Little Richard - Here's Little Richard (#6855)

North From Here · **Posted:** Tue Dec 21, 2010 5:03 pm

Jake wrote:

I think what people should remember is that this isn't just Tony posting whatever classic rock album he likes with no thought to the content of the site. If we were doing that, I would have posted at least 6 Bruce Springsteen reviews by now, all with mathematically impossible scores. Tony clearly sees records like this one as the roots of ALL rock and roll and therefore relevant to heavy metal. You can argue with that idea; you can argue whether it matters; you can argue with the score; those could all be fun and productive conversations, even. But try not to think of it as unbridled staff indulgence.

He's wrong, and it likely wouldn't be a productive or fun argument.

huskerc7 · **Joined:** Tue Aug 25, 2009 6:58 am **Posts:** 17365

Are you paying these people to review albums, are they getting paid by the site, or are they doing this out of their own spare time to help themselves and to help spread the word on new albums you might overlook on your own?

I don't care what they review as long as they keep reviewing and telling me about shit like that latest The Meads of Asphodel album. Word to whoever reviewed that shiznit. :lol:

Goat · **Posted:** Tue Dec 21, 2010 6:44 pm

Quote:

Are you paying these people to review albums, are they getting paid by the site

*spits tea out* HAHAHAHAHAHAHA I wish

Quote:

or are they doing this out of their own spare time to help themselves and to help spread the word on new albums you might overlook on your own?

More like it.

Quote:

I don't care what they review as long as they keep reviewing and telling me about shit like that latest The Meads of Asphodel album. Word to whoever reviewed that shiznit.

Word up.

Skiggath · **Joined:** Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:00 pm **Posts:** 478

Nah Husker. We don't get paid anything. I have only received one promo from a very skilled local act which I reviewed both their works. See Saq for those reviews. But I'll address some new releases and requests ASAP.

DevotedWalnut · **Posted:** Tue Dec 21, 2010 6:55 pm

huskerc7 wrote:

Are you paying these people to review albums, are they getting paid by the site, or are they doing this out of their own spare time to help themselves and to help spread the word on new albums you might overlook on your own?

I don't care what they review as long as they keep reviewing and telling me about shit like that latest The Meads of Asphodel album. Word to whoever reviewed that shiznit. :lol:

no they don't get payed and yes they are doing it on their own time, but they did apply at METAL reviews.

traptunderice · **Posted:** Tue Dec 21, 2010 9:03 pm

I don't mind Little Richard I just thought it was a shitty review. 4 paragraphs and only one mentions the actual music. I really don't care about your personal business and some qualitative description of the music would be nice as well.

stevelovesmoonspell · **Posted:** Tue Dec 21, 2010 9:44 pm

If the reviewers can review dogshit like Paramore, then I don't see why this can't be done.

About2Crash · **Posted:** Tue Dec 21, 2010 11:39 pm

Wow, with all of the whining and complaining in this thread I think that a review of Beastie Boys - License to Ill is in order.

GeneralDiomedes · **Posted:** Wed Dec 22, 2010 12:01 am

Goat wrote:

I've nearly written Stones archives before now. I think I'd stop listening to metal altogether if I started heading that way, however.

For a while, anyhow.

Metastable To Chaos · **Posted:** Wed Dec 22, 2010 2:00 am

About2Crash wrote:

Wow, with all of the whining and complaining in this thread I think that a review of Beastie Boys - License to Ill is in order.

Explain to me why this review (Little Richard....not the Beastie Boys) is appropriate for Metal Reviews. Please, I'm dying to hear your answer.

The Evil Dead · **Posted:** Wed Dec 22, 2010 2:16 am

No Sleep Till Brooklyn has those chunky METUL riffs.

Metastable To Chaos · **Posted:** Wed Dec 22, 2010 2:49 am

Sorry I was referring to the Little Richard review. I'll edit that in now to make things clear.

huskerc7 · **Joined:** Tue Aug 25, 2009 6:58 am **Posts:** 17365

The Evil Dead wrote:

No Sleep Till Brooklyn has those chunky METUL riffs.

khelek@metalreviews.com · **Joined:** Sat Dec 13, 2008 8:02 pm **Posts:** 214

Metastable To Chaos wrote:

About2Crash wrote:

Wow, with all of the whining and complaining in this thread I think that a review of Beastie Boys - License to Ill is in order.

Explain to me why this review (Little Richard....not the Beastie Boys) is appropriate for Metal Reviews. Please, I'm dying to hear your answer.

Did you read this or just choose not to respond?

Jake wrote:

I think what people should remember is that this isn't just Tony posting whatever classic rock album he likes with no thought to the content of the site. If we were doing that, I would have posted at least 6 Bruce Springsteen reviews by now, all with mathematically impossible scores. Tony clearly sees records like this one as the roots of ALL rock and roll and therefore relevant to heavy metal. You can argue with that idea; you can argue whether it matters; you can argue with the score; those could all be fun and productive conversations, even. But try not to think of it as unbridled staff indulgence.

Not saying I agree, just saying Jake makes a good point that you failed to address.

North From Here · **Posted:** Wed Dec 22, 2010 5:12 am

khelek@metalreviews.com wrote:

Metastable To Chaos wrote:

About2Crash wrote:

Wow, with all of the whining and complaining in this thread I think that a review of Beastie Boys - License to Ill is in order.

Explain to me why this review (Little Richard....not the Beastie Boys) is appropriate for Metal Reviews. Please, I'm dying to hear your answer.

Did you read this or just choose not to respond?

Jake wrote:

I think what people should remember is that this isn't just Tony posting whatever classic rock album he likes with no thought to the content of the site. If we were doing that, I would have posted at least 6 Bruce Springsteen reviews by now, all with mathematically impossible scores. Tony clearly sees records like this one as the roots of ALL rock and roll and therefore relevant to heavy metal. You can argue with that idea; you can argue whether it matters; you can argue with the score; those could all be fun and productive conversations, even. But try not to think of it as unbridled staff indulgence.

Not saying I agree, just saying Jake makes a good point that you failed to address.

"Good" is indeed subjective here.

However, I think something larger is going on on the site here: as the majority of the forum users are now passing through that age known as 'the formative years', they are emerging out of their early 20s and realizing that they were never really into metal. Just a phase, of sorts, or at most, a tiny piece of their music taste. That's fine, and fairly normal. Those who remain often end up like Cry of the Banshee, or me, and I'm not sure how many of you would want that. :lol:

traptunderice · **Posted:** Wed Dec 22, 2010 6:02 am

emperorblackdoom wrote:

as the majority of the forum users are now passing through that age known as 'the formative years', they are emerging out of their early 20s and realizing that they were never really into metal.

lol.

cry of the banshee · **Posted:** Wed Dec 22, 2010 2:05 pm

Err... hmmm...
anyway, this could have been a well deserved and starkly absent review of Thin Lizzy - Fighting or Jailbreak, both of which had more impact on metal than Little Richard.
Have to agree with the consensus here.

OldSchool · **Posted:** Wed Dec 22, 2010 3:07 pm

Ha ha ha.

Psychotron · **Posted:** Wed Dec 22, 2010 3:48 pm

I like the odd non-metal review but I think it should be limited to maybe 1 every week maybe even every second week.

Metastable To Chaos · **Posted:** Wed Dec 22, 2010 4:51 pm

khelek@metalreviews.com wrote:

Metastable To Chaos wrote:

About2Crash wrote:

Wow, with all of the whining and complaining in this thread I think that a review of Beastie Boys - License to Ill is in order.

Explain to me why this review (Little Richard....not the Beastie Boys) is appropriate for Metal Reviews. Please, I'm dying to hear your answer.

Did you read this or just choose not to respond?

Jake wrote:

I think what people should remember is that this isn't just Tony posting whatever classic rock album he likes with no thought to the content of the site. If we were doing that, I would have posted at least 6 Bruce Springsteen reviews by now, all with mathematically impossible scores. Tony clearly sees records like this one as the roots of ALL rock and roll and therefore relevant to heavy metal. You can argue with that idea; you can argue whether it matters; you can argue with the score; those could all be fun and productive conversations, even. But try not to think of it as unbridled staff indulgence.

Not saying I agree, just saying Jake makes a good point that you failed to address.

And if you look at my earlier posts I acknowledged that we do see influential borderline metal/classic rock reviews but then I also asked where do we draw the line? And this is why I brought up someone like Wagner because classical basically influenced all music after it.

Seriously, just change the name of the website to "Metal (and Bands/Artists/Generes That Influenced Metal No Matter How Big Of A Stretch It May Seem) Reviews" and I won't say another word.

Metal Reviews

Little Richard - Here's Little Richard (#6855)

Who is online