That's funny, because it clearly appears to have put more time into thinking about the music than your review does, which is mainly about yourself. Aside from the dreaded 'grocery list' format and the incidentally redundant usage of 'mournful', the writing of the review, while mechanical, is fine; if you're so concerned about the 'standards' of the archives, which is already terrible, I'm certain there are plenty of better targets. Besides, having 3 reviews for a release, one of which is just bitching about racism, is hardly significant.

As far as the "not recommended" comment, the context makes it clear that it is relative to the band's discography; in other words, for a person new to the band, this is not the album one should recommend, not that it is not an album worth listening to.

I'd love to know the idiotic logic behind this conclusion, but then, I don't really care. Stop trolling, and if you wish to discuss my review, there's a separate thread for that. Regardless of how mine annoys you, it's a solid five-pointer and unlikely ever to be deleted by any other than me.
You must've read reveiws for something else, because none of the reviews came across to me as "just bitching about racism" (a small tip: when you attempt to critique a review, read the entire thing; just reading the first paragraph may not be enough). The fact that there may be better targets is no excuse for that review to not be deleted; anything below the standards of the site should be deleted, and there is simply no reason to start from the absolute worst.

The writing for the review is absolutely sub-par, and the formatting is inexcusably poor. The fact that it's only the second positive review for the album out of three in total does weight something, but I do think I have valid reasons for bringing up this review I randomly came across.

It would take an idiot to not perceive the logic. Your review is more interested in espousing your distate for National Socialism and racism, and by extension NSBM and the people that enjoy NSBM, as evidenced by your frequent remarks about the supposed lack of intelligence of people that listen to NSBM. I don't think I need to quote all of them to make the point that they are numerous and indicate the true motivation of the review. The logic behind my statement is clearn.

I was obviously referring to your review, which is blatantly preoccupied with "NSBM" and the fact that the band is NS. I don't need your "tip" to know better than to read the whole review before commenting. The review that you want deleted is better, and better written, than yours, 'formatting' aside. The fact of the matter is that if we're honest, neither review is "below the standards of the site", especially considering the quality of the average review.

You obviously didn't "randomly" come across it. You saw it because you just reviewed the album yourself. I don't particularly care about whether this review gets deleted. I just find it amusing that people like you get off on successfully getting other people's reviews deleted, as though it indicates some sort of superiority. I am particularly amused when moderators point out that reviews do not merit deletion. The intentions of this thread may have started out differently, but at this point it seems primarily a venue for smug people to get a sense of self-satisfaction by getting the works of others deleted.

If you think because of several such statements the review is "mostly bitching about racism", I doubt there's need to state who the idiot is. The review is abundant in musical analysis, whereas the other is not. Furthermore there are in fact no frequent remarks of NSBM listeners stupidity. You are also incorrect in your downright cynical assumption of what the "true point of my review" is; the motive is the very same as in any other review of mine. I make a habit of poking fun at shitty bands creating shitty music, and NSBM is particularly easy a target considering the rampant idiocy among those circles.

Everything is subjective, as always, but I expect it takes rather crooked aesthetics to consider his writing better than mine, mediocre as mine may be. Probably the same kind of cockeyed perspective that makes Bilskirnir seem like good music.


Rather cretinous of you to think to know better how I came across it; who do you think you are. I came across it when I was reading reviews for the Bilskirnir album as I contemplated whether to download it. I can hardly think of any reason for the circumstances of finding a sub-par affecting its deletion.

Perhaps I do get off posting shitty reviews here; else I wouldn't post any, probably. Humans rarely do things they do not find pleasure in, in one way or other, regardless of their way to rationalise it. I do feel superior in that I'm apparently capable of writing a better review than he. However, that all has nothing to do with this; your analyses on my motives are not only off, but also completely devoid of any relevance in this matter. It takes a special level of puerile arrogance combined with authentic imbecility to go that far into analysing someone's behaviour on an internet forum, assuming an attitude of superiority in the progress, and launching largely irrelevant tirades mostly at a strawman-figure of one's own development. You should probably go see a doctor.

I PMed my response. I'd like to publicly state that your frequent resorting to insults just makes you look like a child losing an argument.

I'd like to see OzzyApu finish his Running Wild reviews. My current obsession with the band is due partially to following your earlier write-ups, so I'd be interested to see your take on the band's souring years.

I really want to, as well. I stopped with the intent of continuing within the same time frame but I got caught up with work, school, and now working toward my major. I promise that I'll pick up again as soon as I fulfill Diamhea's wish for me to trash Limbonic Art's Ad Noctum album.

To sum up RW's latter half, it certainly goes downhill. Rogues En Vogue is ~10% from me. That album is dogshit with a couple good sections. Haven't heard the new album entirely but it's in the same crappy ballpark.

Haha, I just realized that I posted this in the oven fodder thread. That's cool, though, glad to hear it. I will await your reviews; and yes, the new one seems rather sad.

Looking at your own ratings, the 10-1% fits for ReV and 20-11% for Shadowmaker (based on what more I've heard in the few minutes between posts). Both for reasons that also go beyond the music.

Rogues en Vogue was indeed a letdown, but I really liked "Dead Man's Road." Like, I always get it stuck in my head.

Since the Shadowmaker samples came out I've just been listening to Running Wild to remind myself how great they were. I've got a playlist, "20 Alternate Years in History" consisting of two other tracks from each album that weren't on that one famous compilation that I've been spinning today (currently on "Battle of Waterloo"), it almost brings a tear to my eye how far they've fallen. It's almost inspired me to continue my quest of reviewing everything. One down... thirteen to go? Yeah I'll finish when I'm sixty at this rate, but I'll do it eventually, some day, for sure, totally.

And Rogues en Vogue is garbage, but "Libertalia" is possibly one of my top ten favorite RW songs. Last bonus track on what used to be the last album, it was the perfect sendoff for such a great career.

The moral of the story is, we ride free, we raise our fists

Moonspell - The Butterfly Effect:
http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/M ... t/268/Lane

Can someone please tell me why do reviews like this ever get accepted? And does this mean I can now start randomly reviewing black metal demos and bash them with 0-20% ratings for being black metal? Essentially the only criticism here is that this album sucks because it's no longer the genre the reviewer likes, and if this is a good reason for a 20% rating, then I can probably start my evil review spree tomorrow.

(Not seriously, but you get my point I guess.)

I happen to find 'The Butterfly Effect' a bad album, no matter what genre. It's not good musicwise, nor do I like the band's performances either. That's how I find that album. And yeah, I think it has no soulful edge to it.

Sorry but the only conclusion I get from this review is that "he's not a very good singer" and everything else is literally that it's not the style/genre you like. While fortunately it's worded far better than in most such reviews, I still don't really see anything in this review that implies why the album is bad, rather than just different in a way that may be unacceptable for some. Going this path, you can do the same with Katatonia Discouraged Ones, Samael Passage/Eternal, Paradise Lost One Second/Host or any other album that was a significant change from what the band had originated from and just give the album a very low rating simply because it's different. I really don't mind reviews which contradict my personal opinion, but I'm just very sensitive about this "it's bad because it's not the Xth album sounding the same" thing, and sorry but this review is exactly this for me. Especially that looking at what you described of the music, it's all "not bad" or "not great but...", which sounds like a 60-70% review, and then BAM, it's 20% because it's the wrong style.

There's nothing wrong with the review, TheLiberation. While I would personally avoid using the word "gay" for my tree-hugging liberal gay hippie reasons, and perhaps rethink the rating itself, as I haven't heard the album myself, but a lot of folks tend to think that 20% is a rating reserved for the true stinkers, it's a completely acceptable review.

And yes, people do have the freedom to disagree with the opinions of the majority, the opinions of the Open-Minded Ones, and the opinions of the minorities. If Lane thinks it sucks, he can say it if he wishes. Sometimes the changes in styles are mistakes, and this might be one of those occasions. Write a review on the album yourself, if you wish to present another point of view, please.

I probably will some day (haven't written anything in ages). My problem here isn't that he says the album sucks; my problem is that it apparently sucks only because of the difference in style, and essentially because of being the genre the reviewer doesn't like. Sorry but I just think it's a simple rule to not review albums of a genre/style/whatever you dislike in general. I don't review early Samael because I've no clue about black metal and it's far from being my favourite genre, and in consequence my review would be far from decent even if I tried hard to write a good one.

It's not really a case of me liking the album or not here (well, it's true I do, I mostly just read the "latest reviews" of albums I know or at least have heard of), but simply, write the vocals suck, the guitars sound like a broken down vacuum cleaner etc. etc., as long as you explain it in a decent way. However, I don't get the point of having reviews that are "they changed style, so this album sucks" in a nutshell. How are they useful or constructive? If I first heard Wolfheart and then listened to any random song from TBE, I would have figured out the obvious change of style myself. I think the point of a review is to describe what happens in the actual album and what's wrong/good in it, rather than stating (and hating) the obvious.

We've never even seriously considered having an actual rule that would forbid reviews by people who do not like a genre. Sure, I won't do that too often myself, and most people avoid it automatically, because, you know, it requires listening to something you hate by default. But there is no reason to have such a rule; if someone thinks something sucks, the MA is a platform to express that opinion, as long as it's done in a civilized fashion. Such a rule would be unenforceable and extremely subjective in any case.

I personally dislike it when people review something based solely on comparisons between the earlier and later albums in the band's discography. It assumes that the reader is familiar with the band, and that's too much of an assumption in most cases. The review should be comprehensible to anyone, with or without any experience on the artist's output. However, this particular review does not go that far.

On the other hand, having such a rule would prevent anyone from feeling bad... We could even expand it so that reviewing an album or a band one does not like would not be allowed. What a great idea! We could also lock any ratings below, say, 60%, because using any of those is a sure sign that the reviewer does not like the music and should not therefore be reviewing it.

I'm not trying to be any kind of extremist here, I just think a review which calls an album very bad based solely on a stylistic change or by simply belonging to a genre disliked by definition by the author is not a useful addition to the site - if you think a genre sucks, I know what you will write about the album, you could save yourself the effort and write one sentence (unless it's some sort of exception, and to be honest these are often very interesting reviews). But well, I guess I'm not really getting any support here...

I totally agree with this.

Anyway, any chance someone could look over this review of Carcass's Swansong? It's pretty short, and the author spends most of the review talking about how much respect he's lost for Carcass and how he's going to curl up in a ball and cry. And there's barely any musical descrpition. In fact, this is about it:

Not a whole lot of content there...

EDIT: http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/Carcass/Swansong/824/AzzMan (Forgot the link... hehehe)

I did some changes to Moonspell's 'The Butterfly Effect' review. Hopefully it's clearer now, that I do not practically hate those music styles the album dwells in. I simply do not like the music found on the album, period. It wsa a bad experimentation for the band, that's how I see it.

There's only 1 sentence in this short review that barely describes any sort of musical content.

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/C ... 28110/LDSA

No musical description. He says the album sounds like the same song over and over again, but doesn't even bother to describe what that song sounds like.

I'm in agreement with this. There's practically nothing related to the music that's being played besides the guy's whining.

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/Helloween/Pink_Bubbles_Go_Ape/697/UltraBoris

I'm not going after UltraBoris reviews on purpose, but this one has literally zero musical description. In fact, it really doesn't say anything.

I'll agree with this, too. Horrid review. More like a forum post.

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

Red_Beard's review of the Nightbringer split. Only reviews Nightbringer's side.

His writing is of course terrible aswell.

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/W ... ingMetal01

He makes a passing mention of what's actually on the EP (two original songs and three remixes), and then says that the vocals are disappointing and that the band's music isn't as "brutal" as it used to be. An iTunes-level review, at the very best.

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/D ... etaljunkie

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/D ... 115/Sakoyo

Two bare-bones reviews that idolize how brutal the album is and how it goes against the melodic and core tinges that death metal apparently is all about in modern times, and only one of them brings up one specific instance in a song.

They're pretty shit reviews, sure, but having never heard that album, I now have an idea as to what it sounds like based on those reviews. They cover more-or-less all the information that someone who had never listened to the album before would want to know, so I'd personally say that they're both passable.

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/S ... 8/_Sepsis_

Just got accepted. One sentence of musical description, which is vague as fuck and doesn't really tell me anything.

Agreed. I posted about his general bare-bones reviews in the review discussion thread.

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/O ... 24/plebman

I guess this one is a little bare-bone to. Most of it is about the vocals sounding like Cookie Monster, with a little bit of musical description sprinkled around it.

That one's a goner. Looks like he didn't even proof read it, it was a grammatical nightmare.

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/I ... ld/119265/

The top review. Three short paragraphs, and below is the only true grit of musical description.

"Musically, the band has stayed true to its depressive, but brutal guitar riffs and simple, yet effective drumming. Probably my only problem with the album is the production. The guitars tend to overpower everything, even the vocals..."

Really bad. I'll tell you right now, I've listened to this band since 2005 - this album since before it even came out - and there is nothing "brutal" about the riffs.


The one below it by All_In_Vain is the worst on the page. An incredibly short, amazon.com style blurb.


This would work for describing the last album, but is it enough to carry an entire review? Not only that, but it is way too broad and doesn't even describe the album well. He's writing this as if Insomnium are the only ones doing this.

I agree, there's no substance in that review at all.

I mentioned this one a few months ago, and it really needs to be taken care of. There's practically no musical description in it.

Very poor indeed. Gone.

The Recent Review for Oranssi Pazuzu, while definitely a good review overall, has a bit of a mistake in the beginning. In the review, he says "Eighteenth century scientist Sir Henry Head". The problem is that Henry Head lived from 1861 to 1940. I definitely don't think it's worth deleting the review over, but maybe a moderator should email him about that.

Why is it only the crappy link-to-own-site-at-end-of-review, void-of-description writers who make such ridiculous factual errors?

This review is embarassing: http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/H ... emonium_CC

tl;dr version