My criticism was just that I find metaphors are meaningless when a reviewer describes a band. That may have been what you imagined, but it might not be what I imagine. I'd rather hear the music described with adjectives that are applicable to music ("the kick drums are loud and thudding"... "the guitars sound powerful with some nice high leads to add variety"...). It wasn't that I thought reviews are not needed due to subjectivity, I just thought it was hard to understand what that band sounded like through your description. I enjoy reviews a lot, especially when I think the reviewer has good taste, which I think you usually do.Well, looking back at my review I feel like I've effectively communicated that message. I guess Nick's criticisms made me look for excuses for false shortcomings. The message I want to present is something that intrigues the reader and let's him/her imagine the reviewer's experience.
I really do not subscribe to the notion that a review necessarily has to describe the music. I know that that sounds counterintuitive in some ways, but there are ways to convey one's feelings about music other than obvious depictions of the music itself. Of course, it all depends on your audience and whether or not you really give a crap what your audience thinks. I personally wouldn't really give a crap what my audience thinks.
I've been enjoying Cathedral's debut lately. Pretty great doom actually that hits the spot nicely.kickass:
Most of my premature evaluations suck, it seems.
Wow, that flyer reminds me of 1991.