A few people trying to work through Senmuth's catalog but ran out of steam. I imagine it would be the same with Buckethead. It's hard enough to keep up with listening to it all, let alone review it all.

I never heard Thrash or Die and I have no intention of doing so. However, there are some things reviewed generally negatively that I personally love, like Bunkur or Von. I also thought Lulu was great, though after initial shock and a long time getting used to it.

Still better and more useful than doing those 'comprehensive runs of reviews' for bands like Metallica, Slayer, Megadeth or even Burzum (like the one that's going on nowadays).

For sure! I'd love to see more reviews for both Buckethead and Senmuth.

Let's be real, I could review ten or fifteen Senmuth/Buckethead albums without actually listening to a single one and nobody would catch me. Even more so for something like ZBT or ESPECIALLY Sloth.

Well Crick would catch you on Senmuth

I wouldn't catch the Buckethead ones, as I only really listen to his pre-2007 work, but I've keeping up with Senmuth! But the sad truth is you're right. Despite the huge discographies of these bands, there aren't many diehards lurking around to call shenanigans.

I guess that someone saw my wanting for more Buckethead reviews. Way to go DawnoftheShred!

This review is quite relevant to this thread, embodies almost everything we are talking about in these n00b submissions:

Why did they bother submitting this thing if they hadn't even heard the whole album? Nevermind the grammar mistakes and the unnecessarily repeated words. Once again we have found another reason why Lulu doesn't need any more reviews.

You must see a lot of interesting stuff in the review queue Diamhea...

Soon to work on my review for Lulu. Either 90 or 95%, a bit undecided yet on the final score. If every song was as amazing as "Little Dog" it would be 100. Anyone giving the album 0% must have never listened that far.

I should have given it at least 30 points higher, in retrospect. Interesting and affecting stuff; it felt very personal.

By the way, another Lulu review: http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/M ... awn/357900

I love Empy's review of it actually, I don't think I'd score it any higher than he did, but I find all the same charms that he pointed out.

I was too soft on it. I gave it a lower score basically because I was younger then and trying to convince myself it was "fair" to admit that everyone else's problems with it had some weight. But thanks, I appreciate it as always!

Huh .. I absolutely hated that album, but I wouldn't give it a 0%. That's a score reserved for something still-born or hopelessly misguided. A 90/95, though, induces me to skepticism, and I look forward to reading the defense for that kind of score given to an album that tedious. I see no charm in it whatsoever, so I'm curious to read more from enthusiasts for more context. Still, while that would be interesting intellectually, there remains the matter of it being very difficult to listen to the actual music.

I found it pretty listenable and the "garage charm" of it did always give it a bit more life and character than the "we wrote every second of this in the studio over three years with a producer sitting next to us approach of all modern Metallica, and I even like a few of the riffs and don't mind the wandering dazed vocals, but it is fucking tedious and about 4 times too long at every opportunity, so somewhere around the 40-55 sounds about right to me. Intrigue vs sleepiness.

> The user changed the thread category to "LuLu Debate."

C'mon Roffle... I hate this album with a passion!

C'mon Roffle... I hate this album with a passion!

I was lucky enough to have only heard a few songs off of that thing... I don't plan on hearing much more from it either.

I've listened to it about 10-15 times hoping it will grow on me. It didn't.

The most I listen to it the score might end up even higher. It's an absolutely brilliant album. Perhaps the best metal album of the last decade.

Now I'm really curious to see that review.

These kids don't even know about drone calling St Anger an avant garde masterpiece.

I, too, am quite interested in reading drone's review, barring he isn't being ironic in this thread, which I'm assuming is not the case. It's sort of strange that Lulu has an average rating of 14% here. I didn't think it was all that bad, and it certainly surpasses the dirty butthole of sound Metallica has been queefing out year after year. It's one of those things that doesn't reveal its secrets at once, and it takes multiple listens to truly grasp what it contains. Not really shocking so many have written it off because it isn't all about bangs-bangs and booms-booms around every corner.

If Metallica had an account on the M-A, I wonder who'd do the reviewing.

I bet Lars would.

I think Lars is already here on MA but I need to figure out which user he actually is: Necroticism89 or Twisted_Psychology.
Necroticism89's review of St Anger - 100%
Twisted_Psychology's review of Lulu - 80%

Yeah, amazing that people actually want to listen to albums rather than parrot the same opinions over and over, right?

If that was for me then I'd repeat myself one more time: I listened to Lulu 10-15 times with no result. It just didn't grow on me. As for parroting the same opinions over and over I thought it would be a little easier for me to get used to reviewing with albums that I truly love/hate, even though they had 20 other reviews.

A) You two have talked about Lulu more in the last two months than the entire forum did from the day it was released until now.

B) These kids ALSO don't remember when Lars used to post here as Anal_Gladiator before he got banned.

I talk about Lulu in this thread because its creator wrote:




He got an account? I don't manage to find it.

EDIT: Well, people talked a bit about Lulu 3-4 years ago: search.php?keywords=lulu&terms=all&author=&sc=1&sf=titleonly&sk=t&sd=d&sr=posts&st=0&ch=300&t=0&submit=Search

So let's leave the Lulu debate at this:

It needs no more reviews below 40%(I think that we've all gotten the point by now), and those who think that they genuinely have new light to shed upon it can go right ahead and review it. But the review that they write had better be good.

Thus lord Thrashtard hath spoken. Praise be unto him.

I dislike redundancy as much as the next guy, so it's always encouraged to try to give a new or fresh perspective on something, but if we ever start de facto limitations on how many we allow in one direction or the other, we'd be A) Disqualifying otherwise perfectly acceptable reviews, and B) Trying to police ideological equilibrium, averaging everything out to a boring middle ground. Yeah, try to be interesting if you're gonna trash Lulu or Cold Lake or Rainfall or whatever, but A) You should be trying to be fresh and interesting with each review anyway, and B) If everybody hates The Unspoken King, let them hate it, and if everybody loves Rust in Peace, let them love it. I know we get the idea by now, but trying to noobproof well reviewed albums is exclusive and unfair, and frankly kinda petty.

Basically what this post taught everybody is that A) I do this to make points a lot, and B) I don't really care.

Thanks for the clever nickname, glad to know you care, and that I'm in your thoughts!

I agree that redundancy is bad, but those limitations you speak of are only as de facto as you perceive them to be. And if you "don't care," then don't post.

I genuinely thought your name was Thrashtard until right now

I feel like you missed the point of the post, what I'm trying to say is that posts like yours show a sentiment that isn't uncommon, but I fundamentally disagree because limitations like that are unfair to people who could be awesome but have the handicap of their parents' having sex later than Napero's. A lot of the best reviewers here cut their teeth on well reviewed classics/easy targets. It's how natural growth happens.

No, there definitely shouldn't be limitations on what you can review. But if you write a review that doesn't have much to say and isn't very good, that might get called out here at times. But I know BH is also against the sometimes over the top attacks on newer writers, which I can also agree with - no need to insult them, but there needs to be something said at times. Strike a balance.

I suppose you're right. Actual written limits for how many reviews an album can have is a bit too extreme, and even a general consensus about it in a forum would be bordering on that as well. There are some albums however, that you just get this vibe that redundancy has taken root. Of course we're probably all kind of biased to some extent. I mean, I reviewed Reign In Blood, and earlier in this thread a user called me out on it. I think that reviews written about albums that are well liked and have a lot of pre-existing reviews are seen in a better light. This is opposed to albums that have a lot reviews that are generally disliked, such as Lulu, Illud Divinum Insanus, or even Doctrine by Pestilence.



Well I agree to some extent, especially about the attacks on new reviewers. Gotta keep this place welcoming. But you're correct. If you don't have something terribly new or original to say, don't expect people not to be a bit put-off. But keep on reviewing if you want to. There's no one stopping you.

It meets all of the criteria for a less-than-spectacular Lulu review:

1. Passive-aggressive ranting.

2. A mention of Hetfield saying "I am the table."

And "Metallic-y" is officially my new favorite word.