Awesome, thanks for the update & all the hard work Diamhea
| Encyclopaedia Metallum: The Metal Archives https://forum.metal-archives.com/ |
|
| Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) https://forum.metal-archives.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=4153 |
Page 218 of 239 |
| Author: | Tanuki [ Tue Jan 17, 2017 2:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
None of VNVNV's reviews are exactly poetry, but this review of Street Lethal is particularly bad. Quote: "Overal the songs are well constructed, filled with melodies and harmonies" Well that's a relief. |
|
| Author: | Need4Power [ Wed Jan 18, 2017 8:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
Lissart wrote: http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/Incantation/Onward_to_Golgotha/2297/Need4Power/324766 Why diminishing classic albums is tolerated? I was so surprised when I noticed that Onwards to Golgotha rating dropped below 90% and I found the reason why. I'm not a fanboy of theirs but lack of respect for milestone albums makes me sick. Especially when the same person gives an average Manowar album 92%.. There is nothing "classic" about 90's death metal. 70's and 80's is classic metal. I'm sorry, but music in general got exceptionally bad after 1990. That Incantation album is the perfect example of why death metal is such an embarrassment to the genre. Someone needs to tell it like it is. I honestly don't understand how anyone could possibly give that album a good review from a purely musical point of view, which is why I took the time to explain, from a technical standpoint, just why it is inferior. Sorry man, but I tried to be as fair and as open minded as possible when it comes to appreciating new music, but in the case of that album, it was worse than I could have possibly imagined. Even for death metal, it was terrible. As a musician who has played for 20+ years, I can't respect something like that. I apologize if I sound like I'm coming off as harsh, but you have to see it from my point of view. It's not easy to have to stand up and defend my heart-felt opinion against everyone else around me, especially within my own community. Everyone else is probably on your side here, you know. |
|
| Author: | Empyreal [ Wed Jan 18, 2017 9:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
People who grew up on blues and 60s rock would say the same thing about the stuff you like, and people who grew up on classical and jazz would say the same thing about those peoples' music. Music did not get "exceptionally bad" after a certain time - stupid-ass argument. You having played music for that long means exactly jack shit in this case. You are wrong. |
|
| Author: | Need4Power [ Wed Jan 18, 2017 10:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I don't care what you think, nor do I care to get into an argument about it. I reviewed the album because it was recommended to me as an apparent "good" example of death metal, when in fact it turned out to be everything that I've always hated about the style. I felt I wanted to get my thoughts out, so I figured I'd write a review and upload it here. Not everyone is going to have the same opinion about an album or music in general. |
|
| Author: | Black Diamond [ Wed Jan 18, 2017 11:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
Need4Power wrote: Lissart wrote: http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/Incantation/Onward_to_Golgotha/2297/Need4Power/324766 Why diminishing classic albums is tolerated? I was so surprised when I noticed that Onwards to Golgotha rating dropped below 90% and I found the reason why. I'm not a fanboy of theirs but lack of respect for milestone albums makes me sick. Especially when the same person gives an average Manowar album 92%.. There is nothing "classic" about 90's death metal. 70's and 80's is classic metal. I'm sorry, but music in general got exceptionally bad after 1990. That Incantation album is the perfect example of why death metal is such an embarrassment to the genre. Someone needs to tell it like it is. I honestly don't understand how anyone could possibly give that album a good review from a purely musical point of view, which is why I took the time to explain, from a technical standpoint, just why it is inferior. Sorry man, but I tried to be as fair and as open minded as possible when it comes to appreciating new music, but in the case of that album, it was worse than I could have possibly imagined. Even for death metal, it was terrible. As a musician who has played for 20+ years, I can't respect something like that. I apologize if I sound like I'm coming off as harsh, but you have to see it from my point of view. It's not easy to have to stand up and defend my heart-felt opinion against everyone else around me, especially within my own community. Everyone else is probably on your side here, you know. It's one thing if you don't like death metal, but to say it has no musical value is a vast and false assumption. |
|
| Author: | Empyreal [ Thu Jan 19, 2017 9:25 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Need4Power wrote: I don't care what you think, nor do I care to get into an argument about it. I reviewed the album because it was recommended to me as an apparent "good" example of death metal, when in fact it turned out to be everything that I've always hated about the style. I felt I wanted to get my thoughts out, so I figured I'd write a review and upload it here. Not everyone is going to have the same opinion about an album or music in general. Sure, but saying your opinion is more valid because you've been playing music a long time, and in general asserting that music got worse after a certain year, comes off as ignorant, that's all. You're not really "telling it like it is" either. People have been saying the same things since forever - as I said, every generation thinks the next crop of music is unintelligible noise. Not original at all - it's your opinion but you're merely misunderstanding things. |
|
| Author: | droneriot [ Thu Jan 19, 2017 6:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
I'd like to hear him compose and play an album like that. |
|
| Author: | Need4Power [ Thu Jan 19, 2017 9:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
I think first I'd have to go completely deaf, then consult a hypnotherapist to unlearn everything I know about music theory. |
|
| Author: | Diamhea [ Thu Jan 19, 2017 9:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
Caught up everything I feel safe pulling the trigger on. |
|
| Author: | Tanuki [ Thu Jan 19, 2017 9:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
Awesome, thanks for the update & all the hard work Diamhea
|
|
| Author: | Red_Death [ Fri Jan 20, 2017 6:58 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
Need4Power wrote: I think first I'd have to go completely deaf, then consult a hypnotherapist to unlearn everything I know about music theory. I mean, the person who recommended that album was dead wrong. Oh no, you really can't start with Incantation. Take my word and try Illuminations of Vile Engorgement instead. The way that album relies on unorthodox music theory is fantastic. |
|
| Author: | Lissart [ Fri Jan 20, 2017 9:29 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
I respect his opinion on that album but he just sounds like a person who has never listened to death metal before and reviews it just for the sake of slating it. By the way, Onward to Golgotha has an inimitable atmosphere. |
|
| Author: | Need4Power [ Fri Jan 20, 2017 3:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
That's ok if you don't respect my opinion too. If you really like the album then that's great. I hate to be that guy who brings negative energy onto someone else's pleasure. I've wanted to get into extreme metal for quite some time, but every time I try I just get filled with rage and disgust at what I'm hearing. It's best for me to just avoid it I think. One of my favorite metal albums got a 0% rating from someone too. Nitro's O.F.R. is an album that I very much enjoy, and think is absolutely an incredible album. But I can understand why someone would be turned off by it. The way some people feel about my music, that's the same way I feel about theirs. Opinions about music can vary from every extreme I guess. |
|
| Author: | Sweetie [ Thu Feb 02, 2017 2:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/K ... ert/101472 I'm no expert reviewer myself, but I can't be the only one that thought this one was horrible and can't see how it was accepted. It's literally this: First 4 paragraphs: history of the bands discography. Paragraph 5: Opinion stated. Paragraphs 6-8: Each is about one track only and those tracks are poorly described (plus..."fucks the song in the ass"... great description there). Paragraph 9: Opinion re-stated. |
|
| Author: | Antioch [ Thu Feb 02, 2017 8:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
The new The World Needs a Hero review is a total rehash of the very first review by Thrash_Till_Death. Everything's the same down to "The Unforgiven" comparison. Both are full-on stupid, to be honest, citing media hype as official claims, but the first was at least original. |
|
| Author: | ~Guest 398577 [ Fri Feb 03, 2017 6:52 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
Antioch wrote: The new The World Needs a Hero review is a total rehash of the very first review by Thrash_Till_Death. Everything's the same down to "The Unforgiven" comparison. Both are full-on stupid, to be honest, citing media hype as official claims, but the first was at least original. I agree, and isn't it odd that he chose The World Needs a Hero as his first review. It's a ridiculously bad, part plagiarized review. Apart from the first and last review, at least the rest have more accurate descriptions. I like Bayern's reviews. He has introduced me to an album called Revelation in Blood, which is awesome, and that lead me to discover a French thrash band called, ADX. That's why I like this site; it's a good way to discover different metal bands and their albums. |
|
| Author: | Zelkiiro [ Tue Feb 07, 2017 3:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/T ... use/400701 Aside from the fact that he's objectively wrong, if I'd never heard the album before, all I'd know about it from this review is that keyboards were somehow involved. And that this guy hates keyboards. |
|
| Author: | BastardHead [ Tue Feb 07, 2017 9:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
If it helps, I accepted it as a three pointer (because he does give SOME tertiary description beyond his rant about how it's too keyboardy and the vocals are "over exuberant" (whatever the hell that means)) and it broke my heart to do so. |
|
| Author: | Grave_Wyrm [ Tue Feb 07, 2017 4:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
This is the quintessential three pointer to me. I get enough to go on -- no more, no less. It's passably legible, isn't so painful I can't get through it, a minimum score for minimum effort. Basically a passing "C" grade, the way I see it. |
|
| Author: | Dembo [ Mon Feb 13, 2017 4:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/E ... aus/402660 This is the sort of stuff that makes me think that if I ran the site, I would have a 1000 point minimum or so for anyone who want to write a review, and why I think viewing review scores should be an opt-in function for logged-in users rather than something that's so prevalent in an encyclopaedic project. Such obvious trolling when someone's only contribution to the site is calling an old school death metal classic "disco pop" and every attempt at describing of the music is basically repeating the word "generic" over and over again: "Musically, this is low quality garbage. To start, the production is extremely distorted and cavernous. This production was, more than likely, made to hide the ultra-dull and generic instrumentation. Musically, this sounds closer to Metallica, Judas Priest and disco pop than Demilich. The riffs are extremely generic, the bass lines are a snorefest, and the drumming is also generic. The vocalist is also atrocious, sounding closer to Slipknot than anything considered death metal." How does any of the underlined parts describe the music? Are Metallica, Judas Priest and disco pop in the same category of musical reference suitable for a description? Is Demilich a reference that most readers of a review of a much more well-known band are expected to get? Not to mention his plain wrong factual claim of the vocals not sounding like anything considered death metal. Etc... EDIT: http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/S ... aus/402660 Same user, same obvious trolling. Is it acutally a moderator trolling or has the idea of quality control been abandoned? |
|
| Author: | PhilosophicalFrog [ Mon Feb 13, 2017 4:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
was JUST gonna post that. this dude is just fucking around and makes zero points. nuke. |
|
| Author: | CannibalCorpse [ Mon Feb 13, 2017 4:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
Dembo, the word you were looking for is vapid. That's what this troll uses all the time. All the reviews I read from him today are absolute garbage and full of factual wrongdoings. No idea why those got accepted. |
|
| Author: | PhilosophicalFrog [ Mon Feb 13, 2017 4:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
diamhea had too much NO Xplode that day? |
|
| Author: | Derigin [ Mon Feb 13, 2017 5:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
They're dealt with and gone. |
|
| Author: | Dembo [ Mon Feb 13, 2017 6:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/Q ... iden/23676 Track-by-track that does alot of describing Geoff and the lyrics but not so much the music. |
|
| Author: | Dembo [ Sat Feb 18, 2017 6:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/K ... 210/140500 For many reasons, I truly despise the rant culture we live in and that it's such a prevalent part of this site's review system. But since there's no policy against it, I'll stick to objecting to stuff that may be relevant from the site's perspective: 1. By and large track-by-track. 2. Factually wrong in implying bonus tracks are part of the album. Neither Take Their Lives nor Flag of Hate are part of Pleasure to Kill, but are bonus tracks on some versions, which makes this part problematic to include in a review of PtK: "‘Take Their Lives’ demonstrates that early Kreator can be boring and uninspired even when they slow down, and ‘Flag of Hate’, try as it might, just can’t recapture an interest in this album that to be honest was lost a long while back." |
|
| Author: | WR95 [ Sat Feb 18, 2017 7:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/M ... onsbane/38 This review and that Kreator's review are made by hipsters that want to show you how special and different are they, because they've tasted more sophisticated and elitist music.. It's like I say that Temple of Shadows is better album than Walls of Jericho, the first one has better production and elaborated guitar work, and Walls is weak, with poor production, no matter if it was a pioneer in the development of power metal. |
|
| Author: | hells_unicorn [ Sun Feb 19, 2017 12:54 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
Personally I detest Falconsbane's reviewing style and can't help but get the visual of the author being so in love with the smell of his own farts that he's in severe danger of disappearing up his own rectum, but I don't know if that review is necessarily oven-fodder, it comes off as an extremely borderline 3-pointer that goes a little too hard on ranting about metal history and spending little time on actual description. The Kreator review definitely looks like a thinly veiled track-by-track review and is probably worthy of termination. |
|
| Author: | Lissart [ Sun Feb 19, 2017 10:32 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
Hey, btw, what are the criteria for number of points received for reviews? I'm not a sucker for them but I'm slightly curious why sometimes I get different point values. |
|
| Author: | Derigin [ Sun Feb 19, 2017 10:56 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
It varies by moderator and is at each moderator's discretion. The default is 5. Probably about 75% of the reviews I accept are given the default value. That usually means you've done a good job of satisfying our three most basic rules for reviews: it's written well, there's sufficient musical description of the album, and you're genuine/honest about what you're writing. This is what we expect. I give out 3 points probably about 20% of the time. That usually means one of the three aforementioned basic rules is lacking, but not enough to be unacceptable: the writing is amateur or weak, there's barely enough musical description, or the way it's written comes off a little too much like a tryhard gimmick. These are what I'd qualify as "sticker" reviews. Like the "super effort" school stickers you might get on assignments, or the "thanks for participating" medals you might get at sports events. As for 8 pointers, I rarely ever give them out and when I do it's because your review - in some way - is exceptional. It stands out from the crowd as a work of art on its own. It's worth stating that this isn't a judgement on the reviewer, just the review. I've seen some of the best reviewers get 3 pointers, and some of the consistently less great reviewers end up with that "diamond in the rough" 8 pointer. On average, however, quality is usually something that comes with practice and that usually shows in the points people tend to get over time. EDIT: One thing I kinda wish we had the ability to do was give immediate feedback on reviews that we've accepted, to inform the reviewer on what they could improve upon. But unfortunately we don't have that ability at the present time. At least not without having to do it through other means (PM, a site message, email, etc.). |
|
| Author: | Zelkiiro [ Sun Feb 19, 2017 5:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
It'd be neat if we could see how many points each of our individual reviews earned, so that I could--er, I mean, others could--barge in and fix the hell out of my--that is, their--shittier reviews. |
|
| Author: | Dembo [ Mon Feb 20, 2017 3:07 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
http://www.metal-archives.com/users/Pestilent I suggest having a look at this guy's reviews. All are from March 20-21 2004 and seem to have been accepted by a lower standard than now. I haven't looked at all of them, but there's very little meat and potato for the reader to get how the music is and why it's so great, in those I have looked at. Suggesting that a moderator goes through his 25 reviews may sound like alot, but looking at these examples, it probably would be over pretty quickly: http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/D ... ilent/7882 http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/B ... ilent/7882 http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/D ... ilent/7882 http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/B ... ilent/7882 http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/S ... ilent/7882 EDIT: Another reviewer: http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/A ... ing/170685 "The drummer is so un-talented I won't even bring him up." Then don't write reviews...? |
|
| Author: | TrooperEd [ Thu Mar 02, 2017 9:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
I don't know what sorry ass fanboy had Noctir's Ulver Bergtatt review deleted, but you should be ashamed of yourself. |
|
| Author: | Wilytank [ Fri Mar 03, 2017 10:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
TrooperEd wrote: I don't know what sorry ass fanboy had Noctir's Ulver Bergtatt review deleted, but you should be ashamed of yourself. http://www.metal-archives.com/history/v ... se/id/3609 Deleted himself? Two years ago? |
|
| Author: | Diamhea [ Fri Mar 03, 2017 10:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
TrooperEd wrote: I don't know what sorry ass fanboy had Noctir's Ulver Bergtatt review deleted, but you should be ashamed of yourself. Good grief, you're an idiot. |
|
| Author: | Antioch [ Fri Mar 03, 2017 10:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
This is the first time I've seen this stuff shown in the update history, and I spend the bulk of my time on here checking update histories, mind you. 
|
|
| Author: | The Crazy Old School Music Fan [ Fri Mar 10, 2017 1:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
The review of Pagan Fears' only release seems to follow a track by track formula and also has a lot of bad grammar. http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/P ... val/22888/ |
|
| Author: | Wilytank [ Fri Mar 17, 2017 6:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/S ... LOG/147476 Pretty bland track by track review. Also has a pretty dumb ending: "(98 % so that Secrets Of The Moon don't feel that they could never top this album)". |
|
| Author: | Roffle_the_Thrashard [ Mon Mar 20, 2017 7:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
Although descriptive, it is a track by track review, which isn't an allowed format. http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/Amsvartner/Dreams/11183/Enigma666/7967 |
|
| Author: | raspberrysoda [ Wed Mar 22, 2017 12:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/% ... er88/78442 really lacking in content |
|
| Page 218 of 239 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|