I was thinking of reviewing Sepultura's first album Morbid Visions, I have the remaster which also includes Bestial Devastation so do I review Morbid Visions as a standalone and then review Bestial Devastations as a standalone too or do I treat it as just reviewing Morbid Visions as the package I have? the same can really be applied to my copy of Into The Grave which includes the Tremendous Pain EP or any other rerelease with an EP tacked onto it.

It's up to you. As long as you cover the core material around which the album is based, it shouldn't matter. Personally, though, I'd only review the material that was present on the original pressing/release, and submit my reviews for any bonus material under their respective sources whenever applicable.

I've had a similar problem before, where I reviewed a band's demo and then later tried reviewing a split with the exact same demo material on it. I ended up just writing an abridged version of my review for it, and linking back to my standalone review of the demo if the reader wanted to know more about that side of the split.

Yeah I was thinking of doing it your way reviewing the standalone releases as if I held separate copies of both instead of the package I hold. It just gets tricky for the sake of consistency because as a review I'd like to let the reader know what is included in the package I'm reviewing and not act as if I own Tremendous Pain and Into The Grave separately so could I in fact do my review of Tremendous Pain acknowledge the format I own it in then when reviewing Into The Grave review the 11 songs on the original release then in my closing comments link to the review about the Tremendous Pain and explain the value of the package I have. I may be going too much into this

If it's a two-for-one package, review them separately.

From the perspective of how albums are put together, consider that an album isn't just a collection of songs, it's a complete, coherent statement, a work of art, and the format can be a significant part of that. Consider that Morbid Visions is a fast, relentless album - it's under 35 minutes, and it packs a punch like that. An album takes a certain timespan to deliver its message, to immerse you in its feeling, and not only does it grab a hold of you, it lets you go. Think about Sarcofago's INRI, Merciless' "The Awakening", and Slayer's "Reign in Blood" - the running time of those is most certainly an important factor in their impact.

The choice of tracks and the running time is a factor on a few albums - the track order on Mutiilation's VoBIB always seemed odd to me, and this version always seemed to have a better flowing, more logical track order, as well as the absence of the song with a drum machine making sense. There are three extra tracks, but being on another side of a record did give them a certain separation, sort of an option to the listener. This track order and the removal of one track (minus the three bonus tracks) improves the album to me.
http://www.discogs.com/M%C3%BCtiilation ... ase/412393

I don't care for bonus tracks, it seems like something tacked onto a complete statement by a band, tacked on by a label or someone else. Not something I really consider when thinking about an album.

Perhaps it is logistically and marketably more realistic to put two releases together when possible, but listening to them separately is important to me.

So you think I should review Morbid Visions or Into The Grave as a separate entity altogether then Bestial Devastation or Tremendous Pain and not cross reference but as if I owned the two separately? I was thinking more along the lines of reviewing them under their own separate entries but then referencing the EP review in the full length review, just linking to it or talking about it in the closing comments.

I would do it separately. Consider the double release as a label choice as they owned the publishing rights, while the artist's statement was the original version.

That's perfect thanks, will keep that in mind.

I'd suggest separately with cross references to tie them together to the band's beginning. But that's up to you. Also double check the track listings if you already haven't.

The Sepultura page used to be more confusing. I think it incorrectly had Bestial Devastation on its own coming out in 1985, along with the Morbid Visions/Bestial Devastation re-release as an entry. Though BD was originally released on a split in '85 with the band Overdose. Then 6 years later separately with the song "Troops of Doom" re-recorded (also on Schizophrenia as a bonus, too).

I'm pretty sure due to the reviews getting moved after the correction, not all of the them are written entirely about the '91 release. Two of them even do track by track reviews that don't mention Troops. The earliest review says "4 song EP" despite having 6 tracks. It seems a share of them are reviewing from a different source than at hand, haha.

Good luck. I find it curious when reading reviews on early Sepultura that it justifiably gets mentioned about who they sound similar to and their influences. But occasionally when it's the other way around and someone is reviewing any such band from Brazil, Sepultura's name gets dropped whether they sound inherently like them or not, ha. It's one of the reasons I've dodged reviewing them but instead hit a share of others who inadvertently got caught in their shadow due to poor outside distribution and touring at large in the country's past.