That review is terribly written and says nothing about the music, it's just whining about the direction of the band. The same reviewer wrote a pretty bad review of Celestia's "Apparitia" that still manages to not be the worst. All three of these fall into the trap of comparing every black metal album to the same five bands, often very poorly and without establishing what aspect of the music is similar:

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/C ... tre/22620/

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/N ... rkwhistler

While I'm not sure whether or not this is bad enough to warrant removal, it sure as shit is annoying.

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/M ... indTorrent
This is even more annoying. The description is very generalized and doesn't really add more depth to the content.

That Nile review is a good example of someone who wants to write a review but doesn't have anything to say in it. A brief introduction attempting to match the theme of the band, some very vague generalizations and wandering descriptions evade actually explaining what the album sounds like beyond a very general description of the band. Lots of wasted words, like a high school creative writing piece before learning to edit one's writing. Seriously, what the fuck does this mean?

Though the adjectives and expletives used to describe Nile and their mythological masterpiece might eventually be extinguished, their status still remains.

This one is even worse, I'm surprised it was accepted because the track-by-track part is worthless.
http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/I ... rkwhistler

The mini-history contains the only decent evaluation of the music - it's Immolation, they're consistent, and that's good, but there's a terrible hyperbolic statement there - the forefront of innovation, and pure unadulterated death metal? Aimless, contradictory praise. The track-by-track is very general praise, assuming knows what "classic Immolation style riffing" is and needs a review to tell them that after 25 years of doing that, they haven't changed. The only thing that these reviews convey is that the reviewer is excited about them, which is not at all appealing to a reader.

This is terrible. 2004 quality. Oven Fodder material I'd say. As for that Nile review, notice that he gave it 90% and it's the worst Nile album/worst album of the year. That should say it all

So poorly written.



I... ah, fuck it. I give up trying to comprehend this 'review'.

I wonder what does that album sound like based on this review...


Agreed, this is pretty bad! That line about it being metalcore because it has breakdowns is... is... OK, breathe now.


Compared to the two above this is actually decent. Sure it has two paragraphs consisting solely of purple prose and the description is barebones but I've read much worse. Case in point, both above.

I'm kind of interested in how reviewing culture here has changed over the years, and it would be cool if some reviewers who have been doing it for a while would like to share their opinion on how things have changed. I mean obviously the standards have become stricter since the site's inception, but that's not really what I'm getting at. Just from when I joined I have noticed some changes. For example, the "big name" prolific reviewers with 500+ reviews I used to read a lot of when I started reviewing in 2010, being Perplexed_Sjel, Caspian and Noktorn (in this last case more for his writing style than anything, as I largely disagree with his tastes) have stopped doing it (well I guess Caspian still does a review every few months or so). During that time reviewers like ConorFynes, Kluseba and FullMetalAttorney have popped up and written reviews at an alarming quantity, but haven't really been consistent in quality, which seems to have irked many users (including myself). So just wondering how other people think reviewer culture has changed on MA; the opinions of veterans would be especially interesting.

Reviewing culture has changed along with the amount on information on the internet and the availability of music. 10 years ago I think reviews were a bit more oriented towards getting some thoughts on what was on the album as to not make it completely blind to explore new bands. More recently, I see a few reviewers giving more of an overview of the band and a glance at how they think an album will be received, sort of a blog newspost type of review. Some of the weakest reviews have been sorted out, since unlike 10 years ago, there isn't a need for a review with a review with two sentences of description, a few namedrops, and five sentences of enthusiasm. I can't say I appreciated the better written reviews ~8 years ago because I was younger, less patient, and not as well versed in metal. There have been a lot of similarities throughout the years though, in terms of more or less the "average" review, though I think the user-submitted but filtered format of the site has helped better focus a lot of reviewers.

One old review of excellent, nearly timeless quality is MacMoney's review of "Pale Folklore". I remember reading that when I heard Novembers Doom were touring with Agalloch in early 2004 and finding it captivating. Unfortunately, the NYC show of that tour was cancelled because L'Amour shut down, and I also never got into Agalloch, but that's a great review!
http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/A ... 0/MacMoney

[link]

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/C ... etal_Grail

Something missing... hmm. Oh yeah, the mention of the god awful drum mixing. Those hollow snares... holy shit. No atmosphere is a minus, too.

I think the most egregious lack of talking about poor production was that it took over a dozen reviews of Arsis' "We Are The Nightmare" until someone mentioned that it was tech-death produced like a beatdown hardcore album. The production on that is pretty much the same as The Acacia Strain's "Continent".

Hey, Zodijackyl, I would like to make a conference call with you and discuss ColdWorld's Melancholie².

Can't say I'd mind this myself. What a boring, watered-down excuse for a DSBM album.

Oh yeah, he was so annoyed at the ignoring poor production thing that he made that review almost exclusively about production. I thought it was piss poor.

I like it. Thing is that I don't like a lot of DSBM, but this one is alright.


The production was piss poor or the review was piss poor?

The review.

I posted an overly long review of the latest Soundgarden. Anyone care to offer some criticism on it?
http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/S ... al/352569/

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/C ... nalAcrobat

Great read. Very witty, descriptive, unique and individualistic.

With me and who?!?

Yeah, cut the first two paragraphs down considerably. Your Soundgarden life-story doesn't need to be such a key component to a review about one album, no matter how personal. We'll understand how personal the album is to you without you having to go into such detail.

THIS should be the extent (give or take) of the two paragraphs. Having them as they are is way too long and doesn't help the reader who wants to know about the album, not your life story. Not to dismiss that, I mean believe me when I say Soundgarden and I go back to 2004 when I was first amazed by them, but that's not for the review. If I feel like it should be for the review, it doesn't need to be two major paragraphs worth of it.


That's just my advice. Proofread also, because I found some errors in your writing (they're easy stuff).

I sorted my reviews by score and looked at the range I was thinking of. It's worse than the Lacuna Coil single that I reviewed, but it's marginally better than the stuff I rated lower. I understand that it's a self-produced EP from an inexperienced band and I'll give them credit for not being as egregiously offensive as each release that I rated at 0%. It's not purely unlistenable like Rancid Entity, but it's still rated lower than Satanity for a reason.

Thank you very much, OzzyApu, I'll keep that in mind next time. I may re-write my review on King Animal, even.

Maybe it's not quite oven fodder, but here's one that has pretty much every single mark of bad reviewing all over it.

This review is quite lengthy, but it's a poorly written track-by-track, instrument-by-instrument piece that barely says anything about the album as a whole. Worse, on the first three songs, the vocals aren't even mentioned and the guitars are only referred to with "some riffs" or "a solo". Everyone has their own opinions, but this really comes across like someone with a cursory knowledge of the band throwing wild pitches at the bigger picture and missing most of what's going on, especially when the vocals and guitar aren't even described, just referred to.



Sounds like a teenager who just "discovered" Rush beyond the radio and has only heard a few album. One more quote that demonstrates the inability to describe the music.



http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/R ... Xecutioner

I have never read this review until now, but it's a much better description of the album than I managed. The philosophy of how this album is so terrible really shines.

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/T ... 68/Noktorn

the dude that wrote this introduction for a review of Vinterland's Welcome My Last Chapter needs to be slapped:

"There are almost 35 degrees outside my home in this moment and I’m quite sure I’m gonna die in few seconds. I had to find something with a great burden of coldness with icy sounds that could bring me virtually in another place where I can inhale the icy winds of a snow storm. In Italy the hot period is too humid as you could understand but the winter is quite cold and I already have nostalgic thoughts about it."

"I feel like I'm going to die in a few seconds, so I've decided now is a good time to dedicate an hour to writing a review."

You guys should read the introduction to the new Soulfly review then, it takes that template to a higher place.

ah but the writer of the vinterland review wrote that in earnest.

also that soulfly review stinks. half of what he's written there has nothing to do with the album itself, and a good solid chunk otherwise is hyperbole and the writer trying to begin a career as a comedy blogger. he even uses the term "killshit engayge", for christ's sake. i'm sure it'll be in his CV when he applies for a job as a columnist at cracked.com.

You remember a few weeks ago when I was talking about writers whose writing is more about themselves than the music?

If you're saying what I think you're saying then I think I know what you're trying to say. But then again you might be trying to say something completely different from what I think you're trying to say.

Fucking christ, it's like reading the awful reviews that I'm bitching about!

Even when I try to shun off negativity with a bit of nonsense it comes back to bite me in the ass. With that being said I honestly have to ask this directly:

Do you have a fucking problem with me?

Zodi has a problem with many things, best to let it sit.

Perhaps I need more emoticons to indicate sarcasm

i didn't see that, but judging by the entire first paragraph of that review (also the largest) being dedicated to the author's *hilarious* feeling of impending doom... yeah, i know exactly what you mean! and might i say DOWN WITH IT!
(unless it's super-funny, of course. i read the articles at cracked as well)

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

What's up with this metal hipster nonsense?

An excellent new batch of reviews Gunther, keep it up

Thank you very much sir.

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/V ... vil_Carrot

"I found it overwhelming and not nearly worthy of the praise it deserves. Maybe one day I’ll get it, but until then, I’m just going to stick with Katorz."

LOLLLLLLL