without Internet Explorer,
in 1280 x 960 resolution
This page is inherently soft and clickable.
I approached metal by way of King Crimson, of all things. Tried to find things following its blueprint but heavier. By the time I was entrenched in the genre I had realized that KC is rather hard to rip off... and was musically enriched by the whole experience.
I write a great deal of reviews and review-like content on my blog, but due to the fact that many of the albums I discuss are already heavily reviewed on MA, you will see few of them here. In recent years I have come to dislike assigning number ratings to things as subjective as music, but I used to use this rating system:
100 - Absolute perfection for all, as to be expected
90-99 - An essential release for everyone who can get their hands on it, nearly absolute perfection for fans of the genre.
80-89 - Definitely worth obtaining, not entirely necessary. Essential for fans of the genre.
70-79 - Possibly a good purchase, perhaps a mediocre album that has one shining aspect. Definitely worth obtaining for genre/band fans, though.
60-69 - Wouldn't diminish your collection''s worth, but there are better options. Probably the best an overt consumer''s potboiler will get.
50-59 - Mediocre, skip over unless cheap or collecting.
40-49 - Disappointing, consider ignoring.
30-39 - In the words of almighty Zoidberg, "Your music's bad and you should feel bad!". This is the average radio-ready album, pop song, etc, and about the limit of what I can tolerate or ignore.
20-29 - Terrible, and annoying because of it. Avoid at all costs.
01-19 - Run away. Destroy in view of the listener. At lower ratings, destroy the artist.
0 - Absolute failure. Anything lower is "Animal Minds" by Ke$ha.
I consider myself a fairly gentle critic, probably because I generally avoid listening to albums I actively dislike. You're not going to see many negative reviews on this account.
Did I mention I'm awesome?