Reviewing reviews (part 1: part 2, the sequel)

Before I move on to other aspects of art criticism (like fan entitlement and backwards relationships between popular and classical music), there are two more reviews I wanted to tackle in a similar vein as my previous post.

HIM occupies a curious space in the musical world. They've never really solidified a particular genre (beyond the self-imposed Love Metal style) and have variously been called gothic rock, gothic pop, gothic metal, alternative metal/rock and others, and have curiously become associated with Bam Margera, who is involved in a scene more likely to be linked to punk. HIM is also the first Finnish band to have a gold album in the United States, making them much more popular abroad than at home. Naturally when a band makes it this big they're bound to draw criticism for just about anything. When Screamworks: Love in Theory and Practice, Chapters 1-13 came out a few years ago everyone thought they'd "sold out" (an unfortunately overused term which can mean just about anything and is often used more now to denote music that is radio-friendly, or even just on this side of esoteric) because it had a very "pop" feel to it (see: In Venere Veritas), which was a big surprise seeing as the last album, Venus Doom was the "darkest" HIM album yet (see: Venus Doom). Again I think it's worth noting that this is a case where albums are treated as sequentially linked items, rather than separate entities. People often try to string albums together to show a progression towards "something." Sometimes it works, but the connections often tend to be artificial. It's easy to look back on a catalogue and map out how a band became more riff-oriented over their career or more progressive and then make something out of it. It may be an interesting project but it's rarely the case from the composer's perspective. Good music happens organically, not as a result of a composer with a five-year plan to make the band's music more popular with 18-25 year-olds.

And so here we delve back into the Ratings and Reviews section on iTunes for HIM's most recent release, Tears on Tape. (Once again the reviewer is neither credited or sourced). It does not start off well

There is a certain segment of rock & roll fandom that is adverse to change for any reason. Usually, it's an older generation that loves acts whose albums continue to sound the same. [...] In listening to their catalog, one or two things become self-evident: either they are happy to give their fans exactly what they desire over and over again, or they are incapable of change (or perhaps both, which is a win-win).

It's not a good sign when I'm just starting to analyse the review and I'm already seething. This type of review is so generic and bland it's beyond tired. The first two sentences are nothing more than filler (can you even start with filler?). All genres of music have musicians and fans that are adverse to change. It's something I talked about last time even--people in general are adverse to changes to anything: diet, location, friends, work, and so forth. There's a reason your grandparents listen to music from the 40s, and it's the same reason we're going to be listening to music from the 90s. It's music we grew up with and it makes us feel comfortable. It's us trying to feel like we're still relevant in a world that has moved on by listening to music of our youth.
It's also worth noting that there's a difference between a band that has a distinctive sound and a band that has no originality. One will release albums that sound similar because it's the same group of musicians playing music written by the same person; people have personalities and so do bands. Once we become adults and develop unique personalities we don't really change that much. Same thing goes for groups. A band with no originality will release albums that sound the same because they don't have the ability to move beyond their initial statement. Plus, as Valo himself put it, you have to focus on what you do best

...there's not a single person on Earth who can play Love Metal better than us. So I guess that that's our forte and we should concentrate on that

Getting back to the quotation, the reviewer is simply wrong in his assumption that HIM is incapable of change. While they are pretty firmly locked into the standard rock song form (2x verse, chorus, verse, chorus, solo/interlude, chorus), there's still a lot of wiggle room. Harmony, melody, instrumentation, time and key signatures, tempo, lyrics can all make two songs in the same form sound very, very different. As for the claim that "they are happy to give their fans exactly what they desire over and over again," that's also something I have a hard time believing. There's this weird assumption that bands are very interested in only writing music that appeals to their fans. Writing music that people like should not be confused with writing music for people that they will like. You always hope that people will like what you write, but you're not doing it to make them happy.

...even in his most sinister snarl, Valo is so wistful he sounds like a jilted schoolboy, and HIM are incapable of writing songs without proper hooks

Here is another laughable case of "missing the point." What does "incapable of writing songs without proper hooks" even mean? Maybe there are some people who go into the studio thinking "I have to write a really sweet hook for this song," but I believe artists with integrity just write good music and piece it together as they see fit. Does a song need a proper hook? Does it need a hook at all? Does anything in the song even need to be defined as a hook if it doesn't serve that purpose according to the composer?
Finally we round off the piece with:

How many records does one need like this? Here HIM seem to be banking a lot; and with more than 20 years and boatloads of albums and singles, who's going to argue?

To answer your first question: as many as I want. I get a totally different experience listening to Greatest Love Songs Vol. 666 than I do listening to Venus Doom and Screamworks. Writing about love and death isn't new, but that doesn't mean we can't--you know what, I'll just let Valo say it in his own words:

...love is very different with different people, so even if you're writing about separation or falling in love it's always different because you fall in love for different reasons [...] and that makes it interesting when it is a new combination for yourself

And to answer the second question: you, I guess? But I don't know who his review is targeted towards, so who is he arguing with anyway? And his claim that HIM has been around for more than 20 years is grossly exaggerated. They may have been jamming together since 1991, but they didn't release an album until 1997. And "boatloads" seems a tad hyperbolic for eight studio albums (with a standard number of singles per album), one live DVD and three remix compilations.

So, while HIM is being berated for its apparent inability to change, other bands are being slammed for changing too much. Because change is a bad thing when you don't want change, but change is a good thing when you don't want things to stay the same.
Theatre of Tragedy is another unique band in terms of genre--people apparently like labelling things and it's very convenient for these people when they don't have to change the labels or come up with new words. Theatre of Tragedy is very interesting because they are largely credited with creating the genre gothic metal, or at least spurring it forward and giving it the shape and sound that most people would call gothic metal today. Their first three albums are the definition of early gothic metal, so when they moved to electropop gothic rock (or something) for their next two albums, people were not happy. (For those interested, compare "Cassandra" from 1998 to "Crash/Concrete" from 2000). I wasn't around to witness the fallout, but from the bits and pieces I've gathered since then, it wasn't pretty.
In the liner notes to Theatre of Tragedy's live album Carl Begal (of BW&BK) shares some of his thoughts on the band's history as a "die-hard fan, part of a legion that has enjoyed one hell of a ride over the past 16 years." He says, in part

...from coming to grips with [Raymond]'s clean vocals on Aegis and beyond; finding worth in the band's Musique/Assembly era; accepting their decision to have Nell Sigland replace Liv Kristine

This doesn't sound like a "die-hard" fan with the utmost respect for his favourite band. How did this get printed in the band's farewell to the world? There's nothing wrong with being critical of what you enjoy, but his way of describing his experiences listening to the band sounds very detached and indeed separate from the rest of his write-up about what a stellar band they are. But phrases like "coming to grips" and "finding worth" and "accepting their decision" are not at all flattering or appreciative. It's like he can't appreciate Musique on the same level as Aegis because they're different. That's creating a problem where there isn't one. Again it's outsiders imagining these unnatural separations: contiguous blocks of CD releases instead of continuous evolution of music. I think it's beautiful when you have a situation like this where two instances are incomparable and yet they're amazing works of art in their own rights. Just as we can love a parent and a sibling and a friend in different ways for who they are, we can love contrasting art for what it is.
He also finishes with another cliché that comes up again and again in art criticism. Speaking of the band's final album, Forever is the World he says, "the band that launched an entire metal genre had returned to form." The mysterious "return to form." What exactly is it? It seems to be this imaginary construct of those longing for "the good ol' days," that other tired expression. To me, calling something a "return to form" suggests that the artist has deviated from his path in a negative or deconstructive way. It calls to mind images of a lost soul who has let his worldly troubles affect his art, only to clean up his life and release a magnificent work of art that shocks and pleases the masses. Unfortunately, people usually use it to mean "this sounds a lot more like their first album, which I really liked." More on that next time.