At least once a week there will be a handful of reviews for super big names like Slayer, Metallica, Megadeth, Iron Maiden, et cetera, but big blocks like this are a rarity. They're also usually noob fuel and easily rejected, so they don't sit around long.

The point is: for every funny, Crappy Diem worth submission, there are scores of boring, descriptionless, unacceptable reviews for huge bands. Being a review mod isn't always fun.

Sounds like... not that much fun. Might be a slightly evil idea but maybe put some limitations on albums with 20+ reviews or so (e.g. requires a rank to review)? Not sure if that would actually help or make the problem worse.

On a different note, by coincidence I just read your Super Collider album, and the sentence about the Weather Machine killed me. The whole review is bloody huge but great.

There used to be a sort of unspoken limitation of 25 reviews per album, but that idea has fallen has fallen to the wayside in recent years since in all honesty, that really isn't fair to newcomers.

Yeah I can imagine, but the brutal truth is, sort of, that most such albums were actually reviewed from every existing angle and more. Just wondering, as that might make your job easier in such cases, but dunno if there are any issues I don't see.

Yeah, once. It didn't click like the first three post-reformation albums. The darker style works for a couple of songs, but what I really enjoyed about Arckanum was the passionate, melodic riffing. I'd rank it lower than Helvítismyrkr. But likewise, I have to listen to it more.

Just thought I'd up this questions that got slightly lost in a bigger post, since I'm really interested in an answer. Not beacuase I want to start an argument, but I and my colleagues like some feedback.

I wouldn't presume to speak for Zod, but from a reading of the site I think the big problem (aside from the recently hashed out argument over missing the point of certain genres) is that a lot of the reviews have very little actual musical description and are bulked out by info about the band that is largely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

I'll use the Devourment review as an example: If I read that album without having heard MTD, I'd have no idea of what sound you were saying they abandoned. Having read the review and not yet heard the new album, I still have no idea what the hell it sounds like. Its a brutal death album apparently, but I've no idea of anything beyond that. Not which style(s) of BDM they're playing, not if the production is any good, not what the guitars sound like nor even any idea of what the fleeting high points you alluded to actually are. The whole review could have been boiled down to "Devourment play BDM and I don't like this offering" without losing any real information.

Thank you Zero_Nowhere for some feedback. I moved my full reply to the feedback-thread instead since I felt it belonged there and didn't want to derail this thread and loose even more grace with the mods

In general, all the reviews I've seen come from the site (though mostly not yours) are brief overviews that don't really describe the contents of the album, yet fail as being concise by stretching out a bit of biographical content - basically a waste of time. The webmaster also submitted reviews that were not his own and was warned, then resubmitted them without regard for the rejection message, which further emphasized my negative impression of the site (the reviews that were submitted weren't very good either).

Looking at your more recent reviews, a positive and a negative.

This review is good: http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/S ... 473/Tengan
You describe the music well, the introduction is simple and the majority of the writing is clear and gives an impression of what the album sounds like.

This review is bad: http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/S ... 844/Tengan
Vague comparisons to their other albums, seems to rely on the assumption that the reader knows Suffocation well, yet you neither describe the band nor the album very effectively. The descriptions grasp at something but don't quite hold it, it's all sort of vague in how it compares this to other Suffocation albums, and I'm also wondering about the production comment - Blood Oath had very clean production too. A few worthwhile comments but a lot of wandering without really having a coherent description or a strong commentary.

Zodijackyl > Thank you for the feedback. I see your points and I will work on the music description even more.

A bit of a spin-off question: How much should one describe the music at hand when making a reference to another band/album regarding a detail in the sound? E.g. the drumsound reminds one of Archgoat or the solos are very similar to the chaotic solos of Reign in Blood-era Slayer. How much can one demand the reader to know in advance regarding similar music and how much should one explain more detailed? I find this a bit tricky.

^ I think I can field that spin-off, being a reader/listener of an intermediate level of experience. A lot of album/tech references go by in a blur so they do me no good whatsoever. It's my own ignorance, sure, but that doesn't help me understand any better. When I get the reference, though, it's immensely helpful. I deal best with just good ol description and adjectives. A little for everyone is my advice, nooby to veteran. There are no requisites for metal listening, so you can't predict. Just be accurate, descriptive, clear, and opinionated. Then just about anyone can understand enough to glean a satisfactory impression.

It really depends on what you're reviewing, since everyone will be familiar with Slayer, but unless you're referring black/death, the reader likely won't know Archgoat. I've listened to them and seen them live and I can't recall off hand anything notable about their drum sound. Try to pair a description with the reference, so one could understand that without knowing the reference, but the reference would enhance it.

Does anyone else get a "creepy uncle" vibe from this review?

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

^Liquid_Braino is awesome. One of the more underrated reviewers, methinks.

I was just about to start writing a review for the new Svartsyn album so I decided to read the other 2. When I first listened to this album parts of it just immediately hit me as sounding like Immortal if they hadn't strayed to far from their Pure Holocaust sound. Well autothrall compares them to early Immortal at least twice in his review so now I'm not sure if I should even mention that or not, but he definitely hit the nail on the head there.

I might be a bit dim but why don't you want to mention the same similarities as another writer? If you both hear it then it will just strenghten the case for the reader so to speak. Looking forward to hear your opinions on it.

Yeah I will probably still write it, but in a different way obviously. I definitely like it more than I thought I would, one of their (his) best for sure. Also my grading won't be as tough as you guys

Tough? Imho 75% is still the mark of a "good" to "very good" album, but then I also believe there is somewhat of an inflation in grading at MA

Yeah, picking an exact % out of 100 is tough for me... Sometimes I feel like a couple of mine might be too high, but then I think they could easily be 100%s as well because the particular style of the band/album doesn't really get much better than that. Giving the Lutomysl album I reviewed a 100 was a no brainer and is definitely my favorite out of the ones I've reviewed so far. I waffled back and forth on my Sad - DTD review, kept lowering it, then listening to it again and changing it back... I hope the mods don't get a message every time someone changes a review rating!

Is the new Sabbath album really deserving of a 0%? I mean...really?

I haven't heard the album yet, although well, this is one of the better 0% reviews I've seen. I have no clue if the actual album deserves to be treated this harshly though.

Just please, please, please don't use the word "overproduced" in a review. This word means literally nothing. It is absolutely void of any possible meaning and is the all-time #1 on the list of words that don't mean shit but sound good as an insult. The paragraph related to production would be 3x better without this.

Sorry but I had to get this off my chest.

I wouldn't call the production "overproduced" at all. It's a bit too loud sometimes, but the guitar, drum, and especially the bass tones make up for that.

Also, no, the album is not a 0% album. Even if you go into the album wanting to hate it like I know a lot of people want to, it's in no way deserving of a 0%.

overproduced means lots of things, and is a perfectly valid complaint, especially in albums like this.

Also: glad drone's back, not one of his best but good to see him live and kicking/reviewing. And yeah you're right subrick, I'd give it at least a 2 or 3% It's a pretty damn bad album.

After seeing this word approximately 3435466892 times I still have no idea what the fuck it's supposed to mean, besides possibly "it's not raw enough" or "this doesn't sound '80s". If the production is lifeless or overly sterile, just call it that. That actually says something.

How is that any less generic? You've described what approximately 3435466890 people mean when they say "overproduced". I challenge you to come up with an even vaguely meaningful definition of either lifeless or overly sterile that is in any way better than overproduced.

But why do that when you could just whine about shit like you do in the other 99% of your posts, right?

I knew this would descend into arguing with a gorilla pretty soon so I give up. (And I expected you to be exactly the kind of person to abuse this kind of "terms")

25-30%, nothing more. 13 is an effort from a Sabbath-cover band which happens to feature 3 core Sabbath members. You can even name the songs they got inspired by!! holy fuck.

I don't like the way the album was produced myself, but I'm still torn on how I'm going to rate this thing myself. There is a lot of extremely overt self-plagiarism going on and Rick Rubin has proven yet again that he has forgotten how to produce a metal album (not that his work with Slayer was anything stellar, he was basically a liability on 3 otherwise solid albums). One thing I can say for certain is that "The Devil You Know" was the last worthy thing that Black Sabbath ever did and because of Sharon Osbourne it will never carry the Sabbath name.

Evidently you're not familiar with droneriot, he can't go through life without something to unleash his unrelenting hatred upon. Not that I'm one to talk given my own fetish for using the "0" score fairly often, though I usually target albums that are universally hated.

Using the term overproduced is fine. Production can be sterile and lifeless without necessarily being overproduced. People do abuse and overuse it, but that's hardly a reason to never use it within the right context. Yes, describing every black metal album with a more accessible production as that is silly, but there is are plenty of reviewers who use the term appropriately.

"Overproduced" means exactly what it says: the production quality is too modern/clean/polished/whatever for the music on the release.

I'd like to say that I bought this CD based on Noktorn's review and it was a good choice. He described the music well, and though the review was only vaguely positive, I enjoy it. The review is quite accurate and does a great job of explaining what it sounds like.

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/A ... 53/Noktorn

The problem is that it's usually thrown around so loosely that I really don't see this word meaning anything. 99% of the time it's used by "look i'm so trve" kids.


I've seen this used for bands which indeed have a modern and clean production, but it makes perfect sense. I've seen recent Katatonia called "overproduced" quite a few times (and it's one of the main reasons why I love this word so much), and good luck finding a band whose sound fits a modern, clean production more.

Just because you've seen a word misused doesn't mean the word is any less valuable.

This.
And I think you're perceiving the percentage "look how kvlt I am" people to be much higher than it really is. Sure, there's definitely a lower tolerance for more mainstream and readily accessible black metal here than on other well known metal sites, but that hardly makes people 'kvlt-obsessed' or whatever.

I'm not really talking about MA (thankfully I haven't seen this word used that much here), but overall I've seen this word abused heavily and I can't recall a single case ever when I didn't think it sounded moronic in the context. Seriously. There are plenty of ways to describe a production that doesn't fit the album that actually say more about what's wrong with it, while this word seems to mostly be a favourite among people who wish the world had ended in 1989.

Here's one of my favorite examples of a review that says hey this sucks because it's "overproduced" AKA too good
http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/Kult_ov_Azazel/Oculus_Infernum/20050/Spawnhorde

How about the word "overconfident"? like music is better when the artists are not sure or confident about what they're doing.
http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/Infernal_War/Terrorfront/59489/Stein

So basically TheLiberation is complaining about the term "overproduced"... but not because it's a hackneyed phrase of description (just like any other word that would be thrown around while describing production), but because he's rectumravaged over the concept of anyone preferring older, rawer production to modern Rick Rubin-type "maximum sonic clarity" crap. Considering that you (correctly) assume that people are usually desiring older, more organic production whenever they use that term, I would say that it works pretty well if even its detractors can immediately associate the word with a certain sound (or lack thereof).

Admit it, dude, deep down you think it describes what it intends to just fine, but you've just got personal beef with the fact that anyone would ever want to use it. I get the feeling that you're trying to pass your argument off as much more objectve than it really is.

And he really likes that Kult ov Azazel album, because that's at least the second time he's whined about that review.

There is one way to sum this entire post up: lol wat

I don't give a fuck if some people want a rawer production. We're talking about cases where the word means literally fuck all and the only thing possible to draw from context is that the author is buttmad that we're not in the '80s anymore, and the band dares prefer a clearer and more modern sound. We're not talking about cases of either overly sterile and lifeless sound, or loudness war reaching nuclear danger levels (Death Magnetic), we're talking about cases of people whining over albums clearly written and intended to sound modern. If you can imagine The Great Cold Distance with an '80s production then I can only congratulate you a very rich imagination, but unfortunately this is one of the examples when I've seen this word thrown around a lot, and I hope I don't have to argue how retarded it is.

(Before someone says I'm raging about one of my favourite albums getting attacked, I'm just giving you a precise example. I wish nobody used this shitty "argument" anywhere else.)

And dunno if that was directed at me or the guy below me but I don't even know Kult ov Azazel.

Sorry dude, but I do agree with Clannfear and there's nothing lol wut about his post. First off, I don't know why you keep equating the 80s with raw production, most of the ''trve" stuff you were referring to started in the 90s. Judging from your reviews and a few posts I've seen, (and I may be wrong because you only have 5 so I don't have much to go on) it seems that you're a fan of the cleaner and more accessible side of metal (not saying that's a bad thing, to each their own) and kind of angry about a couple of people using overproduced to describe that general type of production. Sure, a few reviewers do abuse that term to denote any sort of cleaner production, but you make the number of people who do this out to be much higher than it actually is. Most people who do this aren't established prolific reviewers, but people who do a few reviews on a lark.