Those two were both removed.

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/B ... ySonicDiet

This is a useless review for the Black Sabbath single "Psycho Man".

First off, the reviewer said "I have the Danny Saber Remix version of this song on the compilation album entitled No Boundaries, which is a benefit album for the Kosovar refugees." - Apparently the reviewer has only heard the "remixed" version of this song from a compilation album.

Secondly, the statement "It's much different from anything I've ever heard from the band on "Paranoid"..." - Of course it is. "Paranoid" was released in 1970 and the abhorrent concept of a "remix" gratefully did not exist for nearly 20 years after the release of "Paranoid".

The reviewer does not seem to have ever heard the album version of the song nor the radio edit version of the song as provided on the single release. The rest of the review is devoid of intelligent critical analysis, and as noted above with the "Paranoid" commentary, the reviewer has either neglected the historical context or is simply ignorant of the passage of 28 years between the two releases. Garbage review, please nuke.

Edit: hells_unicorn, as usual, provided a coherent and well reasoned assessment in his review of this single, which also happens to be the only other posted review. Personally, I would be happy if hells_unicorn had the only review posted for this product.

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/T ... hm/145527/

This is really bad and I'm literally about to do my own review of it anyway.

My infinite wisdom tells me this is for you, Nappy:

Arch Enemy - Wages of Sin
Masterpiece - 100% edit

Are you a fucking english teacher or WHAT? Stick this review up your finnish ass. I gave up on this shit.
- ThrashAdrenaline, May 19th, 2011 ~ 200.204.163.81

Tell him 'english' and 'finnish' should be capitalized or something.

Aww, shit, I've made someone angry? I can't recall rejecting anything during the last two weeks for grammar reasons, so it might have been one of the other Finns. MacMoney is such a pedantic fellow, for example.

Oh yes, it is for me. Funnily enough, I wanted to be an English teacher, but wasn't good enough in Finnish to pass the exams.

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/A ... arrionGrin

You cats sure about this one?

^ Right? I have nothing against a short and to-the-point review but the first sentence is so factually inaccurate I'm wondering if he even listened to this one.

Looks like someone was half-asleep at the wheel when they pressed the Accept button on that one.

Also it sounds completely interchangeable with about half the death metal records I own.

Yeah thats what I was thinking. You could copy and paste that review (minus the ever present caveat about the lyrics) to any number of death metal bands. It still wouldn't be a good review, but it would at least be a little closer.

Get rid of that Kruel review for the same album while nuking that page. That review is 'gay'

I haven't listened to enough Dragonforce to have any idea if Kruel is off base but I think he at least presents his argument coherently enough to stay, even if its wrong. That review has been up for quite awhile and I don't think its going anywhere, or should.

The problem with Arghoslent is everyone lets them get away with calling their shit death metal. So inevitably die-hard death metal fans check it out and are completely put off by the ultra-sugary riffing. They should just admit they are fucking awesome USPM with harsh vocals.

People have tried to get that Kruel review taken down for a while but it never goes anywhere. The hyperbole is really extreme and he's been accused of lifting strange criticisms verbatim from an earlier review (my memory says it was Cheeses_Priced for the first album, but that isn't there so I dunno). I always thought he was a really inconsistent reviewer. Some were absolute garbage while others were very insightful and well written. And it wasn't like he started bad and got better, he just constantly flip flopped.

He exploits the zero rating in too many reviews for overemphasis.

Is it a great review? Not on this planet. Is it a good review? Hmmm. But the album is described (however briefly) as he hears it, plus the grammar's alright. It barely stumbled onto 3 points. But if it disappears, I don't care.

I removed it. Arghoslent just simply isn't a brutal death metal band. A significant amount of leeway in the terminology/stylistic comparison department is naturally par for the course for a site like this, but there are limits.

dividingforce's review for Mayhem's Chimera:



Not just the length, but the only detail he goes into in the review is about the one song he likes, and reduces the rest of the album to a sentence.

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/M ... era/38378/

Gone.

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/S ... oftheShred

pretty much no description whatsoever

i'm not too sure about this one, guys. http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/S ... ._II/4812/ kind just rambles a bit and doesn't really give any info on WHY he thinks the things he does.

Both deleted. The Snxke on Saxon was the only review for the album, but it had absolutely nothing to offer.

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/Sonne_Adam/Transformation/300637/FullMetalAttorney
Kinda lackluster, isn't it? Most of the review is dedicated to taking a piss at Century Media; the shortest paragraph of the whole rant is the one about the album itself, with a very brief and general description.

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/A ... /BagABones

Yes, yes, it's clever prose, but there is fuck's worth of musical description in this thing. Mentioning the song titles somewhere in several paragraphs of literature doesn't qualify as a review.

CarrionGrin's 3 reviews. Amazon.com quality, all of them. In fact these aren't really reviews, more like advertisements. They literally sound like press releases.

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/P ... arrionGrin

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/U ... arrionGrin

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/M ... arrionGrin

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/M ... tonedjesus

For one, he gives outright praise to three songs on the album and still gives it a 1%, as opposed to around a 27% which is what he should have come up with if he was using a fraction of 3/11. Secondly, in the second paragraph he states that there are only three metal songs on the album and then proceeds to compare it to either death metal or industrial metal in the second paragraph. That's a contradiction. Finally, "danceable electronic beats" and "simplistic guitar riffs" are not adequate descriptors by themselves. I'm not trying to simply cull out the negative reviews for Illud Divinum Insanus, because I don't like the album either. But there should at be a bit of standards if you're going to hate something, and one of those standards be that you don't appear to have written the review in five minutes.

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/Krallice/Diotima/295265/

There's really not much meaningful musical description there at all. It's black metal with some major chords and usually the instruments aren't playing the same things as each other. Really, though, FullMetalAttorney has a pretty awful batting average. His Witch Mountain review tells me that it's doom with a female singer and is "crushing." His recent Pentagram review says that it has "simple but powerful riffs." His recent Artillery review tells me that it's thrash but sometimes has non-thrash parts. His recent Liturgy and Deafheaven reviews start with literally the exact same paragraph.

I have no problem with concise reviews, but when you've got five short paragraphs and only one of those contains any musical description and even then only really describes it on an incredibly basic level (barely enough to even indicate what genre of music is being played in many cases), well, that's pretty lame. To be honest, his reviews really remind me of the poorly written metal reviews you find on sites like All Music.

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/A ... Anchor6661

By Plague. Doesn't really say anything and I'm working on a review for this album right now to replace it.

So your plan is to slowly replace all reviews not written by you with reviews written by you, eh? Nefarious!

Eh, it's more coincidental than that. I was already planning to review that next and looked through what was already there.

His review of the new Anaal Nathrakh is exceedingly bare too. He talks about the band in general but he not once actually disccusses the album in particular.

The issue with FullMetalAttorney's reviews is that very few of them are reviews for their own sake. Rather, they tend to be framed largely as commentary on this or that "broader issue" surrounding the band/album, or, more often, community reception/perception of the band/album. This is of course quite acceptable in and of itself, but one of the main pitfalls of this genre of review is that it's exceedingly easy to let oneself write one without actually treating with the specific release in any considerable depth (since, after all, the material specifics of the release are often not really all that relevant to the main point or points the text as a whole drives at); not everyone has the knack for imbuing an "issues" essay with enough analysis/critique of a particular release necessary to pull off the style.

(Removed.)

Another weak Boris review.

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/E ... mand/2922/

Cradle of Burzum's Review of Gris's Il Etaite Un Foret:

Every other review of this album has given it a 90 or higher. So, I was expecting this album to be absolutely amazing. As the first keyboard notes hit on "Il Etait Une Foret", I was amazed by how sad, but beautiful it sounded. I was thinking that this album really was going to be amazing, just by the start of the first song. But, after the keyboard notes are finished and the guitars and drums come in, it seems that they just completely abandon the keyboards, and go for a raw black metal feel for the rest of the album except the last track.

Now, in my opinion, in this kind of music keyboards are neccessary. It adds to the already dark atmosphere and makes the sound more full. The whole rest of the album beides the last track, there are very little keyboards, or you just can't hear it that well. It's more of just a raw black metal album. Which I do not like at all. After a while, it gets very repetitive.

The only tracks I somewhat enjoyed were the first track and the fully symphonic last track. I gave the percentage a little bit higher for the dark atmosphere and the fact that the singer almost starts crying in "Veux-Tu Danser?" That's when you know the singer is really going through a hard time and this music is for real. But, besides that, there really aren't any high parts in this album. I really don't hear what all of these people are hearing, that makes them think this album is a masterpiece. It certainly is far from a masterpiece. It's a sub-par/mediocre album.

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/G ... ../165412/

Besides the spelling mistakes, its just three short paragraphs that give very little description at all. There is almost no information about how this album sounds. He gives a few very brief examples of different points in the album, but doesn't summarize the albums entire sound. Basically, to summarize the sound, just says it is a raw black metal album (which isn't even really true, it is more of atmospheric/depressive black metal.)

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/Meshuggah/Chaosphere/54/Whalenut
it's a piece of shit, and it reads as if he spent 5 minutes on it.

It reads fine to me. He brings up the two major instruments and the vocalist, explains what to expect on the album, and makes a judgement based on that. It's not bad, it's just concise.

This review of Deicide's Once Upon the Cross seems very minimalist. It is essentially two paragraphs, only one of which is concerned with the album at hand.

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/D ... ses_Priced

Catamenia debut album review by MacMoney:

"Do we need Dimmu Borgir? Do we need clones of Dimmu Borgir? Do we need more clones of Dimmu Borgir? Catamenia seems to think so. Morning Crimson is almost a straight up copy of Enthrone Darkness Triumphant. The music is of course keyboard laden "extreme" metal with screechy vocals.

So when the bands rips off the likes of Dimmu Borgir, who aren't very respect-worthy in the original section as it is, there isn't really much to talk about the music. Suffice to say that it is very derivative, unoriginal and uninspiring. The vocalist is your basic screecher with nothing going for him. The guitars do form a fairly solid base but with the vocalist being the lackluster he is and the keyboardist noodling around without coming up with anything interesting, it just isn't enough.

The band has written very insipid lyrics in three different languages all managing to sound cheesy and "I've heard this before"y. Plus their "corpse"paints are just ridiculous. This album has nothing going for it. My recommendation is to stay the fuck away"

Does not describe the music (actually saying that there is not much to describe), comparison to Dimmu Borgir being the only pseudo-description. Plus 'before"y' is not a word.

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/C ... mson/1771/

The dudes newer reviews are decent.

I agree AcidGobblin, that review is terrible and annoying.

sounds concise and I've already gotten a very clear picture of what the album sounds like. Picking on "beforey" is pretty lame.. Really I don't see what the problem is here.