Yeah that new Esoteric review was a turd. The last sentence makes no sense at all.

This is the way I feel about Limbonic Art's debut. I don't understand what makes it the greatest symphonic black metal album of all time to these reviewers.

I actually really enjoyed Carach Angren's latest album. The reference to Nightwish is hilarious, though. Maybe I like C.A. because I still like Nightwish?

And yes, Ildjarn got referred to as hipster black metal... my mouth was hanging open too.

Erh... have you seen the size of my Nightwish collection?

I received the promo of the album back when it was coming out and I gave it a few spins because I had never listened to the band, plus I was curious to see what all the talk about this Dutch symphonic black metal act that wrote about phantom ships was about. Needless to say that I was left horrified when I hit play and started listening to it, and that process was repeated with every new spin of the album. So yeah, I really think the album is that bad. Now for the Nightwish comparison, I wasn't trying to imply that CA sound like power metal if that's what you're thinking. What I meant is that I got instantly reminded of Anette era Nightwish because of the comparable aesthetics, in terms of symphonic/movie-like arrangements, the cheesy "nautical" atmosphere that isn't more creepy than the Flying Dutchman sequence on the second Pirates of the Caribbean movie, and so on. Please don't ask me to pinpoint exactly where because I've heard this album long ago and my memory of it has more or less dissolved with time, apart from the general lines of opinion.

That's what I figured you were comparing: the movie score styled approach. I actually enjoyed C.A.'s take on it. There's no way I'd give it 100% though (my review was an 85%, mind you). I thought it was well thought out, well played and refreshing compared to a lot of sympho-black music. The vocals aren't greatest and there's something about the bass drums that irks me.

In short, I don't think it's worthy of all of the 100% reviews it got, but I don't think it deserves th 0% either. But we all have our opinions, eh? As for being the pinnacle of symphonic black metal? Not even close.

Sure thing. As I've said before I'd rate it below 40% because of a few aspects, the faux-symphonic approach of the album as I've referred already and some others. The bass drum is indeed annoying, but the entire low-end of the drums is. The snare has this closed sound that I can't really like (went back to re-listen to this for as long as I could bear with it, which happened to be 15 mins ), and the drums are mixed way back. I've come to realize that some of the guitar parts have indeed a symphonic power influence here and there but it mingles with the rest if you're not paying attention.

To me this feels like a "symphonic extreme metal" album with enough black metal elements to be marketed as symphonic black, but that's just my way of being rude, ha!

Absolutely this! The black elements are pretty much gone at this point in their career, aside from raspy vocals and occasional trem picking.

Ha, I wasn't expecting this reaction to be honest.

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/K ... 08/kluseba

Retarded yet again. The album is actually rather simple and flowing...if that was his complaint I could see it, but it's certainly not too much to take unless you just listen to a bunch of dreary ambient music all day. It's not THAT complex and the songs overall are quite nicely done and not overloaded with much of anything - it's even less complex than their heyday with Epica/Black Halo, with less proggy song structures and underlying layers. Dunno what album he heard.

How did he listen to "My Confession" and NOT, I REPEAT, NOT hear anything catchy?

With his fingers in his ears.

Eh, it took a few listens for the hooks to sink in for me, so I can see why he would say that, but then, it just shows he didn't listen to it maybe more than once. It's just funny because most peoples' complaints with new Kamelot are that they've dumbed down their sound, not the other way around, and Silverthorn certainly isn't anything that complex or crammed with stuff. The songs are simple, emotional verse-chorus structures with heartfelt, sorrowful melodies. Not anything that complicated...

He definitely listened to it only once. This is just typical kluseba garbage. I kind of fell bad about ragging on him so much, but hey, you reap what you sow.

I mean, how could you POSSIBLY think this album is worse than PftP? It's an improvement in almost every conceivable way. Songs like "Veritas," "My Confession," and "Silverthorn" itself are instant Kamelot winners. Not much unmemorable about those.

Silverthorn is unbelievably amazing. I usually don't nag on kluseba, but I totally disagree with his review on pretty much every level. It's not as good as The Black Halo, but really damn close, and any band that can put out an album like Silverthorn definitely has their shit in order.

Silverthorn is decidedly meh for me. I suppose it's an improvement from Poetry, but I never really liked any of Kamelot's albums that much (I've heard Epica on-words). There's usually a couple good songs on each and then a bunch of filler. Kluseba's review wasn't exactly poignant though.

Why is it that every one of the 23 reviews of Wintersun's recent album is fluffed up and overdone like the album? There's very little substance and every review reflects on the band's reputation and the hype/history of the album's production. I wrote a very concise review to contrast the unpleasant excesses of it.

You'll probably end up saying what has already been said by other reviews, but in less words. Well, at any rate, yours will probably be the only one of them all that I'm going to read in full.

I think I said everything that needs to be said, and for an album like this that everyone has an opinion about, I think a very concise review appeals to a lot more readers/listeners than a thousand words of aimless rambling, background, and misdirected commentary. There's really no need to supplement the actual reviewing with biography/history/bloat on something like this, that's an unsightly waste of time.

Since I only submitted it a few minutes ago, here's the full text.

Rather stripped down review ...
I thought we were past these snippets.

You could do what you just did with any album. Just give one sentence to talk about each instrument, the vocals, the overall sound, and boom, you're done. Would agree that your review is too stripped down.

However, you are correct on the amount of padding much of these Wintersun reviews have, much of which are by writers that thought just because this was the Wintersun sophomore they needed to write a ton.

Adding history and background to a review of a high-profile release is pointless unless you have valuable insight to offer. Would my review be better if I added a five-sentence introduction talking about why the album took eight years to make and how a lot of people spoke of high expectations, and another few sentences at the end repeating the concise contents of the review in comparison to expectations? What needs to be said that I didn't write?

I never said what to write, just that it could have been any amount of sentences more than 2 direct paragraphs, be it 1 or more.

The usual way I do things is to use a first paragraph in a sort of introductory manner for placing the reader among the scene/history/main traits of the band/album, then I proceed to give some insight on the music itself and wrap it up with a separate paragraph for conclusion. I like to review each album as if the reviewer had no previous connection or knowledge to the band/album. Now I'm not saying that a biography is needed within each review, and again this is due to my way of writing, but it's never a bad thing to have a decent introduction as to place the reader within that event.

Of course that Wintersun is probably know enough to avoid this sort of intro on a review, but then again if it's done tastefully what's the big deal really? Just wondering... Why go from 100 to 0 just because?

It really sucks to read pseudo historic introduction, especially when I work on the band queue and I see these kind of things for the biggest bands. If I want to know the history of a band, I'll check it out elsewhere, a review is for a particular album and it must describe it musically, not give an historic essay about their 4th drummer who was a midget. I'm not saying that it's never good, Androdion's reviews are top notch, but I think it's boring and that's coming from a future history teacher. A short historical context is totally fine (even appreciated when it's done well) but a a whole paragraph (1/3rd of the review?), damn no.

Well, all things considered I tend to write 5 paragraph reviews so all in all "historical" introduction is pretty much 1/5 of the way.

I get that it's a cumbersome task to read "Here's the second album from the band of the guy who came from Ensiferum and that revolutionized the metal world with its debut, and it took him eight years to release it." kind of stuff over and over again. I really do! Sometimes I tend to check people's opinions (not actual reviews) on albums on RYM, and there's this one guy to which I've swore myself never to read anything else again on pure principle. Because he starts every review with this sentence: "'album name' is the 'album number' of 'band name'.". It is highly annoying to have something which is commonly known being constantly thrown at your face, I get it. But introduction is more than just saying which album number it is or where does the band come from.

I was taught to always write a text in the following manner: introduction, development, conclusion. To me a review is and should be a full body of text that comprises these three things. And according to the teachers I had the first and the last are to be small and concise and provide for a placement of the reader and a conclusion by the writer. The "juice" of the text is supposed to be the development which is also the largest part of the text. So taking my reviews as an example (the more recent, hey I had to learn right?! ) you can see that the first paragraph is the introduction about the band/scene and then from the second to the fourth I talk about the music, starting with more general details and then going in depth with the songs.

All this to say that sometimes reviews can be seen as a bit of "loose thoughts" committed to text, but in my opinion I think that even such a simple thing as an album review should be treated as a full text and abide by it's "rules". If grammar is a thing with writing reviews why can't text structure be valid as well?!

Curious to hear opinions on my latest Aeternus review.

I understand what everyone is saying, but in the case there are 23 other reviews on the site and countless other reviews that don't cut the bullshit and most of them are needlessly dragged out nearly to the extent of Wintersun's music. The tendencies of excessive pseudo-history and expectations seem to be tied to the release so I wrote something to contrast and offer something different. The short length could also be considered a commentary on the band's approach of "it's not big enough!!!".

Oh man, I should've titled the review "It's not big enough! "

This made me laugh louder than it's acceptable at this time of the night.

I get it Zodi, and it's good to have contrasts, otherwise everything would blur into the same pattern right? I just tend to write in a formulaic way and I'm kind of a perfectionist. So I sometimes tend to look at the world through my own personal lenses, if I can put it like that.


Because of the size of it? I'm pretty sure that no one here will put Aeternus and Wintersun on the same "pedestal" when it comes to writing a review.

No on the actual review you smart ass. Lol

I can tell you that I'm a sucker for the kind of imagery you've went for, the analogies and descriptions in terms of how the album is more than mere music. It's easy to understand how special that album is to you, and even though I think the review is a bit too long I can relate to the fact that one just wants to pour the heart out when reviewing special albums.

It sits at #3 all time for me. I was concerned about the length also but I had a lot to say about it. I usually don't write reviews that long.

I don't know really. I'm not sure if it still stands (I'm lazy and haven't checked, or maybe it's just my memory from the yesteryears) but I remember the rules once (years ago) saying that the review should be written like the reader has no frame of reference. It's not always important, but putting the album into historical perspective might be useful for some reviews. I get why Zodi is saying this about Wintersun's Time. With all the big deal about it being delayed for years and people having huge expectations and all that, there's not much of a reason to go on and on and on about the history of it all - unless you have some insight that isn't common knowledge. But briefly going into the band's situation at the time of the release of the album - especially if no other review exists/does it - can be a good way to start a review in general. Or perhaps that's just my outdated view on it. I suppose at this time and place, it is no longer necessary.

And yes, I do reject reviews that dedicate a huge paragraph (or three) to the history/situation of the band and then just a few measly sentences to the actual album.

On today's review of Helloween 'The Burning Sun'.

I agree with everything except the Deris song sucks, Grosskopf's song is the worst of his contributions for the last 4 albums.

Oh and:



Fuck that man, tell me 'The Dark Ride', 'Still We Go', 'Push', 'The Time Of The Oath', 'The Departed (Sun Is Going Down)', 'Revelation' and 'Mr. Torture' are all fillers...

I get the point behind Zodi's review, but I would have never let that through, no matter how large a headwound I may have currently been suffering from. It could describe literally any symphonic metal album, from Rhapsody to new Dimmu. You don't need 900 words of background before getting to the album at hand (well aware of the hypocrisy, thank you), but more than one sentence about any particular aspect of the music is definitely appreciated. Not to mention one of them is wrong anyways, because as terrible as the album is, it is quite varied in its dynamics. It's one of the only positives I could give it. I'm seriously considering nuking it, and I feel like if it wasn't Zodi, it wouldn't have gotten where it is in the first place.

With over 20 reviews for that album anyway, Zodi does provide something different. However, that different isn't a unique style as much as it's a lack of the amount of content he's willing to write about. Again, like you said BH, it could literally describe any symphonic metal album that could be seen as negative. I could copy-paste that review and switch "Wintersun" with Rhapsody of Fire's From Chaos to Eternity (for instance) and it would fit.

Yeah, I can't in good conscience let that stay, regardless of whether it's a high profile reviewer with a point to make or not. If it was anybody else, it would have been rejected, and I'd almost think that Zodi himself would post that in the Oven Fodder were it not he. It's waaaaaay too scant.

What content is missing? It's 100% about the music without filler about things other than the music - comparable to a dozen other reviews if you removed every sentence about how long it took to make, the dude's computer, and what the general public+writer expected.



The synthesized symphony has no change in volume, attack, or cadence throughout the album, and it's a constant through tracks two and three, which make up more than half the album. The only changes in dynamics are tempo changes, which the synths practically seem to ignore as the rhythm is kept by the guitars and drums in the background while the string synths are pretty much held constant. The only change in dynamics in the last track are switching to wind synths rather than string synths in the last track.

An example of dynamics in long, "epic" songs would be Symphony X's "The Odyssey" - everything contrasts in volume and tone, with the lead of the song being actively traded between the vocals, keyboards, and guitars. Each performance is dynamic - rather than sounding like a loop of one part for 16 measures without variance, you'll hear the vocals finish up a line early, or hold a note as the guitars or keys pick up a melody, melodies on guitar will sit behind the vocals while being chugged with a rhythm, quickly moved up an octave and phrased as a lead while the vocalist holds a note to contrast, and it happens seamlessly as the song isn't interrupted by changes. Wintersun does not have dynamics, the band literally sounds like thickened tones of Guitar Pro's RSE, everything is going at 100% all the time. As I said, the band has two settings - interlude and overload.

That last sentence is perfectly valid, but "Sons of Winter and Stars" does have an extended quiet part in the middle. Dynamically there is a lot going on at both ends of the spectrum, throughout the short duration of the album. I couldn't agree more with how bad the album is, but that one criticism is the only thing I can't agree with.

Also, look at that post. With that one post you added a ton of elaboration on your points you could have easily put in the review.

Would it really make the review more appealing and on-point to spend half of it talking about why Symphony X are better?

Actually, yes. Really, at this point anything that would elaborate upon your viewpoint would be beneficial to the review and make it a more intriguing read.