Look, I understand that there are "guidelines" and whatnot that the website requires, but "to vague" the words "great" and "killer" are reasons for a rejected review? Really? A review is the opinion of the listener and that is what it should be. The initial reaction put into words is the first honest thought and should not have to be "rejected" and re-written or improved upon just to meet standards of some website. I think that if someone takes the time to write a review for an album for all to read and base an opinion on whether or not that album would be for them or not, then that first initial reaction written into words should be accepted as an honest, unbiased opinion of the music in subject.



But that is just my two cents.

Feel free to write for other websites if you don't agree with our guidelines. It's really that simple.

It's always possible that the initial reaction that you wrote is in fact a biased approach, first of all. Secondly, 2005 seemed to be around the time when the words 'killer' and 'great' were enough to get a review posted here, but the overall quality standards have improved. I, for one, am glad because usually when my reviews are rejected and I look back on them I smack myself in the head and wonder, "the fuck was I smoking?"

Moderating reviews with the guidelines in mind is important, because if not then reviews like "MMMMM... bacon - 100%" would be accepted. That's going pretty far in the total shit category, but it's better for the mods to have a critical eye rather than just take anything that passes over totally unbearable. Consider them standards, and not guidelines, if that makes you feel any better.

Let me tell you a little story about a boy named Gunther.

A very long time ago (2006, I think), I wrote a few reviews for this site that were rejected. Instead of complaining, I decided to follow the guidelines to the letter even though I was skeptical about my reviews. I today have 450+ reviews and moderate our review queue.

My point: we do not hate you. However, we expect a standard. Do your best to write reviews if you wish and take advice from rejections.

There's a difference between "first, honest thoughts" and a good review, unfortunately. Take more time in the future to develop your thoughts and expand them into a better description of the music, and your use of words like "killer" won't be a problem at all. Hell, I use "killer" all the time.

They have a stench of advertising to them ... Btw., you may want to consider your ratings. There is a life beyond 90%+.

Advertising? How is enjoying a great album then writing my thoughts on it advertising?


I don't hardly review shit music sooo of course all my reviews are good haha


You can read any of my reviews and see they are well written and thought out rather than "uhhhh this is AWESUM AND SOOO GOOODD"


oh well. haha

I think the advertising idea is coming from lines like this:



Frankly, it sounds like a descriptor line at a webstore.

Let me show you what I mean:
http://www.metal-archives.com/users/WSi ... en_reviews

You cannot possibly take someone like this serious. So many 100%? Ridiculous. All perfect? Nonsense ... My overall average is somewhat around 60%, with over 550 written reviews. Where is yours? You need to balance it all out and be critical; praising all over excess brings it all do the level of childish ramblings.

Not defending the person who wrote those reviews or anything, but I never really thought of 100% being "perfect." At least it isn't for me.

Sometimes, I give 100% because a particular album might be truly amazing for the year it was released, or in comparison to other releases in the genre that year or in previous years. I think perfection should be shown through the actual written review, and not the score.

That said, I suppose if your reviews are specifically for MA, then using 100% as perfect makes sense(though I'll never understand the difference between a scores like 72% and 76%...)

That particular person is, as pointed out by someone earlier, probably a label drone. All of his 90% and 100% reviews are on releases from a single label, and the two low Horna ratings are just badly applied camouflage to hide the fact; they are also the only ones on any other label. Disregard the opinions if you feel like it, I personally categorize him among probable band members reviewing their own stuff.

Non of the music I review are on the same label LOL The bands I review are bands I enjoy simple as that. The bad reviews are reviews I have to review for the website I write for. lol

Your signature is way too long. Please remove some of it, or put at least two URLs together on one line, or something.

Not you, you son of a silly person...

Are you reviewing your own album or plagiarizing this one?
http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/C ... BlakWulfaz

By me ... I remembered this troll when I read this topic.

I posted it myself since nobody else would lol

You do realize plagiarism is a bannable offense, right? Regardless of whether you credit it or not, if you did not write it, do not post it.

He's already banned. Also, I'm editing his sig since he's too dumb to edit it after being asked nicely.