Maybe this is just me, but I tend to be a little more hesitant writing reviews for releases that already have a lot of reviews. Not that I write that many, anyway, but to give you an example, I really enjoy Aborted's Global Flatline and wouldn't mind reviewing it, yet there are already 13 reviews there, most of which likely saying what I was going to say. I feel like I would just be rehashing and not adding anything worthwhile to the review pile.

As another even more extreme example, Slayer's Reign in Blood has an astonishing 31 reviews. Would you write one for that, or do you feel everything that could be said about the album has been said?

What do you guys think?

For really big albums this is usually just done by 16 year olds who just got into metal. They'll hopefully realize their own silliness eventually.

I tend to gravitate towards albums and bands with no reviews. There are a ton of bands out there deserving of some praise or recognition. To me, that's what reviewing is all about; finding new bands and spreading the word.

If you have something of note to add: sure. If you do not, why bother? Personally, I do love when a record has dozens of reviews; it gives me lots to read through while listening, and nearly every reviewer has an interesting comment or observation to appreciate. The one is very impressed by a chorus in one song; the other loves a solo in another; a third appreciates the lyrics in an overlooked gem. If so, it's fine by me!

That is kind of my thinking, really. I have to make sure that what I'm writing has enough substance to stand on its own, but I guess even that is up to the reader's interpretation.


This is also a good point. Different perspectives, even if it's slight.

I might (not Slayer hell of not) if I had something to say that I felt was important that I wasn't seeing in the existing reviews. However, I'd keep it pretty short and get to the point, giving the whole backdrop/context section at most a passing mention, since .. y'know .. 13 other people rehashing.

We've had a shitload of people submitting random reviews for Metallica, Slayer, etc classics lately - pretty lame...

I have seen that, too. While they all deserve their own reviews, submitting ones for lesser known bands would be preferable.

I just saw that Wintersun's Time I has 34 reviews. Is that the most of any release on the Archives?

That's a good question. Why don't you take a look?

www.metal-archives.com/stats

I guess Penis Metal is well known, haha. Also Buckethead has a lot of releases and autothrall practically doubles second place in submitted reviews. That was cool. Thanks!

The only time I'm interested in reading new reviews for classic 80s metal albums is when it's someone with a deep breadth of knowledge talking about the album in some new, interesting way - i.e. the opposite of 16 year olds who just got into metal giving those albums an 80% and saying "yeah, pretty good but it has flaws and is overrated." But eh, they'll hopefully learn with time!

Yeah, it's lame when noobs barge in and start talking about Reign in Blood and Ride the Lightning for the sixteen squintillionth time but in the interest of fairness we don't discriminate anymore (there used to be an unspoken soft cap of 25 unless the review was extraordinarily good, but that's an old practice that we've phased out over the years obviously), but at the same time, that's how I got my start reviewing here so I understand why it happens. Granted I wasn't necessarily a noob since I've been listening to metal in some form for literally my entire life, so it wasn't like I was hearing Metallica for the first time and just getting blown away when I was 16, but 2014 BH would have hated 2008 BH regardless.

tl;dr - You're bound to get an eye roll from the queue mod and it's really not encouraged to cut your teeth with half-exposition-copied-from-wikipedia snoozefest reviews for classic albums with a bunch of reviews, but it's not outright forbidden. Just know that the mods will hate you and everybody will mock you in the Review Forum unless you're a gifted writer with interesting things to say.

Whether or not I will write a review is based entirely on how much I am able to add to what's already out there. Because if there is not much I can say that has already been said, there is little sense in wasting time to try and capture those same thoughts in fancier words.

Mind that how many times an album has been reviewed does not necessarily indicate whether there is something left to be said. For instance, I wrote a review of Peste Noire's L'Ordure à l'état Pur a few years back because I felt reviewers were massively misinterpreting what this album stood for (across in internet; not necessarily here on M-A).

I write my reviews based on how much i think i can actually write something about it. Although i guess most of my reviews are not for albums with a lot of reviews, heck i doubled my total amount of reviews with the latest review challenge.

I think it deserves to be mentioned that Penis Metal is exempt from the above discussion. The more reviews on that thing, the better.

I myself have made the very bold decision of attempting to review many of those albums in an attempt to challenge myself. I only ended up saying the wrong things (which included some historical inaccuracies) and pissing people off. Even though they were approved, the reviews proved to be sub-par. I came under fire from a lot of people due to my sheer overconfidence. I must not have had enough knowledge in order to tackle those albums.

Dude, it's good you realize you were a bit out of your depth, but don't sweat it, just move on and do better reviews, practice more, etc. No need to keep flogging a dead horse, ya know?

damn right

I also think people should read the existing reviews before submitting theirs. I mean, if an album has 20 reviews already, it's almost certain than more than 3 or 4 guys already made an 'historical' intro about the album. No need of adding that shit once again (and even less likely MetalThrasher90 does).

When I did the review for Sabbath's 13, it was a new album and there were few of them, also all of them quite different from mine. I would not review any Sabbath album today, unless is a Tony Martin-era one. And yeah, Reviews for Metallica, Slayer or Maiden's classics are totally unnecessary.

I'm not a brilliant nor a profilic reviewer but I think I should do it again. Maybe to focus on my own country's bands, since I have a lot of albums and there are no reviews for them.

Yeah, I should stop beating myself up for making mistakes. Thanks for the advice.