As I am also the founder and one of the editors of the Rock and Heavy Metal website – RockMusicForever.com I was checking out an album that we posted there. It’s Chthonic – Takasago Army (2011). It’s a nice example of a melodic death metal album. Powerful and heroic authentic melodies, well-done brutal vocals (multiple vocals actually) flawlessly mixed into a well executed speed thrash and black metal infrastructure.
When I was doing some research about the band (which actually means “googling” for some time now), apart from the fact that they have an eye-catching (which actually means hot for some time now) bass player Doris, some other thing struck me on their Wikipedia page. A band timeline.
Yes, that may well be my ignorance but I’ve never came across a band timeline before. I’ve acted upon it, without knowing, I’ve decided to buy an album or not, depending on who was actually working on and influencing the album at the time, but never saw one before or thought it was done. It’s a simple idea but it’s very informing and helpful.
Well actually with some more research (yeah, I know, googling with more keywords and clicking on images link too) I came across a whole bunch of band timelines.
Here is Chthtonic so that you can easily see when Doris joined the band and decide to buy the albums with her contribution.
Or here you can see the band timeline for Korn so that, for example you can easily decide not to buy albums contributed the leadman Jonathan Davis:
It’s very fast and simple. Just like that. Well it’s not all the information you need to decide for buying an album but it helps. It could of course include the producer and composer / song-writers in the timeline. And album names could also be written on it for fast access.
Some other examples are here:
– Or this hard-working wikipedia editor has done many timelines listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Woknam66/timelines
Well you can always read a timeline like this: http://www.black-sabbath.com/theband/timeline/ But it’s not suitable for a quick fact check. This, is:
With just one look you get curious about what they have done in 2007 when they worked with Dio again. (Of course experts and enthusiasts already know that it’s for the rocking collaboration for the Heaven and Hell which disbanded after Dio’s untimely death.)
Here’s another example about Metallica. Here is a timeline for them written as paragraphs, here is another one nicer looking and including album information, here is Metallica’s official timeline, which has more details and more pages more pictures…
But this actually is the most informative one:
As for infographics, you can have more fun with them, while giving information:
* This one gives many facts about Metallica (there is more at the link, I cropped the image):
* This one summarizes their attitude towards stuff, with the title “Things Metallica Hate”:
I actually think that infographics are more helpful when they are about a subject, they are based on an idea, not something in general but focused.
Infographics are far more effective and interesting when they are representing a point of view, along with the information. (That is actually difference between the first and second infographic above.)
Charts are not that way, but their problem is that they have to be helpful for decision making.
So they have to provide the data about a specific decision, that’s should be the main focus for charts.
Otherwise they both mostly are unnecessary or incomplete pieces of hardwork.
To conclude my torn apart article here is the video for the Chthonic I began with:
And this is the album in case you are interested: