Metal Reviews

I don't have an answer and I personally don't care enough to come up with one. If anything, I am just laughing at the sheer amount of trollage that is afoot.

Or you could tackle some of the stuff in the rec threads,ya know Zad is beating you all to those babies

If we wanted validation, we could use the rest of the internet for that. It's not like Zad or Chuck reviewing an album is going to assure me that my tastes are quality. If we were legitimately curious, wouldn't it be easier to just download the damn album then to wait on the inefficiency of an album being reviewed off the damn list which none of the reviewers besides Zad notices?

Why I ask for things to be reviewed is to bring attention to good bands which I enjoy which I think others would like and who I think deserve the attention. If I had the time, I'd offer to write for the site but I don't so I request that others do so. It also provides some form of democratic participation to the site insofar as the site would come to reflect bands which we want to read about and want others to listen to. Reviews also lead to discussion so rather than creating threads ad nauseum about the albums I love, reviews provide a common ground for discussion of an album. Plus there is nothing I like more than Zad saying he likes an album I like.

Precisely.

I would like to come back to the asylum if the boys in charge will let me back in.

ME TOOOOOOOOO
ZAD, KYLE HOLLLA ATCHA BOY!!!

Awww. Merry Christmas, guys.

Little Richard is totally metal related, once you accept that the roots of the tree count too. Blue Cheer aren't metal either, but they have a connection that every metal fan should understand and respect if they care at all how the music they like came to be. I am firmly in the camp of the best quality is the best without consideration at all to the period. Everything should stand up to anything, but come on, if people are going to glorify the beatles to the extent they are, surely much better deserves at least equal attention. You don't have to make excuses for early rock and roll because it was built on a foundation of solid songwriting that is timeless.

THANK YOU.

I like Little Richard but my point still stands that weak review for random oddity archive deserve some criticism.

I am totally waiting for that cover of License to Ill.

Can people take these shit reviews and put them on pitchfork where they like reviews of stupid shit.

Yeah!

We should only review Avante-garde experimental jazz fusioin

Yeah fucking great. Who cares.

+1 Adveser can draw the continuity line all he wants between Little Richard and the verse/chorus stuff he listens to all he wants but it doesn't speak for the whole metal genre.

One day, when Goat's back is turned. One day...

Fuck Little Richard.
There is no link to metal.
The roots of metal originate in the mid-late 60s, anybody that says otherwise doesn't know their history.
Why stop there? Why not review jump blues, gospel and whatever spirituals influenced Little Richard?
Hell, Jerry Lee Lewis is more "metal" than Little Richard.
Tutti Frutti?
Get the fuck outta here with that shit.

+1

Don't get me wrong; I have no contention at all with Little Richard being reviewed, or anything else (within reason), it's just a bit silly to try and justify it by somehow linking it to metal.

If you want to review it, do it.

The common factor in the turning point from strictly rock towards what would eventually be known as heavy metal is the loud, distorted guitar. Indeed, the guitar is the central aspect, even to the point of driving the music (Kinks, Yardbirds, The Who, one of the first to use Marshall amps, incidentally). That and a heavier subject matter / overall feeling (Iron Butterfly, Steppenwolf, Cream, etc).

There is a direct lineage with psychedelic / acid rock, as well.

This (Little Richard) is piano and vocal driven, one step removed from boogie, really, and I just don't see the linkage, sorry.