What you say is one thing, but it's a completely different one to never want to listen to SOMETHING new.


I'll have to agree about this.

I'm surprised at the negative reviews for the new Cannibal Corpse single. I can't stop listening to it!

The song's not terrible, but they fucked up the production and Corpsegrinder's vocals sound pretty off.

Boyoboy, I want to kickoff my reviewing here, but reading stuff by guys like Napero and hells_unicorn intimidates me. Great reviews by those two. I was just going through Napero's Celtic Frost reviews and enjoying the hell out of 'em.

No need to feel intimidated, I read your review of The Final Frontier and I think you'll do a fine job adding to the collection of dissemination-work on here. Napero and I have been here a long time and have put a fair amount of material (though it seems I have less of a life than he does ) and it may look like a lot, but it shouldn't be a determining factor in getting some new blood in here. I'd recommend finding something with less than 5 reviews on it already so you don't have to worry that you may unintentionally say the same things as another review already has, that's how I got through my first batch of reviews back in 2005.

When I started out on this site it was guys like hells_unicorn that made me want to review more than I did. I was at Amazon at the time doing shit but then I saw to-be-veterans like him and that's what pushed me. Man, 2006 feels a long time ago.

Thanks for the kind words sir. And I'm thinking of tackling either A New Beginning by Creation's End or Beyond the Shadows Lies Madness by Mithras

From a new Insomnium review:

What? Droll? Doesn't add up.

Looks like he was looking for a word to signify boring, a simple visit to dictionary.com would have informed him that words like repetitive or stagnant would have fit much better, though still would be wholly inaccurate.

Yeah, I guess he though it was a cool synonym for "dull". Or probably didn't think anything at all and simply typed a wrong word there, and was too overjoyed by the fact that he managed to write a review to proof-read it at all.

proof reading?!? Bah to that, I say! Here's to stream of consciousness reviews smashed out in 10 minutes and then submitted without a second thought

Yes, but they must also be based on at most two songs on the album, and the review must be written during the first listen.

Haha, I don't think caspian was joking.

Clearly the reviewer is an idiot and should be castigated for his blunder.

Insomnium deserves no praise.

Not saying all of my reviews are done that way; I am saying that the vast majority are, though. I did one review (for a now deleted band, alas) in under 5 minutes once, I was pretty proud.

I'm willing to bet those reviews were for releases that were either really good or otherwise had something memorable (even if they were memorably awful) about them that made an impression in your mind to last for the 5-10 minutes needed to write a stream-of-consciousness review. Otherwise, you'd have to take time to go back and listen to a few more songs to restore some impression of the album for the review.

I've always found that the hardest albums to review are the mediocre ones. There's no room for hyperbole or any really compelling metaphors, just a desire to get the damned review over with. The endless stream of middle of the road promos I've received over the past 4 years has definitely taught me to appreciate those really amazing and godawful albums I own.

h_u is right, it's the mediocre albums that give me the most trouble.

It's like the blandness seeps into the review itself.

This is called "The Autothrall Method".

I don't really think it's the mediocre ones that are hard to review. Can be down to a number of factors. I've smashed out a lot of mediocre band reviews, whereas it took me ages to come up with anything for that While Heaven Wept review. Even stuff that should be my bread and butter (Neurosis, Isis, etc) can and has taken me ages to come up with anything.

I think that it's mostly a matter of whether you're in the mood for that particular band/album at the time. I wanted to write a lot of reviews but it always seemed like I was forcing it, so nothing interesting got out of that train of thought; whereas at some points I feel the absolute need to write down a whole band's discography because I started listening to an album and I'm really feeling the inspiration creeping up. Mediocre albums' reviews aren't that hard to write because there's always something to complain about, and if it doesn't feel good here and there then it's easy to point out why. I find it much harder to justify the polar opposites, those being 0 and 100 scores since you have to justify a lot on why it's the worst or the best. Sometimes it even feels like you're not giving out enough reasons for it to appeal so much or so little to you.

I guess it all falls down to what goes by in your head at the time you start writing.

Failsafeman, what do you mean by "The Autothrall Method" exactly? Just curious.

Then in that case, it's more of an issue of trying to find the best way to praise an album, or the best way to condemn it, whichever is necessary. Sometimes this can be difficult, especially if the album already has lots of previous praise/condemnation. I don't think I'll ever try reviewing The Unspoken King, because anything I could say about that album was said before.

Or The Monad of Creation... pretty much a perfect album in my view, so if I ever get to writing a review for it, I'd want that review to be near perfect itself. I've attempted, but never submitted anything.

For me, I would agree that mediocre reviews are the hardest; its hard to figure out what to say sometimes.

Seing that I'm in Quebec and its winter, I think I'm going to start reviewing a lot of albums from the Quebecois black metal scene. Unfortunately I can't listen to music as much as I used to because my Ipod charging cable broke and no store in the town I'm in sells them (its a really freaking small town.)

Some of my best reviews are of mediocre albums, like the ones I did for Opeth, Dark Tranquillity's Character and Lulu. It can go either way, though, as some of those 40-60% albums are just hard to say anything about.

I still can't really find much to say about Battle Beast's Steel or the new Dragonland, though, and I love those albums.

Bashing Illud Divinum Insanus is a genuine pastime. With the quantity of scathing reviews now, I no longer need to read any new entries since it is now to the point where it has basically turned into An Occupy Morbid Angel movement.

I mean he clearly doesn't listen to the vast bulk of the albums he reviews very thoroughly before reviewing them. It's pretty obvious if you're already familiar with them yourself.

Sometimes, nothing says it better than a steady stream of "I LOVE IT I LOVE IT I LOVE IT I LOVE IT".

You know I've never had that impression about his reviews, although I've always read them more as his opinion other than mine, even if I don't agree with some stuff he writes or scores he attributes. But then again I do that with pretty much every reviewer, unless it's a dimwit who has no idea what he's writing about.

I thought he was genuinely seen here as a prolific quality writer, or am I missing something? And I'm genuinely asking this, I'm not trying to defend the guy.

Mediocrity is always toughest because, hey, these are fan sites. What fan purposely seeks mediocre music? Most reviews then are very positive or very negative. Personally I don't enjoy listening to albums that are bad but not so actively awfully bad that they inspire vitrol. I'm not being paid, therefore I don't want to listen to them, therefore I feel intellectually dishonest reviewing them.

This sums up my reviewing criteria, and this includes albums that are "so actively awfully bad that they inspire vitrol". Although, I don't download music and I don't buy music I think I'll hate, so I pretty much never come across music that makes me want to rip puppies in half.

Hey I'm not being paid for my writing (I wish!) as well, but when a label sends me three albums from scenes/genres I know enough about to formulate a review, and for instance one ends up being in that 50% barrier where it's neither bad nor good but rather only mediocre, I still feel inclined to review it. Call it professional courtesy, even though I'm not being paid. Take my Nothnegal review as an example if you will. I've listened to the album enough times to formulate a constructive opinion of its musical quality, it's falling between different genres and influences and the impact (or lack of it) that it's bound to get on the metal world. It's not obnoxious but it's not good either, and somehow I managed to found some way to put that out constructively. I mean, who reads that review will immediately ditch the album or feel like it's the best new thing, but, and here's my goal when reviewing something mediocre, the point is to try and write something for those in-between people that don't know if it's worth giving it a shot or not. And once I manage to write something like that I feel perfectly happy with my work.

Disclaimer: The above paragraph operates on the premise that my review for the Nothnegal album is actually well written, rather than flamboyant self-praise. Opinions may vary.

I would assume that most reviewers on M-A are not getting promos from labels, but instead are downloading and listening on their own. Which is fine, of course, IMO. I personally aspire to review only those records which are highly touted and are new releases, but man, if the record is just lame, I don't want to sit through it just so I can post a missive on the internet for free. It just isn't in me. If I were getting paid, this would be a different story. There would be some hateful-ass screeds getting written.

Ah, now I get your point, and I wholeheartedly agree actually. Sitting down specifically to review an album you know it's mediocre must be painful indeed, unless it's a new promo/release or unless you're covering the band's whole discography and you want to do that one as well to have the full catalogue covered.

Your point of view is quite valid and I honestly hadn't thought about it that way, and in the light of this I may now be inclined to agree with you and the above users who stated pretty much the same feeling about reviewing these kind of albums.

Promos are a pain in the ass, once you have to deal with sub-par material.


Really? I would disagree. Look at the stuff from the pros ... you might reconsider what you have said.

While I should probably cut Rolling Stone and a few other magazines some slack since they are more interested in retro 60s and 70s rock than metal, every time I've ever read a review or a Top 100 list of something from them, I feel a strong urge to beat whoever wrote or compiled them senseless with a rubber hose. The people at Kerrang are even worse, as if you thought that wasn't possible.

If that's the sort of shit I have to write in order to get paid, I'd sooner take a vow of poverty.

Depends on whom you ask. If you're asking me, then no, I don't see him as a prolific quality writer. I don't think he's necessarily a bad reviewer, just that he focuses so much on quantity that the quality suffers such that I'm not interested in what he has to say at all. People around here are seriously enamored of quantity though, so the majority opinion is probably quite different.

I don't know, failsafeman. A lot of people on here criticize some quantity reviewers (such as ConorFynes and kluesba) more than any other reviewers on the entire site. I think autothrall's great too, though, so what the fuck do I know?

I've never really been that big of a fan of autothrall's reviews either, to be honest. In addition to the fact that our tastes in metal are like oil and water, his reviews always seemed to me like poorly disguised track-by-tracks, and other than a few plastic, subjective terms I never really get an idea of how the album actually sounds.

Check.


And check.

I agree with your reasoning about promo material, some professional bands seem rather amateurish at times. But going back to my earlier point, it's this assessment of mediocrity and being constantly in touch with as much good material as bad that makes me somewhat able to write about all of them. If I can get anything out of being exposed to bad music is the fact that it helps me realize what is good music and how much better it is than the bad. What I mean is that being exposed to all the musical panorama, ranging from bad to good and passing by mediocre, makes me more aware of what has actually some inherent quality and what doesn't.

But it really sucks when you get those bad releases on your lap...

On hells_unicorn point, I also agree. I rather get nothing out of my writing except the enjoyment of writing it, and the occasional person raving about it, than to be paid to write crap. One can never say never but I'd say that the chance of compromising my writing and my judgement over a salary doesn't seem like a good idea, at all!


I understand what you mean, not everyone can like everyone's writing. He seems to be a bit consensual around here, but obviously some people will have an opinion different from the norm.

I would be lying though if I didn't say that his writing style has been somewhat of an inspiration, although I do have my personal approach. But his reviews happened to be those with which I could identify myself, at least partially, and reading them has proved to be inspirational and helped me improve my writing a lot. I'm not saying I write like the guy as the sheer amount of adjectives he uses is way beyond my scope, but I'd say that for a non-English native who wasn't capable of writing much about an album I did learn some stuff. I'm not his fanboy or anything but I respect him, although I also think he has some flaws on his writing, but then again we all have. No one can put every possible thought about an album in one review.

I listen to subpar material now looking to find something interesting to listen to. The difference is that no one pays me to finish listening to it or write 300/500/700 words about it, so I'm not going to.



In a perfect world where commercial considerations aren't relevant and I'm getting paid for honest opinions, I'd be happy to give them about records I don't care enough about to presently finish, then write about. I understand full well what the pros deal with. I'm not blind to the average print mag rarely giving out ratings below a 6.5/3 stars/equivalent. I know why. We all know why. It isn't because most metal records are average or above, its because they have to make their advertisers (the labels) happy enough to keep buying ad space.