HIM - Dark Light (#2974)

Adam · **Posted:** Mon Oct 17, 2005 11:11 pm

Quote:

They are too busy making sure Burzum doesn't get reviewed to actually care at all whether or not a review belongs on this site or not (I had to). If you look at the archives you see they were reviewing Korn and Limp Bizkit favorably at one point, and now it's simply changed to metalcore and whatever other alternative rock-ish crap that is the rage with the kiddos, in this case it's HIM. They are less concerned with being a reputable source for metal reviews than they are with putting on a nice face for scenesters or those much maligned hot topic fans to traffic the site.

I never I'd say this phrase to anyone, but "if you don't like it, then you can leave." Seriously, RC, you have been doing an inordinate amount of soapboxing lately. Do I like HIM? The answer is a resounding NO. But do I really give a shit if it gets reviewed here? No, and why should I? You jump all over Legacy and say he's just going out of his way to brown nose, which he wasn't, all the while you're going out of your way to get under people's skin. Which is worse? I usually like your posts and you know your shit when it comes to real metal (and most of us know HIM is not that). So why even bother to raise hell over a review of a shitty band?

rio · **Posted:** Mon Oct 17, 2005 11:13 pm

What's depressing is that this threads been up about 12 hours and already its over twice as long as all of the other reviews this week... This is not a metal album, yet it is apparently more important a topic of conversation to most metalheads than all the other records of this week put together.

HIM is a poppy hard rock band. RC, you should have realised when you came here that this is a site that has ALWAYS had MOR/soft rock sympathies. Review wise it is the equivalent of PowerPlay magazine, if you are familiar with that. (Excluding certain reviewers who should be obvious).

So can we please just leave it the fuck alone?

Radical Cut · **Joined:** Sat Jul 09, 2005 10:19 am **Posts:** 960

Eyesore wrote:

Radical Cut wrote:

You can't deny that this site has no serious concerns with controlling the metal-ness of the things reviewed. There is not much of a standard for what can and can't be reviewed musically, only lyrically. How can I be bashing the site when all I'm doing is stating the obvious? The obvious being that metalreviews' name has a fairly weak connection to what is actually reviewed here. It's like having a black metal reviews site constantly reviewing NWOBHM or something.

Sure, the reviewers should be able to review what they want, but there is a point where things just don't belong on a site that is supposed to be for something else. If you love HIM so much, go post your review on their message board and rejoice, or work with a site that reviews pop and rock if you want so desperately to review pop/rock albums. I don't understand why there is such vitriol and indignance to the reactions here every time when it should be painfully obvious that HIM doesn't belong on a metal site in the first place.

"Metal" is an extremely broad term. When people on this site bash genre labelling they shouldn't then be able to come into another thread and state that "metal" is a strict term. That's stupid. Have you ever seen a family tree? Well, metal is at the top and everything branches from it, thus is encompassed by the "metal" label is some form or fashion. I think HIM are a rock band, but I can not find fault with anyone seeing them as a metal band.

I'm not one of those people though. I think genres are rather useful, as they would be in this case if the reviews were actually held to a standard.

And you have your tree backwards, metal is a branch of rock.

rio · **Posted:** Mon Oct 17, 2005 11:16 pm

afeigel wrote:

Quote:

They are too busy making sure Burzum doesn't get reviewed to actually care at all whether or not a review belongs on this site or not (I had to). If you look at the archives you see they were reviewing Korn and Limp Bizkit favorably at one point, and now it's simply changed to metalcore and whatever other alternative rock-ish crap that is the rage with the kiddos, in this case it's HIM. They are less concerned with being a reputable source for metal reviews than they are with putting on a nice face for scenesters or those much maligned hot topic fans to traffic the site.

I never I'd say this phrase to anyone, but "if you don't like it, then you can leave." Seriously, RC, you have been doing an inordinate amount of soapboxing lately. Do I like HIM? The answer is a resounding NO. But do I really give a shit if it gets reviewed here? No, and why should I? You jump all over Legacy and say he's just going out of his way to brown nose, which he wasn't, all the while you're going out of your way to get under people's skin. Which is worse? I usually like your posts and you know your shit when it comes to real metal (and most of us know HIM is not that). So why even bother to raise hell over a review of a shitty band?

Agreed... you beat me to it.

Radical Cut · **Joined:** Sat Jul 09, 2005 10:19 am **Posts:** 960

One of the first threads I read here was one where you were all bashing a best-of list by some other metal review site because they had a shoddy concept of genre and whatnot, so I guess I have a skewed ideal of this site when it comes to caring about what gets reviewed and respecting the genre...I sort of assumed there was a sense here that 'metal' is more than just a nice name for a site that in actuality has no real hold on the site's content. I guess I'll think twice next time I assume such outlandish things, sorry.

Ness · **Posted:** Mon Oct 17, 2005 11:33 pm

Radical Cut wrote:

One of the first threads I read here was one where you were all bashing a best-of list by some other metal review site because they had a shoddy concept of genre and whatnot, so I guess I have a skewed ideal of this site when it comes to caring about what gets reviewed and respecting the genre...I sort of assumed there was a sense here that 'metal' is more than just a nice name for a site that in actuality has no real hold on the site's content. I guess I'll think twice next time I assume such outlandish things, sorry.

As long as your sorry...

rio · **Posted:** Mon Oct 17, 2005 11:34 pm

Radical Cut wrote:

One of the first threads I read here was one where you were all bashing a best-of list by some other metal review site because they had a shoddy concept of genre and whatnot, so I guess I have a skewed ideal of this site when it comes to caring about what gets reviewed and respecting the genre...I sort of assumed there was a sense here that 'metal' is more than just a nice name for a site that in actuality has no real hold on the site's content. I guess I'll think twice next time I assume such outlandish things, sorry.

All I'm saying is, you just need to look at past reviews to realise that you're going to get soft rock reviewed here. Most of the forumers have tighter metal definitions, but the reviewers write about whatever takes their fancy, for better or worse. It's just not worth worrying about.

Eyesore · **Posted:** Tue Oct 18, 2005 12:13 am

Radical Cut wrote:

And you have your tree backwards, metal is a branch of rock.

Indeed. So without HIM, there is no metal!

deathkvlt · **Posted:** Tue Oct 18, 2005 4:28 pm

Good review Ben, although I must say that this album is quite generic and bland when compared to Razorblade Romance or even Love Metal, thing that dissapointed me quite some...

I really love the way HIM incorporated Goth, 80's Pop elements, dark synth/keys arrangements and mellow rock into their sound on Razorblade Romance, but they seem to have let go of all those elements in this album... oh well...

Razorblade Romance - 85
Deep Shadows - 70
Love Metal - 75
Dark Light - 60

PhyrWolf · **Posted:** Tue Oct 18, 2005 4:36 pm

deathkvlt wrote:

Good review Ben, although I must say that this album is quite generic and bland when compared to Razorblade Romance or even Love Metal, thing that dissapointed me quite some...

I really love the way HIM incorporated Goth, 80's Pop elements, dark synth/keys arrangements and mellow rock into their sound on Razorblade Romance, but they seem to have let go of all those elements in this album... oh well...

Razorblade Romance - 85
Deep Shadows - 70
Love Metal - 75
Dark Light - 60

I can pretty much agree with your scores except that I haven't heard this new one yet. However Greatest lovesongs vol.666 is propably 80-85 from me.

deathkvlt · **Posted:** Tue Oct 18, 2005 5:29 pm

PhyrWolf wrote:

deathkvlt wrote:

Good review Ben, although I must say that this album is quite generic and bland when compared to Razorblade Romance or even Love Metal, thing that dissapointed me quite some...

I really love the way HIM incorporated Goth, 80's Pop elements, dark synth/keys arrangements and mellow rock into their sound on Razorblade Romance, but they seem to have let go of all those elements in this album... oh well...

Razorblade Romance - 85
Deep Shadows - 70
Love Metal - 75
Dark Light - 60

I can pretty much agree with your scores except that I haven't heard this new one yet. However Greatest lovesongs vol.666 is propably 80-85 from me.

Oh I forgot Greatest Lovesongs Vol. 666... I give it an 80.

Garand · **Posted:** Tue Oct 18, 2005 8:48 pm