Over the course of the two years that I've been writing for MetalReview, I have seen a number of readers inquire about the nature of our scoring system. Largely, those inquiries have gone unanswered, because there really isn't an across-the-board standard that our staff adheres to. Each writer has a different perspective--one which has been shaped by their individual tastes. We are given free reign to apply that perspective as we see fit, and as such, one person's 3.5 may differ in significance from another's. There are no secret, smoke-filled backroom roundtables where songwriting scores are doled out like prison sentences; there are no squabbles over comparison, perception, or precedent. As such, I can't speak for any of the other staffers regarding their approach to scoring, but I can provide some insight as to how I approach it personally.
Quite honestly, I don't put a whole lot of sweat into the number-plugging process. Even if an album sucks total ass, it's still considered a work of art. Simply branding a work of art with a numerical value is not only foolish, it's superficial and lazy (re: mags like Revolver and Rolling Stone that give an album "3 out of 5 Stars," then spit out 120 words of sarcastic, flaccid bullshit in an attempt to justify their snarkiness). I look at our scoring thermometer as a tool to support what I have written--a device that can fill in gaps as well as iron out wrinkles. The scores are not a product of the review, nor is the review a reflection of the scores. They are simply one of many tools that a reader can use for inference. However, the MR Thermometer's prominence and singularity is a major draw, and shedding some light on my approach to it seemed like a moderately entertaining way to kill time on an incredibly shitty day. Again, bear in mind that these opinions are mine, and mine only, and they do not reflect the views of the entire Metal Review staff. We're individuals, not robots.
This is an area that, honestly, I'm rarely concerned with. Production snobs irritate me to no end, and those that cry foul over an album being "too thin" or "too raw" likely only have one foot in the water anyway. Regardless, this complaint is less prevalent in recent times--the odds of an album having sub-par production in 2009 are slim; and even then, it's likely due to over-production or an awkward mix. Case in point, Xerath's upcoming debut, which sounds like it was formulated in a sub-zero laboratory and then cold-pressed through a computer's asscrack. Or Absu's latest, which despite being sufficiently bad-fucking-ass, is far too polished and dull-around-the-edges; it doesn't cut to the core like a black/thrash album should, and this hinders its impact.
In this category, a score of 4 is decidedly average, and anything less than that is cause for (mild) alarm. Typically, if a production job is sufficient and solid, it'll garner a 4.5. If an album scores higher than that, it's usually because something about it--the mix, tones, or some intangible shit like "atmosphere" or "vibe"--lends itself to exceptional coolness. Also, I subject every album to what I like to call the Donn Landee Test. This involves an iPod, a tape deck adapter, and the stock audio system from a 1993 Honda Civic DX. Even with this piss-poor setup, Van Halen's 5150 still sounds fantastic on all tens. That's the mark of phenomenal engineering. The shittier an album sounds through pathetic sound system, the more reluctant I am to give it a high production score. However, one shouldn't read into these scores too deeply. If there's something red-flag worthy about the production, I'll likely detail it in the review.
This is the big one. Songwriting is of far greater importance than production and/or musicianship, both of which are inessential to an album's enduring quality. For example, Litany has been instigating Graphic Equalizer Grappling Contests since its release, and Tom G. Warrior could barely get his left hand to work in conjunction with his right hand on Satanic Rites. But those facts don't diminish their charm--in fact, they even add to it.
Gradually, I've developed a somewhat detailed approach to doling out songwriting scores. Let's break 'em down:
6 -
This is one of the areas where I differ from many of my MR colleagues. You'll likely never see me give an album a 6 in this category, unless it's a reissue. I simply can't declare an album's perfection after mere weeks of listening to it. (Provided a record label is kind enough--and savvy enough--to grant us adequate access to promotional materials.) Only time can tell if an album can retain its value, and I'm talking years. If an album is still a killer after five, ten years of rotation, only then can an album be deemed a classic. 6's are reserved for classics, and those of the instant variety are incredibly rare.
5.5 - In the absence of 6's, 5.5 becomes the brand of kings. We're talking year-end top 5 contenders here. Jaw-dropping, ass-kicking heavy metal landmarks. Granted, I was a little looser with this standard early in my tenure (fresh-faced and overeager, this motherfucker was), but after watching some high-scored material rot on my shelf in neglect, I thought it would be wise to tighten the screws. Thus, 5.5 = serious business, and is not thrown about indiscriminately.
5 - Albums that recieve this score have few flaws--if any--and are absolute locks for some type of mention at year's end. Typically, a 5 album is one that will remain in your playlist for the forseeable future (years, people, not weeks) and something worth preaching the awesomeness of. Top-flight, top-tier material.
4.5 - This is where things get a bit tricky. I dish out a lot of 4.5's, and the common theme amongst albums in this category is consistency. The album is likely void of filler, has rock-solid pacing, and is aesthetically pleasing. This is the kind of album that doesn't disappoint, but might struggle to find a prominent (or even permanent) spot in a serious collector's overall rotation. 4.5 represents a good outing from a great band, a great outing from a decent band, or simply a cool fuckin' album that doesn't carry any baggage of pretense or greater agenda. Good stuff, but not brain-meltingly, freak-outingly so.
4 - Not bad. Not bad at all. In fact, some aspects of a four-scored disc are outright awesome, but the album is more of a peak-and-valley affair. Sylistically, there will be some seriously killer elements at play, but assembling them into a cogent whole was a bit too daunting of a task. Usually, this is the score I give out when the content is solid enough, but the longing for more outweighs the satisfaction culled. Godless Rising, Shackles, Satyricon, Hod, Crown The Lost, Obscura...all unique, intriguing bands that haven't quite crawled over the cusp to deliver the goods in their respective styles. When you want something to totally rip your fucking head off, but it just doesn't happen...it's a 4. These albums usually yield lame ass, fence-hedging reviews that are nearly as painful to write as they are to read.
3.5 - A shade above mediocre. A couple of standout tracks and/or moments, but the majority of the album is either totally ineffective or mind-numbingly boring. 3 is the "redeeming value threshold," and 3.5 , at the very least, has cleared it. While that measly half-point isn't exactly a robust vote of confidence, it does mean that there is something within that is worthy of investigation, and certain segments of the population will latch onto it and enjoy it. However, it's likely to be a trivial offering.
3 - Boring, vanilla, dull, inoffensive, middle-of-the-fucking road. This album definitely exists, but it's purpose is unknown and its value is marginal. Few things are worse than that which is wholly unprovocative. A snoozefest that is unlikely to even draw ire or derision due to its lameness.
2.5 and Below - From here on out, it's just a measure of how much of a failure an album is. 2.5 is bad, 2 is broken, and 1.5 is fucking revolting. Avoid. But read the review, because it's likely to be either humorous, unnecessarily mean-spirited, or both.
In congruence to my views on production, I'm not a stickler when it comes to musicianship. Sure, I went through that stage of metalness in my mid-teens where I would run around "defending the honor of real heavy metal" by yelling and screaming in the general direction of Limp Bizkit-loving boneheads about the virtuosity found on IX Equilibrium. As I aged and my tastes progressed, however, I stopped giving a shit about crippling techinque (and whether douchebags choose to listen to douchey music). Not every subgenre is predicated on stellar musicianship, and in many instances, expert command of your chosen instrument is wholly unnecessary. Therefore, there's no set-in-stone standard when it comes to judging musicianship; I'm not swinging some craptacular tech-death album over the heads of the metal community and judging all other albums in comparison to its wankery. I take each album on its own merit, compare it to other quality releases of similar persuasion, and come to a conclusion based on context.
Besides, I'm in no position to be tearing down someone's chops from a technical standpoint. My musical experience consists of a half-baked cover of "Ten Ton Hammer" performed in a buddy's living room; some mediocre, cocaine-fueled death growls barfed into a friend's ProTools rig; and roughly 5 years of half-assed, tone-deaf wrangling with a Warlock and a Fat Strat that now collect dust in my basement. I found that I was much better at being sarcastic and getting drunk than creating music, so I decided to stop deluding myself by accepting my strengths.
As such, I provide a layman's viewpoint on the musicanship front, which I'm sure will not alienate many. If you want to read lengthy dissertations on technique and profiency, there are other resources for that. We at Metal Review just tell you what's good and what sucks.
And Machine Head fucking sucks.
-JC
Posted
Jul 17 2009, 09:29 AM
by
Rev
Filed under: Vader, Hellhammer, Limp Bizkit, Shackles, Van Halen, Machine Head, Hod, Obscura, Crown The Lost, Emperor, Satyricon, Godless Rising, Absu, Xerath