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

Shitty Bolt Thrower review, and I don't even like that album as much as everyone else.

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/P ... XI/313095/

Mweh, kind of a bad review if you ask me. And the !!!HAIL TO THE MIGHTY PARADISE LOST,THE TRUE EMPERORS OF ATMOSPHERIC METAL!!!!USURPERS BEWARE!!! line makes me laugh.

Boring album, but I don't agree with him saying the guitars lacks punch or has weak vocals.

With more description that review would be fine. As it stands, it's crappy. He gives it 70% and barely mentions any positives. The first paragraph is fine and then the next few are basically one line each.

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/L ... /Avestriel

This may be the most butthurt review I've ever heard. Also, it's Jeff Mangum, not Magnum.

It kind of ruined my "people aren't actually offended by this, they just found it stupid" argument I made in the review I posted yesterday.

lord_ghengis, I just read your review for the same album. Really good stuff. I guess I could see some people complaining about how you describe some riffs as "great" while, in the same sentence, also calling them annoying, but I get what you're talking about without even having heard the album in question. I really liked this line:

"Face it, if somebody answers a question, any question- Even if that question is "Would you please tell us about your manifesto?" -with "I have written a manifesto", you will be laughed at and mocked, because that is hilarious."

I see where you're coming from with the general theme of the review. I don't really read much non-metal music media anymore, but that manifesto was so brilliantly retarded that it read like something from that Post-Modern Essay generator and that interview with Hunty was just a long, drawn-out punchline. So yeah, it does really blow my mind that so many people (not around here, thank Satan) are ranking this thing so highly. Music aside, you'd think even hipsters would be mocking the hell out of this guy. Maybe they only like it ironically?

Thanks a lot. I got 8 points for it, I can't remember the last time that happened, and it's the first time I've been happy with a review for a long time too, usually when I have a theme for a review I totally lose it when I get around to actually describing the music, and I always feel disappointed, I think I kept it going pretty well this time. I think I must have made it a little unclear a few times there, the actual black metal riffs on it are pretty good, some of them great, as are the more overt melodies, but the dundundundundundundundundun riffs sound absolutely terrible, and the production is a annoying too. But thanks.

A review for Ajattara's Kuolema:

Yes, it's the entire review. Just that. Yet, isn't it fairly descriptive and informative for such a short piece? Though this review is far too short and lacks detail, I wanted to post it here since it seems that these days, and for many years in past aswell, M-A has been brimming with reviewers with pretensions of high writing ability and in-depth philosphical and contextual analyses of albums. The review above is far more helpful than a lenghty analysis of DSO's theistic satanism or what have you.

I was one of those reviewers myself. So many empty words.

Sure, it's great if I simply wanted to know whether or not, provided I liked the album that preceded it, I would like the album in question. Otherwise, it's useless.

It describes the music as black/death/doom with ethereal keyboards, which is groovy, and not fast. It's about as much as many reviews manage to say with fifty times the word count.

Well, reviews that merely describe what the music sounds like are not very interesting.

Many reviewers put too much emphasis on inconsequential ramblings and forget that ultimately their review is indeed a buyer's guide. That's how I use reviews - to make a judgment whether I should check something out or not. Obviously I don't let the reviews judge it entirely... Anyhow, reviews should be written like news: the most important information first, and later the analysis if it's called for.

I'm the exact opposite, the age of seeing reviews as buyer's guides are pretty much over what with everything being so easy to bluebeard nowadays, and even if you have ethical qualms with that you can surely find it on Youtube as well. I adore the far deeper analysis, how much literal information can it give me before it breaks away from common sense?





I dunno, the buyer's guide style is piss boring to read, and unless it's from a user who is particularly good with the dry and informative style (like hells_unicorn or something), I typically won't read past the first paragraph, because that tells me all I need to know. I'm not saying reviews should be stand up comedy acts, but if they aren't enjoyable to read, nobody will read them, thus rendering them useless. I am 100% sure that I'm not the only person who reads who wrote the review first before the review itself. It's sad that it's gotten to the point where if I don't recognize the writer, chances are the review won't be very interesting.

You guys like boring stuff.

You apparently misunderstood me, probably because of the extremely bare-boned review I posted here. Perhaps you though it's the kind I wanted to see more of; however, that's not what I meant. I have no qualm agains in-depth musical analysis as long as its completely relevant, relatively concise and doesn't stray too far from the subject matter. I accept whatever analogies and even complicated analyses that are necessary for giving the reader as accurate a depiction of the music's nature as possible. I am not interested in the album's sociopolitical influence, let alone how the album ruined metal and spawned half-cocked imitators. I am against reviews that read like autobiographies or essays on metal culture. I can't read even through reviews like Wra1th1s' "epic" Master of Puppets review. That small review I posted simply made me remember what reviews are ultimately for. That review only describes the music, and though the description is lacking, there are far longer reviews with possibly even less musical description.

I am all for personal, interesting writing styles. However, good writing in reviews is not rambling or cryptic, nor should its sole purpose be to entertain the reader. I enjoy ANationalAcrobat's reviews; he has the ability to describe an album's nature very aptly using humour. He creates caricatural images of the music. It's a unique skill, and very useful therefore, since he is able to bring up things about the music that most reviewers cannot see or fail to describe aptly.

For you.

I agree with BastardHead about the notion of the "buyer's guide" review becoming obsolete. I'm covering that topic for the editorial piece in my magazine. For those who do write their own magazines, it is important for them to understand that the base value of a review is no longer what it once was, and simply offering them what they can immediately ascertain by downloading the music isn't going to cut it. Nobody buys magazines for banal, trivial, "the music sounds like this and if you like these bands you might like this band" reviews any more. If you want somebody to buy your magazine and actually read the reviews instead of skipping over them to get to the interviews and whatnot, you're going to have to offer something unique, such as a critical analysis, humor, or certain writing quirks and whatnot.

Naturally, the opinion I voice is my own.

"What reviews are ultimately for" is an absolute, not subjective statement, which is what I assume Noktorn took umbrage with.

Yeah, sure, if you want to be anal retentive. It's not necessary for everyone to preface all their ideas about these things with "IMO", we can just assume that people are giving their own opinions, particularly when that has already been a major point of contention which they've acknowledged multiple times.

+ the fact that this conversation is going way past the point it needed to in the first place. A little debating is always appropriate, but is it so hard to move on?

failsafeman's review of Riot's Fire Down Under is definitely a good read. I'm listening to the album right because of the review and it is rocking my shit. Riot is too damn good.

I'd just like to acknowledge hells_unicorn's great Death reviews. I've enjoyed reading through these things the last couple days.

Autothrall's review of Iron Savior's latest is quite good even though I fully disagree with his take on it: http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/I ... autothrall Just a well done analysis.

I was toying with the idea of making my return to reviewing with Antediluvian's excellent "Through the Cervix of Hawaah" album, but skoggangr's review articulated my feelings on it more efficiently than I think I could.

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

Yes that Iron Savior review is spot on. He perfectly describes an album that I tried to like but couldn't.

Thanks, I'd been meaning to hit Chuck's discography for quite a while and just over the past week I started a huge listening binge and remembered just how much I love his work. I'm going to finish this deluge out with "Sound Of Perseverance" and one of the live albums, and eventually the Control Denied album before the year is out. I hope you enjoy them too, assuming you also like those albums of course.

Oh yeah, I like all his albums, with Symbolic and TFAoE as my favorites and Leprosy/TSoP not far behind (I still haven't heard Spiritual Healing, though). So, those last two will probably be a couple of the most interesting for me.

the newest review for Illud makes me cringe...and no it's not because I happen to like that album, it's because that review absolutely SUCKS.

I think it might be a nice idea to wait for the next album that resembles Illud..., and then approve all reviews it gets during the first week, keep them for a month, and then nuke most of them. Then you'd see why I cringe and EVERY review on it. Actually, after I read the first three, I have not been able to read a single review on it. Too predictable, too similar, too... crappy. It's been the other mods' real estate since.

Metalheads are such resentful nerds.

What review did you do that in?

My new Destruction review. Which is a pretty restrained, level review all things considered. Hardly "bashed" anything.

How long does it usually take an approved review that I made a typo correction in to get approved again?

It all depends since it might get thrown to a different mod who has to read the whole thing again, but for me it's usually pretty quick.

So, for all I know, it might end up getting rejected...

Are you really concerned about that? You have 30 reviews, I'm sure you've figured out how to get one accepted by now.

I'm finally doing it. My Catasexual Urge Motivation review. It's gonna be a doozy.

Can you tell me the approximate score you'll give it?

Oh, 100 of course. It's my favorite album of all time and I'm going to thoroughly dissect it. I'm at 1500 words now and I'm barely a fraction into it. There's a substantial chance it'll end up being the longest review on MA. No, I'm not writing it with the intent of impressing anyone with its length; I just realize that this is probably the most detailed undertaking of the album (and the band) that's ever going to occur, so if I have the opportunity to create the one enduring dissertation of an obscure Japanese goregrind band, I'm going to try and do them proud. Information about the band is incredibly scattered and difficult to find, and I've amassed a ton of details about them over the years, so I'd like to use this as an opportunity to inform people as much as possible so that others don't have to traverse the veritable continents of websites I've had to in order to glean some understanding. I think they deserve as big a shot at finally being revered as I can possibly give them. I consider it sort of returning the favor.

By the way, since I know people will complain about it: yes, there's an extremely large chunk of text that opens the reviews talking about discovering the band, investigating them, and what the music did for me personally. It's the absolute antithesis of a buyer's guide review. I'm not going to apologize for it: this is my baby and I plan to celebrate it. I basically feel like I owe a life debt to the album and short of letting the Kanais kill me I'm not going to be able to pay it back. Allow me to indulge.