Well, I'm sure everyone who is even vaguely interested in the science fiction genre has been glued to their screens to see the 50th Anniversary special of Doctor Who. So, for once, I'm going to attempt to review a television episode, rather than anything music related. Now, of course, I'm not a professional critic, so I recommend people who haven't seen the episode and don't want spoilers to come back after you've seen it. This is just my opinion of the episode.
So, let's start with the characters (I'll save the story for later). The return of the Zygons after their only onscreen appearance in "Terror of the Zygons" (there is some stuff where they have appeared since then, but I'm only running by TV appearances here) was a really cool touch, but I feel that they were somewhat underused in this episode. While they were the driving force of the story, I expected to see them appear more in the story than they did. That said, when they were onscreen, they were enjoyable to watch. I suspect that sales of "Terror of the Zygons" is going to increase pretty quickly, so I'd recommend picking up a copy as soon as possible if you've been debating doing it for a while now (it's been out on DVD since the 30th of September this year). John Hurt's version of the Doctor was a really cool character, falling somewhere between the dark and brooding nature of Eccleston's Doctor and the more light hearted Doctors of the original run (which makes sense, considering he's the Doctor that turned into Eccleston's Doctor. Did mention there was spoilers, didn't I?). The other Doctors (Tenth and Eleventh) were their usual selves, but you can tell that their actors (David Tennant and Matt Smith, respectably) have both upped their games for this episode, delivering some of the best performances I've seen from both of them (which is no small feat for David Tennant: I've held him to be my favourite Doctor, with Christopher Eccleston's probably being my second or third favourite depending on whether you ask about ranking reboot Doctors or all Doctors. My second favourite, by the way, would probably be Peter Davison, but I'm getting off topic...). I was disappointed that the only other Doctor who returned was Tom Baker's Doctor, but I don't know whether you can really count him in this one, as his appearance is mostly restricted to a small part at the end which is ambiguous as to whether he is the Doctor or not. Either way, I was surprised that more of them didn't return, but I guess "Night of the Doctor" (the prequel episode to this one) did make up for that by allowing Paul McGann to finally get an onscreen death, so I can let that slide. I'm aware I'm skimming here, but I'm trying to pick out only highlights and weaknesses, so I'll say that everyone else did a good job, as I didn't have any issues on the acting side of things (which is more impressive when you consider I've had some acting training myself. Might do a video review sometime in the future...I'm getting off topic again).
The story (and I'm not going into detail to minimise spoilers for anyone who hasn't seen the episode yet) was mostly very good, although I do have to question the decision to bring the Zygons in and then underuse them. Maybe I'm being a bit harsh, as they didn't stop the story in any way, but it feels like they were more there to keep the minor characters busy as opposed to being a serious threat in their own right. I also think that the absence of a ship for the Zygons to hold their captives was a gross oversight, since, if what I've read is true (I'm going by the book "Sting of the Zygons" here, as I've not seen "Terror of the Zygons"), they need to store their captives on one of their own ships to maintain the illusion. I also have to ask why the Zygons were affected by the memory erasing thing and the Doctors (and Clara, now i think on it...) weren't, but I think that might be nitpicking. What might also be nitpicking is that the negotiations with the humans and Zygon lookalikes would probably end with the Zygons losing control of their disguises or with the Zygon disguised as Osgood revealing itself shortly after negotiations are complete due to her giving the lookalike her inhaler, although I feel that one is a more valid one to bring up when you consider how well such a scene would probably go in real life. The way that The War Doctor integrated with the other two was quite interesting and his being accepted as worthy of the Doctor's name was genuinely quite touching when you remember what he went through during the episode. Aside from my complaints regarding the Zygons, I'd say that the story was solid enough.
The episode as a whole probably had some issues maintaining focus, but I would still say that it's essential viewing if you like Doctor Who. If you don't, this probably won't change your mind.
(A personal note to finish up: after having skipped a decent amount of series 7 (I skipped "Angels of Manhattan" and the three episodes between "Cold War" and "Nightmare In Silver", which is still the most episodes I've skipped in a single series of the show since the reboot happened), I was starting to think that Doctor Who wasn't interesting me any more, but I have to say that this has won me back to the series. I'm slightly disappointed it had to happen after Matt Smith announced his departure from the show, but I'm sure his last appearance (which is going to be the Christmas special) will be great.)
If you think I should do more things like this on the blog, let me know.
Sunday 24 November 2013
Friday 22 November 2013
Why I Don't Think "13" By Black Sabbath Is As Good As It Could Have Been...
...You read the title. You know what's coming.
Anyone with even a passing knowledge of heavy metal music knows that Black Sabbath, the legendary band who most consider to be one of the grandfathers of heavy metal, released an album back in June this year. It had a HUGE legacy to live up to: their last album with Ozzy was released about 35 years ago (and that was the commonly ignored album "Never Say Die") and their last album (if you only count albums under the Sabbath name) was released about 18 years ago (and that was the commonly ignored album "Forbidden": spotting a slight pattern here?). There was some life in the Sabbath camp with the Heaven & Hell release "The Devil You Know" in 2010, but, for the most part, Black Sabbath had been relatively quiet until their reunion back in November, which also promised a new album.
I'll admit, I was curious to hear the new album. Not because I worshiped Black Sabbath (I'm probably one of the few metal fans who doesn't), but because I wanted to see what the guys who brought us "Paranoid" could deliver now. Bill Ward's departure didn't put me off too much, as I'd never been particularly interested in his drumming anyway (sorry, Sabbath fans...): all I was hoping for was a good album. Not a genre defining one (be honest: how many musicians can you honestly say are/were putting out their best music in their 60's?), just one that wasn't embarrassing. I didn't like "God Is Dead?" much, so I was quietly expecting the worst.
And you know what? It isn't a bad album. But it could have been SO much better.
To explain why I don't think this album works on the level it should do, I'm going to have to compare it to their original albums, Orchid's second album (which I honestly think is closer to what "13" should have been than Black Sabbath did, but I'm getting ahead of myself here...) and "The Devil You Know".
So I'm going to say this now: if you like "13", you are entitled to do so. Like I said, it's not a bad album. I just don't necessarily think that it's a good album BECAUSE it's not a bad album. So, with that said, let me look at the main things which harm this album so much that I cannot get swept up with the hype so many have about it.
The first issue is Ozzy. Now, don't get me wrong: the guy does a good job when you consider his age and just how long he's been singing. I wasn't expecting a lot from him on this album and he met my expectations, so I can't complain too much about that. However, the issue is that he just doesn't sound that energetic in his performance. Take Dio on "The Devil You Know" (and I'm probably going to piss off a lot of Sabbath fans with this): on that album, you could hear that age had caught up with him, as his voice wasn't that great. But, on that album, he sang with so much energy that I could forgive that flaw and love the album. You could tell he was having a lot of fun making the album and that helped make the album fun to listen to. Ozzy, however, just sounds like he's going through the motions on "13". He does have a few moments of energy, I'll admit, but, for a good amount of the run time, he doesn't sound like he's having fun making the album. He almost sounds bored at points. And that drags the whole thing down, as it's tough to really enjoy something when even the people making it sound like it's a chore for them to put it together.
The second issue is that the band seem to have forgotten their blues roots with this album. Some people will immediately wonder what I'm talking about, so I will put it like this: when you listen to Black Sabbath's early stuff, you can hear a strong blues influence underneath the heavily downtuned guitar riffs. Part of the reason Ozzy-era Sabbath sounds so interesting is because they didn't only write heavy stuff designed to crush the opposition: they had their moments when what they were playing just sounded like blues stuff that was heavily downtuned. And that's what is missing on this album, for the most part: the songs that aren't just trying to outdo everyone else in distortion. Do you want to know what made me realise this little detail? Orchid's second album, "The Mouths Of Madness". I'm guessing this first detail, but I believe Orchid originally started out as a Black Sabbath cover band (because...come on, they picked their name after a Black Sabbath track most people aren't likely to recognise!), so it's fair to say that they know their stuff pretty well. The second track on their album is "Marching Dogs Of War", which I'll let you listen to before I continue (you might need to be on a computer to see the video):
Do you hear what I'm on about now? And here's the thing: that album was released about two months before "13" was and, to me, it sounds more like Black Sabbath than "13" does. Let that sink in...
The third issue is that a lot of the songs on "13" just sound like rewritten versions of Ozzy-era Black Sabbath songs. Now, this one isn't as big an issue for me as it is for some people, as I accept that it's very hard to be completely original in music these days and Sabbath couldn't exactly afford to risk releasing an album that experimented too much with their usual sound. People knew what to expect of this period from the band and they got just what they expected, so I can't complain about that. What I CAN complain about, however, is the fact that they're not very subtle about the rewriting. I'm usually not too picky about this kind of thing, but "Zeitgeist" is such a clear rip off of "Planet Caravan" that the only reason I'm not saying "Sabbath should call their lawyers" is because it's Sabbath doing it. Rick Rubin (who has been on my hit list of producers from the moment I heard "Death Magnetic". Trust me, we'll get to him in a minute...) reportedly made the band listen to their first four albums and told them to write an album like them and, frankly, I can believe it. The thing is, Black Sabbath had moved on from that sound even while Ozzy was in the band ("Technical Ecstasy" and "Never Say Die", anyone?), so doing this is effectively regression on a scale that is almost insulting to fans of the post-Ozzy material. It's even (possibly unintentionally) acknowledged in the title, for goodness sake! If you count only the Ozzy and Dio eras of Black Sabbath (and the Heaven & Hell album), you get 13 albums. Yet, if you actually count how many albums have been released by Black Sabbath (and, again, count the Heaven & Hell album), you actually get 20 albums. So, nobody wants to remember the album Ian Gillian made with them, "Born Again" (admittedly, the art work is horrible, so I wouldn't entirely blame them for wanting to forget it...)? Nobody wants to remember Glenn Hughes singing with the band for "Seventh Star" (admittedly, that was intended to be a solo album by Tony Iommi...)? Nobody wants to remember the five albums Tony Martin did with Sabbath? OK...that's a bit of a middle finger to the fans who support Sabbath during those difficult times, isn't it? Seven albums effectively being treated as if they don't exist just to win over the casual fans who ignored the band during their times without Ozzy or Dio. A wonderful decision, I'm sure...
The fourth (and this is the thing that pisses me off the most and is the real nail in the coffin for me regarding this album) is the production. Yeah, you guys knew this one was coming even when it was announced he would be producing the album. Rick Rubin is a fine example of how not to produce an album, so I'm astonished that he still gets work with high profile bands like Metallica, Slayer, Red Hot Chili Peppers and Black Sabbath (just to name a few). I'm going by what people say involving the loudness war phenomenon here (if you don't know what it is, go look it up), but most of what Rick Rubin has done since the 2000's hit has been overly compressed, headache inducing and sounds like shit. Even if it's not his fault that everything ends up the way it does, it's his name on the producer credit, which means that he is responsible for the final result being approved for release. If it sounds the way it does with everything he's done, I can only conclude that either he or someone connected to him (and a lot of fingers point to mastering engineer Vlado Meller, although I know he's not responsible this time, as he wasn't involved in this album) is doing a terrible job at making sure the final result sounds good. I can barely make myself want to listen to this album, which is a mark of just how badly Rick Rubin did with this. The guitars are far too loud as well (although, admittedly, with Tony Ionni on guitars, are you really going to make him too quiet?).
So, with all of this in mind, why did I say that this isn't a bad album before I started all of this? Because, if you can ignore all of the flaws, it really isn't that bad! It's just not the Black Sabbath album it could have been. That is the thing that breaks my heart whenever I listen to this album more than anything else and is the only reason why I've written this article. Not to tell people to not listen to this album, because I don't want to tell anyone to do that (plus, it's a bit late to want to do that now). It's because I wanted this to be better than it is. The potential for an amazing album was there and, due to the things I've pointed out, it isn't.
Anyone with even a passing knowledge of heavy metal music knows that Black Sabbath, the legendary band who most consider to be one of the grandfathers of heavy metal, released an album back in June this year. It had a HUGE legacy to live up to: their last album with Ozzy was released about 35 years ago (and that was the commonly ignored album "Never Say Die") and their last album (if you only count albums under the Sabbath name) was released about 18 years ago (and that was the commonly ignored album "Forbidden": spotting a slight pattern here?). There was some life in the Sabbath camp with the Heaven & Hell release "The Devil You Know" in 2010, but, for the most part, Black Sabbath had been relatively quiet until their reunion back in November, which also promised a new album.
I'll admit, I was curious to hear the new album. Not because I worshiped Black Sabbath (I'm probably one of the few metal fans who doesn't), but because I wanted to see what the guys who brought us "Paranoid" could deliver now. Bill Ward's departure didn't put me off too much, as I'd never been particularly interested in his drumming anyway (sorry, Sabbath fans...): all I was hoping for was a good album. Not a genre defining one (be honest: how many musicians can you honestly say are/were putting out their best music in their 60's?), just one that wasn't embarrassing. I didn't like "God Is Dead?" much, so I was quietly expecting the worst.
And you know what? It isn't a bad album. But it could have been SO much better.
To explain why I don't think this album works on the level it should do, I'm going to have to compare it to their original albums, Orchid's second album (which I honestly think is closer to what "13" should have been than Black Sabbath did, but I'm getting ahead of myself here...) and "The Devil You Know".
So I'm going to say this now: if you like "13", you are entitled to do so. Like I said, it's not a bad album. I just don't necessarily think that it's a good album BECAUSE it's not a bad album. So, with that said, let me look at the main things which harm this album so much that I cannot get swept up with the hype so many have about it.
The first issue is Ozzy. Now, don't get me wrong: the guy does a good job when you consider his age and just how long he's been singing. I wasn't expecting a lot from him on this album and he met my expectations, so I can't complain too much about that. However, the issue is that he just doesn't sound that energetic in his performance. Take Dio on "The Devil You Know" (and I'm probably going to piss off a lot of Sabbath fans with this): on that album, you could hear that age had caught up with him, as his voice wasn't that great. But, on that album, he sang with so much energy that I could forgive that flaw and love the album. You could tell he was having a lot of fun making the album and that helped make the album fun to listen to. Ozzy, however, just sounds like he's going through the motions on "13". He does have a few moments of energy, I'll admit, but, for a good amount of the run time, he doesn't sound like he's having fun making the album. He almost sounds bored at points. And that drags the whole thing down, as it's tough to really enjoy something when even the people making it sound like it's a chore for them to put it together.
The second issue is that the band seem to have forgotten their blues roots with this album. Some people will immediately wonder what I'm talking about, so I will put it like this: when you listen to Black Sabbath's early stuff, you can hear a strong blues influence underneath the heavily downtuned guitar riffs. Part of the reason Ozzy-era Sabbath sounds so interesting is because they didn't only write heavy stuff designed to crush the opposition: they had their moments when what they were playing just sounded like blues stuff that was heavily downtuned. And that's what is missing on this album, for the most part: the songs that aren't just trying to outdo everyone else in distortion. Do you want to know what made me realise this little detail? Orchid's second album, "The Mouths Of Madness". I'm guessing this first detail, but I believe Orchid originally started out as a Black Sabbath cover band (because...come on, they picked their name after a Black Sabbath track most people aren't likely to recognise!), so it's fair to say that they know their stuff pretty well. The second track on their album is "Marching Dogs Of War", which I'll let you listen to before I continue (you might need to be on a computer to see the video):
Do you hear what I'm on about now? And here's the thing: that album was released about two months before "13" was and, to me, it sounds more like Black Sabbath than "13" does. Let that sink in...
The third issue is that a lot of the songs on "13" just sound like rewritten versions of Ozzy-era Black Sabbath songs. Now, this one isn't as big an issue for me as it is for some people, as I accept that it's very hard to be completely original in music these days and Sabbath couldn't exactly afford to risk releasing an album that experimented too much with their usual sound. People knew what to expect of this period from the band and they got just what they expected, so I can't complain about that. What I CAN complain about, however, is the fact that they're not very subtle about the rewriting. I'm usually not too picky about this kind of thing, but "Zeitgeist" is such a clear rip off of "Planet Caravan" that the only reason I'm not saying "Sabbath should call their lawyers" is because it's Sabbath doing it. Rick Rubin (who has been on my hit list of producers from the moment I heard "Death Magnetic". Trust me, we'll get to him in a minute...) reportedly made the band listen to their first four albums and told them to write an album like them and, frankly, I can believe it. The thing is, Black Sabbath had moved on from that sound even while Ozzy was in the band ("Technical Ecstasy" and "Never Say Die", anyone?), so doing this is effectively regression on a scale that is almost insulting to fans of the post-Ozzy material. It's even (possibly unintentionally) acknowledged in the title, for goodness sake! If you count only the Ozzy and Dio eras of Black Sabbath (and the Heaven & Hell album), you get 13 albums. Yet, if you actually count how many albums have been released by Black Sabbath (and, again, count the Heaven & Hell album), you actually get 20 albums. So, nobody wants to remember the album Ian Gillian made with them, "Born Again" (admittedly, the art work is horrible, so I wouldn't entirely blame them for wanting to forget it...)? Nobody wants to remember Glenn Hughes singing with the band for "Seventh Star" (admittedly, that was intended to be a solo album by Tony Iommi...)? Nobody wants to remember the five albums Tony Martin did with Sabbath? OK...that's a bit of a middle finger to the fans who support Sabbath during those difficult times, isn't it? Seven albums effectively being treated as if they don't exist just to win over the casual fans who ignored the band during their times without Ozzy or Dio. A wonderful decision, I'm sure...
The fourth (and this is the thing that pisses me off the most and is the real nail in the coffin for me regarding this album) is the production. Yeah, you guys knew this one was coming even when it was announced he would be producing the album. Rick Rubin is a fine example of how not to produce an album, so I'm astonished that he still gets work with high profile bands like Metallica, Slayer, Red Hot Chili Peppers and Black Sabbath (just to name a few). I'm going by what people say involving the loudness war phenomenon here (if you don't know what it is, go look it up), but most of what Rick Rubin has done since the 2000's hit has been overly compressed, headache inducing and sounds like shit. Even if it's not his fault that everything ends up the way it does, it's his name on the producer credit, which means that he is responsible for the final result being approved for release. If it sounds the way it does with everything he's done, I can only conclude that either he or someone connected to him (and a lot of fingers point to mastering engineer Vlado Meller, although I know he's not responsible this time, as he wasn't involved in this album) is doing a terrible job at making sure the final result sounds good. I can barely make myself want to listen to this album, which is a mark of just how badly Rick Rubin did with this. The guitars are far too loud as well (although, admittedly, with Tony Ionni on guitars, are you really going to make him too quiet?).
So, with all of this in mind, why did I say that this isn't a bad album before I started all of this? Because, if you can ignore all of the flaws, it really isn't that bad! It's just not the Black Sabbath album it could have been. That is the thing that breaks my heart whenever I listen to this album more than anything else and is the only reason why I've written this article. Not to tell people to not listen to this album, because I don't want to tell anyone to do that (plus, it's a bit late to want to do that now). It's because I wanted this to be better than it is. The potential for an amazing album was there and, due to the things I've pointed out, it isn't.
Tuesday 19 November 2013
Apologies
Well, most of you who've been looking here have probably been thinking "What happened to the Queensryche, Green Day and Alice Cooper reviews you said you were going to do?" Honestly, I did try to write them. I really did. I've still got the drafts from my attempt to write the Queensryche and Green Day reviews. However, I just didn't think they were good enough to put on this blog. I was writing them and could only think "This is crap" when I glanced back over them, which isn't something I feel I should put on the blog. I want to put stuff on this blog that I feel I can stand behind, not something terrible that I'm just writing to fill up a schedule.
If you were wanting to see them and were coming back in the hope they were going to be published late, then I'm sorry to have to disappoint you. I'll admit, I'm not great at keeping to schedules, so that is probably the last time I'm going to try to come up with one. Basically, expect my blog to run on Valve time from this point on.
I'm NOT cancelling the Judas Priest reviews, but expect it to be a mega review that will be uploaded on the last day of the year (I'm running on UK time, so apologies if this means it ends up later or earlier than that date), not my previous plan of one review every two days.
I do plan to do those reviews I've not uploaded to the schedule I wanted to do, but expect them to be uploaded sometime next year. I do have two other posts I would like to do either before the end of the year or just after the start of it, one being a list of the best albums of 2013 I've purchased (which is about 35 albums at the minute, most of which is metal related and some of which is probably stuff that's flown under the radars of quite a few people...) and one being an analysis of fans not liking negative (or, at least, less-than-positive) reviews of things they do like. You probably know this from comments such as "This reviewer doesn't know what he's talking about" and "This reviewer isn't qualified to criticise this". This isn't something I've suffered from yet, but it's an attitude that I feel I need to examine in detail to explain just why this isn't the best response to criticism.
Thank you to everyone who has been visiting this blog and I can only hope I don't disappoint you with the Judas Priest reviews!
(I also have a short horror story written in the style of H P Lovecraft which I might share sometime over the next few weeks...)
If you were wanting to see them and were coming back in the hope they were going to be published late, then I'm sorry to have to disappoint you. I'll admit, I'm not great at keeping to schedules, so that is probably the last time I'm going to try to come up with one. Basically, expect my blog to run on Valve time from this point on.
I'm NOT cancelling the Judas Priest reviews, but expect it to be a mega review that will be uploaded on the last day of the year (I'm running on UK time, so apologies if this means it ends up later or earlier than that date), not my previous plan of one review every two days.
I do plan to do those reviews I've not uploaded to the schedule I wanted to do, but expect them to be uploaded sometime next year. I do have two other posts I would like to do either before the end of the year or just after the start of it, one being a list of the best albums of 2013 I've purchased (which is about 35 albums at the minute, most of which is metal related and some of which is probably stuff that's flown under the radars of quite a few people...) and one being an analysis of fans not liking negative (or, at least, less-than-positive) reviews of things they do like. You probably know this from comments such as "This reviewer doesn't know what he's talking about" and "This reviewer isn't qualified to criticise this". This isn't something I've suffered from yet, but it's an attitude that I feel I need to examine in detail to explain just why this isn't the best response to criticism.
Thank you to everyone who has been visiting this blog and I can only hope I don't disappoint you with the Judas Priest reviews!
(I also have a short horror story written in the style of H P Lovecraft which I might share sometime over the next few weeks...)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)