I just read that Vulgar Display review. I like the album, but I want to find the person that wrote it and beat him in skull about 60 or 70 times. It's that dumb.

Also, it's hilariously ironic that he bashes Metallica and The Black Album despite having Hetfield in his fucking name.

After reading that review, there was one part which popped out to my eyes:





Anyway, the main problem in his review is his problem of overgeneralizing (e.g. implying that Black Sabbath are "groove", talking about VDoP as if it was a pure thrash album, etc.), as well as perpetuating the wrong idea that thrash was dead by 1992 and Pantera helped revitalize it. It's also impressive that such huge mistakes are being commited by someone who claims to be 46.

Oh, and also interesting:



Redneck too much?

The amount of piss poor reviews for Aeternus' Beyond the Wandering Moon is upsetting. While not as good as ...And So The Night Became, the lack of any real formulated opinion on the album in question is baffling. It's really one of the few albums which really speaks deeply to the essence of Norwegian Black Metal in it's focussed effort to utilize the transcedental atmosphere of black metal as well as the aggression which so many albums in the genre lack. I may just have to write a review for it myself.

I agree with you, unfortunatelly it came after "And So The Night Became" and people tend to do that kind of comparison.

I don't understand this review.

And yes, my nighttime boredom has stroke again!

I agree with Zodi (and Nap), the only reviews you wrote are for Maiden and Priest (basically the only 2 metal bands you're listening to, you said that yourself in the site chat). Everything has been said on Painkiller and Fear of the Dark...

As Aeternus is a band I really like A LOT, I agree with that ^^^ 100%.

I like how he insists on not introducing the members and then introduces Dan Swano anyways.

But...yeah, that's a really bad review. If any mods wanted to, you know, sneeze while their mouse is hovering over the delete button for that review, I wouldn't mind.

"I won't waste time telling you that I love old school death metal, but you know, I really really do."

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/I ... evastation

Whenever I see a title like that I just skip the review entirely and click the back button. The whole "it's good but not THAT good" thing just reeks of some kid who wasn't around at the time of the album trying to be 'objective' for the purpose of doing a faux-intelligent review...of course, I was not around at the time of that album either, but I usually don't write reviews for well known albums back then trying to do this sort of thing. Not to mention, it's a boring opinion.

autothrall's review is a really good example of this style though.

He's saying that the chorus of The Clairvoyant is bad! DAAAAAAAMN.

/me tries not to click the "reject" button.

Blasphemy!

I generally hate it when the only thing people can think of when starting a review is "Ah... Black Sabbath..." or "Ah, Iron Maiden..." or "Ouch D'oh Ach Durn Crap Opeth, I fell down the stairs". It's usually supposed to be kind of forced casual attitude I believe, like those YouTube people who make it a point to keep sighing all the way through their reviews or rants, as if the video was a chore to make, and instead of attention-whoring, the person was being forced by his popularity to yield to the demands of the hordes of fans to illuminate them with his words. But it's NOT a way to start talking about something you find worthy of a review. And it just sounds stupid.

In my three/four days of working the queue I've already learned to fucking despise "Now on to the songs" or "Now on to the review". Bitch if you don't say that and just start talking about the songs I'll know you're moving on to the songs. If that short sentences arises it usually also means A) They're running through an amateurish checklist style of reviewing which annoys the shit out of me, or B) a long and unnecessary introductory paragraph about how they heard of the band but didn't ever listen to them until their friend George from Kentucky sent them a Youtube vid of "Forcefed Buttnasal Penetration" and then they realized they band was great and they've since been kicking themselves for not listening sooner.

Just delete everything before that part and you'll have a serviceable review... or delete everything after it and it'll look like one of FullMetalAttorney's reviews.

Well yeah, that can get really annoying. I'm not sure it's so much attention-whoring, though, as a kind of feigned, affected self-effacement / false modesty, as though they're pretending that their readers already know everything about the band and that whatever they write for a review won't be sufficient for the task. But then they go ahead and write the fucking thing anyway, so perhaps it is a kind of attention-whoring. Particularly when it's a review like that Seventh Son one (and damn straight it's THAT good) where they're being deliberately contrarian and going against what they see as the received wisdom of the metal community.

I vaguely remember doing something like that on my Dream Return to Tang Dynasty review, but it was done in an ironic, self-deprecating way and not toward the band - reading back over it, I think it was partly to poke fun at the band's medieval China worship. Don't know whether that's sufficiently exculpatory, though.

I made a rant/venting on that roughly 3 years ago. Now that you've opened Pandora's box/crotch, you better get used to certain things. Those things will soon be like the teenage daughters of ALL the houses around you, and you will see them as they are under their tender skins, perky bosoms, layers of muscles and skeletons and internal organs. You will see their black, tormented minds. They will seem harmless, but they will steal your soul, and use it in pseudo-sexual games that will include humiliation, domination, a little bit of pain, lots of horseplay, and maybe a few glimpses of certain erogenous areas every now and then, but certainly NO fulfilment on your part. Ever. And then you'll be an empty shell of a man, going through the chores and routines like a drone that tries to do what he's supposed to do before he dies, but death itself will evade you, and leave you crawling towards something like a zombie on a desert, unable to die but still thirsty for water you see in the fata morgana on the horizon. You better prepare yourself for the eventual moment when you realize you'd better crawl under the moss, stop your heartbeat, and decay for centuries like the rest of us, the vacant husks of persons we used to be...

Say your prayers, young man. You've made your choice.

I've noticed you around, glad to see you probing the minds of others for a change. That last Depresy review has got to be the fastest acceptance I've ever had here on MA.

Bastard is doing a great job, I'm glad that my recommendation is a success so far. But yeah, I gave his soul to the devil!

Craft - Void gets a 30% and some Woods of Ypres shitfest a 90%.

I feel like leaving this site now.

No, I can't leave. I at least have to write some overblown reactionary reviews first.

Can a mod fix the messed-up quotation marks here? http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/E ... ive/32602/

In regards to the new Voice of Steel review...

DAMN IT. Fucking damn it.

well, it's not a 0% review, relax!

Sorry, I know, cooling down.... it's just that... by the standards of the writer...

Kluseba or whatever is a very backwards reviewer when it comes to a lot of bands. He's given the shittiest In Flames album the time of day before something that restarts a band's creative juices.

My reactions exactly upon reading it. More or less because of the other albums he's reviewed and given higher scores too (i.e. the aforementioned In Flames). Anyway, the four other 100%'s make up for it.

Then again, some of the stuff in that review I just have to straight up disagree with.



Really? Songs like "Valkyrie", "My Dream Islands" and "Ukraine" aren't original?



I personally felt "White Tower" was an excellent closer, great followup to the acoustic "Sky of Saddened Nights" where it sort of drops you into a calmer, synthy landscape. I don't see how the samples we all that strange. It flows pretty well actually. And not passionate?



One word; "Ukraine".

Anyway, it might just be because of my intense fanboy-ism for this album.
Also, Nokturnal Mortum? Underground band?

kluseba always sucks. His writing is pretty mediocre and his opinions are just batshit nuts - not a quantifiable reason why he sucks, but hey.

hells_unicorn liked the new Manowar, he can't write negative reviews

Oh for crying out loud, I have more 0 score reviews that anyone else posting reviews on this site (save maybe autothrall, and if you go by average of total reviews to ones scored zero, droneriot). The new Manowar was fun to listen to and I haven't a single issue with it apart from Eric Adams not being able to wail at the higher echelons like he used to do on "Kings Of Metal". Given the out and out unanimous sentiments on that particular album, me writing a negative review wouldn't really serve much logical purpose even if I didn't like the album.

You truly had no problem with that production job?

Nope, it actually reminded me a bit of what Manilla Road was doing in the first half of the 2000s. I actually was on the verge of bashing the hell out of "Gods Of War" a few years ago for being extremely over-produced (never got around to it and the album has since grown on me a little bit) and was looking forward to having something a little bit rawer and lower fidelity. To borrow a line from the title of a review on here for Judas Priest's "Angel Of Retribution", some people want the moon on a stick.

Moon on a stick is a little much. I think most of us wanted something that didn't sound like total shit. After all, a farting bass sound is a little demeaning coming from one of metal's greats.

Well, Zodi got to have his unique position on Morbid Angel's latest album, so it looks like I'll get to have one as well, but I'm still puzzled at all the complaints regarding the production. Maybe I've become desensitized after listening to a whole slew of self-produced, independent demos, or maybe I just don't have the same expectations out of them (expectations that are most likely unmeetable).

Oh dude come on, my fave reviewer likes the new Manowar album

Yep, people eventually discover they have disagreements, and somehow the world doesn't end. You can feel free to set me straight on this with a review of your own, as I'm sure everyone is clamoring to get their sub-40 scores in to firm up their standing with the "in" crowd. But regardless, I think it's time for me to get some sleep and contemplate hitting the new Luca Turilli album as I promised earlier on the request thread.

I just don't find the new album good. It's really boring, that's just my biggest gripe with the album. There are no strong points on it, and as much as I don't like to use this as a description, but it feels uninspired. I honestly think that they have't put a good effort into making it. I'd give it a 50 at best, but probably a 30 just for the sake of it

Also, this comes from a guy who considers Fighting the World to be one of their best albums

EDIT: And speaking of reviews and requests, surprised you haven't reviewed the Cauldron albums yet, hint hint.

Come on dudes. You didn't like my review and that's okay. But talking about "shit" and saying that I "always suck" make you look like closed-minded kids that use the anonymity of internet for hating others and feeling cool. My review explains very well my opinion and I just don't shoot the shit on that band but explain my point of view as clear, objective and respectful as possible. There a tons of reviews I don't agree with but opinions differ and that's okay. When I see four or five reviews for the same album and everybody gives one hundred percent which means that t must be one of the most perfect records ever made, I just feel the need to rebalance the whole thing a little bit if I think this is exaggerated.

Concerning In Flames, I like many albums throughout their entire career. They always varied so much but stayed faithful to their own unique identity. The last one pleased me quite a lot but my favourite one happens to be "Lunar Strain". It's by coincidence that I started to review their newes stuff. I could have started with the first record, too. But as the new one came out when I decided to write some reviews about them, I just decided to go backwards. I stopped a while ago but may continue reviewing them in the future.

You know it's all about personal tastes. I'm also a big fan of famous mainstream bands such as Iron Maiden or Metallica and know almost everything they've ever made. Nevertheless, most people would disagree with me when I call "The X-Factor" and "...And Justice For All" their strongest works. Guess what, I even liked "St. Anger" and already see angry comments coming when I'll maybe review this record. It just hasn't anything to do with experience, knowledge or since how long you've followed a band. It's all about tastes.

The heck? It's cheap digital sounding distortion with a drum machine. It sounds like it could've come from a mid-1990s, one-man black metal project. Definitely not along the lines of early Manowar.

You know, there's a thread on this part of the forum about hyperbole abuse that you really need to read before making analogies like that again. Sure, it doesn't necessarily sound exactly like "Sign Of The Hammer", but it's far closer to that than the ridiculous picture you just painted.

It really isn't bro.