Yeah, I understand, it's only logical. You get 5 reviews per month, you can't really choose too much as per what to publish. You get 555, you start being picky.

My point is, there shouldn't be 'double standards' about old and new reviews and maybe some of the really old ones should be removed/modified in some way. Just an idea. Oh well, I know this is never going to happen. I just think it's kinda funny how the whole thing became so strict. Back in 2011 I'd throw any garbage and it would be accepted, especially for the lesser known bands, now you miss a comma and bang.

The mods are only human...even they can't just whisk away every single awful old review until someone specifically brings it to their attention.

Drop the passive aggressive attitude, and how is this a double standard when we are comparing modern submissions to reviews that were submitted a decade ago, under far more lenient rules and guidelines, and moderated by (mostly) different staffers? The guidelines are comparatively strict, and while a few dodgy writers have managed to find a loophole or two, the average review quality is still pretty high.

And did you totally miss this thread? viewtopic.php?f=4&t=4153

Also keep in mind there's tons of wiggle room with reviews. Mods can assign 3, 5 or 8 points to a review, depending on quality. They also tend to be lenient in certain situations. For example I think most mods would have no problem tossing an ancient garbage review with awful formatting, grammar and bare bones description for some famous album with tons of reviews, but if it's the only review for a release many mods take the "well, something's better than nothing" stance, allowing for some pretty skimpy reviews.

So yeah, if it's old and crap, feel free to bring it up in the Oven Fodder thread.

Oh great, I didn't know about this thread! After all, there is benefit of me bringing up the question. Cheers!

You didn't know about that thread, but you knew about this one, both of them stickies practically right next to each other at all times?

Today I read a Felix 1666 review. Falling back into old patterns, he continued his steady reign of writing reviews in past-tense, yet the end product reached an acceptable level. It should come as no surprise that he had a good grasp on classic German speed/thrash metal, inter alia his strong comprehension of the riffing style and distinct sprechgesang, which must be described as more than satisfactory. Hardly lacking of unique ideas, I hoped to see more from this writer.

Ugh, why do people insist on spending 3-5 paragraphs telling a band history lesson that is not pertinent to the main body of the review? Is this a recent trend, or am I just now noticing it?

That is a trait shared by new, young reviewers. Usually, they feel the need to do this so they seem well-read on the subject to older readers, or as they call them, 'elitists' or 'the old guard'. 9 times out of 10 it never ties in with the actual review itself, and sometimes degenerates into revisionist pretentious twaddle... MT_90.

I try and avoid it in my own reviews, given that I fall into this very same bracket of reviewers. However, I feel my review for We've Come For You All has too much of it.

If I see a review start with a band biography I immediately stop reading every single time.

These TrooperOfSteel reviews are what reminded me of it. I had to reject a few of his because it was literally one paragraph of "description" just running through the tracklist real quickly. And that was following several paragraphs of "history" which is just needlessly detailed band notes, which seems to be something of a trend used by lame webzine reviewers to fill empty space. Diegoferreira does the same thing but his reviews are far shorter so it is easier to stomach.

The best way to do a review is just to jump right into it and not waste time with an introduction. If you have to have one, a sentence or two is usually all you need.

People tend to do the whole intro thing because they were taught it in school - five paragraph structure, etc. I always hated that bullshit.

I don't mind a bit of history on the band or album if it's obscure but if you're writing 5 paragraphs on the history of Metallica or whatever then yeah, just don't.

It's probably in part a residue of the times of olde when retrieving all information in the universe was harder than a google search.

I like gasmask_colostomy's reviews quite a bit.

Agreed, and he is about to possibly be rewarded for his high quality output.

EDIT: He is scribed now. Let this be a lesson to the rest of you, put some effort into your reviews and you to can enjoy the luxury of insta-approval, i.e. no more having to deal with me.

He has a real effortless seeming, semi-conversational style that I dig. I know he's a good writer because he makes me want to write a review. The bad ones help me remember why I stopped. There's just so many cool bands with no reviews....but damn. I gotta find a more personal style.

What ever happened to McTague97? He made a load of reviews then stopped. They all seemed awkward to read and just gives everything 70%.

Nope, I didn't, because the name of the thread is kinda misleading, if you don't actually open it, you wouldn't have guessed what it is about. Therefore my ignorance, but now I do know so all is cool and birds are singing.

I actually often like reviews with band history. I think it can be awesome, especially if the band is fairly underground and some band members have links to other bands. I've stumbled upon some pretty cool information that way, definitely don't find it offputting.

I like to put a little bit of a band bio into my reviews. It's usually contained in my first paragraph, unless it's of significant importance to a certain scene or I feel that I shift in the band's sound warrants an explanation of where there were compared to what the album I'm reviewing sounds like.

But, yeah, no one wants to read a biography for bands that already have dozens of accepted reviews because it's already been covered by someone else. I think bios are helpful for the unknown, up and coming or otherwise uncovered bands out there.

Most of these bios or historical introductions are for bands with well documented histories already.

Yeah the problem with the bios isn't usually the bios themselves (though it doesn't help that they're not written with utmost expertise), it's the fact that they're almost exclusively written for bands that are well known enough not to need a backstory. Those aren't needed at all unless you have something new to add or a really interesting perspective to develop, which is probably never gonna be the case for something that's already been discussed to death. If I know fuckall about the band, it's a helpful context-setter, and it's an easy and common starting point when you don't know where to begin your writing, so it's not like we should have a rule against it or anything. However,, if you sloppily write an intro that tells me information I could have found by perusing the band's M-A page, I'm probably not gonna read the rest of what you have to say. What do you know that I don't?

Oh yeah, if it's like a super underground band and their backstory is actually interesting or affirms how good/bad the music is, by all means - but just like the American grade school five-paragraph format with a perfunctory intro and outro put in for no real reason, tends to be used way too often, and comes off as rather elementary. Hopefully those types of reviewers can learn to do better.

I like them too. He's got some imaginative descriptions too, like describing Gamma Ray as "Sunday afternoon Iron Maiden"

That's fair. Should be remedied now.

Reading Master_of_Thrash's latest review for Persecution Mania and.... ugh. It kinda presents this imitation of in-depthness that bugs me. A long-as-buggery review with ultimately not much more to say than "THIS ROX HARDER THAN METALLICA EVA CUD."

That's all the rage with newer thrashers like the self-proclaimed 'Master'- bash on Metallica and say every single thrash band that isn't Metallica is better than them.
And I can assure you, most of his reviews are like this.

He's not wrong but it's about as insightful as saying water is wet or Opeth is complete fucking garbage.

These are things all humans know at a cellular level.

Just read a bunch of his other reviews..... ugh. He obviously forgot the irony in writing 10-paragraph reviews that say almost nothing, while chastising albums for being too long. And seriously, his Among the Living review is almost half backstory. Who the hell needs backstory for an album that well-known? Or a diatribe on how much in Flames sucks now in a review of The Jester Race? Fuck, it's bloody bush week over on this guy's reviews page! HE REVIEWED MASTER OF PUPPETS IN 2015.

Of course he's wrong. There are plenty of absolutely horrendous thrash bands out there.

Whether it be Anialator, Thrash Or Die, or old Devastation, there is always worse than Metallica.
I do love me some Metallica, but to each their own, it is a tad lightweight compared to other major bands in the genre.



Check out MetalThrasher_90's work for even more frustration - I suggest his reviews of Thin Lizzy albums or his infamous review of Saxon's Denim And Leather.

LOL, so I'm not allowed to have my own opinions? Please, give me a break. I can write however and whatever the hell I want. And, if some of you can't respect another person's opinions, then maybe you shouldn't be on here. But, how can elitist losers not take everything so seriously? There are reviews that I completely despise and disagree with, but I don't come on here and bitch about them. Don't come on here and run your moths about other people's writing when you try to be as poetic as Shakespeare yet nothing you've wrote makes any sense. If you don't like what you're reading, simply click elsewhere.

The Running of the Moths was a nocturnal activity everyone could enjoy, until Tim fucked it all up by wearing a glow-in-the-dark tracksuit.

Bitching about reviews is a time-honored tradition in this here thread. Grow thicker skin.

As stated, you must grow thicker skin and be able to take criticism if you are going to write reviews in a public medium such as this. Kudos for not bending over and revising all of your reviews to please everybody, but you must surely understand that your opinions could be deemed controversial?

Oi, this cracks me up. Pleasure To Kill was the first Kreator album I listened to, and I have consistently listened to it ever since I downloaded it 6 months ago. So, I don't know what gives you the right to say I have no idea what I'm talking about. If I said the vocalists from Suffocation and Cannibal Corpse sounded the same, you would still dispute that? I don't think so. Fuck off, yeah?

So you can really just bash your head against the keyboard for five minutes (only a step away from what you're doing now) and I guess that would be okay too, because hey, if we don't like it, we can click elsewhere.

Yeah, I can take criticism. I just find it funny how some peeps are hypocrites and can't reflect on their posts/reviews/whatever. Oh, and thanks for exposing me to the forums. I would never have used them had you not alerted me.

You sure dude? You are melting down already.



How are they hypocrites, if you don't mind me asking? Oh and no problem, but I was sort of hoping you would defend the points you made pursuant to a fair debate instead of blowing us all off as nothing more than "haterz."

I was referring to overly pretentious reviews and how their authors don't make them understandable, but rather show off their writing prowess, yet they criticize those that get straight to the point as "sucky" or whatever. Who knows, maybe I'm just too dumb to understand fancy sentences?