat singing and "off pitch" singing are rare due to the A. amount of time allowed to fix mistakes in the studio and B. the digital correction available. I think the bands more than hurt themselves when abusing the latter, however, because the fans are more than let down when they see these bands live.
Look at Blind Guardian. I am in love with this band, but Hansi can be downright horrible live. and he usually is.
Lina
kickass elizabethan style
Which is why I can't stand Katatonia! Fix those flat notes, god dammit! (sorry, couldn't help myself
)Also, I didn't know you were discussing two different reviews -- sorry for the confusion.
I happen to know a good deal about music myself, and aside from the early stuff when he was just getting his bearings, Mikael is one of the best male singers I've heard.
Now, since "best" is open for opinion, let me elaborate. In the measurable sense, Mikael is rarely off-pitch. (And to differentiate between off-pitch and off-key is unnecessary. In the vocal music world, the terms are interchangeable.) Practically every revered metal band has a so-so singer, pitch-wise, so I'd be interested to hear who you think is flawless.
The rest comes down to personal preferences (in terms of vibrato, timbre, range), and I would say Mikael is the ONLY -- I repeat, ONLY -- male metal singer whose voice I actually like with no hesitations. But as I said, this is all just opinion, I know. *sigh*
Rog was referring to flat singing mostly. off-key and off-pitch aren't interchangeable, either, because off-key means you're singinga note that isn't in the proper key, and off-pitch means you're missing the intended pitch.
as for Mikael, he has flaws IMO that shouldn't be missed even by fans. They are pretty much exposed on Blackwater since his vocals are pretty naked and out in the open. You can hear how his voice awkwardly gets louder on ascending passages, not because of dynamic choice, but because he is forcing the notes and not letting them come out naturally.
Belial
Rainbow Demon
I personally don't care if some other guy loses interest in Opeth. That is his tastes, which are obviously different from mine, so why should his opinion be of any value to me?
Which is why I don't like reviews. It all comes from a single person's perspective, and a single person's taste. It is madness to give an elevated importance to any one person's perspective, as if it is somehow more valid than the rest. No matter who you are, or how diverse your tastes, you cannot be an authorative, or even reliable source of critisism unless it is in a purely mechanical sense.
Reviews mean nothing to me. I prefer to try music for myself, though I admit I do tend to make some of my listening decisions based from people who are inclined towards a certain genre I like, but only so I don't become hopelessly lost in the sea of bands. With all this lovely mp3 pirating software I can sample nearly any band I choose and make my own decisions on whether I think they are worthy of my money.
Which is why I am generally not taking this thread very seriously, and don't comment about the reviews, because I honestly don't care what the reviewers said.
Which is why I don't like reviews. It all comes from a single person's perspective, and a single person's taste. It is madness to give an elevated importance to any one person's perspective, as if it is somehow more valid than the rest. No matter who you are, or how diverse your tastes, you cannot be an authorative, or even reliable source of critisism unless it is in a purely mechanical sense.
Reviews mean nothing to me. I prefer to try music for myself, though I admit I do tend to make some of my listening decisions based from people who are inclined towards a certain genre I like, but only so I don't become hopelessly lost in the sea of bands. With all this lovely mp3 pirating software I can sample nearly any band I choose and make my own decisions on whether I think they are worthy of my money.
Which is why I am generally not taking this thread very seriously, and don't comment about the reviews, because I honestly don't care what the reviewers said.
