http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=304#3554

A track-by-track for a thirty-song release. Rather mediocre, but the other reviews put it to shame.

The review for Atheretic's 'Adhesion, Aversion...' is perhaps the worst I've ever seen on the site: http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=10958

Taken care of. Also bumped off a few other ripe candidates for nuking in the Iced Earth review catalog; some of those albums seem ripe for purging. If only I had the time to check through all of those reviews *hint hint*.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.ph ... 0571#72595

What does the writer want to tell us?

He wants to tell us he's a fan of certain other writers. Regardless, that piece is good enough to stay.

Ask and ye shall receive.

From Iced Earth's Burnt Offerings:

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=174#326
All over the place. Bad track-by-track and formating that looks like a random splurge.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=174#246
Again, bad formating and lame track-by-track. Pretty dull review at best.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=174#3787
Yet another track-by-track, but covered in basic errors like spelling and capitalization. Not really needed for a record with 20 reviews.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=174#3787
See all of the above. Badly written track-by-track with wrong for formatting.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=174#3554
All of the above, but now covered in stupidity.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=174#105085
As expected, badly written track-by-track with annoying CAPS ON EVERYTHING LOLZ!1!!!! A very boring read.


Iced Earth's The Glorious Burden:

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=29857#778
Retarded. A cretin missing its frontal lobe could write better.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=29857#729
Just bad, and the other reviews put it death.


Iced Earth's Iced Earth:
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=177#246
Bad formatting, and promotes a desecration of the English language.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=177#1433
Short in both length and quality.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=177#433
Everything sucks terribly.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=177#997
Again, just piss-poor. Rips the vocals a new asshole, yet score is really high. No substance.


Iced Earth's Night of the Stormrider:
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=176#246
Total clusterfuck. No organization or intelligent writing.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=176#997
Another poor one. Just plain bad when stacked against the other reviews.


Iced Earth's Dark Saga:
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=168#4389
Too short. Nothing of value.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=168#246
Another clusterfuck with no organization. Badly written track-by-track.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=168#1470
Shitty track-by-track.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=168#1150
Is this even a review? Nobody can look at this and learn anything about the record.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=168#404
Single-paragraph plod. No structure or substance.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=168#805
Just badly written.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=168#30
Annoying and lacks description.


Iced Earth's Something Wicked This Way Comes:
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=166#26271
Never-ending track-by-track. Every other reviews kills this one.


Iced Earth's Tribute to the Gods:
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=10130#483
A four-sentence review. Way too short and limited.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=10130#433
Another clusterfuck. Terrible way to destroy English, too.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=10130#778
Another shitty track-by-track.


Iced Earth's Overture of the Wicked:
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.ph ... 9862#31252
Track-by-track with errors.

So concludes the genocide of Iced Earth reviews. Now spill their blood!

Good to know none of my Iced Earth reviews were mentioned

But yes, some of those are pretty bad.

Toast. Good job, I appreciate the hand.

Twas my pleasure. Thanks for pulling the trigger!

Perplexed Sjel's review for Darkthrone's "Hate Them" doesn't tell me anything about the music.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=18089

Definitely not one of his best, but unless one of the other mods disagrees, I think it'ss just good enough to remain.

It can stay as far as I'm concerned.

Haha, good on you for killing off some of my old Iced Earth reviews. I freely admit to being a crappy reviewer back then, and Schaffer's band just happened to bear the brunt of my crap. But I'm here to mention the most recent review of Testament's new album...

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.ph ... 417#145846




Bostaph is a good drummer, and the album is decent, a bit experimental and a bit fresh, hmm? Good to know. I like his unbridled if typo-riddled enthusiasm, but this kind of thing really doesn't seem up to snuff without elaboration beyond that.

Agreed. Removed.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.ph ... 874#118904

From that review, I have no idea what that album may sound like.



That's the only music description in the whole review. He gives it an 88% rating because he's "scared of Malefic"... WHAT? Horrible formatting, half the review is a Roadrunner rant, no basis for a score and from reading that I wouldn't even know if Xasthur was a black metal band or not. The album already had five reviews, how was that garbage accepted?

A fairly terrible review of Ildjarn's "Seven Harmonies of Unknown Truths"

http://metal-archives.com/review.php?id=35793

*Ptöf*

It's gone.

Is that like the Finnish version of *poof* ?

No, that would be *Puf*. I just like *Ptöf* personally, it makes no sense and there's an unnecessary umlaut there.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=176205

The review is based on album samples posted on Ice Ages' site. I'm not sure what the rules on this are, but I feel reviews like this shouldn't be here until the full album has at least been leaked.

You're quite right. That absolutely should not have been accepted.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=199#146192

Really bad review of None So Vile that offers nothing new, and the reviewer doesn't even know the correct track order.

That was not good enough to stay, yes.

The new Cryptopsy review is quite bad. I realise it was accepted in the interest of having dissenting opinions and what not, but I really don't see the point in writing a review that isn't a reflection of the reviewer's tastes (a fact he admits in the first paragraph) but some sort of attempt at "neutrality". It kind of defeats the purpose of a review, doesn't it? Or is he just looking to build his non-conformist street cred?

As a reader, I don't even understand his verdict. He likes it, but wouldn't recommend it, yet might buy it if he had the money. What's he trying to say?

It's a rather shitty review, and I always wonder why people try to be 'Neutral' and 'objective' with review writing. The whole purpose of review writing is to tell people your opinion on it, ffs!

Not to mention that retarded title. I get the feeling it wasn't Nightgaunt who accepted it.

Do you seriously want to tell me, that you have proposed for deletion, because he tries to stay objective?

He of course present his own opinion, by presenting what he thinks are flaws and good points of the said album, admittedly in a non-spectacular way.


By the way, he speaks about tastes.

His conclusion should be more clear and more explanative, I give you right in that.

This part:
All in all, the album is a mess of experiments all thrown in which ever way the band saw fit. Now did I like the album, yes. But would I recommend it ? No. Would I buy it? Maybe, if the cash ever comes loose.

That seems reasonably clear to me. He doesn't recommend it, because although he likes it he understands that most people probably will not. He might buy it, since he's clearly downloaded it, but only if he has a surplus of money and nothing else to spend it on.

Well, upon deciding I need to listen to some Summoning, I came upon this review. Long winded, track by track, describes the instruments more than the music, and each paragraph is ridiculously tedious to read. Maybe not necessary for immediate obliteration, but it is indeed a pretty bad review.

Do you mean the one titled "Another Amazing Summoning Release - 100%?"

When you link a review page, it always shows from the top, so it's hard to discern wich one you meant.

It goes right to that one when I click the link....

Well, in case anybody else is having that problem, that is indeed the one I'm talking about.

And it's ridiculous that he rates some songs 4/5 or 3.5/5 and then puts a 100% as total...

No, but that was part of the reason. He does speak about tastes as you pointed out, the review wouldn't have been accepted if it didn't offer some sort of opinion, but apparently said opinion is not his own considering his first paragraph.

So, while I find it very badly written, I'm not going to complain over it staying. But the whole "objectivity" bs really did have me going

I agree with you but I also like the way Witcher explained the whole objectivity idea, I guess the reviewer didn't explain himself properly or we're not enlightened enough

Eh, I never really thought it should've been deleted, it's just a terrible review and the whole 'objective' thing is pretty annoying.

"Objectivity" is not like some whimsical familiar that can be summoned simply by calling its name. Proclaiming "I shall now be objective" does not, by dint of this invocation, make the proceeding statements into carefully considered home truths. In the medium of reviewing, a cry for objectivity is usually a form of subtle ad hominem. The reason that his review is the highest-scoring yet is that every positive review I have seen for the album has been more a review of the other reviewers, rather than a review of Cryptopsy's performance. This is the unavoidable fate of nearly all popular bands--every appraisal is apt to be some kind of kneejerk reaction, be it to the performance, or to other kneejerk reactions. What is in contention in these cases is seldom the performance at hand, but the appraisals of others.

It is intellectually dishonest of this person--or of any of us--to claim pure and "unpolluted" descriptive evaluation of any work that has been so often and/or so heatedly discussed. Granted, some persons may still be able to write with more "objectivity" (in the sense that their appraisal is a reaction as much to the performance as to prior discussion of the performance) than others in these cases; but I would advise being particularly wary of those who openly invoke the crest of objectivity. They are just as likely, if not more so, to be behaving in a reactionary fashion.

That said, in the interest of Archival completeness (and on account that the review is less egregious in its faults than nearly all other reviews above 20% I have seen so far), the piece will be kept until something better comes along in a comparable range.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=184990

Second from the top, by DannyTheMan. Very little content beyond whining about the solos being short (which isn't true anyway) and some ridiculous innacuracies. 'Mercenary Man' may be short and melodic but it doesn't mean it sounds like indie music!

Cheers, mystery mod.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=52863#267

Although I couldn't find any blatant typos/Engrish, I can't quite stomach the whole 'all bitching about commercialism and goth kids, but practically zero musical content" approach to this review.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=8412#18590
------
While I love it when underrated albums get high ratings by fellow fans, but I can't agree with the former reviewer. While "The Lament of Gods" is definitely very good, it doesn't hold a candle to "His Majesty at the Swamp" or even "Walpurgisnacht".
-------