Hah, that's (often) quite true. If I'm hearing a shitty album I rarely feel the need to listen to it more than a few times- yeah, occasionally you get albums that grow on you but sometimes you just know an album hard out sucks early on. As others have said though, I'm not really writing with an aim of being incredibly in depth, and I think that suits my style/personality (thanks for the kind words fellas).

Re: Monotheist review, I have a pretty middling opinion of the album myself (some good songs but mostly a production showcase with few interesting bits, like Tryptykon), but jeez that was an awful review. Not as bad as his puppets one but pretty up there. On one extra note, I don't entirely disagree with Drone's "gothed up nu-metal" claim- yeah it isn't 100% correct but there's moments where it fits. Dying God is a cool song but you could change the arrangement a little bit and it'd suffice as a Korn ballad or something.

Not that it legitimizes the "nu metal" comparison, but...

I read an interview recently, from the late-90's or so, where Tom claimed, totally unironically, that he was really big into Limp Bizkit. I should also probably mention that at another point he criticized the bands that took part in the "In Memory of Celtic Frost" tribute CD (bands like Cianide, Grave, Morgion, Enslaved, etc.) as basically not being "true artists" in his eyes and that he was ashamed he was associated with it.

Well hopefully Cianide's upcoming glam rock album can legitimise them as artists. Wait till you see a bare chested Mike Perun with pants open.

I have a serious question here. When did the review standards become so much higher? I was reading reviews back from 2003-2004 written on this site and they would not pass today, with writers such as Noktorn, Diamhea, and hells_unicorn putting out superb material.

Because like the site itself, the reviews are also going to evolve over time. A lot of things start out pretty mediocre and progress over time, especially when it's over a decade.

If you're dubious of their acceptability, post them in Oven Fodder. It's exactly what that thread is for.

Good job Zodi on his latest paragraph.... oh sorry, was it a review?

Anyway, is that the shortest MA review ever published?

The new Nagelfar review has one of the single best lines in a review of all time:



Amazing.

Look at the three names he mentioned dude. He's taking the piss, and testing my patience.

To answer your question earnestly, the review standards haven't changed. In fact, they're as basic as you could possibly get: we expect reviews to focus on describing the music of the album (which means that the review should be primarily about the album's music) and to be written well (which means good spelling/grammar and structure - no track by tracks). Unfortunately, despite these two basic requirements we still get a lot of crap... and sometimes it flies under the radar. If that happens we will rejudge those reviews.

I think the standards changed to be honest. The rules stayed the same but I think a lot of the original moderating staff cared a lot less. Can't really picture Clanny or OSheaman carefully examining a review submission.

That has to be the truest thing I've ever heard about Sabaton. Such a shitty band, it's ridiculous.

Yeah let's all jerk off to Vektor and Manilla Road. Popular bands are bad. Catchy songs are bad. Boooo.

Fuck AC/DC and Motörhead too, right bro?

Online metal communities represent such fuck all of what is actually going on in the world. Even the last dying gasps of metal "publications" have more of a clue. I read album reviews on my Facebook feed from big metal sites and laugh "Yep, you'd never read that on M-A". Right now the new Sabaton has 30 5 star reviews on Amazon but so far the only 2 "published" reviews here average to around 15%. Gotta love the pettiness involved there.

You'd think they were black album Metallica popular with that kind of whiny nerd hate. They're fucking below Nightwish in the States. Jesus tap dancing Christ. The reviews are terrible too, offering no new criticism, more of the same, blah blah blah. But you know these kind of attitudes aren't only limited to this strata. You know these dopes write angry dirges about Marvel movies and whatever Netflix series is trending. Contrarian to a tee! Always a treat to read.

Oh yeah, put your trust in a magazine, will you? It's not like these bands tend to get outstanding reviews because their labels are buying a shitload of advertising space in that magazine. If Nuclear Blast have bought the back page in your magazine Sabaton will get a glowing reviews (are Sabaton even on NB, I'm just guessing here). Despite the fact that they're not so big in the States they have their own metal festival in Y'r'p (apparently, it only matters if you're big in the US, though) and they headline above legends like Saxon. They're one of the biggest bands in metal right now... with a bunch of Eurovision-glossy-drippy pap with vapid lyrics about war. Don't you even think about comparing them to AC/DC or Motorhead - they don't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath. It's chalk and cheese; idiosyncratic, brilliant song writing that inspired thousands of bands versus "WARSAW 1944! WARSAW RHYMES WITH FOUR" - it's drooling shite for toddlers.

PS, Manilla Road rule and Vektor's new album kinda sucks.

Yes, I obviously hate catchy bands and popular bands because I didn't like Sabaton's god-awful new album. You know I've written plenty of positive Motorhead reviews on this site, and many others for popular as fuck bands, right? My favorite band is Iron Maiden, for fuck's sake - god, I am such a contrarian who just hates popular music. I should be tarred and feathered!

Also, I've never written a negative review for Sabaton - but yes, mine is "more of the same" and "offers no new criticisms." I don't think anything they've done is all that bad (not 10% bad) up until this one either. But hey, whatever makes your fragile ego feel better, right?

Seems like you're an incredibly fragile and weak minded person who can't handle different opinions. If any dissent from popular metal mags (the true bastion of truth and fairness, I am sure) sends you into this frothing immature baby tantrum, it seems like you know your taste fucking sucks and you're just grasping onto every little tiny straw to try and justify yourself.

Fuck you. I am not some sort of "angry metal nerd" hive mind or contrarian or whatever - I make up my own mind on everything and I don't care what anyone else thinks of it.

I mean, to be fair, this is the guy that said he thinks Iron Maiden are boring because they're too long-winded or whatever.

People are only so vocal about not liking Sabaton because they're fucking huge now. They'll fade and some new shitty band will take their place that everyone can come together in agreement that they're shit. It's not that people hate them for being popular, it's that their popularity has exposed them to hella people that hate them.

Rainbow just proved that Sabaton are metal for morons with 1 post. Congratulations!

I just love the thickheaded, arrogant, ridiculous assumption he makes that disliking Sabaton = disliking all popular catchy music, or liking Manilla Road means the same thing. Like there's no other goal music can have other than being catchy and straightforward, and anything that tries something different is automatically nerd shit that no one really likes but some people pretend to for hipster street cred or whatever the fuck. What a ludicrous thing to say. I like a ton of consonant, catchy, melodic music, but Sabaton is not one of them.

Sabaton is only "catchy" in the sense that stuff on Top 40 radio is catchy. It sticks in your head, sure, but that doesn't make it good music by any means. Easily one of the most overrated bands in power metal.

On a more positive note, GOOFAM seems like a promising writer. Good stuff.

I think this is the third time you praise his work and if you do that then he really must be that good.

Nah, more like I forget half of the stuff I post. I dunno if it bears repeating, but it does stand out and is a good contributor on the site as well.

Yes, GOOFAM is excellent at writing reviews. Definitely someone who more people should strive to be like. Not everyone will have the level of detail and knowledge he has, but definitely try to have balanced criticisms and really analyze things. His Royal Hunt reviews are great as is this new Crimson Glory one.

His newest one for "Transcendence" is a masterpiece, probably among the better reviews I've seen on this site in the past year. He definitely has an eye for detail.

On the topic of Sabaton, my opinion of them has actually risen a bit of late. I originally found them to be decent but nothing to write home about (the highest score I gave their earlier albums was in the lower 80s if memory serves me correctly), but the new album and the previous one worked a bit better for me, in part because I'm a pretty big fan of Thorbjorn Englund's guitar playing, even though they kinda boxed him into a shorter and more controlled format.



I guess I'm in a bit of an awkward position since I love Vektor and Manilla Road, but also dig stuff like Sabaton and similarly stripped down and catchy melodic acts. I don't really pay attention to most mainline metal publications because they tended to worship a lot of really shitty metalcore stuff in prior years and even considered nu-metal to be on the same level as the original 80s concept, if not better, but I don't personally make it a practice to like or dislike a band based on what some pencil-neck at Kerrang! or Metal Injection has to say on things.

Yeah but you rate everything either far too high and/or without necessary gradient nowadays. It neuters the relevance of your scoring when nearly everything is bottlenecked between roughly 75 and 90. I know we are told not to grant scoring much credence, but for writers with an extensive number of reviews, consistency in scoring truly helps set expedient referential criterion.

I remember reading hells_unicorn reviews in, say, 2007/2008 and thinking "He's only given it 92% - it must be terrible!".

I think he mostly reviews records he actually likes and that's why nearly everything's bottlenecked between 75 and 90. I've never seen the appeal of writing negative reviews, anyway. There's no fun writing those and I've always felt like writing negative reviews is more or less like "just doing your job".

Anything with strong sentiments is fun to write. The extremes are the best.

I guess it's kind of true though I can't see what's the fun in listening to an album that you'd give under 20% just to be able to grasp the music well enough in order to write a review.

It's a certain mindset. You're not listening to it to derive enjoyment from the music; you're dissecting it piecemeal, analysing it a layer at a time. It's far more entertaining when the work you're examining is an absolute trainwreck, compared to when it's very average.

You are seriously going to say that after you three pulled this little publicity stunt? http://www.metal-archives.com/albums/Hermh/Taran/11998

Yes. I was asked to review that album by raspberrysoda who wanted to review the album but had no inspiration. After I submitted my review I was surprised to find out he eventually managed to write his own review and submitted it, as well. However, neither of us had any idea that Napalm_Satan was going to join, too.

I had to listen to that album about 5-6 times to write that review and I hated it each single time. I do not think I will ever listen to it again unless I somehow forget how bad it actually is.

If you want you can call a publicity stunt that what we did about that Pagan Warrior 88 demo, though I haven't realized it will end up this way until I read the posts. Personally I reviewed that demo because it was something new - I had never heard NSBM before - and because we did that as a team. It's surprising what one is actually in the mood for doing when they're part of team. Also, I've never really thought a team of newbie reviewers will draw so much attention, believe it or not.

Of course, I'm not gonna fuel a fire that's already burnt out. I've done what I've done and the only thing I regret is subjecting my ears to that sonic torment.

Reviewing negative albums is fun just because most of the time, for me anyway, it's because I've heard something that surprises me with how awful it is, sometimes from a band I've liked in the past. So then it becomes a "what happened, this is a huge step down" kind of warning, and I enjoy coming up with inventive ways to say it sucks.

bimu's new Metallica - Hardwired review is right on point and very well written. Another excellently reasoned, very analytical review that flows well and makes clear points.

Are we back into this conversation Dia?

That really is a great review. I immediately went back to listen to the song again to check it out like he did. And to write at that detail for one three-minute song, is impressive.

This is pretty much the case, I went through a period fairly early on (around 2008 I think) where I was openly seeking out music that I hated and most of the same people who were telling me I was scoring albums too high were complaining that I was scoring stuff too low. I could probably establish a gradient similar to bitterman if I actually went out and specifically sought the shittiest metalcore, deathcore, bedroom black metal, obnoxiously simplistic slam death, terribly produced power metal or whatever. The problem with doing this is that it gets draining after a while, and I'd probably get less respect around here than I do now.

I review what I like, and I have a lot of friends on here who share my opinions, and that's good enough for me. The peanut gallery is what it is, it's part of the reason why I only drop by here occasionally.



For most of my time here I've done that, prior to working with The Metal Observer I only reviewed my personal collection, and I always researched what I was getting beforehand so it was rare that I bought something that turned out to be utter crap. Later on I tried establishing a so-called "gradient" and I got complaints that I was simply trying to curry favor with people on here, so I decided to stop doing so. Even after I started getting promos from The Metal Observer, I've generally only requested promos of stuff in my preferred genres. Believe me, if I hear shit, I will call it as such and the score will reflect it.

But pray tell, what is "inconsistent" about my scoring approach? If you compare the music that I review within that 75-90 range, most of it is of comparable quality, unless you have specific examples where you think I am off base in that assertion. I don't really see a point in establishing a score gradient anyway, what I care about is giving an honest assessment of the music that I am reviewing. I think reviewing and scoring stuff based on how it makes me feel and conveying a detailed description of the music and why it moves me is both sufficient and a more organic approach, whereas this whole obsessing over having a gradient reeks of artificial motives. Besides, why is it necessary for me to write like everybody else here does, isn't a variety of styles a good thing?

That's the flack that I get all the time....all my high scores. I'm not into sitting through 35 to 55 minutes of an album that sucks ass just to get a review off. Who wants to sit through a shitty album? If it was my "job" then I guess I would but until such time, I'll review something I can sit through.

h_u I'm not critcising your writing, in fact I think you are shockingly good and consistent considering how many you've written, but I have noticed these things after years of reading reviews on this site. Before moderating the queues, I used to sit at work all day and browse reviews circa... 2008 to 2012 or thereabouts. I miss the days of the "Royal Seal of Gayness," as hyperbolic as those tended to be. And hey, at least people are talking about your work...

I'm trying to say that the scoring does mean something if you are consistent with it. Those familiar with your tastes and style can use it as a benchmark.

It's funny because I was thinking about reviving that series, I got through less than half of the albums that were going to make that list, but my desire to review stuff by bands like Six Feet Under, Nevermore and Skinlab kinda dried up and only recently have I been thinking about touching that stuff again, partially due to how shitty that one single that Machine Head put out recently was.

I may have misinterpreted your point earlier, but I've generally found that my negative reviews take about four times as much effort as my reviews of either solid or mediocre material, which is why I don't write them as much as previously. A lot of times my negative reviews tend to be sub-genre specific, which also tends to work against having the sort of gradient that is all-encompassing.