We all know a few people who used to be heavy metal fans that no longer follow the scene. There are some of the older folks who maintain that no album will ever be better than Paranoid, or Killers, or Transylvanian Hunger, or whatever. How they were first exposed to those albums is totally unimportant. Even if they were just eight years old when they were attracted to the album covers, something in these albums struck them to the point where they feel confident in dismissing everything that's come after. Maybe they don't give up on music altogether, just heavy metal.
I envy them. My jealousy knows no bounds. These people are not too ignorant to be aware of the current artists. These people are not too lazy to search. These people have already been given everything that a heavy metal band can give to someone. They found their perfection. Their search is over. Aside from attending the reunion tours, they're done.
Every single one of us still searching out new albums, every single one of us reading reviews, asking our friends if they've heard anything cool recently, we're doing this because we haven't found what we're looking for. We have never heard the perfect album, we have not found the ultimate band. If we had, we'd have stopped looking. We'd retire from the heavy metal scene because it has nothing more for us.
Where reviewers fail their readers is that we forget this when writing. We get caught up in unimportant minutiae, comparing one album to its contemporaries instead of against the 'big picture.' Sometimes we're just writing at times we shouldn't because deadlines grow near. The publicity process that larger record companies go through encourages snap judgments and writing. Reviews are unfortunately only viewed as vital when done as quickly as possible on the newest releases.
When "heavy metal" and "quality" do not necessarily coincide, how does one write a review in the spirit of heavy metal?
Heavy metal is a form of music separate and unique from any other, and so should be the media coverage. The look, feel, and methods of a heavy metal album review should not be interchangeable with classical, jazz, or techno reviews. Not to say that a review of a heavy metal album from an alternate perspective would be bad, but such an approach should be intentional and not accidental.
Almost four years ago I published the "10 Commandments of Record Reviewing" (LotFP Weekly #9, December 18 2001, available for download on the website), which is a forerunner to this section. Looking back on that list, I still agree with the basic ideas. The keys to a truly meaningful heavy metal album review are in that article, so let's pull the relevant items out of the archives first.
Always directly judge a CD's quality in a review. This point is so important I managed to list this twice (in different ways) in the original article without noticing. "If you're going to set yourself up as an authority on music (and if that's not your intent, why are you writing reviews?), have the balls to give it a thumbs up or down." If a review's primary purpose is to give an indication of an album's suitability for purchase, then any review ending with words to the effect of "decide for yourself" is not an album review. Equally useless are reviews that recap the general style and various trivia around the release without giving an indication of its quality. Is the purpose of a record review to alert people to the existence of a particular release? If so, then what is the difference between a review and an advertisement?
Your individual perception of what music is and what it should sound like is your most powerful resource when reviewing. From the original article: "Speak your mind, and when you have viewpoints that go against heavy metal 'common sense,' push that to the forefront, and mark your individual identity." In heavy metal, there can't be the perfect academic-style objective review. Even if there was, there will be people who honestly and vehemently disagree with it anyway. There will never be consensus. Writers should just go for it, never forgetting that there is a passion for the music which spurred the decision to write in the first place. Putting that passion into the writing gives the reader a strong hook and allows them to more easily decide whether this reviewer is for them or better left ignored.
If you can't take the time to properly listen to it, you don't have the right to write about it. I have changed my views on this subject because I now think the original idea doesn't go far enough. Merely knowing the sounds of the album is less relevant than truly understanding what the album is about. A reviewer should be willing to really get inside of an album and be able to converse about it on even terms with the band's fans.
The problem with this approach remains that nobody really wants to spend a lot of time and energy with an album they don't like. It is very easy to just sum up the bad points of an album and, if you're an asshole, make a few jokes about it. I should know, I build a reputation on it. But I now think those are examples of entertainment writing and ultimately useless as album reviews. I find it telling that most of my joke negative reviews get a ha-ha and are never discussed afterwards, but my more thorough bad reviews get spread around and discussed. That thoroughness was born out of the time spent listening to the album. A review can not be effective if it does not prove that the reviewer understands the album. Readers can tell the difference, and as writers we only have ourselves to blame that published reviews are not taken seriously.
This is not to say that heavy metal reviews should be dry reads by any means. If a reviewer's opinion and writing style call for wiseass comments and having fun at the expense of a bad band, that's fine. That's even great, as it inserts the writer into the review. But such things should flavor the true information of a review, they shouldn't be the review.
There are additional issues that should be acknowledged by anyone writing reviews.
The greatest heavy metal has not yet been recorded. This has to be an essential belief to anyone trying to critically examine modern heavy metal releases. If a reviewer believes that everything has already been done, if they're like the geezer described at the front of this section, then what useful information will they have to say about new releases? If writers do not believe that the best material ever in heavy metal is behind us, then they can acknowledge that every album released to this point is somehow flawed. They will be able to expose faults in new albums without fear of 'harming' a positive review because they acknowledge that even classic albums have faults. A reviewer without that hope of future perfection should probably be doing something else with their time. Listening to old and perfect albums would be the best option for all involved.
The decision to review an album should be made carefully. Editors the world over will have a heart attack about this, and website owners will have a quaking bowel movement worrying about keeping their hits consistent without daily content. The truth is a reviewer shouldn't feel his job is to write about however many albums are piled up next to the stereo. That leads to shoddy writing and heavy metal fatigue. Not every album should be written about. An album that does not stand up to the kind of scrutiny a proper review requires does not deserve the wasted space of a dismissive review. It deserves to be ignored. Chances are five hundred other writers got the same album in their mailbox, so let the burden of writing about it fall upon someone who cares.
If a reviewer follows this advice and gets grief from their "boss," they need to stop writing for that person. Very few heavy metal writing positions offer cash payments for the work, and a byline is too easy a thing to create for yourself without submitting to someone else's editorial plan. What is to gain from poorly prepared reviews being written in this environment? Heavy metal already has all the quantity of writing it will ever need. What it is lacking is quality of writing.
The approach I suggest here surely isn't the only correct approach to writing a heavy metal review, but it will work every single time.
I envy them. My jealousy knows no bounds. These people are not too ignorant to be aware of the current artists. These people are not too lazy to search. These people have already been given everything that a heavy metal band can give to someone. They found their perfection. Their search is over. Aside from attending the reunion tours, they're done.
Every single one of us still searching out new albums, every single one of us reading reviews, asking our friends if they've heard anything cool recently, we're doing this because we haven't found what we're looking for. We have never heard the perfect album, we have not found the ultimate band. If we had, we'd have stopped looking. We'd retire from the heavy metal scene because it has nothing more for us.
Where reviewers fail their readers is that we forget this when writing. We get caught up in unimportant minutiae, comparing one album to its contemporaries instead of against the 'big picture.' Sometimes we're just writing at times we shouldn't because deadlines grow near. The publicity process that larger record companies go through encourages snap judgments and writing. Reviews are unfortunately only viewed as vital when done as quickly as possible on the newest releases.
When "heavy metal" and "quality" do not necessarily coincide, how does one write a review in the spirit of heavy metal?
Heavy metal is a form of music separate and unique from any other, and so should be the media coverage. The look, feel, and methods of a heavy metal album review should not be interchangeable with classical, jazz, or techno reviews. Not to say that a review of a heavy metal album from an alternate perspective would be bad, but such an approach should be intentional and not accidental.
Almost four years ago I published the "10 Commandments of Record Reviewing" (LotFP Weekly #9, December 18 2001, available for download on the website), which is a forerunner to this section. Looking back on that list, I still agree with the basic ideas. The keys to a truly meaningful heavy metal album review are in that article, so let's pull the relevant items out of the archives first.
Always directly judge a CD's quality in a review. This point is so important I managed to list this twice (in different ways) in the original article without noticing. "If you're going to set yourself up as an authority on music (and if that's not your intent, why are you writing reviews?), have the balls to give it a thumbs up or down." If a review's primary purpose is to give an indication of an album's suitability for purchase, then any review ending with words to the effect of "decide for yourself" is not an album review. Equally useless are reviews that recap the general style and various trivia around the release without giving an indication of its quality. Is the purpose of a record review to alert people to the existence of a particular release? If so, then what is the difference between a review and an advertisement?
Your individual perception of what music is and what it should sound like is your most powerful resource when reviewing. From the original article: "Speak your mind, and when you have viewpoints that go against heavy metal 'common sense,' push that to the forefront, and mark your individual identity." In heavy metal, there can't be the perfect academic-style objective review. Even if there was, there will be people who honestly and vehemently disagree with it anyway. There will never be consensus. Writers should just go for it, never forgetting that there is a passion for the music which spurred the decision to write in the first place. Putting that passion into the writing gives the reader a strong hook and allows them to more easily decide whether this reviewer is for them or better left ignored.
If you can't take the time to properly listen to it, you don't have the right to write about it. I have changed my views on this subject because I now think the original idea doesn't go far enough. Merely knowing the sounds of the album is less relevant than truly understanding what the album is about. A reviewer should be willing to really get inside of an album and be able to converse about it on even terms with the band's fans.
The problem with this approach remains that nobody really wants to spend a lot of time and energy with an album they don't like. It is very easy to just sum up the bad points of an album and, if you're an asshole, make a few jokes about it. I should know, I build a reputation on it. But I now think those are examples of entertainment writing and ultimately useless as album reviews. I find it telling that most of my joke negative reviews get a ha-ha and are never discussed afterwards, but my more thorough bad reviews get spread around and discussed. That thoroughness was born out of the time spent listening to the album. A review can not be effective if it does not prove that the reviewer understands the album. Readers can tell the difference, and as writers we only have ourselves to blame that published reviews are not taken seriously.
This is not to say that heavy metal reviews should be dry reads by any means. If a reviewer's opinion and writing style call for wiseass comments and having fun at the expense of a bad band, that's fine. That's even great, as it inserts the writer into the review. But such things should flavor the true information of a review, they shouldn't be the review.
There are additional issues that should be acknowledged by anyone writing reviews.
The greatest heavy metal has not yet been recorded. This has to be an essential belief to anyone trying to critically examine modern heavy metal releases. If a reviewer believes that everything has already been done, if they're like the geezer described at the front of this section, then what useful information will they have to say about new releases? If writers do not believe that the best material ever in heavy metal is behind us, then they can acknowledge that every album released to this point is somehow flawed. They will be able to expose faults in new albums without fear of 'harming' a positive review because they acknowledge that even classic albums have faults. A reviewer without that hope of future perfection should probably be doing something else with their time. Listening to old and perfect albums would be the best option for all involved.
The decision to review an album should be made carefully. Editors the world over will have a heart attack about this, and website owners will have a quaking bowel movement worrying about keeping their hits consistent without daily content. The truth is a reviewer shouldn't feel his job is to write about however many albums are piled up next to the stereo. That leads to shoddy writing and heavy metal fatigue. Not every album should be written about. An album that does not stand up to the kind of scrutiny a proper review requires does not deserve the wasted space of a dismissive review. It deserves to be ignored. Chances are five hundred other writers got the same album in their mailbox, so let the burden of writing about it fall upon someone who cares.
If a reviewer follows this advice and gets grief from their "boss," they need to stop writing for that person. Very few heavy metal writing positions offer cash payments for the work, and a byline is too easy a thing to create for yourself without submitting to someone else's editorial plan. What is to gain from poorly prepared reviews being written in this environment? Heavy metal already has all the quantity of writing it will ever need. What it is lacking is quality of writing.
The approach I suggest here surely isn't the only correct approach to writing a heavy metal review, but it will work every single time.
