Wow, haha, talk about different opinions about the same thing. Out of curiosity, I went online this morning to check what others had written about one of my fav albums right now, Dynazty’s “Sultans Of Sin”. Not that what I found surprised me much, but still…
A majority of critics stated that “it’s not really my type of genre but….”. If it isn’t, don’t review it, unless you really have to. I wouldn’t review Slayer, because it’s definitely not my type of music, and as such I wouldn’t be able to review it properly. Know your limitations and stick to them.
Others go with “yada-yada-it’s-not-original“…. Bad argument, not to mention meaningless argument.
Ask bands like AC/DC or Motorhead if they give a rats ass about originality. Of course it’s not “original”, it’s a style that you either like or you don’t.
I agree with the lyrics beeing kinda cheesy, but the lyrics in the 80’s WERE cheesy. :-)
You’ve got to know what you’re dealing with and rate it from there.
But frankly, eventhough I’m a critic myself, I know the “type” of people that often feel they are a little but too good and too important to like what the general public would like. It’s what they feel separates them from the populace, and you will find them drinking red wine somewhere, feeling mighty important.
Just annoys me, not because of this album in particular but because it’s meaningless with all these people who are writing about types of music they don’t know and don’t like. It’s like giving me a bunch of opera-CD’s, asking me to review them.
“It’s not original, there’s all that high yelling, I think it’s called sopranos, and I don’t like it”.
Eighties melodic rock isn’t “cultural”, it’s not supposed to have meaningful lyrics, it’s supposed to have catchy melodies and it’s NOT supposed to be “original” – so why even use that as arguments when rating an album from that genre…?
Ah, nothing like starting your Sunday with a bit of venting. :-)