However, the problem with reviews is that they tend to miss the point entirely, overuse cliché terminology ("soaring melodies," "soulful tunes," "crooner") and/or go on at length without really saying anything. One particular review has stood out in my mind for a long time. In 2007 Sonata Arctica released their fifth album, Unia. It was unlike anything they'd done before and marked a turning point in their career, as they shifted away from speedy, melodic power metal towards prog metal for the next two CDs. The review for the album on iTunes (no name or source is given) is a mess.
...it found the group experimenting with novel songwriting techniques, and diverting from the straight-and-narrow of their career path for the first time. Problem was, these new elements mostly served to subvert the group's extremely competent and popular power metal formula with unprecedented doses of commercialism...
My first problem with this excerpt is that the author assumes that the "novel songwriting techniques" serve to "subvert" their sound and image as a band (or something). That because they're so good at doing power metal, doing something different is--in his words--a "problem." This comes up a lot in album reviews. When bands start trying something different there is an outcry from reviewers and fans. But it's never an issue of whether or not the New Thing is Bad. It's just Different. And somehow Different has become Bad. That's what the reviewer said--by doing something new, Sonata Arctica had created a problem.
Now, my second issue with this review is his ludicrous claim that Unia is somehow a "commercial" album. This is another thing that pops up a lot in analyses of popular music. Heck, this guy called post-2004 Children of Bodom commercial. Have I been using the word wrong all along? I'm not sure if they mean
a : viewed with regard to profit b : designed for a large market
or
b (1) : being of an average or inferior quality (2) : producing artistic work of low standards for quick market success
when they talk about commercial music in this situation. Don't confuse artists making money with selling out! And it's hard to be a huge commercial success working in metal, which is still very much a niche market. Children of Bodom is only the 35th best-selling band in Finland (including international artists), having sold roughly 240k albums (that's eight regular CDs, one live CD, one live DVD/CD, one best-of compilation, one compilation of covers and a dozen or so singles). Sonata Arctica is even further down the list at 48, with fewer than 200k sold. I'd hardly call those commercial.
And I would say Unia is far from being the pop-oriented album the reviewer seems to think it is. I offer for your consideration "The Vice", which I think is a fairly good representation of the album.
And finally the reviewer finishes with:
...first time arrivals will still want to pick up one of Sonata Arctica's earlier releases if they want a proper introduction to their prevalent power metal template.
Now this is a curious quotation. It seems to suggest that to properly enjoy this album one must be familiar with the band's back catalogue, as if the albums are sequential. On the one hand I think it's worth saying that to get a deep understanding of Unia one should experience Sonata Arctica to see the progression from Ecliptica up to this point. But there is a difference between hearing a progression and hearing a sequence. A band's history is more than a list of its CD releases, just as a person is more than her list of accomplishments on her resume. But what I think the reviewer is trying to say--and I assume this because this is so often the case--is that "this CD is ok but man did you miss out on their first CDs, they used to be so good." And this only serves to perpetuate this idea that artists should not deviate with what fans are used to and that change is Bad and not up for debate.
"Art criticism is weird."
No comments:
Post a Comment