Of course... an musician that releases things would love that someone else review his music, but what if the musician review his own releases to publish his own stuff saying that is "Awesome". That's poser.

I don't really know if this is valid, I hope that no.

I have seen many cases of this in M-A, but now is like the 12th time!
Later i found this http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/L ... /Guilaz999
Guliaz999 is the same guy in Lord Andras and he states his own EP as "90%" (Ehm... Poser)

These conections are really easy to check. Is this allowed??

Why does that matter? A musician might write more of a reflection on what he/she did in the album. Robert Graven has written reviews for his own band, and he gave a 50% on one of the albums he performed on.

The review you posted showed that he criticized some aspects of the album, like the cover of Mayhem's "Chainsaw Gutsfuck". He'd would have intended to promote the album if he said everything was flawless, that it was a must-listen.

Huh .. yeah, look at that:
http://www.metal-archives.com/users/Guilaz999
odd .. i wonder what the mods will say.

does make this statement from the review seem .. uh .. suspect, doesn't it?



but at least he's modest


I guess my thought (and I've no power here whatsoever) is that an artist reviewing a self-release should at least mention it's theirs. Else, they are, in fact, posing. aka - semi-troll. Just my two (gradually devalued by inflation) cents.

There's no specific rule that says you can't review your own releases. As long as it describes the music adequately and doesn't read like a promotional paragraph, I don't see why that wouldn't/shouldn't be allowed.

Also:

You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.

That shouldn't be allowed. Those tipe musicians suck (Not for the music, in my opinion i liked the Lord Andras EP).



Maybe it's true, my english is not the best.

Well, I mean, what exactly do you see that's wrong with a musician judging their own works?

If you are a musician you could undesrstand it.
People used to review shits from others, not from yours.
If you record something and (with your big ego) review it (in a rate from 80-100) you are just making you are just telling that your shit is awesome and all people should check it out and blablabla.

You just can't judge it because it should be judged by someone else, there's no magic if you review your debuts!

I have seen many other cases (even more exagerated with a 100%) and this sucks.

It's just my opinion.

I have to say I agree. No one can objectively appraise their own work, even if they think they can. Imagine if Geoff Tate reviewed the later Queensryche albums; obviously he thinks they're just fine, whereas everyone else dislikes/hates them. Or, on the other hand, Jon Schaffer's dislike for 'Burnt Offerings', which many people consider one of Iced Earth's best albums. It's best not to even get mixed up with all that. Ask someone you know to review it, sure (even though a friend's opinion will also probably be biased), but you yourself? Nah.

Yeah, I'm not saying artists shouldn't be allowed to review their work, just not turn it into a gratuitous advert, which this review does not seem to be. It's a bit odd to see a person writing as if it's not theirs .. however, it would also be kind of weird to see the opposite. It's a matter of 'how', I suppose, whether it's done tastefully or not... *shrug*. Totally not my call. But, for what pittance it's worth, my thought is that the review in question is one done in quite good taste. He was modest and clear about the short-falls, and wrote a comparably thorough and level-headed review of the album. So even if others are taken out, I don't think this one should be.

I see where the OP is coming from. Imagine if Morbid Angel wrote a review for their latest? They seem to think it's their best album wheras anyone with a speck of taste knows it for what it is.

I like to bring this review into the discussion:
http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/B ... st/280094/

heh .. definitely a smorgasbord, huh? I like that it was in the first person, but .. *headdesk* snore. It's forthcoming (he is not a man short on back story), historical, while painfully thorough, and basically came apart entirely toward the end. I particularly like the fact that he gave himself an 80%.

Maybe it IS okay to review your own stuff as long as you can't rate it. I dunno

Then it's not really a review, it's a discussion. I love to hear musicians discussing their own works, talking about their inspiration, what was going on in their lives at the time, the recording process, etc. Even saying, 'I consider this to be the best album we ever did,' or whatever is fine. But it's not a review, and it shouldn't be a review.

This does give me an idea though. Don't know if the mods/admin would accept it, but what if every band had a section for the musicians give their thoughts on their music? I guess this could fall under the 'Additional info' section, but this way, you'd know it was the actual artists commenting on themselves, not some other person. Maybe a dumb idea, I don't know. I just woke up. =P

I don't have a problem with it, but I do agree with the OP that the artist should be upfront about the fact that they are reviewing their own material. Otherwise it can be deceptive.

This is rather the stuff that should appear in interviews ... at least in the ones for my magazine I try to discuss the albums and not some other artificial non-band related topics.

But this are not discucions. These are reviews in 3rd person

This is all making me think of the early Family Guy episode where a caller to a public access KISS worship show that Peter is watching yells "KISS sucks man!" to which the host responds "Is this Dennis DeYoung, lead singer of Styx?", to which he in turn sheepishly admits "Yeah, yeah it's me." It would be hilarious to find Trey or Vincent writing 100% reviews of Illuminim, only to be uncovered and find themselves further defrocked.....and I say that even as a Morbid Angel diehard.

I don't think this is a big issue, and neither a solvable one. A musician could simply register himself as some anonymous guy and review its own recordings by giving 100/100 and still no one would ever know that he has recorded those albums.

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/S ... 14/Subrick

I feel the need to throw my own thing in here. As the disclaimer at the start says, despite being in this band I knew about and had owned this record for almost a year before I joined them, leading to me forming my own objective opinion on the material outside of the fact that I play these songs live.

I do not think that bands are that much a problem ... labels could be though. This guy is fishy.

I like how he threw in the two really low Horna scores on there to detract from the twenty above 90% scores.

Musicians discussing their own music is something that belongs in an interview, not a review on MA. I don't think it's a very widespread problem though, I like to think most people aren't corrupt enough to promote themselves by abusing MA. What I notice more than anything from groups of local bands I know personally is they like to review each others releases rather favorably, which is similarly biased but probably not grounds for rejection or deletion unless the review itself is completely vacuous.

That actually sounds like a good idea. I can definitely see this to be very interesting when reading up on other artists who happen to frequent their MA profile pages.