In April 2009, Mark Marchman (Peacedogman)
agreed to a "Speak Critique" feature similar to one
conducted on his web site
a few years ago, in which he and Brian Russ (BNR
Metal Pages) answered questions
provided by Pete Haworth of NWOBHM legends...Legend. What a great
idea! Happy to oblige, over nearly three months and through dozens
of e-mails, I asked questions, while Mark and Brian answered them in
detail, often responding to each others' answers. Here are the
results of our conversation.
***
JB: Before we even get to questions about
music reviewing and criticism, I'd like to know your about your
first impressions of a band and its record when you first receive
it. Do you have a "ritual of beginning"? What hits you when you
first open a package or visit a web site to download? What are you
looking for? What impresses you? Do such impressions color your
listening experience? Do you have a certain listening environment, a
place set aside for the work or pleasure of listening to and
reviewing music? Are you writing from the beginning?.gif)
Brian: It is very rare these days that my very
first listen of a record (whether bought or downloaded) is
completely blind. I've usually read something to pique my interest
enough ("interest" can either be purely personal or for my site). In
that sense, I am going into the first listen with a slight bias
towards something. While I have a few places where I listen to
music, no one place is set aside purely for reviewing. I am not
writing from the beginning (though, come to think of it, I probably
should). Usually I give a couple of listens and allow random phrases
to enter my mind, that I can eventually piece together into
sentences that comprise a review. Those thoughts may be purely based
on the music ("track #2 sounds like Iron Maiden"), or they may be
based on information that goes into the review (where the band is
from, members from previous bands, etc).
At some point during my reviewing I'll likely
solicit other reviews and opinions. Not to plagiarize, of course,
but to ground myself. Sometimes these other opinions mirror my own
(validating my view, in a way), and sometimes they'll note something
that didn't initially come to my mind ("that's right -- this singer
DOES sound just like Dio"). If this is informational, I'll
incorporate it into my review. I won't quote other opinions as my
own (occasionally, someone does sum up a band just right, and I'll
say "someone else says <xxx>," though I don't do that too often).
One thing that is very important to me (not a direct answer to the
original question, but relevant to the general topic) is that there
is a big difference between a subjective view and an objective view.
Consider:
<Band X> is terrible.
I hate <Band X>.
Too many people, I think, believe these mean the same thing. They
don't. The latter is a personal reflection, the former (should be) a
more clinical, objective view. There are many bands on my site that
I compliment even though I don't like them. That is because I
believe being objective is more important as a reviewer, and if a
band is good at what they do, even if it's not my style, it's
important to say that. Sure, my own opinion is there too, but I
usually try to make it clear which is pure opinion and which is
closer to fact. Even a statement like "<Band X> is terrible" can be
objective, if one can make the argument that they really aren't good
at what they do, for whatever reason. It's rare that I will
denigrate a band like this.
Mark: If we’re familiar with the band, it’s
easy; good or bad, it can affect the level of anticipation. For new
artists, it depends on the amount of hard-selling corporate
involved. A lot of the promos we receive remind me of those free
trial discs America Online used to send in the mail by the millions.
We love hearing new music, but hate being "sold" on something. If
the cover art looks like a slick knockoff of a DILLINGER cover in a
cheap cardboard sleeve with the PR crap on the back and gibberish
about "target markets," it’s usually a turnoff. On the other hand,
if it's a DIY package from an artist that looks like some thought
went into the artwork along with a simple handwritten note of
thanks, it gets moved up the review pile faster.
I avoid reading anything about the release until our review is done,
and encourage my staff to do the same. Unlike Brian, I don’t see it
as grounding, but simply relying on someone else’s opinion, which
may have come directly or indirectly from the label or PR guy.
Anything you read or hear can have an incestuous effect on the
review (which is why many of the above-mentioned discs have stickers
or descriptions on the back that read “a head-explodingly heavy
combination of early CONVERGE and BOTCH!”) I know these descriptions
might be of value to some younger, less experienced writers, but not
us. Maybe we’re the only ones to compare HUMAN EYE to ROXY MUSIC,
but in many ways, that’s what sets us apart. Plus, if you’re not
careful, we might actually make you think about the music a little.
I don’t have a special place for listening to music, but do listen
to music constantly while on the go and at home. It’s like oxygen,
and sometimes it smells funny.
Plus, <Band x> is terrible, and I hate them at the same time.
JB: Among other ways to discriminate among
music lovers, I often think of two types: those who think that music
is the "whole package" (the cover art, the physical media, the
extras) and those who are pure listeners (I'm firmly in the latter
group). Into which group do you place yourselves? Are you in this
group as a listener or as a reviewer? Do those two distinctions
(listener and reviewer) mean anything to you? Can you separate them?
Brian: Though I come from the golden age of
vinyl and such, I am more in the latter camp now of treating the
music as the important stuff, not the extras. Sure, some CD/LP
covers stand out as either great or awful, and occasionally that
will play into my review (though rarely, and not substantively). I
think I'm in this latter music-only camp as both a listener and a
reviewer. A band's image, apart from album covers (promo pics on the
web or in print) unfortunately can color my opinion of a band -- I
say unfortunately because I'd like to stick to the music-only
aspect, but if a band picture sticks out in my mind as amateurish or
disgusting or lame, it's going to affect my overall opinion of the
band.
Mark: For years, I would have put myself
purely in "music only" mode, but if anything’ll move you into the
"whole product" group, it’s a million cheap promo sleeves and
"download our album" requests! Surely the music is the most
important thing, but creative packaging, and even feasibility of the
suggested price are often mentioned in our reviews. Frankly, with
all the bitching that the labels do about downloading and what a
crime it is, very few have upgraded their packaging or presentation
to make people want to own an original copy (especially if you don’t
want to pay $20 for a vinyl reissue). There are some that have (like
Tankcrimes and Records of Existence for example) and such efforts
should be commended in reviews.
There may have been a time when I could separate the "listener" in
my head from the "reviewer," but those days are long gone. Both
monsters exist simultaneously.
JB: In what ways do you initially analyze
music and how much weight does each have for your review? That is,
I'm thinking some basis for an analysis could be production,
songwriting, individual talent, the overall group effect, lyrics, or
images. What qualities are you listening for and using to form your
criticism?
Brian: One thing I do when I listen is try to
randomize the song order. In a few cases this may be incorrect
(concept albums), but the fact is I usually don't have enough time
at any one sitting to meticulously listen to an entire album (as
background music, yes, but I prefer not to review that way), and so
I don't want to hear the same first few songs on successive listens.
Apart from that, I try to absorb both the overall group affect as
well as the individual pieces, some of which are more important to
me than others. Lyrics, historically, aren't as important as other
aspects. Vocals that turn me off really affect my opinion, no matter
how good the music is. A really poor production can be a turn-off,
though that was more prevalent 20 years ago than today. Superior
musicianship (particularly, flashy guitar soloing) can go over my
head.
Really, the number one selling point, for me, is originality. If
you're doing nothing other than following a trend, it's really hard
for me to give high marks, even if you're good at it. If you're
truly different, at worst you'll earn my respect for trying
something different (I may not like it, but I'll give you good
points for effort), and at best I'll like you because you're
expanding the boundaries of music.
Mark: Wow, John. You and Brian make analyzing
music sounds so much like work! I don’t think about it like that at
all; I just spin the tunes and decide if I like them. Later on, I’ll
decide exactly why and it may be some of the things you mentioned.
Usually it’s something that hits me at a primal level, plus my staff
and I have a sort of “Fuck art, let’s rock” mentality when it comes
to our music of choice, for whatever that’s worth. I love kitsch,
but hate fake, Photoshoppy looking, Pro-Toolsy sounding music. Plus,
I give very little credence to production; either the band has it or
they don’t. Sometimes a cheap drum kit or shitty guitar sound makes
a good record into a great one.
Plus, there’s no originality in rock ‘n roll. Isn’t it essentially
all just Chuck Berry riffs, with and without flashpots?
JB: Something that's already come up in these
early answers is a tension between a "review" (something based on
objective criteria) and what Mortimer Adler calls a "mere opinion,"
that is, an expression of taste alone, based on personal preference.
Brian, you mention it's possible and necessary to separate the two;
Mark, you suggest the two often go together. If either of you were
to say <Band X is terrible>, what do you mean when you say that? Are
you expressing something more than a preference or personal taste?
What makes a band "terrible" for you? What makes a great band?
Does all criticism need to be constructive? Or
is it ok to tear apart a band that you think deserves it?
Since both of you listen to and review so many records, have you
become jaded toward heavy music? How have your tastes changed? I'm
hoping you could both chart a trajectory of your listening tastes
from your early years to the present.
Mark: Sites like BNR, Metal Archives, and Discogs are incredible
sources of encyclopedic information for music fans, and I can
perfectly understand why such a distinction would be important for
those types of sites.
In the case of Peacedogman, our goal is more
critical in nature. Most music zines in print and online exist
primarily for the purpose of selling CDs and records – ours doesn’t.
Our purpose is to give opinions and recommendations on quality
music, with an emphasis on the heavy stuff below mainstream radar.
Many will disagree with us, but I could care less, really. I like
strong opinions, and ours are backed by obscenely large music
collections, and writers with years of playing and dissecting music.
Yes, there is a lot of bad music out there, especially now with the
availability of inexpensive home studio equipment and a distribution
channel like the internet. We will often declare that a record is
“terrible”, and go to great lengths to explain why. If an artist
sends us multiple discs over a few years, and all of them get the
same negative reaction from our staff, there’s a good chance we’d
declare the band to be “terrible” (putting it kindly). Whether we
say, “in our opinion’ or not, we will get the same litany of emails
from fanboys, street teamers and pissed-off girlfriends of the band,
so that little disclaimer doesn’t really do us a lot of good.
There are far too many reasons to list here, but it usually boils
down to lack of originality, poor execution, or an unclear
direction. There are hundreds of subtle categories of suck-dom below
these. Obviously, I don’t feel that all criticism needs to be
constructive. If a band is worth it’s salt, it will be out there
improving its sound, getting a stronger and stronger live show
together and proving us wrong instead of sitting around on
messageboards whining about a bad review. That’s not very rock ‘n
roll, now is it?
While some writers may become jaded over the years, I don’t think we
have at all. If a staff guy that writes for Peacedogman starts to
get burned out, I’ll give them a break for a few months or even
longer. The core of us tends to stay very excited about new heavy
tunes, but our bullshit detector does get more sensitive with age!
My earliest records were probably K-Tel compilations with Joan Jett
and Ozzy on them, that sort of thing. The first metal record I ever
owned was DIO’s “Holy Diver.” That year, I started picking up tons
of metal, which went on until about 1990, when I started enjoying
college radio stuff like PIXIES, early REPLACEMENTS, and the SST
stuff. From there on, it was a crazed mishmash of metal and punk,
classic rock, blues, country, whatever…it gets more out of control
every day.
Brian: It is much easier to qualify why I
(personally) dislike a band than it is to qualify why I think a band
is terrible. But the latter is not impossible. If a band is too
derivative (musically and lyrically), as well as being below-average
musicians (and, perhaps, below-average showmen live, though that's
getting off topic), then one might be able to objectively say that
the band is not good. Every band has at least four raving lunatic
fans that will scream in your face that the band is great, but that
doesn't lessen the objective view. Popularity in itself, of course,
doesn't tell us whether a band is good or not--we all know of great
bands who don't get popular, and lesser bands that do (usually a
short-term lucky marketting blitz of some sort). As reviewers,
though, we're trying to present some objective information and
contentions about the general worth of a band. This isn't restricted
to music--movie critics do (or at least should) apply these same
metrics.
To clarify, if I say a band is terrible, I'm saying it objectively.
If I say I dislike a band, I'm stating a personal preference only. I
don't do a lot of the former on my site because, frankly, if a band
has a record contract and a decently popular album, they're probably
doing enough right to not be a "terrible" band. That has nothing to
do with my personal preference.
Sad to say, I am becoming jaded toward heavy music. It is
inevitable, I've been listening to metal for almost 30 years, I'm
not 21 anymore and I haven't been for a long long time. Some of what
I listened to 30 years ago still stands out as my favorites, while
others sound dated and make me think "what was I thinking back
then?" As my Top Tens have shown, my tastes have gradually diverged
from the metal mainstream over the years. Nowadays, practically no
consensus Top Ten album would be in my personal Top Ten. I'm neither
proud or ashamed of that. There are still new bands doing new things
that are great, but I'm finding fewer of them now than even, say,
ten years ago.
If a band comes to me and wants my honest opinion, good or bad, I'd
give it. However, that's not how my site works. I present
information, and some opinions, on bands, purely to enlighten
others. Some criticism is ok, but I'd rather stress the positives
(perhaps that's just my personality).
Over time I know my tastes have changed, with recently a trend
toward more, hmmm, atmospheric stuff as one example (recently I
added space metal as a new genre on my site, a genre I know very
little about but am intrigued by now). Bands that have light and
shade in their songs, rather than every song blasting full volume,
are more attractive to me now. Most of the recent metal trends have
turned me off--nu-metal was ok for just a little while (Korn's first
album) and then got tiresome, and I never have liked anything in the
metalcore field, mostly because of the vocals/attitude. I think I'd
like to attempt a chart like you're asking for, but that would take
a bit more time. Perhaps I'll come back to that later.
Mark: "Nowadays, practically no consensus Top
Ten album would be in my personal Top Ten"?
MOTORHEAD – “Motorizer” and “Kiss of Death”?
IMMORTAL – “Sons of Northern Darkness”?
BRUCE DICKINSON – “The Chemical Wedding”?
I won’t go back to stuff like “Welcome to Hell” and “Fire Down
Under”, as I think we’d agree that those albums still rule.
Plus, I’d swap the MASTODON titles for your OPETH worshipping any
day (blech!) Did I see that UNEXPECT album in there?
Brian: What I meant by saying
that consensus Top 10's aren't my favorites is that, if you look at
my Top 10's vs Internet Top 10's for the 80's, you'll see overlap.
A lot of the albums that many liked, I liked too. For the last
decade and beyond, though, there's almost no overlap. Sure, I do
like Opeth, though the impact that they made on me with " Blackwater
Park " isn't as strong now. I think they're excellent at what they
do and they're great to listen to, though (as I've admitted on my
site) they might be one of the ones I put on my current list more on
reputation. But what everyone else likes, I'm no longer finding as
interesting. That doesn't mean I don't respect the bands for being
great at what they do, but as far as personally moving me, a lot of
the current popular stuff just doesn't do it for me.
"Sons Of Northern Darkness" -- hmmm, might have to give it another
listen. I thought it good, but not Top 10 worthy. Motorhead is
amazingly still Top 10 material for me. "Chemical Wedding" I
recognize more as very good objectively, but just didn't move me
personally.
Mastodon -- they haven't quite clicked for me, but I have a feeling
I might like "Crack The Skye" better. We'll see.
And actually I'll amend something I wrote below earlier. I do find
myself paying more attention to reviews that have very high ratings
(or, sometimes, very low) and skimming over the ones that have
average ratings. That may not be fair, but I do find myself doing
it subconsciously at least.
JB: Perhaps one more question on reviewing,
and then we'll move on. What is the most difficult record you've
ever had to review? What made reviewing it so difficult?
Brian: I can't think of a single album that
was the hardest, but the general rule for me is that the less
typical or familiar a band/album is, the longer it takes for me to
review it. Writing "In Flames clone" is easy when that's the case,
but those bands that are outside the norm, I want to give them a
better description, and sometimes it's very hard. (Often you'll see
bands that make my top ten list before ever getting on my site, as I
struggle with a good description). I'm not as good at dissecting
albums or songs as others, so my reviews tend to be shorter and
drier, but I still want to give those hard-to-describe bands the
best I can.
Mark: Total opposite for me. The more unusual
or different a band is, I find it easier (and usually more
enjoyable) to review their material, even if it’s bad. The hardest
stuff to review is middle-of-the-road, non-polarizing, formulaic
bands: the stoner rock bands regurgitating QUEENS OF THE STONE AGE ,
but without the quirky CARS vibe, or the garage punk bands watering
down GERMS and STOOGES riffs, still thinking the
vocal-through-the-amp thing is an unexplored frontier . Good reviews
and bad reviews
 come easily for me; it’s the so-so stuff from
artists that only listen to “the bands they wanna sound like” that
are the hardest. While I most enjoy gut-level music with attitude,
it would be much easier for me to dissect some kooky WHITEHOUSE or
SLEEPYTIME GORILLA MUSEUM disc than come up with a hundred new ways
to say, “These guys rip off some decent SLAYER riffs.”
JB: Ok, one more: I prefer reviews that don't
include a "stars" or numbering system at the beginning or end of the
review. Do you think a numbering system for reviews is something
that helps or hurts? What do you think a number rating adds to your
words, if anything?
Brian: Personally I find any kind of rating
system meaningless, since everyone does it differently. I don't mean
"different" in that some people rate a 10 best and others 5 (stars)
best. I used to rate every album I owned way back in the day, and I
thought it made sense that, on a 10 point scale, a 10 really meant
something special, to be given out very sparingly (same, too, for a
1), and that there should be lots of albums in the 4-7 range since,
statistically, an average album should have an average score. But
most rating systems don't seem like that, they rate everything high
except something truly awful -- I remember Metal Forces (a favorite
mag from the 80's) seemingly rating every decent album a 90 or
better (out of 100 -- and really, is there a huge difference between
a 94 and a 95?). And then there are sites like Blabbermouth, where
users say "good album -- 10 stars" for practically anything they
listen to, it lessens the importance of the rating itself. I find
myself really not paying a lot of attention to ratings when I read
reviews, though on occasion I'll skim a list of reviews and maybe
focus on the highest one to read a bit more closely. So, to
summarize, ratings don't hurt, but I really don't think they help
either.
Mark: John, you and I have discussed this at
length before. Just because other sources have misused their rating
systems, doesn’t mean that everyone should abandon the process.
There’s just too much flowery, wishy-washy praise of mediocre music
on the web to avoid an actual rating, especially with the gnat-like
attention spans of many readers. The Blabbermouth example Brian
cited is very valid – many sites actually give everything a positive
review – what is the point of that? Or they write a scathing
negative review and give the disc an average rating to stay in the
good graces of the label. I feel that a simple numerical rating is
like your signature at the bottom of a review, and should clear up
any vagueness or unclear doublespeak in the text. I applaud those
that actually have the guts to give an honest opinion and a rating
to match. On our site, ratings coincide with reviews to separate the
decent from the impressive, and the impressive from the outstanding.
JB: If you'd allow me, I'd like to steer us
toward something a bit more abstract (as if the preceding weren't
already!). You both have what I consider a broad and deep knowledge
of "underground metal," not only from your tastes but also because
you listen to so many records to evaluate and review them. (Forgive
me for using what's become an old-fashioned term. But I refuse to
use inane words like "cult," especially when it's purposely
mispelled as "kvlt" or whatever.) So what is "underground"? Is it a
scene? Is it an attitude? Or is it merely an accounting (that is,
bands who sell few records are underground; those who sell millions
aren't)? Whatever it is, is it a viewpoint that helps or hurts music
in general? What do you see as the differences between "underground
metal" and "mainstream metal"? Does the distinction hold any meaning
in the Internet Age?
Brian: I'd rather not think of underground
metal as a "scene" or even an attitude. I think I'm more inclined to
agree with the "merely an accounting" notion. Frankly, I've always
been bothered by those who say "Metal isn't a music form, it's a
lifestyle", though it's not just metal fans that say this ("rock
climbing isn't just a hobby, it's a way of life!" -- ugh). I would
say that the differences between mainstream metal and underground
metal isn't just sales figures -- usually mainstream bands are
playing music that is (relatively speaking) popular, whether that
means hopping on a bandwagon or getting lucky and striking it rich
with a new sound. Underground bands, by and large, are usually doing
music that's less trendy and less concerned with popularity, though
I'm sure many exceptions to that rule exist. I normally wouldn't
like to use the phrase "underground" at all, but if I say I like
metal and someone replies "oh, like Motley Crue?", then clearly a
different phrase needs to be used. Especially for me nowadays, since
the stuff I listen to often isn't remotely familiar to non-metal
people.
Mark: I think underground music still exists.
There are plenty of bands out there recording music the way they
want, with no interest of homogenizing it for mass popularity. I
still love rough-hewn recordings, raw guitar sounds, unusual
artwork, handmade packaging, all the things associated with
underground distribution. What I don’t like is elitism, that sort of
Paul Westerberg-y, “too cool for the room” attitude that some of
these bands adopt – the more you like it, the less they like it.
Every once in awhile, we’ll contact a band about an interview or
review, and get the impression that they’ve only created this music
for a small circle of punk or metal friends that are hip to it. At
that point, I don’t care if it sounds like Zep fucking IV, my
interest dies. Those type of bands are just musical cliques far as
I’m concerned and not at all about sharing exciting music.
JB: Ok, let me play aggressor for a moment: Do
either of you play a musical instrument today? Why not? Why aren't
you making your own music? Aren't all critics just frustrated and
failed musicians? I'm being tongue-in-cheek, but you don't have to
be in your answers.
Brian: My early musical background had nothing
to do with metal. From third grade until 10th, I played trumpet and
related instruments in school jazz and marching bands (my father was
quite a player in his day, even played in bands when he was 80+
years old). I thought I had enough of that, gave it up, started
listening to metal a couple of years later, and never picked up an
instrument again. So I have a background of reading and
understanding music, but not in a metal sense. Throughout time,
metal snippets come to me in my head, and I think they could be good
metal songs, but I've never done anything with them and usually they
get lost in my head after a few days. At times I'd think I should
investigate software or applications that would make it easier to
compose music, but I'll never have time for that. If I were to pick
up a metal instrument now, it'd either be bass/bass-sounding
keyboard (sorely underutilized in metal) or drums (I air-drum and
tap on objects virtually all the time). There may be some credence
to your statement about critics being failed musicians, but I
wouldn't put myself in that category.
 Mark: (laughing) I like Zappa’s take on rock
journalism: “People who can't write interviewing people who can't
talk in order to provide articles for people who can't read.'" As
far as my own musical background, I was big into guitar playing in
the 80s and 90s, just for my own amusement and jamming more than
anything. I played out a few times with friends in my youth, but
didn’t take to it at all. Something about all the “gear talk” and
dragging equipment up icy staircases didn’t float my boat – it felt
like work, not fun and that’s probably why I lost interest. Drums
are my favorite instrument now, but I still love figuring out songs
on the guitar, especially to determine why I like certain songs and
players, but I have a lot more fun as a concert-goer than a
concert-performer, as a music consumer than a musician. Frankly, I
don’t think playing music has very much to do with reviewing it,
other than understanding the structure. I’ve met some great
musicians with horrible taste in music, and very limited musical
knowledge – their focus is on creating, not consuming, which makes
perfect sense. On the other hand, I’ve met people that can’t play a
note, but have a deep and passionate understanding of what they like
and don’t like, along with an ability to explain the differences
vividly. They’re really separate skills as far as I’m concerned, and
any overlap is most likely coincidental.
JB: Let's move on to something that's been on
my mind since, oh...1986? Ha. The interest these days in music from
the 70s and 80s shows no signs of abating. I'm guessing the Internet
has brought about much of this interest, especially in obscure 70s
rock and progressive rock bands. But what does this means for the
music of the 00s? Do you think there's any "new" music being
created? Define "new" any way you want.
Mark: Peacedogman deals in the framework of
rock ‘n roll albums, not really experimental releases. We get our
share of proggy stuff and some out-there titles, sure. But most of
the time the bands we review are reviving a certain familiar style
or genre. The “newness” to us is their take on it. A band like OGRE
started out with a very SABBATH / PENTAGRAM type of sound but has
really evolved it and made it their own over the last couple
records. Same thing with THE HUNCHES, which were largely BIRTHDAY
PARTY-style noise punk, but they put their own unique spin on the
style which grows over each release. Not to say that there aren’t
new frontiers being explored, but we largely look for progressions
within a certain context.
Brian: There are a lot of ways to tackle this
question, so I'll kind of ramble a bit in my response. Metal has
evolved over the years, and it continues to evolve. Look at popular
metal bands of today, such as (taking three kind of at random) Lamb
Of God, In Flames, or Mastodon -- their style of metal simply didn't
exist twenty years ago during the golden age of metal. I'm not sure
any of these there are wildly innovative, but the envelope gradually
is pushed over time. And there are always fringe bands that do their
own little thing, often ignored by the mainstream--so yes, new metal
is out there. It's not always easy to find, even with the advent of
online music sharing that goes on, but it's out there.
On the other hand, innovation is often stifled when a new trend pops
up and everyone jumps on it. Sometimes these trends are new in
themselves (nu-metal, say what you will about it, was once new and
somewhat original), and sometimes they are not new at all (witness
the explosion of Exodus clones that have sprouted in the last year
or two). Once a trend gets going, it seems everyone plays that
style, and thus "new" metal seems to take a back seat, at least
until the next brand-new thing comes up.
A related topic/question--what albums do you think were truly new
and exciting when you first heard them (meaning, when they first
were released), and also started a trend or new style of metal? To
me, such albums are exceedingly rare. I'd put Metallica's "Kill 'Em
All" squarely in that category, and maybe Korn's debut as well, but
it's hard to think of others.
Mark: I agree that the evolution or
de-volution of many forms of rock ‘n roll are subtle, and change
over time. But it always seemed to me that the innovative, exciting
albums tend to swim directly against the type of trends that Brian
mentions, almost like it’s some sort of fertilizer (in more ways
than one!). If you consider how some of the mighty bands had fallen
by then (KISS “Lick It Up”, STYX “Kilroy Was Here”, ALICE COOPER
“DaDa”) the punk/ NWOBHM influence and the reaction to some of the
LA Glam stuff, “Kill ‘Em All” was like a pressure cooker exploding
at the time. Great example.
As far as other truly exciting records that seemed like a reaction
to mainstream rock, I’m always on the prowl for them, but some good
examples would be FUNKADELIC’s “Maggot Brain” (I
know this band was a reaction to Clinton's legal issues with the
PARLIAMENT name, but I've never heard heavy funk with blazing guitar
like that before or since!), THE STOOGES’ debut,
the first KILLING JOKE record, SONIC YOUTH’s “Bad Moon Rising” or
“Evol,” KINGS X “Gretchen Goes To Nebraska,” the first live PRIMUS
record, and probably the early records from bands like MC5,
SOUNDGARDEN, LINK WRAY, and SIGH, just off the top of my head. We
just did a thing on “Ten Very Dangerous Bands,” some of which may
fall into this category.
JB: Let's wrap up our conversation with some
uncleverly placed product placement: I'm interested in your web
sites, which are quite dissimilar. So...What keeps you going, year
after year? Why do you do this? How will you know when you're done?
Brian: Even though my site may not be as
popular as it once was, I still get email just thanking me for the
effort, and that's enough to keep me going. The site will never be
done--there are always more bands to add, existing pages to
maintain, and every so often I like to attempt a redesign to keep up
with web trends (not that my site is truly cutting-edge visually,
but it sure looks a lot better than it did in 1995). Internally, the
site has undergone several major revisions over the years, and that
has helped me in my job (and vice versa, my site has benefitted from
my work experience). And even though I'm not as in love with the
trendy new metal bands as I might have been years ago, I still love
metal in general. It's just plain fun maintaining this site (I only
wish I had more time for it), and for that reason I'm not giving it
up any time soon.
Mark: For us, it's a combination of a
disturbingly insatiable desire for exciting music of the past and
present, and the contributions of the staff guys. Really, their the
ones that add the additional dimension to the site: each one
bringing their individual expertise and influence to the
collective. Another thing that keeps us going is the competition.
There are so many bad music sites out there! Jabbering bloggers
writing pages of praise to mediocre bands and labels! Punk and
metal sites and distros with their 'don't ever say it sucks'
philosophy hanging over the reviewers. We just can't leave it up to
them, somebody's gotta tell it like they see it. As far as when
we'll be done, I guess it would be a collective loss of interest or
time, which luckily hasn't happened yet! So far it's been seven
years and no plans of slowing!
JB: Thank you, gentlemen, for sitting face-to-face
like this (well, as close as that can get through e-mail!) and
providing such detailed and interested viewpoints.
There certainly was more ground to cover, but
we had to stop at some point. I hope everyone enjoys eavesdropping
on this conversation between Brian and Mark, two knowledgable and passionate
music fans and writers. Both their websites are essentially reading
for all fans of heavy music. If you get a chance, drop them a note
to tell them what they're doing is needed and valuable. We need more
websites like theirs, and more music supporters like them.
|
