UltimateMetal Seeks New Writers

[NAD]

I got overwhelmed by them. Once that happened they became a chore to deal with. That's when I no longer enjoyed going through them, and didn't have the heart to put any effort into my writing.

 

[unhinged]

likewise Naddy
but I did discover some great stuff through promos
such as mono

if I did it now it would need to be restricted to a couple a week or I'd just skim them, and lazy reviews are pretty worthless

 

[unhinged]

also I don't go to many gigs
too busy being a parent

but I might show my face at this

since theyre paying me to all the graphic shitz

 

[JayKeeley]

Yeah but we live in a day & age of downloading -- so much so that albums can be downloaded before the promos have even left the label offices.

That also means you can choose what you want to download and leave all the metalcore in the toilet.

Then you can "try before you buy" -- if you like it, buy the album, and delete the MP3s.

I guarantee that most people who end up with a good promo DON'T go out and buy the actual CD for $15 or whatever. Who wants 2 friggin CD's of the same album?

Promos are a dead cause. Likewise so are album reviews. Sorry to say it but it's true. I can listen to the MP3s, make up my own mind, and then decide. I trust my own judgement more so than I do some random n00b reviewer.

 

[J.]

I miss zines that actually review albums that are more than 5 years old. DOnt tell about crap that's been done 1000 times. I want to know about some originators that got ignored or forgotten or about the first 10 clones.

 

[Russell]

I got overwhelmed by them. Once that happened they became a chore to deal with. That's when I no longer enjoyed going through them, and didn't have the heart to put any effort into my writing.

It is easy to get bogged down, you have to be able to keep a balance. But if you manage it, I at least, find it quite rewarding.

Promos are a dead cause. Likewise so are album reviews. Sorry to say it but it's true. I can listen to the MP3s, make up my own mind, and then decide. I trust my own judgement more so than I do some random n00b reviewer.

Luckily, a lot of people don't agree with you on that. I would imagine many people use reviews to decide what to download to try in the first place. If you don't use a forum like RC for recommendations, then reviews are a good place to look. Either way, labels still believe they are important, and our reviews are getting read by an increasing number of people as time passes, rather than fewer, which is what I would expect if everyone agreed with you.

In addition, I don't own a P2P, and promos have introduced me to a wide range of bands and styles I'd probably have never heard if I hadn't been sent them. Hopefully the reviews of CDs that are worth hearing have inspired others to check them out as well.

Also, finally, while - like every other genre - 80%+ of the output is dubious, you find occasionaly gems, and even the crap is worth reviewing so other people don't end up stumping up money for a shit CD.

 

[circus_brimstone]

Yeah but we live in a day & age of downloading -- so much so that albums can be downloaded before the promos have even left the label offices.

That also means you can choose what you want to download and leave all the metalcore in the toilet.

Then you can "try before you buy" -- if you like it, buy the album, and delete the MP3s.

I guarantee that most people who end up with a good promo DON'T go out and buy the actual CD for $15 or whatever. Who wants 2 friggin CD's of the same album?

Promos are a dead cause. Likewise so are album reviews. Sorry to say it but it's true. I can listen to the MP3s, make up my own mind, and then decide. I trust my own judgement more so than I do some random n00b reviewer.

Like Russell, I don't use a P2P program, so promos are helpful in that respect. However, I do buy the actual product regularly - even if I get the promo - because I like liner notes, full packaging, and completing discographies (i.e. latest Amorphis, etc.). I don't think promos and reviews are a dead cause, in a sense, due to the fact that bands/labels pay attention to them. I guess if you truly want to rely on reviews to sway you in the right musical direction, it's a matter of finding a reviewer who not only meshes with your tastes, but is also spot-on most of the time. Even so, at a base level, I enjoy reading reviews because I'm interested to read other people's opinions, and hopefully I'll find out about cool new bands in the process.

 

[Demonspell]

I agree, the only reason why I haven't considered responding to this offer is that I don't want to be swamped with unwanted promos, free or not. I agree with Jay that they serve no purpose for anyone but labels hoping to secure good word for press releases. While I don't think album reviews have lost their persuasiveness for me, the instant availability of mp3s has definitely worked against them, by the time the reviews start coming in everyone has cast their final verdict based on the leak already.

 

[Eminor]

JK, you're making a logical argument. On the other hand, there seems to be plenty of people still interested in reviews. At MR it's not uncommon to rack up well over a thousand or so page views per review. Which brings me to my other point--not all those page views are unique. People return to the review to read/participate in the discussion about the album and review. I think the primary purpose of reviews is give readers info on bands/albums that are new to them, but I also think people like to read reviews of albums they're already very familiar with. Maybe not as thoroughly, but they do check them out. Shit, I do that. If I see a review for a band or album I like, or really hate, I'll check it out to see how they scored and dissected it. So I'll agree that the primary purpose of reviews has changed in the internet age, I think they're still useful and that the discussion feature offered on many sites adds a new dimension. I also think some attitudes about reading reviews are based on individual factors like other exposure to new music (friends, discussion boards, etc) and where a person is in their underground experience (how long they've listened, how well defined their tastes are, etc).

 

[JayKeeley]

Yeah, I hear all your arguments but we need to look at some facts:

1 - Reviews were much more useful in a day and age when music wasn't being shared via the web. Not only P2P but even samples on the band website.

2 - By the time a webzine, and especially printed journal, publishes a review, it is already near-redundant. In other words, the music has been leaked or samples have been published on the band's website (nothing to do with P2P).

3 - Myspace.com. Believe me, we aint seen nothing yet.

4 - I don't buy the fact that a new review is tangible. I will never accept that anyone can know an album after 5 listens compared to someone who's owned an album for a year minimum. This immediately makes 90% of new reviews bunk.

5 - Now here's the real kicker: The metal scene is unique in that fans are more concerned about good quality metal REGARDLESS of when it was released. Why should I only be looking out for latest releases? Personally I don't care when the album came out (hell, I'm one of the biggest proponents of old school) and the fact is, reviews will be MUCH MORE HELPFUL if they didn't just focus on shiny brand new promos.

Why spend the time writing a review for Metal Blade's latest crapola As I Lay Dying clone when you could have spent the same time writing a review for Eucharist's Velvet Creation? That is unless you're only writing to support the label sending out more free tax write off promos.

 

[J.]

5 - Now here's the real kicker: The metal scene is unique in that fans are more concerned about good quality metal REGARDLESS of when it was released. Why should I only be looking out for latest releases? Personally I don't care when the album came out (hell, I'm one of the biggest proponents of old school) and the fact is, reviews will be MUCH MORE HELPFUL if they didn't just focus on shiny brand new promos.

if you and i were gay, maybe we'd be gay together. though i prefer blondes.

 

[JayKeeley]

I could wear a wig.

 

[MajestikMøøse]

I miss zines that actually review albums that are more than 5 years old. DOnt tell about crap that's been done 1000 times. I want to know about some originators that got ignored or forgotten or about the first 10 clones.

QFT


When I review older stuff, I try not to review stuff that's somewhat obscure, that there's a good chance that most people haven't heard before.

For example I wrote a review for Tony Wakeford's intermediary project between Death In June and Sol Invictus "Above The Ruins - Songs of the Wolf" which was out of print for quite awhile before only recently being repressed. Things like that are interesting...

Or if you hear of a band in connection with a band that you like (thanked in the liner notes or whatnot) and you're interested... just look up some reviews and you'll likely find some information.

larm.cjb.net used to be pretty good for this. Just a bunch of reviews of everything. Different reviewers, different opinions. Lunar Hypnosis is like LARM in that sense, and that's why I wanted to go write for them.

Of course the structure of the review has to do with it's informative quality as well. Back on the RC zine I think it was Papa Josh who was infamous for writing song by song descriptions for reviews, and reviews like that do pretty much jack shit for information, and don't really give the big picture. Then there are other reviews that start going off about the history of the band and who the members are, what instruments they play, who they dated in high school etc. and don't offer any critique of the music whatsoever. This isn't really the place to go into a huge whole dissertation on what consists of a good review versus what consists of a poor review, but you get the idea that a good review balances a description of the music itself, whether by specific examples or basic description of the big picture + providing some context. Naturally there is room here for both objective and opinionated content in a review, and by finding a reviewer with similar tastes as your own, you can learn quite a bit from just browsing reviews. It is in this where reviews have their purpose. It's purely and simply the sharing of knowledge and opinion.


Naturally, there are a LOT of bad reviewers out there too, who award 10/10s like popcorn. You have to be wary of these guys as well. Good reviews require to keep a critical eye, even on things that truly deserve a 10/10.


</rambling>

 

[Eminor]

Yeah, I hear all your arguments but we need to look at some facts:

1 - Reviews were much more useful in a day and age when music wasn't being shared via the web. Not only P2P but even samples on the band website.

2 - By the time a webzine, and especially printed journal, publishes a review, it is already near-redundant. In other words, the music has been leaked or samples have been published on the band's website (nothing to do with P2P).

5 - Now here's the real kicker: The metal scene is unique in that fans are more concerned about good quality metal REGARDLESS of when it was released. Why should I only be looking out for latest releases? Personally I don't care when the album came out (hell, I'm one of the biggest proponents of old school) and the fact is, reviews will be MUCH MORE HELPFUL if they didn't just focus on shiny brand new promos.

Why spend the time writing a review for Metal Blade's latest crapola As I Lay Dying clone when you could have spent the same time writing a review for Eucharist's Velvet Creation? That is unless you're only writing to support the label sending out more free tax write off promos.

There's some truth to that. But that was also back when there fewer cds available than there are now. The same technology that you're talking about has made it easy for more bands to record and sell albums. Are there local bands anymore? Metal fans have an obscene amount of albums to choose from, and tons of shit to wade through.

Much of your argument works on the assumption that listeners already know of the band/album. Everything is available, you just need to know to look for it. Reviews, along with word of mouth, discussion boards, myspace, etc. all give fans a heads up on things they might like. One thing that hasn't changed over time is that if a buddy of mine tells me an album is worth checking out, I take that to the bank. And I can't say that about many reviews, regardless of era.

As far as reviewing old stuff. I'm all about it. Unfortunately, commitments keep you so busy that there's little time for it. Ideally, a site can find enough good writers to cover promos and do old stuff too. That's hard though. We want to do that at MetalReview, but even though we publish 70-90 reviews a month, can't ever seem to catch up.

 

[J.]

I have noticed that Lunar Hypnosis reviews some older stuff. At least more than the average zine only reviewing the latest metal blade core album or even the latst symphonic black metal band. I'm just tired of it. And thats why I check that zine a lot.

Yeah I miss LARM. They reviewed stuff they bought or borrowed and reviewed it, shit or classic.

Seriously, it's a sad day in metal when it's harder to find a review of Death's "Leprosy" than it is something like Between the Buried and Me, CHildren of Bodom, or fucking COme Clarity.

 

[JayKeeley]

Much of your argument works on the assumption that listeners already know of the band/album. Everything is available, you just need to know to look for it. Reviews, along with word of mouth, discussion boards, myspace, etc.

No doubt, but how are reviews telling me what's available if all you're doing is reviewing the last batch of unwanted promos that ended up in your mail box?

I mean, we're talking 30 years worth of classics here, or let's say "albums of interest" whether classic or not.

We want to do that at MetalReview, but even though we publish 70-90 reviews a month, can't ever seem to catch up.

70-90 reviews per month?!!! And that's across how many writers? And those are all new promo reviews?

 

[Eminor]

The assumption is that reviews are just a part of what fans use to find new music. It's not like we're evaluating all the options and presenting the best ones, but it at least gives some focused attention on stuff so that people can either read about something they've heard about, or find something they never would have found on their own. Hell, there's some worth in just haunting a review site and opening each review, if only to then click on the band's website.

And yes, we're reviewing that many new albums a month. Crazy, huh. We get tons of submissions from unsigned bands, which is another way listeners find bands they wouldn't on their own. We get promos from a million labels, so the big ones only represent a small percentage of coverage.
There are something like 12 active reviewers.

 

[J.]

But do big sites like Metal Review ever review classic releases or even stuff that's deemed a minor classic (for a genre)?

Seriously, when I was researching stuff like Myrddraal, Sort Vokter, Hirilorn, etc..., it was almost impossible to find them. I had to literally use a Google search. But even stuff like Testimony of the Ancients or Diabolical Conquest are hard to find reviews for.

The only sites that carry a decent amount of older album reviews are CoC, SSMT, ANUS, and perhaps Field of the Dark Seed.

 

[JayKeeley]

It's not like we're evaluating all the options and presenting the best ones, but it at least gives some focused attention on stuff so that people can either read about something they've heard about, or find something they never would have found on their own.

Yeah, but this is only true if the review has any level of "authenticity" -- and by that, I mean some text that reflects the listening experience of someone who TRULY knows the album inside out.

But yes, otherwise I agree -- like I said, a review is a set of pointers, a hint at what's on offer, but not a good conclusion of what depth the music carries.

There are something like 12 active reviewers.

See, this is my point. Even if you divided it equally, you're talking about 1 writer having to review 7 to 8 new promos per month. I mean, with all seriousness, how can anyone comprehend an album so quickly? Where's the integrity?

I'll take 1 review of an album you've owned for 5 years over 50 brand new promo reviews.

 

[Eminor]

But do big sites like Metal Review ever review classic releases or even stuff that's deemed a minor classic (for a genre)?

Seriously, when I was researching stuff like Myrddraal, Sort Vokter, Hirilorn, etc..., it was almost impossible to find them. I had to literally use a Google search. But even stuff like Testimony of the Ancients or Diabolical Conquest are hard to find reviews for.

The only sites that carry a decent amount of older album reviews are CoC, SSMT, ANUS, and perhaps Field of the Dark Seed.

Not now, but we'd like to. Everyone agrees it's a good thing to do. Just have to pull it off. We've added more writers and upped our output. Maybe soon we'll catch up. We also do mulitple reviews for an album every once in awhile. Especially a higher profile album that will likely have differing opinions.

The other thing I didn't mention is that from time to time a writer will review something that wasn't received as a promo. It's unusual for me, but I've got several like that right now. I just reviewed the new Killing Joke, will do Ministry in the next day or so, and do Tool next week (that one will be a multiple review).