www.Terrorizer.com - View topic - What makes a good review?
TERRORIZER FRONT PAGE
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Wed Oct 16, 2019 3:36 pm



Reply to topic  [ 183 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 10  Next
 What makes a good review? 
Author Message
Darth Fucking Vader
Darth Fucking Vader

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 10:54 am
Posts: 25945
Post Re: What makes a good review?
Tom Of The Wode wrote:
Comes from the island mentality. We basically are the equivalent of Napolean syndrome but as an entire nation.


That's you fucking Sais, you don't live on an island either.


Thu Sep 22, 2011 10:58 am
Profile
Darth Fucking Vader
Darth Fucking Vader

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 10:54 am
Posts: 25945
Post Re: What makes a good review?
Ed Blackadder wrote:
Duckstyle wrote:
I've noticed a more than occasional tendency for Tez get a bit too gooey over UK bands in general. Not so much that they want to promote them more or give them higher marks, but that they tend to mention that they are British, or that they hold a new hope for Britain or any given writers pride that they are actually British. Seems lacking in impartiality.

British music press right there. Most UK music magazines (from Q to Metal Hammer to NME) will do an issue once every two years or so with four or five mediocre bands on the cover with a UK flag in the background and the slogan "THE BRITPACK ARE COMING - Meet Britain's most exciting new bands!" The Britpack are not, and never were, coming.


Four or five mediocre "indie" bands whose target audience home counties sixth formers, whose careers are generally mercifully short.


Thu Sep 22, 2011 11:00 am
Profile
Star Trooper
Star Trooper
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:21 am
Posts: 4643
Location: New Forest
Post Re: What makes a good review?
Ed Blackadder wrote:
the slogan "THE BRITPACK ARE COMING - Meet Britain's most exciting new bands!" The Britpack are not, and never were, coming.


They fucking were circa 1964-66.

Why would anyone expect impartiality on national lines!? It's a British magazine, it's perfectly natural to look out for British bands and homegrown scenes. Apart from anything else, you'll have more opportunity to see a British band live.

Tom, Napoleon syndrome seems to imply an aggressive inferiority complex, which I don't think is correct of the UK, given how much of this music we invented and refined over the generations.

_________________
Image


Thu Sep 22, 2011 11:36 am
Profile
Storm Trooper
Storm Trooper
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 1:23 pm
Posts: 21883
Post Re: What makes a good review?
Duckstyle wrote:
Silly because it was lazy and relied on an admittedly shit picture of the band. Also, that album happened to be pretty damn good and not NEARLY the Nu turd one might glean it was from said review.


it was actually come back Coal Chamber, not Korn, but you were close enough, and i agree entirely!! ;)

Nick Terry, former editor of Terrorizer, was responsible for that Mudvayne one. I actually told him in an e-mail that i thought it was an incredibly low blow and easily his worst review because it was completely unfair, and his response was something along the lines of 'true, but every journalist should be allowed at least one review like that'.

It was all part of Terrorizer's nu-metal bashing agenda. They were terribly biased. Catherine Yates especially. She had a personal vendetta agaist the genre. Mudvayne were easy targets as they emerged during the commercial peak of the trend, and they were dismissed as Slipknot clones, which they absolutely weren't.

The review of LImp Bizkit's 3rd record was more acceptable, because even though the point of view was fixed, and the writer went in with certain preconceived notions, he justified his position well.

_________________
Image


Thu Sep 22, 2011 1:33 pm
Profile
Super Trooper
Super Trooper
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 11:32 pm
Posts: 8683
Post Re: What makes a good review?
Chantler wrote:
Ed Blackadder wrote:
the slogan "THE BRITPACK ARE COMING - Meet Britain's most exciting new bands!" The Britpack are not, and never were, coming.


They fucking were circa 1964-66.

Fine, and that is seen as justification for every other bit of unneccessary hype over a British band.

_________________
Guardian-reading Fairtrade coffee-drinking bollocks


Thu Sep 22, 2011 1:42 pm
Profile
Storm Trooper
Storm Trooper
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 01, 2011 12:29 am
Posts: 12432
Location: The Bridge, Imperial Star Destroyer
Post Re: What makes a good review?
Satellite_Radio wrote:
Duckstyle wrote:
Silly because it was lazy and relied on an admittedly shit picture of the band. Also, that album happened to be pretty damn good and not NEARLY the Nu turd one might glean it was from said review.


it was actually come back Coal Chamber, not Korn, but you were close enough, and i agree entirely!! ;)

Nick Terry, former editor of Terrorizer, was responsible for that Mudvayne one. I actually told him in an e-mail that i thought it was an incredibly low blow and easily his worst review because it was completely unfair, and his response was something along the lines of 'true, but every journalist should be allowed at least one review like that'.

It was all part of Terrorizer's nu-metal bashing agenda. They were terribly biased. Catherine Yates especially. She had a personal vendetta agaist the genre. Mudvayne were easy targets as they emerged during the commercial peak of the trend, and they were dismissed as Slipknot clones, which they absolutely weren't.

The review of LImp Bizkit's 3rd record was more acceptable, because even though the point of view was fixed, and the writer went in with certain preconceived notions, he justified his position well.


I gave Korn 'Follow The Leader' 4 1/2 and they printed it, uneditted, even though I'd been given the album (at my request) so I could slate it and was proved wrong.

Interesting POV, cos I always saw Catherine as being the champion of the modern mainstream music, along with and probably even more so than myself, but she often felt let down by the quality of the bands (though she did seem to love POD for some reason I could never get my head around...) producing the music, or that bands didn't get weird or 'nu' enough


Thu Sep 22, 2011 1:44 pm
Profile
Storm Trooper
Storm Trooper
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 01, 2011 12:29 am
Posts: 12432
Location: The Bridge, Imperial Star Destroyer
Post Re: What makes a good review?
You have to remember, the reviews are down to the journalist - yes, Nick would try and match the journos tastes to what was being released, but most of the writers of T were not into mainstream metal per se.

Having said that, Nick gave first Slipknot 8.5 and 'Burning Red' 8 (just so happened to read through that issue last night on the bog! lol) with glowing reviews, so I don't think he was against nu/mainstream metal at all, just his passions laid elsewhere and there weren't many on the team (Glasper, me, Catherine) who showed much of an interest in any of that sort of thing


Thu Sep 22, 2011 1:47 pm
Profile
Storm Trooper
Storm Trooper
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 1:23 pm
Posts: 21883
Post Re: What makes a good review?
Shakin' Steev-unz wrote:
I gave Korn 'Follow The Leader' 4 1/2 and they printed it, uneditted, even though I'd been given the album (at my request) so I could slate it and was proved wrong.


sure, but that was in 1998, before the genre really became a 'problem'. Even Coal Chamber's debut was awarded 4.5, and by Nick Terry too!!!

I started noticing a change over at tez in 1999/2000 or so. Was that around the time Carter left? He seemed to be more open to it. and once Terry left, that was it, things got worse. in 2001 the nu-metal bashing was in full effect.

Also, Terry's opinions on modern metal would fluctuate like crazy. Yes he did give The Burning Red 8/10, but then later went on to say that it really wasn't that good on the T forum and i'm pretty sure in the mag too.

He once said to me via e-mail that M.H lost it after The More Things Change.

'The Burning Red' was retroactively slammed after the release of 'Supercharger' i noticed. To me it was like the 'Batman and Robin' effect, or the Schumacher effect. In 1995, everyone seemed to love 'Batman Forever', but after B+R, suddenly it was hated. It was all Schumacher's fault.

In Machine Head's case, it's known as the 'Luster effect'. ;)

Shakin' Steev-unz wrote:
Interesting POV, cos I always saw Catherine as being the champion of the modern mainstream music, along with and probably even more so than myself, but she often felt let down by the quality of the bands (though she did seem to love POD for some reason I could never get my head around...) producing the music, or that bands didn't get weird or 'nu' enough


she was a champion of modern music, but she had a problem with nu-metal. Keep in mind that she also wrote a piece for the 90's decade edition where she was basically slagging off the genre for the entire article.

Now personally i think a lot of the bands are shit myself, and compared to the more inventive cali-rock of the late 80's/early 90's like Fishbone, Primus, Faith No More etc. they were especially dire, but the slagging got old after a while.

_________________
Image


Thu Sep 22, 2011 1:51 pm
Profile
Storm Trooper
Storm Trooper
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 01, 2011 12:29 am
Posts: 12432
Location: The Bridge, Imperial Star Destroyer
Post Re: What makes a good review?
Ah, fair, I get you. To be fair I stopped reading when Jonathan Selzer took over, which I think was around late 2000. I left when Nick left (mid/late 2000) and stopped getting it when I stopped writing, and by then Greg Whalen had already gone, with Andrew Carter leaving several months before then.

I agree, I think Burning Red is unfairly tainted by the brush of Supercharger. Blood/Sweat/Tears would have been a much better single than 'From This Day' which tainted people's perception of what is a pretty dark and intense album (video didn't help at all).

Yes, it is Seattle-ified (I said at the time they'd been on a big Soundgarden trip, RF said while he loved Soundgarden he thought it was more The Cure than anything else...) but all this talk about 'rapping'... ah, there's a couple of bits on there, but there's some great tunes (Devil with Kings Card, title track, Silver, Desire to Fire, Blood/Sweat/Tears among others), and I'd still give it 4 fists now. I think it has stood the test of time, but I wouldn't expect many on a British extreme metal forum to hold up much love for it, because it is a hugely commercial (for HEAVY metal) album, despite it's intensity.


Thu Sep 22, 2011 2:49 pm
Profile
Darth Fucking Vader
Darth Fucking Vader

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 10:54 am
Posts: 25945
Post Re: What makes a good review?
Shakin' Steev-unz wrote:
I gave Korn 'Follow The Leader' 4 1/2 and they printed it, uneditted, even though I'd been given the album (at my request) so I could slate it and was proved wrong.


That's another £12.99 you owe me. Are there no depths to which you won't sink?


Thu Sep 22, 2011 2:57 pm
Profile
Storm Trooper
Storm Trooper
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 1:23 pm
Posts: 21883
Post Re: What makes a good review?
Shakin' Steev-unz wrote:
I agree, I think Burning Red is unfairly tainted by the brush of Supercharger. Blood/Sweat/Tears would have been a much better single than 'From This Day' which tainted people's perception of what is a pretty dark and intense album (video didn't help at all).


'From This Day' is shit and doesn't represent the album at all.

Shakin' Steev-unz wrote:
Yes, it is Seattle-ified (I said at the time they'd been on a big Soundgarden trip, RF said while he loved Soundgarden he thought it was more The Cure than anything else...) but all this talk about 'rapping'... ah, there's a couple of bits on there, but there's some great tunes (Devil with Kings Card, title track, Silver, Desire to Fire, Blood/Sweat/Tears among others), and I'd still give it 4 fists now. I think it has stood the test of time, but I wouldn't expect many on a British extreme metal forum to hold up much love for it, because it is a hugely commercial (for HEAVY metal) album, despite it's intensity.


agree, it's a solid 4 fist record that has stood up better than 90% of the so called 'nu-metal' records of the time. It's one of the few that is still listenable. and that's because it's just Machine Head tweaked for the nu-metal era. Remove the bells and whistles and it's still essentially the same band.

It's also one of Robinson's best production jobs too. it sounds flat and muddy at first, but if you play it on a good system, you can appreciate the texture and density of the recording.

'Supercharger's problem to me is not that it sounds more 'commercial', but that it sounds confused, like two different albums rolled into one, and the effect is jarring.

_________________
Image


Last edited by Stat_Rad on Thu Sep 22, 2011 3:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Thu Sep 22, 2011 2:59 pm
Profile
Storm Trooper
Storm Trooper
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 01, 2011 12:29 am
Posts: 12432
Location: The Bridge, Imperial Star Destroyer
Post Re: What makes a good review?
Delectable Dr Dee wrote:
Shakin' Steev-unz wrote:
I gave Korn 'Follow The Leader' 4 1/2 and they printed it, uneditted, even though I'd been given the album (at my request) so I could slate it and was proved wrong.


That's another £12.99 you owe me. Are there no depths to which you won't sink?


I still stand by that. 4 fists, and their 3rd best album (the best one at the time). Really good album, except for the Children of the Korn abortion. Oh, and the 13 tracks of silence to begin the album. Fuck off with that shit.

Issues > Mirror > Leader > The Rest


Thu Sep 22, 2011 3:03 pm
Profile
Storm Trooper
Storm Trooper
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 6:43 pm
Posts: 11645
Post Re: What makes a good review?
^ Wrong.

Debut > Leader > Life Is Peachy > Issues > The rest.

_________________
The Esoteric Gentlemen's Club wrote:
Since the order of the world is governed by death, perhaps it is better for God that we should not believe in Him and struggle with all our strength against death, without raising our eyes to heaven and to His silence.

Image


Thu Sep 22, 2011 3:23 pm
Profile
Storm Trooper
Storm Trooper
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 01, 2011 12:29 am
Posts: 12432
Location: The Bridge, Imperial Star Destroyer
Post Re: What makes a good review?
I've never gotten on with the debut, or Peachy. For me Leader was when it all made sense, and I've always loved the metal-ness of Mirror.

For me their 'golden trio' is Leader, Issues and Mirror.

Untouchables has possibly 2 of their best songs on it, amidst a miriad of shit... but as for later albums...

But, I do appreciate there is a HUGE amount of people who swear by the debut, but for me, it just doesn't resonate with me. I do prefer the slicker, more-poppy, less messy stuff from Leader onwards. Maybe that's the metal fan in me, the conservativeness (small 'c') that Johnny Doom talks about, whereby I like things to sound a bit tidier and tighter, but I didn't like the debut at the time (being into SKid Row and Maiden etc, I guess that's not a big surprise) but even going back to it, I've not been able to find the love for it I have for other albums I didn't like when they first came out.


Thu Sep 22, 2011 3:44 pm
Profile
Storm Trooper
Storm Trooper
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 1:23 pm
Posts: 21883
Post Re: What makes a good review?
^^Korn's sound wasn't as fully developed on their debut imo. you could still hear their influences.

To me their sound came together on 'Life Is Peachy'.

but it's hard to compare their subsequent releases to the impact of their debut.

_________________
Image


Thu Sep 22, 2011 3:48 pm
Profile
Storm Trooper
Storm Trooper
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 01, 2011 12:29 am
Posts: 12432
Location: The Bridge, Imperial Star Destroyer
Post Re: What makes a good review?
Agreed. I think it's fair to say their debut had a similar impact on rock/metal as Number of the Beast did in 1982. Possibly even bigger impact on the "scene" and styles of bands, even though they themselves blew their chance to step up the mantle of 'giant'. They could have been as big as Metallica if they'd got it right, and, Untouchables must have been it... That was the album that should have put them into the stratosphere, but it was pants.

Always surprised me that, despite their huge sales, they never made that breakthrough to stadiums, and that their influence was larger on the scene as a whole than it their size as a band.

That said, the larger Metallica got (as in, from the Black Album) the less directly influential they got, and in fact, Nirvana/Soundgarden/Pearl Jam/Alice In Chains destroyed that straight ahead stadium metal vibe before anyone else could really incorporate it into their sound. In a way, Black was the biggest metal album but was already dated and was the final chapter of 'old' metal within a year of it's release.


Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:00 pm
Profile
Storm Trooper
Storm Trooper
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 1:23 pm
Posts: 21883
Post Re: What makes a good review?
Shakin' Steev-unz wrote:
They could have been as big as Metallica if they'd got it right, and, Untouchables must have been it... That was the album that should have put them into the stratosphere, but it was pants.


'Untouchables' cost millions to produce too, and it was pretty ordinary.

Shakin' Steev-unz wrote:
Always surprised me that, despite their huge sales, they never made that breakthrough to stadiums, and that their influence was larger on the scene as a whole than it their size as a band.


what, not even in the U.S? Follow The Leader sold like 3 or 4 million over there. surely they were playing big venues after that?

Shakin' Steev-unz wrote:
That said, the larger Metallica got (as in, from the Black Album) the less directly influential they got, and in fact, Nirvana/Soundgarden/Pearl Jam/Alice In Chains destroyed that straight ahead stadium metal vibe before anyone else could really incorporate it into their sound. In a way, Black was the biggest metal album but was already dated and was the final chapter of 'old' metal within a year of it's release.


i don't know, i think black album set the production standard for stadium metal for the rest of the 90's.

_________________
Image


Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:18 pm
Profile
Storm Trooper
Storm Trooper
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 6:43 pm
Posts: 11645
Post Re: What makes a good review?
They played arenas in america and they've definitely played big venues over here too.

_________________
The Esoteric Gentlemen's Club wrote:
Since the order of the world is governed by death, perhaps it is better for God that we should not believe in Him and struggle with all our strength against death, without raising our eyes to heaven and to His silence.

Image


Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:28 pm
Profile
Storm Trooper
Storm Trooper

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 7:44 pm
Posts: 15990
Post Re: What makes a good review?
The Burning Red is a criminally underrated album, and is the Machine Head release to which I return most often.

Korn, on the other hand, were fucking terrible. Are they still going?

_________________
Image


Thu Sep 22, 2011 5:27 pm
Profile
Climate Control
Climate Control
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 04, 2010 9:02 pm
Posts: 44924
Location: Béal Átha na Slua
Post Re: What makes a good review?
Releasing a fucking dubstep album next, apparently.

_________________
http://cow.org/csi/


Thu Sep 22, 2011 5:52 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 183 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 10  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.