Oh I definitely hate the excessively pretentious crap as well; there are of course both good and bad ways to execute both extremes. Part of the knock on your reviews isn't that they are perfunctory; quite the contrary, as they contain a bunch of pointless history lessons that contribute very little to the final product. Many writers use this as a crutch when they don't actually have a lot to say about the music.

I've never seen anyone call a review "sucky" for being straight to the point. Being straight to the point is encouraged. It's perfectly possible for reviews to be intelligent and straight to the point.

I agree with you about long history lessons. I feel like they are interesting to me as a writer, but I definitely see where you're coming from. I just re-read my review on Manowar's Battle Hymns, and while I do like it, I could have cut down on the band's bio and whatnot. Sorry, I will try to reduce my introductory ramblings in the future.

I guess this is pretty unproductive now that you guys are coming to some sort of mutual understanding, but I'd still like to note the irony of "if you don't like to read it, don't write a response to it that I wouldn't like to read".

I also adore the idea of "How can you possibly say I don't know what I'm talking about in regards to something I downloaded six months ago?" My how times have changed. I have sweaters I bought six months ago that I look at and ask myself what the hell I was thinking.

How about the fact that Mille was not the vocalist for "Death is Your Saviour", "Command of the Blade" and "Riot of Violence"? The drummer Jurgen Reil (aka 'Ventor') was the vocalist for those three tracks. I'd say that's a pretty good reason why Mille sounds a bit different on those songs.

If you're going to download thrash albums and then write reviews calling yourself a fucking "master of thrash", it might help to do a bit of research on extremely well known landmarks of the genre.

I also somehow didn't even register the second half of that post with the Suffocation and CC comparison. Actually yes, I would dispute that because neither Frank Mullen's early or later style sounds like Chris Barnes or Corpsegrinder. They're similar in the sense that they're both death metal vocalists, but a cursory listen past, oh I dunno less than six months of familiarity shows a lot of really clear differences. You read like, and pretty clearly are, a kid who went from noob to know it all in a few months and in the process failed to pick up really obvious things because you gorged on too much too quickly. I see it all the time, and this is no different.

Non musical example: Let's say you find a show you like on Netflix, and as such you watch six seasons in a week. You will remember that you love the show and the overarching themes and such, but you're going to forget a vast majority of the individual jokes.

You Netflix binged on metal.

Master of Thrash, your reviews are just baggy, overly long, and cluttered with nonsense. They don't get to the point anywhere close to fast enough. You seem to be pretty new to metal, so maybe it'd also be better to not review classics and make sweeping statements that might be inaccurate.

This passage from the Battle Hymns review, just what?



For one, "feminazis" ( ) have nothing to do with anything, and two, Yahoo Answers has no place in a metal review. This paragraph alone is long enough to be like, half of a review by a more concise writer. Trim down the fat.

Yes, Manowar grew on you "the past few weeks", which surely isn't very long(!) -- why not wait a little longer? I like the enthusiasm but the results are a bit messy. The Battle Hymns review says "laugh at these ridiculous clowns" then later points out that "Battle Hymns doesn't sound like a musical circus that its follow-ups had become". Are they already circus clowns in Battle Hymns or aren't they?

The colloquial style is a little overdone too: "make sure you are nowhere near a feminazi because they WILL kill you", "Morbid Angel and Deicide can kiss my hairy ass for all I care" &c. is really pushing it, and I say that as an avid reader of reviews of this site, often because of their colloquial charm.

Well, the reason I called them "ridiculous clowns" was because they have a reputation for being exactly that. I guess I wasn't quite clear about that, and like you mentioned, they weren't the cheese-fest that they have become later on in their career, and I think it was just the wrong place and the wrong time to label them as clowns. Damn, you guys really pay attention to everything, eh?

And about the Morbid Angel and the Deicide comment, I don't mean to offend anyone. I tend to have strong opinions on things I am not too fond of. Please don't take my reviews seriously. I don't know if anyone read my review of "The Number Of The Beast", but I made up a silly analogy describing the entire album as a case of "severe food poisoning". I find it to be outrageous and funny and it shouldn't be something to be taken seriously. After all, I still like the album.

I acknowledge I am NOT the greatest writer ever, but I try to do my best really.

Outside of continuing to write consistently (i.e. every day) the best thing you can do is read books. They don't even have to be good books, because reading ones that are bad is a great guide on how not to write.

Interesting piece of advice, but I cannot stand books. I don't think my writing is too bad because I have more of a conversation-like approach and avoid overly fancy writing, but I do agree with the others saying that it is a wee bit "fatty". That's always been something I struggle with.

If you can't stand books, it's unlikely you'll ever be that great of a writer. Conversational dialogues and writing styles aren't just something you learn from real conversations.

Look man, I know some people can really make a conversational style work, but it's not always as easy as just sitting down and typing whatever you think. Some people can do it, and frankly, you can't. Not yet anyway, you ramble too much, lose your thoughts, spend way too much time on history lessons for massively popular bands and albums, and also get easily verifiable facts egregiously wrong. Frankly, you jumped in the pool before you learned how to swim. Now you're just in way over your head. Slow down, back up, and read other reviews here to see what is more accepted from a style standpoint.

But then again, a writer who refuses to read is like a cook that refuses to eat. If you're gonna stick with that bullshit high school rebel mentality then I guess have fun being a perennial punching bag in this thread.

I haven't read a book since I was bored through my ex-girlfriends labour and a decade before that, and I think I can write ok-ish. Have you tried reading porn site comments?

Edit: Also, as a man who has 70% pun titles, "Mastodon? More Like Monkey Don" is the worst one I've ever seen.

If you think I am asking you to wade through the entirety of the frankly impenetrable English canon, you are sorely mistaken. Reading any books is better than reading none, except perhaps Tom Clancy novels if you aren't over 40 and taking annual sex tourist trips to Thailand.

Books from the last century are a pretty solid bet and cover a wide variety of topics and styles, although there is plenty of classic literature that is indispensable but that judgement is differs from person to person.

What I am trying to say is, reading is fucking good and you should do it often if you don't want to be a one dimensional, vacuous dullard.

Been enjoying gasmask_colostomy's reviews. Don't know if he's been mentioned lately.

Was going to add my two cents to this conversation, but this pretty much sums it up.

Yes, and he earned scribe status for his consistent work.

Haha, what? Now Pantera inspired Slaughter in the Vatican?

The only Pantera album that they could have been inspired by was Power Metal... I don't hear it.

Dude, I strictly mentioned Pantera's guitar TONE that inspired Exhorder. I never said they, as a band, inspired Slaughter In The Vatican. Don't take my words out of context.

But... it literally could not have happened that way unless somebody was a time traveler. Do you knew what order the years go in?

Oh...the irony!

Maybe I did get carried away mentioning Sepultura's early 90's stuff (I keep thinking Arise was released in '90). But, I am pretty sure Cowboys From Hell was released before Exhorder's debut.

I took out "early 90's" and resubmitted the thing.

Phil Anselmo and crew got rid of their glam haircut and sound as soon as they came across Exhorder's 1987 demo. So, technically it's Pantera who began to emulate that sort of tone/sound.

True, but Exhorder demo tapes containing tracks that would feature on Slaughter In The Vatican (and even The Law) were being circulated in '86 and '87, before Pantera had even put out their highly NWOBHM/Speed infused Power Metal.

Wow, I didn't know that. I've listened to the demo once before, but the overall sound was very typical of a demo; you know, unpolished and raw. Maybe Pantera did copy Exhorder, but I couldn't hear their influence on PM or CFH. They had a more polished sound, so I was under the impression that Exhorder imitated Pantera because I couldn't hear the tone in SITV on their 80's demos.

I don't think that Pantera and Exhorder had similar sounds during the end of the 80's and the very early 90's. Cowboys From Hell sounds nothing like the Exhorder demo tapes, and Slaughter In The Vatican sounds nothing like said Pantera album. As far as I can work out, Pantera began sounding more like Exhorder from Vulgar Display Of Power onwards, either resembling a slower and more plodding version of The Law on their 1992, 1994 and 2000 efforts, or like a sludgier and more southern sounding Slaughter In The Vatican on The Great Southern Trendkill. So you could argue an aping of Exhorder's sound on Pantera's post 1992 work, but even then it is quite a loose comparison at best.

The only things you mastered so far is how to write bad reviews full of inaccuracies and silly comments. You should really start doing your homework instead of spouting anti-elitist paragraphs, noob thoughts about classic albums and disposable introductions.




That's not true at all. Only North Americans teenagers who think Sweden is the BEST COUNTRY in the world would say something like that.
Check this out: http://www.swedishcharts.com/weekchart.asp?cat=a


Rush, Led Zeppelin, Uriah Heep (Demons & Wizards?), Blue Öyster Cult (Lyrics by Moorcock like Hawkwind) and others wrote many songs about fantasy and sci fi more than 10 years before Manowar did anything.




Not our proudest moment

Noob thoughts, huh? First, learn how to spell correctly and form proper sentences in your reviews, buddy (Candlemass - From The 13th Sun). There is a reason people have opinions, and if you can't respect that, then maybe you shouldn't be a moderator. Because for the few days I have been on these forums, you mods have been nothing but butthurt (no offense, really), despite my efforts to have civilized discussions on areas of improvent in another thread. I've read some of the more "respected" reviewers' stuff, and I too can call them shitty because they are boring, lame, and soulless (though not all of them are). But, I respect everyone's opinions in their reviews, even though I may disagree with them.

For instance, Napalm_Satan says he disagrees about the sonic similarities between Exhorder and Pantera, and that's cool. But, you seem to be picking stuff out from my reviews and talk shit just for the fun of it. What, you don't understand those few sentences about Dave from my Rust In Peace review? Then again, that's how all French Canadians are... makes me ashamed to be born in Montreal.

So, if you people really care about the professionalism of the archives, why don't you stop the excessive whining and start by working on your disgusting attitudes and act like proper moderators? And professionalism will never be present on here as long as you allow anybody to contribute to the archives (take a look at the latest review for Iron Maiden's debut; who approves that shit?). If that's such a major concern, why don't you get Robert Christgau to write reviews?

I've tried to be as polite as possible given the malicious criticisms, but with all due respect, hardly anyone here knows what positivity and constructive criticism are.

If you don't like what I said, get me banned if you have to.

Well I mean, there's really no nice way to say that you're a bad writer who talks out of his hat and frequently gets extremely easy details wrong. How could you not know literally anything about Exhorder's discography when you're using the unequivocally most useful resource for metal information? There's no excuse for not knowing why some Kreator songs have different sounding vocals when, again, you're on MA. It's obvious that you're new to the genre and you're screwing up easy details and saying things that make it seem like you live in a bubble with absolutely no knowledge of the metal community at large.

Sometimes the advice can be harsh, but nobody has been unfair to you so far. Your skin is honestly so thin that I can see your bones. If the best comeback you have is that Metantoine missed a spelling error and then insult his nationality, then I hate to say it (not really), but you don't have a leg to stand on. Coming in and saying that a lot of the big popular reviewers suck implies that you think you're better, and that attitude means you'll never, ever improve. I'm not gonna tell you to stop writing, though I probably should, but I will tell you to take a break and grow up a little bit before saying anything else stupid.

Ever notice how the only people who ever bitch about "constructive criticism" are the ones who need the most improvements with their work?

Why would we care to be "professional?" Moderating this site is not a profession. This isn't a commercial site. We aren't begging for customer loyalty. We don't shape our attitudes to meet popular demand. The "customer" is not always right.

If it makes you feel better, two years ago your reviews would've been outright rejected by a less-friendly moderator (me) and you would've been ridiculed in private rather than in public. I must say, this is actually much more entertaining.



This is the most annoying passive-aggressive comment, we get it a lot. No, you won't be banned, nor will anyone criticizing your reviews. If you don't like it, your departure will be voluntary.

@Master_Of_Thrash- With all due respect, bitching and picking apart reviews that others don't like is a tradition of this thread, as any experienced user will tell you, In fact, iamntbatman told you this very fact on the 28th of June this year. (A quick search of the thread proves this). The only time things get harsh towards reviewers in this thread is when reviewers do what you just did- complain about the criticisms received. To be honest, your reviews aren't the best. They can be boring at times and occasionally factually incorrect, and I don't refer to them as the first opinion on an album. These are criticisms you would have received had you taken iamntbatman's advice of growing thicker skin, and accepting said criticism. (Where as now, you are being picked on for complaining).

If you really want purely constructive criticism (to be honest, understandably so) then go to the review feedback workshop. Providing you don't do what you did here (complain about criticism), they will be very happy to offer advice. Even completely objective advice will seem harsh- I know, I was there. How do you think I felt when my review was first cruelly dismissed by Erosion Of Humanity as a 'very boring read' in one short statement, as though my review didn't even matter? That was my thought process originally, but taking it in and adapting to said criticism (weakly, admittedly, said review still sucks) has allowed me to grow thicker skin in the short time I have been here. Take it from a fellow 'no0b'. It will appear in this overly harsh way to you as they are critiquing your own work, and this maybe the first time you have written reviews for a site with quality control?. This is understandable at first, regardless of how over the top a reaction it is. But you need to get used to the critiquing, lest you become like a certain 24/25 year old thrasher who is now infamous for dull, overlong and pretentious reviews, as well as whining like a little bitch.

Wow, massive amounts of butthurt mixed with double doses of irony? This should be amusing...


Metantoine did not review this album. What are you on about?
Not to mention your own post is full of spelling mistakes and generally clunky writing. You're a fine one to talk. (Note, I haven't actually read your reviews. I don't care about them, I'm just picking apart your extremely asinine forum post right now.)


Not all opinions are worthy of respect. Some opinions are uninformed and inherently stupid. It has nothing to do with being a moderator either. What, you think the mods only ever accept reviews they agree with?


Now that's irony for you.
Also, gotta love the passive-aggressive "<says something inflammatory>, no offense". With all due respect, you're a dipshit (see how phony that sounds?).


"improvent", eh.
Oh hey, is this what you call civilized? As far as efforts go, I give you an F. Try harder.


Bahahahah fuck off. What is this shit?


The only excessive whining I see here is from you. "Malicious criticism", "go ahead and ban me", "French Canadians are big meanies" wahhhhh.


I disagree: people who make this kind of annoying passive-aggressive comment tend to eventually do earn a ban in the end. Of course the ban is not for their opinions, simply their shitty attitude.

A latent sense of self-hate would certainly explain why he sticks around in spite of such horrible, soul-crushing criticism from you big bad meanie-weanies.

Honestly, I don't know where the fuck I got the Candlemass review from. It was Metantoine's review of The Guessing Game by Cathedral I was trying to refer to. Seriously, I must have ingested something and I don't blame you all for calling me a dumb fuck for that. And about the French-Canadians, I was not calling them meanies. I was calling them morons.

As for not being able to take criticism, you guys don't seem to want to understand where I'm coming from. This outrage started because I said something in my review that others disagreed with, thus labeling my claims incorrect and misinformed. I was simply trying to clarify my point, that's all.

You know that the creators of this website are Québécois, right? Nice of you to call everyone living here morons... After this, you ask to be respected and given positive criticisms.

And cool of you to pick one of my earliest reviews, it was written 4 years ago. I've obviously made no progress since then.