Never heard that nickname before.

Thanks for the mention, mate. To be honest I'm never happy with my reviews and I don't write all that often, but every now and again I like to put forth my opinion. Once uni is over I might start writing a little more again. Thanks again.

^ I enjoy reading your reviews so please start writing again ASAP.

Definitely enjoy Mikey's stuff as well.

That was a very interesting post, Mike. Just out of curiosity, what years would you consider the "golden era" to be?

I sorta agree with Noktorn's take on it that it probably started somewhere in 06/07 and lasted until around 09/10 when autothrall showed up. It sounds silly since we put so little value on the quantity of reviews nowadays but there really was some sort of personal pride in moving your way up the ranks of written reviews. I remember being so proud when I broke into the top 100 (I just went and checked it out of curiosity, and in our own little circle, myself, you, MC, and Tony are numbers 34, 35, 37, and 38 respectively, with only 13 reviews separating the top and bottom of us (caspian absolutely crushes us though at 16, with 625 to my 293)), and I remember watching the silly little race to see who would make it to #1 and usurp Boris. There may have only really been one circle if you think about it (though it was still kinda splintered with the HPS crowd paying attention to each other more than the rest) but it was pretty large, and everybody read everybody else. There was a lot of friendly rivalry and a feeling of community at the time that's sorta not quite there anymore. That's not to say it's gone, it's just different, with more smaller groups. The way the Noob Crew is now is sorta how a lot of people were back then. I'm not blaming autothrall for killing anything like Noktorn implied (because he's a solid writer most of the time, though formulaic on obscure releases and incredibly detailed and insightful on popular ones), but his arrival sorta coincided with a lot of people tapering off or leaving the site and the release of V2. Him mass submitting thousands at once sorta killed the "race to the top" that was going on.

The real culprit to me is the slew of promo reviewers that became more prominent. You know the types, the ones who title every review the title of the release and score everything in multiples of 5 and all happen to be really nice to obscure nobodies from Bosnia and Qatar. It's a very soulless, mechanical type of writing that seems like there's just absolutely no joy involved. I pick on the Noob Crew a lot but I don't discourage them because at least they're all spirited and enthusiastic and obviously making a real effort into making their reviews their own. They're the same as the rest of "us", just a decade or so younger. Some of them will definitely be talked about in the future the same way the Golden Age heroes are now.


Also, while looking at the Top 100 list, I was reminded of when KayTeeBee pm'd me really really early in my reviewing days to say he was surprised to find out I was only 17 and was really impressed, and encouraged me to keep going because I was only getting better. Not only was it a big deal because, while I joke about my attention whore capabilities, I really do take words of encouragement like that to heart and it really meant a lot to me. Plus, he was in the top ten holy shit that's so cool I'm being noticed by the big dogs omg omg omg. He was #9 at the time, early 2008. He's currently #99. SO MUCH HAS CHANGED I CAN'T HANDLE IT.

Happy to be the awkward number 36 in the middle in the middle of you guys When I started reviewing I was quite obsessed with climbing up the ladder, although it was much easier to move through places 100-50 than the top 50. That's partly down to my reduced work-rate, but the gaps are also much bigger. Nowadays it doesn't really matter that much to me, but it's still kinda cool to see my name up there with the likes of you guys.

Is there a review rank list? Where can I find it?

Main page > More stats > Top 100 Members > Written Reviews

(also yay 86th)

Beating FullMetalAttorney for the 32nd spot should be seen as a great life goal.

Yes, those are the worst! But I will defend rating on the x/20 scale or multiples of five. If done consistently, the scores actually become useful to the reader if they are familiar with the individuals work. Most people just pull scores out of their ass. I know we stress that scores aren't important, but that is all dependent on the writer. In most cases they aren't.

I fucking hate most promo/'zine' reviewers.

That relatively strict rating scale of increments of 5 is the best on the site IMO. Whenever I see someone like Diamhea give an album a 90% or even an 85%, I know that it's good shit. That's actually how I came across Rheingold and a few other really good albums. I pull my scores out of my ass half the time (I pulled a lot more than the score out of my ass on some of my older stuff ) but looking back I'm always tempted to try and improve my scoring as well as the writing.

It's like calibrating a piece of equipment. Now that you've done it a bunch, think on it a bit harder next time. What are you adding up to get to that number, for example?

I don't even read autothrall's reviews anymore. I just scan the scores and if he ranks an album above 70% odds are I'll dig it.

I've written more reviews than Napero? That's quite a shock to learn.

I find autothrall's scaling very reliable. If he rates something below 60% and it's not a compilation or EP with tracks available elsewhere or whatever that he arbitrarily trashes, odds are good it actually is shit. If he rates something 80-100%, it's a bit of a toss up. That 60-79% zone is the autothrall sweet spot; generally stuff he reviews that falls in that range is very good and worth a listen.

I do wish I was a more consistent writer. While a lot of my early reviews are probably not very good at all, I actually am quite proud of some of my more recent ones. At the same time, there are plenty I've written that are utterly uninspired, the result of having nothing much to say about a bland release that I probably felt obligated to review for some reason or other. I'd like to work to get my batting average up a bit, for sure.

Your string of Taake reviews was phenomenal!

Hey, thanks dude! One of my favorite bands, so I thought I'd try my hand at writing reviews people might actually read, hah.

Since I'm boozing at a bar and using my phone I'll give a shout out to Gutterscream. His reviews are so well rendered that actual musical description isn't even necessary, as he captures the era's vibe so well. His Dissection (the short lived thrash band) review is a perfect example.

For a less obvious choice, stonetotem was quite prolific in 2009 and left his mark with fantastic musical description despite his overtly positive vibe...he loved his metal.

Haha holy crap I'm still 79? I feel like I haven't written in like two years.

Thanks, LB. Just read your exceptional Fear of God Within the Veil review. Nice job. Very different from Toxic Voodoo, which didn't exactly fluff yer pillow, but I like it, especially "Feed Time".

I've always enjoyed reviews by Napero (whenever I need a smile), Olympicsharpshooter (who can't get enough "Laguna Sunrise"), BastardHead (and after I've read all of Napero's reviews, I come here), failsafeman (like his too-short Omen Battle Cry review), Nightgaunt (well, it's been the same seven reviews for the last 112 years, so...), caspian (Die Verbannten Kinder Evas anyone?), Empyreal (his two Atheist reviews can galvanize me to throw 'em on), DawnoftheShred (I used to frequent a bar where God Forbid was one of its bands-of-choice...notice I said 'used to'), Metantoine (just read his Dark Quarterer review, actually), Liquid_Braino, Radagast (recently eyeballed his strong White Wizzard trilogy), dismember_marcin (liked his recent Torchure review), gasmask-colostomy (nifty recent Spectre review), Byrgan (Betrayer & Hellhunter reviews recently crossed my brainpan), Acrobat (another funny guy) and probably some others that I either can't spell off the top of my head or can't remember the specific review that threw 'em across my radar. The ease in which Autothrall adds to his sheer volume of reviews often has me doubting my own ability and makes me wanna crawl onto the couch and watch Grease 2 for the sixteenth time today.

Friends,

I am new in the archives but I have a suggestion that probably it has been raised before. Sorry if that is the case.

I would find very useful if EM users were able to vote accepted reviews. That will weight the influence of unfair or extremely subjective reviews and also will help to build some reputation on fair good reviewers.

Someone's beloved little album just got blasted, uh?

Get in the queue.

Life goal achieved. I'm getting a cookie for this, right?

While your suggestion seems to come from an honest desire to have a fair chance, it is also very complicated and will lead to other kinds of unfairness. For example, a review written for a well-known band would surely receive more user votes than one written for a little-known band, meaning that the site would end up with far more reviews for popular albums and almost nothing for more obscure releases. Therefore, there would be more information where no more is really needed and still no information where it would be useful.

Secondly, user voting can also be arbitrary and could lead to the same kind of petty disputes found all across the internet, not to mention friends voting for other friends' reviews, and so on.

In a perfect world, the review acceptance would be a democracy, but we have to respect the rules as well. When I started to write reviews I had many rejected, but that made me improve my writing and consider the content more carefully so that it would meet the standard of the site. Good luck in your future reviews.

Back on the main thread, I would highly recommend Felix1666 as an entertaining and passionate reviewer (his review for Accept's 'Eat the Heat' is hilarious and exactly what the band were thinking too), while I find some of ConorFynes's whole-discography reviews useful when exploring a new band. Diamhea also has a sensible style and rarely gets carried away with hyperbole (most of his scores fall between 60-85%, which is a good way to score), but my personal shout for the best reviewer to study would be Hells_unicorn.

I don't think that Hells_unicorn is the most amusing reviewer or the best writer on the site (I mean, someone has lost an apostrophe in that username for starters), but his ability to structure a review and leave you with an accurate impression of the music is terrific. When I was trying to learn a reviewing style, I often returned to his "5 paragraph" style, which goes something like this:

1. Background or context for album
2. General sound of the album, including comparisons to other bands
3. Specific sound of the album, including each bandmember's contribution
4. Details about best, worst, or notable songs
5. Conclusion and personal opinion.

If in doubt, I would always have a look at that structure, although these days he's shortening it to 4 paragraphs more and more. Anyway, a great reviewer to learn from.

I second that, hells_unicorn is one of the reviewers that inspired me to start reviewing. And so are you, gasmask, I've found your reviews really entertaining and insightful

Felix 1666 is a hard marker (I mean, 82% for Epidemic of Violence? Christ) but I still think he's one of the better reviewers also

Thanks Tanuki, just trying to while away the boredom of life and love metal in a different way...although I guess some of my worst reviews are like loving metal from behind...

Sorry for the ultra-late reply but thanks!

I wrote that Within the Veil review while I was a jury member for a particularly heinous sex-offender case for two weeks. It's weird reading it again now, as I pretty much kept that review downright serious and even somber...not my usual approach. Hearing a fair amount of horrific testimonies during that period wore me down and I wrote that thing just to get my mind off the case, but it didn't really work. I prefer your review of that album over mine though...better prose.

I checked out Toxic Voodoo again recently, and hearing it now I can at least say that the production is better than I remembered, and a couple of songs are okay, but it still doesn't compare to anything Dawn's been involved with before. That old review of mine does need a rewrite though; it made me wince.

lol Thanks for the vote of confidence, I was actually looking through some reviews I did a couple years ago and noticed some isolated syntax and grammar errors that I have since corrected, most particularly my review of Epitaph's "Seeming Salvation", and actually found out they reformed about a year later and actually put out a new album a few months ago after 24 years.

I basically went through a period of trial and error since I first started writing for this site back in 2005 and didn't really hit a good groove until about the tail end of 2007, but even then my reviews were a bit less structured and I'd often end up with 7-8 paragraphs. The 5-paragraph and now 4-paragraph tendency is largely a consequence of me writing reviews on the fly and tending to fall back on a similar structure of keep things concise since I don't have as much free time now as I did back in the mid-2000s when I was a substitute teacher. That "on the fly" writing approach is part of the reason why these little errors keep popping up in my reviews that I later have to go back and fix. I actually don't have anything in the way of a 1st draft, 2nd draft approach to writing, it's all done within a span of about 15-30 minutes, usually while listening to the album for the 4th or 5th time.

I've recently returned from a 7-year hiatus (holy shit, that went by fast...) and it totally seems like the reviewers landscape here has changed a lot. Many of the old guard seem to be gone. I do enjoy autothrall's reviews and when I read Gutterscream's name somewhere, i tend to stay a while and read some of his.

Anyway, I've written about 120 reviews up to 2009 and I think that my word pool, as well as my understanding of the English language has improved since then. Looking back at some of my old stuff, I'm glad that I took some time off.

It's nice to be here again and see some familiar names, though.

I'm +3 years into my review hiatus. 2013 feels so distant. Hard to turn what scant notes I've taken these years into a decent review.

I'm working on a year and a half in review goof-off mode.

I don't understand why you don't contribute reviews anymore. If you never shake off the rust it only gets harder and harder.

Originally I did it to focus on my final 2 quarters of university. Since graduating 2 years ago I then had to focus on a fulltime job, and thereafter I moved overseas for a year. I guess during that time I found other hobbies and generally wasn't on MA as much anymore. I was gone from here for months. I want to put my thoughts to writing since I do want to review but it just feels like it wouldn't be worth it anymore.