There's a review for Darzamat "In the Opium of Black Veil" 1997, some copypaste from lordsofmetal.nl - http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/D ... eil/11594/ - and the problem with it is, well, it's not really a review.

It doesn't contain any information about the music on this release, but rather continues the review of previous release "In the Flames of Black Art" 1996 ( http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/D ... Art/11593/ ) - also a copy-paste from lordsofmetal.nl.

The review for 1996 is quite bad IMO, but it's not bad grammar-wise - rather information-wise (I'm not entirely sure what author means there, but I think he actually calls Theatre of Tragedy "gothic/black metal" - really, gothic _black_ metal, Theatre of Tragedy? And also he says Darzamat "stole" ideas from Theatre of Tragedy, while both had debut full-lengths released in '96, so it's highly unlikely). Since it's grammar that's important to MA, not the facts ((-; , I guess that one should remain - at least it mentions something about the music (though the main complaint of the author seems to be that the music is mid-tempo - doh).

But the "review" for 1997 is just... not a review. The text just states that this is a continuation of previous material, and that it is bad and unworthy - without any reasoning behind such evaluation. Again, the grammar is fine there, so I'm not sure what you guys decide on this one, but IMO it should be nuked. It doesn't talk about the music at all - the author clearly refers to previous "review" on that matter, but I don't think it's valid to do so - the music isn't exactly the same, it's really wrong to use one review for two different releases (actually even if the music would sound _exactly_ the same to the author, he could've at least mention the aspects he evaluated). And again, previous review was far from good to begin with.

Thanks, deleted. This was the whole review, if there's others like this one, let me know. We don't allow this kind of plagiarism.

Track-by-track that falls into the trap of "this track is faster, this track is slower". It's also poorly written and doesn't even mention that the music on this compilation sounds completely different than what the band became known for.
http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/D ... 851/Scared

The first half of this one says enough about the music, but then Justin Bieber?
http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/B ... 752/Scared

Ahhh, good ole Beiber. I await the day when a reference to Justin Beiber is appropriate... I will then continue to bash my skull in with a mallet.

Fire up the oven!
http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/D ... /Disbelief

How did I not notice that one? I was there just last week.

Can we just get rid of 99% of the pre-2006 or 2007 reviews? Pretty much every review I've read from before that has been barely a paragraph, extremely general, and just crappy compared to the reviews being done nowadays.

Vothana - Tiếng gọi lính vào chiến tranh
http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/V ... anh/44528/



"Pure Goat..."

... pure crap. Delete?

I heard this band sounds like Cannibal Corpse.
http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/C ... lesh/3937/

Vothana again!

Trưng Trắc - Trưng Nhị
http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/V ... %8B/70329/

Don't pass this one up - 100%
When you are in Minnesota, you wonder if anyone has the true spirit of black metal in them. After all this state surely has its share of poser black metal bands. You get sick of hearing about the local band "Teratism" after a while, and you wonder what the fuck people see in them. Then you got a band like Vothana. Who are nothing short of extreme black metal genius. When I first popped this demo into my cassette player I was in awe. The sounds are similar to an early Burzum/Abigor rawness to them. When you listen to the tracks through entirely, you get the feeling that this "Lord Nebulah" is in extreme agony and misery. Side B, only has two tracks and that alone is worth the 3 dollars I paid for it. This demo is strictly limited to 100 copies and it was damn well worth every cent! I would have gladly paid more for it. Pinning down the sounds of this demo is not an easy task. One of the tracks consists of what I thought was the Vietnamese national anthem, and I could be wrong, accompanied by an extremely melancholy guitar sound, this follows into an extremely high pitched hurricane of despair,anger,and hatred. If I could give this demo a better review I would, but trust me. If you are someone that aches for something from the heart of Vietnam and Hell, then you would be a FOOL to pass this one up! Sad,Isolated,Angry,Amazing. Just believe.
xorthen, August 17th, 2005

These reviews must have been written by the same person (the band member himself?)
Vothana seems to be one hell of a band, 100% all around. Except for that one 0% review that is.

Vothana+fans are pissy about the music being reviewed, apparently the dude and his disciples don't like it to be reviewed. I've gotten some hate mail about it. There's actually some good music there, but it's wildly inconsistent and tends to get into really long, boring stretches that are compounded by the production being hit or miss, sometimes fitting the feel of the music well, sometimes not at all. I can understand scoring some of the music very high, but not that one.

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/G ... etal_bryan

He even admits in the opening sentence that he could write a review of suitable length and description, but won't. Very general, very short, and just seems like a review from 2003 that managed to sneak its way into 2011.

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/C ... ll_In_Vain

Doesn't do a good job of describing the music. Mentions that it's the same Catamenia and leaves it at that. He mentions vocal styles and riffs but uses broad as fuck terms like "good" more than actual description.


You get what I mean.

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/A ... orpseBelch

Technical and melodic never go together. It's fast and has dual harmonies. That's two thirds of the review there, but this section on the drums is really bad.

The drummer also has a lot of flavor and changes up the beat quite a bit. There are a lot of blast beats as well as double bass playing. An odd thing to mention is that he seems to use two or three snare drums, mainly one but switches to another for certain parts. During some of the blasts he'll use a more high-pitched snare which is kind of irritating, but not really a big deal as he hardly ever uses it.

He uses one snare drum, those other drums that he runs down during the fills are toms. There is only one snare drum in his kit, maybe he's mixing up the blasts with a ride cymbal and the hi-hat?

This one's pretty bad too.
http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/A ... 8061/asmox

I'm not sure on this one, worth taking a look at.
http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/A ... 1/danyates

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/N ... 5/Arboreal

I hate me some Nile, too, but this guy sucks. Takes way too much space attacking Karl Sanders himself (lots of talk about food).

Talks about how boring the album is, gets some vocal description in the middle (third) paragraph ["verge on that awful "inhaled sound" a lot. Pretty indecipherable most of the time" being the only part], and talks about lack of exotic instruments.

Seems to me like the guy was reaching too far and trying too hard to hate the album. Fails to mention the key instruments like the drumming (aside from saying it's mechanical), fails to understand that the "egyptian" aspect he wanted was also in the riffs and tonality (VERY easy to hear that) but like a child wants it so apparent so he doesn't have to dig 2 inches for it, and fails to actually understand the album beyond 1 sitting.

Wait, what?

The Corpsefucking Art, Vothana and the first two Arsis reviews are all goners. I'm a bit torn on the third Arsis review, it's bare bones to say the least but probably just good enough to stay.

The Nile review is pretty arsey, but I think the reviewer does a decent enough job of describing what he doesn't like about the music in between all the snarking.

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/Mourning_Beloveth...grimdoom

This review only covers the Lunar Gate side of the split, and all I got out of that was that the song had bad production and vocals.

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/H ... ses_Priced

A funny review, for sure, but rather devoid of musical description.

Looks fine to me.

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/L ... /GoliathJT

Says extremely little about the album that is worthwhile in terms of description. It would be poor even for an amazon review. It gives a completely wrong idea of the album, aswell.

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/M ... ld_Colours

This line made me laugh.

Punching..... The air? What, you will start a hardcore dance or something similar?

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/B ... Xecutioner

Did this guy make a mistake when putting in the rating score?

^Don't think that would be worthy of deletion, though. You could try asking the user.

This review is rather short though the author does kind of describe the music. It does, however, come off as extremely groan-worthy to me.

:thumbsdown:

EDIT: Okay, I thought that would work ...

There are, actually, a lot of reviews here by long-time writers that are written brilliantly, but fail to actually describe the album. Now, out of respect, I won't point fingers, but some of them really tell nothing music-wise.

If they don't accurately describe the music, should they not be excised as per MA's new standards?

Great post. If you know of any delete-worthy material, post it here please, but saying vague stuff like that, probably just to stir things up, is useless. So yes, please do point fingers, that's what this thread is for.

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/W ... Leperjesus



that is a bit short, or?

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/S ... 3109/Snxke

Allmusic styled quasi-description. Doesn't say much at all, and is rendered obsolete by newer reviews.

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/V ... deofmordor

I wouldn't be giving that reviewer an E for effort.

Heh, that's a pretty borderline-unintelligible load of crap... but I dunno, it's not like the goregrind genre really deserves reviews that say anything more than "the fat redneck that made this album used a pirated version of fruityloops, he wears cargo shorts and trucker caps, and says 'that's fuckin brutal, dude' a lot"

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/T ... ublinboyo8

This review holds little to no description of the music, and leaves the reader with the assumption that the backing vocalist did all the growled vocals. It also uses acronyms... He really couldn't be bothered to type out 'drum & bass'?

Initialism, not acronym.

This should not exist.


Don't see how this is helpful or descriptive at all. A lot of things are better then nu-metal. Not a single sentence about the music other then that its not nu-metal. Not very helpful to someone who has never heard Cathedral.

Indeed, pretty shit. I'll look into their other reviews. Thanks.

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/H ... /BaronVonK

This review sucks.



You cannot keep this review after opening this spoiler box.