Death Metal-The Modern Era Review. (Old Man Yells at Crowd)
I finished the list with an average album rating of 2.3.
So what happened? I like Death metal. I like it a lot. I was at Cryptopsy and Death to All last night in fact!.
I chose to do the modern list because I already know the vast majority of the classics. I've even been to Morrisound Studios in Tampa.
I just didn't like a lot of the stuff on that list. Outright hated some of it and found most of it very middle of the road. That said I am 35. Which I wouldn't call old, but maybe old enough to be out of touch. I'd like some other peoples opinions; was the modern era a bit unkind to death metal? Is it just that those particular selections weren't the best examples of output during that time? Am I just old and out of touch? Do I just need more doom elements in my death metal?
The albums I did like very much were:
Be'lakor: Stones Reach
Mercenary: The Hours that Remain
Scar Symmetry: Pitch Black Progress
Tribulation: The Horror.
The first three are some of the lighter entries on the list. However the Tribulation album is my favorite, and I would say it's among the most aggressive. Go listen to that thing! I think I like it so much because it has a little black metal tinge to it, and sounds the most like OSDM.
A lot of music on that list had not been reviewed before either so there were no other opinions I could read to gauge anything from.
At any rate. 2 down 1 to go... after I listen to that Tribulation album a few more times. SAVAGERY OF THE MOST EXCELLENT VARIETY ON THAT!
I just didn't like a lot of the stuff on that list. Outright hated some of it and found most of it very middle of the road. That said I am 35. Which I wouldn't call old, but maybe old enough to be out of touch. I'd like some other peoples opinions; was the modern era a bit unkind to death metal? Is it just that those particular selections weren't the best examples of output during that time? Am I just old and out of touch? Do I just need more doom elements in my death metal?
The modern death metal scene is in really good shape in my opinion & Ben selected these releases because they're the most highly celebrated records of their era. In all due respect, could it simply be that you're not giving these releases enough time & attention to sink their teeth in? I mean, most of our members take at least a month to complete a clan challenge with no more than one release being reviewed per day. They weren't intended to be easy to complete. That's why they're called "challenges" after all. Admittedly your scoring system is a bit lower than most people's too. My cut-off point for records that I enjoy is 3.5 stars. Yours seems to be a good star lower than that.
My Scoring system is something like this.
.5-Absolute garbage that I never want to hear again, usually something about it sonically offensive or it's just extremely dull.
1.-It's bad but it's not sonic torture
1.5-It's bad but it's so bad that it has a comedic effect and I'm entertained with it if for all the wrong reasons.
2.0-It's an otherwise average affair but is plagued by some detriment like bad production (bad not raw, raw can be good).
2.5-The album is utterly average, it's not good or bad, it is something that could be inoffensively left into a playlist, but nobody would miss it's absence. In someways this is the worst thing I can say about a piece.
3.0-This is an average offering but it's from a band that I like, or a subgenre that I like so much that even the mediocre stuff suits me fine.
3.5-Either a low performing album from a great band, or an album where an otherwise unremarkable band punched above their weight.
4.0-This is a good album for the general metal audience, and a great album for fans of it's clan.
4.5-This is a great album for both general metal audiences and fans of the clan.
5.0-This is an album that I would enthuastically reccommend to anyone inside or outside of metalheads.
I'm a bit perplexed by this statement of yours: "They weren't intended to be easy to complete. That's why they're called "challenges" after all."
That reads to me like you chose albums that were intentionally difficult to get into, is that the case? If so, I'm not sure why you go for that as opposed to just bringing out the best stuff, but this is your house so I'd still roll with it.
My Scoring system is something like this.
.5-Absolute garbage that I never want to hear again, usually something about it sonically offensive or it's just extremely dull.1.-It's bad but it's not sonic torture
1.5-It's bad but it's so bad that it has a comedic effect and I'm entertained with it if for all the wrong reasons.
2.0-It's an otherwise average affair but is plagued by some detriment like bad production (bad not raw, raw can be good).
2.5-The album is utterly average, it's not good or bad, it is something that could be inoffensively left into a playlist, but nobody would miss it's absence. In someways this is the worst thing I can say about a piece.
3.0-This is an average offering but it's from a band that I like, or a subgenre that I like so much that even the mediocre stuff suits me fine.
3.5-Either a low performing album from a great band, or an album where an otherwise unremarkable band punched above their weight.
4.0-This is a good album for the general metal audience, and a great album for fans of it's clan.
4.5-This is a great album for both general metal audiences and fans of the clan.
5.0-This is an album that I would enthuastically reccommend to anyone inside or outside of metalheads.
I'm a bit perplexed by this statement of yours: "They weren't intended to be easy to complete. That's why they're called "challenges" after all."
That reads to me like you chose albums that were intentionally difficult to get into, is that the case? If so, I'm not sure why you go for that as opposed to just bringing out the best stuff, but this is your house so I'd still roll with it.
OK, so it would seem that your scoring system isn't all that different after all. It's just that you're not a fan of the more universally loved releases of their era (at least not on first listen) which is entirely your choice. We haven't intentionally chosen releases that are difficult to get into in any way. On the contrary, we've simply collated the perceived essential releases of the era. What I meant by "They weren't intended to be easy to complete. That's why they're called "challenges" after all" was that it's a lot of work to commit yourself to fully understanding 25 releases & formulating a written expression of your thoughts on each of their respective merits.
Gotcha bro I gues if the site has a heavy focus on reviews we need clearer guidlines both about the rating system and the criteria that needs to be covered in a review. Otherwise we are all just taking shots in the dark. The numbers and such aren't any good if we don't some kind of universal understanding.