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 222 of 239

Author:  WR95 [ Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please)

https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... eins/79861
https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... eins/79861

Are they acceptable by actual standards? Track-by-track and so overlong. I don't get why he includes the tracklist in his review.

Author:  ~Guest 135946 [ Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please)

WR95 wrote:
https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/Black_Sabbath/Black_Sabbath_Vol_4/492/Frankingsteins/79861
https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... eins/79861

Are they acceptable by actual standards? Track-by-track and so overlong. I don't get why he includes the tracklist in his review.



To me those look more like they belong on a site called an encyclopedia than many other reviews. Plus, those are well-written pieces from 2006. If anything they're a good balance of informative and opinionated. Sure, the tracklistings could have been kept out and they do get a bit track-by-track, but I don't remember seeing anything with respect to review length in the guidelines and there is plenty of context provided throughout the reviews to make even that acceptable, especially considering the age of those pieces.

I've been warned about it before, veering too close to track-by-track, but one quick look at that reviewer's work over their time here shows a vast improvement. I'd say keep them up, they show a good maturation of a reviewer. I think context like that is good to keep up around here once in a while, it can help people lurking through the reviews see just how others have grown and they can get the opportunity to start on even better footing.

Author:  thrashmaniac87 [ Sat Oct 28, 2017 12:53 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please)

Track-by-track that doesn't even touch on his thesis until the conclusion, and then just barely.

https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... THORN/1184

Author:  TrooperEd [ Sat Oct 28, 2017 2:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please)

thrashmaniac87 wrote:
Track-by-track that doesn't even touch on his thesis until the conclusion, and then just barely.

https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... THORN/1184


It's an EP though. You kind of have to do track-by-tracks with those.

Author:  thrashmaniac87 [ Sat Oct 28, 2017 2:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please)

TrooperEd wrote:
thrashmaniac87 wrote:
Track-by-track that doesn't even touch on his thesis until the conclusion, and then just barely.

https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... THORN/1184


It's an EP though. You kind of have to do track-by-tracks with those.


I once wrote a track by track for a 3 song EP and it was rejected, not for content but for being track by track, so I think you might be mistaken.

Author:  blackcat2018 [ Sat Oct 28, 2017 8:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please)

https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... his/145177 "the the", "obligitory", "it's", "creem dreem", "egyption", "an mystic prophet", "Thte Black Album", "thier". Some spelling errors, delete this please.

Author:  BastardHead [ Sun Oct 29, 2017 2:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please)

thrashmaniac87 wrote:
TrooperEd wrote:
It's an EP though. You kind of have to do track-by-tracks with those.


I once wrote a track by track for a 3 song EP and it was rejected, not for content but for being track by track, so I think you might be mistaken.


We're a bit more lenient on track-by-track reviews if there are very few tracks to talk about, but even then it needs to be somewhat camouflaged with a natural flow. This kind of review is the exact kind of thing we don't really want on the site, the only thing it was missing was individual ratings for the tracks.

blackcat2018 wrote:
https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/Iron_Maiden/Virtual_XI/395/sysyphis/145177 "the the", "obligitory", "it's", "creem dreem", "egyption", "an mystic prophet", "Thte Black Album", "thier". Some spelling errors, delete this please.


poof

Author:  PaganiusI [ Wed Nov 01, 2017 10:34 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please)

7.5 lines. Less than 5 talking about the music.

https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... ter/25206/

Author:  blackcat2018 [ Thu Nov 02, 2017 5:19 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please)

https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... _bum/70897
"emodied", "Preserverance", "masterbation", "capabilites", "guitar solo's are", "mountainious", "techincal", "repetative", "tendancies", "rythm", "distastefuly", "pleseant", "Preserverance" (again lol)...

https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... ert/101472
"slighty", "eachother", "excell", "titletrack", "straight forward", "rhyhmical", "middlesection", "therefor", "Philosofer", "enjoybale", "an solos"...

https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... ert/101472
"sofar", "used to be in the band", "That’s were it all went terribly wrong", "immitating", "oppososed", "aweful"...

Author:  Derigin [ Thu Nov 02, 2017 3:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please)

PaganiusI wrote:
7.5 lines. Less than 5 talking about the music.

https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... ter/25206/

Poof

blackcat2018 wrote:
https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/Death/The_Sound_of_Perseverance/618/super_bum/70897
"emodied", "Preserverance", "masterbation", "capabilites", "guitar solo's are", "mountainious", "techincal", "repetative", "tendancies", "rythm", "distastefuly", "pleseant", "Preserverance" (again lol)...

https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... ert/101472
"slighty", "eachother", "excell", "titletrack", "straight forward", "rhyhmical", "middlesection", "therefor", "Philosofer", "enjoybale", "an solos"...

https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... ert/101472
"sofar", "used to be in the band", "That’s were it all went terribly wrong", "immitating", "oppososed", "aweful"...

All fixed.

Author:  thrashmaniac87 [ Mon Nov 06, 2017 3:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please)

Super skimpy review from the early 2000s.

https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... hocles/123

Author:  HOT_DOG_DAY_89 [ Tue Nov 07, 2017 10:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please)

Not as skimpy as this https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... ing/12816/

Author:  colin040 [ Thu Nov 09, 2017 5:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please)

https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... gin/20720/

Brief!

Author:  PaganiusI [ Sat Nov 11, 2017 5:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please)

Maron is barely talking about the music in the 3 reviews he wrote back in the days.

Time Treachery - Under Eternal Nightsky

Blüdwülf - Cryptic Revelations

Midnight - Complete and Total Fucking Midnight

Author:  mjollnir [ Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please)

PaganiusI wrote:

Um....they might not be six long paragraphs but I get a picture of what these bands sound like from his straight the point reviews. I'm not a mod but these reviews seem acceptable to me. Could you cite an example of "barely talking about the music?"

Author:  Diamhea [ Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please)

Yeah, those seem okay to me.

Author:  DarthVenom [ Mon Nov 13, 2017 6:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please)

So, about that new Iced Earth review.

https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... Meh/339203

I read the review twice to make sure, but there is no musical description here, just the constant refrain that it's "geared for radio play" and "meant to be played solely on the radio" and that it's "mainstream radio music". The closest that it gets to describing the music is when it says that a few songs "do resemble a lot of what Iced Earth has done in the past for me, a lot of what was right about their music, and a lot of what they should be doing." But that sentence would be meaningless to anyone who doesn't already know what Iced Earth sounds like.

If the writer of the review is reading this: it's a pretty common criticism of IE that they have a few killers per album amidst a sea of fillers, but you need to be able to describe it with actual musical detail. If you want to express that Stu Block "performs well in all areas", then don't just say that; elaborate on specific parts of the album where he uses his range to great effect. And if you're going to accuse an album with a six-minute instrumental and a nine-minute epic as just being in it for the radio play, you really need to back that up with more than this.

Author:  MutantClannfear [ Tue Nov 28, 2017 9:07 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please)

https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... nes/227178

I expect better from this guy at this point. Zero musical description.

Author:  Empyreal [ Tue Nov 28, 2017 9:42 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please)

DarthVenom wrote:
So, about that new Iced Earth review.

https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... Meh/339203

I read the review twice to make sure, but there is no musical description here, just the constant refrain that it's "geared for radio play" and "meant to be played solely on the radio" and that it's "mainstream radio music". The closest that it gets to describing the music is when it says that a few songs "do resemble a lot of what Iced Earth has done in the past for me, a lot of what was right about their music, and a lot of what they should be doing." But that sentence would be meaningless to anyone who doesn't already know what Iced Earth sounds like.

If the writer of the review is reading this: it's a pretty common criticism of IE that they have a few killers per album amidst a sea of fillers, but you need to be able to describe it with actual musical detail. If you want to express that Stu Block "performs well in all areas", then don't just say that; elaborate on specific parts of the album where he uses his range to great effect. And if you're going to accuse an album with a six-minute instrumental and a nine-minute epic as just being in it for the radio play, you really need to back that up with more than this.


Quote:
I think Iced Earth has come to this point where, they probably know they'll be less relevant if they don't make songs people like, so they make these songs for the radio in the first place, not even daring to experiment more and make something that is actually worth the time to listen to in one sitting.


Wow, a band knows they'll be less relevant if they make songs people don't like? What a fucking revelatory statement. This kind of stuff always just shows a very shallow understanding of art... I doubt Iced Earth was going "gee, we really want to write this experimental prog epic, but fans may not like it... time to just write the same old boring stuff!"

Author:  hakarl [ Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:47 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please)

Is he trying to say that the band has run out of inspiration, and is also conscious of the fact, attempting to make up for it by appealing to a lower common denominator?

Yeah, I don't know if that's the kind of thought process that metal musicians might have when they streamline their style. Not even people like Jon Schaffer, I reckon.

Author:  BastardHead [ Tue Nov 28, 2017 11:13 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please)

MutantClannfear wrote:
https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/Bell_Witch/Mirror_Reaper/664567/ConorFynes/227178

I expect better from this guy at this point. Zero musical description.


Returned to sender. I appreciate what the album did for him and I understand what he was going for, and he's a good enough writer to make it work, but in its current form it's really just not MA material. I hope he can rewrite it and integrate some actual description into it, because I know how cathartic it can be to write pieces like that.

Author:  Rodman [ Tue Nov 28, 2017 6:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please)

The Crown - Possessed 13

Quote:
Not as brutal, but still decent - 87%
Life_Sucks, November 28th, 2003

I really liked Crowned In Terror, so I decided to check out Possesed 13 when it came out. It starts kicks off with No Tomorrow, which starts with a standard introduction of stranges noises and then a grooving metal riff kicks in, which then gives way to the speedy thrashing main riff of the song. Yeah, it is fast, but the blastbeats that defined Crowned In Terror are absent. It is a good opener and a solid overall song nonetheless. The next song Face Of Destruction is a similar overall fast, yet not blasting song. The third track, Deliverance, is the most like the songs on Crowned In Terror, with a good amount of blasting and very aggressive riffing. Deliverance, Morningstar Rising (another fast blasting song that could be on Crowned In Terror), and Kill Em All (a relatively fast song with an old school thrash feel) are some of the highlights of the CD. Overall, I wasn't dissappointed with the CD, but I was expecting it to be faster and more aggressive. Most of the songs lack the blasting and intense riffing of Crowned In Terror. However, the songs here often have more groove than the ones on Crowned In Terror and there is more diversity among the songs. This is a different kind of CD than Crowned In Terror, but it is still very good. Fans of The Crown, and fans of modern thash in general, should pick up this CD.


Not the worst thing ever, but a typical TBT-style early review that wouldn't be accepted today.

Author:  BastardHead [ Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please)

Looks like that review was taken care of, but holy shit that album is loaded with terrible reviews. Looks like tomorrow that'll be the next band I do a silent purge for, yikes.

Author:  AddWittyUsername [ Sat Dec 02, 2017 1:59 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please)

https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... edSky/1204
Brief 2003 TBT-style review.

https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... eased/1837
Brief 2004 review. Makes an attempt at description, I suppose, but pretty lacking in specifics.

https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... 77/kd/3863

Quote:
Highly Innovative - 100%
kd, February 3rd, 2004

Christ almight!!!!!!!!!!#@$#$#%#$%$#%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This shit is sick! I didn't think they played death metal this sick back in 1993, but boy was I wrong. Whenever I hear people mention classic NYDM, I always hear the same old "Suffocation, Immolation, early Pyrexia" shtick, never, not ever once have I heard anyone mention Afterbirth. I stumbled across this band by mistake...let's just leave it as that. More importantly, the music. Which speaks for itself. The riffs are heavy and non-technical. The drumming is fairly typical, some blasts, some decent fills. The music is mostly at mid-pace. I'd compare them with the SABDM bands of today, musically. Now, the undeniably the most important part, being the vocals on this album.

The vocals sound like Ruben Rosas from Devourment, but 6 sick years earlier!!!! I could've believe it when I first heard it. Completely floored!
Praise goes to the vocalist for sspawning an entire new style of vocals, because somebody had to do it. You must hear this album if you like death metal at all.

Too!!Many!!Exclamation!!Marks!! (And musical description is pretty much limited to "heavy, non-technical riffs, typical drumming w/ blasts and decent fills and mid-paced. Vocals like Ruben Rosas.")

https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... 68/kd/3863
Same author as the above. Riddled with spelling ("ubelievably", "Pennsyvlvania", "sophmore", "clearity", "groweled"), grammar and punctuation issues, over-enthusiastic fanboying and rather brief. Does include some musical description, though, I suppose.

From a quick check, it looks like their other reviews are of the same "quality".

Author:  Antioch [ Fri Dec 08, 2017 7:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please)

https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... ouzi/20442
Not a big fan of the album, but I'd definitely give the band more credit than this. Anyway, the review sucks.

Spoiler: show
Worse than B-grade - 15%
peyman_norouzi, October 27th, 2004

Funny that I am the first one to write a review for this band!
Why am I writing this?!
No, I am not a fan of this band, I just don’t want another metalhead to throw his money into the garbage can buying this album!!!

Although I am writing this today, but I got the album the month it was released. How?!
There was a review/advertisement on Metal Hammer magazine saying that, “Call it Death, call it Thrash, it is fucking brilliant!” So, I got the CD (still I have it).

The first thing which antagonized me was the messy way the album had been recorded/mastered. It was obvious that the songs were recorded in different studios with different atmospheres. It sounded like a compilation.
Then, the music. Call it Death, call it Thrash, it sucks! They are just throwing the stuff you’ve already heard from, not xillions, but several B-grade Thrash bands.
Nothing original is here, nothing. Even not a single sign of an original element.
I’m wondering what was the idea for this band to band!
They could at least perform some cover songs to show that they are good in that!

I even want to go further, I cannot realize why somebody accepted to produce this. Better not to talk about the label!

Musicianship here is as dumb as possible. All sucks, from the riffs, to the arrangements, to the guitar solos.
There is no melody here to stick to your brain for at least 5 minutes after you listened to it.

Lyrics are as ordinary as possible. Stuff that would come out of the brain of a high school metalhead, if he was asked to write lyrics for a B-grade Thrash song, in a rush!

Don’t even think about giving it a listen!

Peyman

Author:  PaganiusI [ Sat Dec 09, 2017 2:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please)

https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... ayer/84427

First 2 paragraphs explain why he loves the band in general.
Third paragraph states THAT he doesn't like that album.
The next one has the only 2 sentences where he's talking about the music, and they don't go into detail at all:
- "The sound is very cohesive, but it just sounds like so many other boring industrial outfits."
- "There were a couple decent songs here and there, but I haven’t listened to it in so long that I don’t remember what they are."

Last 2 paragraphs state how sad that is.

His other reviews are somewhat better, but still....I don't know...fishy, too.

https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... ayer/84427
https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... ayer/84427

Author:  Antioch [ Tue Dec 12, 2017 12:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please)

Two weak reviews of Cynic's Focus. Painful reads that echo one another.
Points made:
1. This is death metal fused with jazzy elements.
2. Masvidal and Malone are phenomenal players.
Amazon reviews at best.

Spoiler: show
One of Metal's Greats - 98%
invaded, November 8th, 2006


Cynic have achieved legendary status since their disbandment in the early 90's, and with good reason. As far as originality and musicianship were concerned, these guys were up there with other legendary Florida DM acts.

As previously stated, the musicianship here is phenomenal, Masvidal and Gobel complement each other perfectly while infusing jazzy riffs with death metal ferocity. Another cool element of the music lies in the fact that most of the time the two guitarists play completely different parts. The bass playing is also phenomenal, with Sean malone at his best on the instrument. Sean Reinheart is also a world class drummer who switches it up as often as possible.

This music is one of the most unique releases in metal history. Having a similar jazzy nature as Atheist, but with more emphasis on fusion, these guys delivered an earthy, melodic and yet groovy and colorful record which satisfies my musical palet in many ways. The riffing is fantastic, the electronic vocals take some time to get used to but their placement and use is in the end perfect. Cynic truly were on to something different and they hit the nailon the head. Whenever the band slows down, it does not detract from the listening experience, rather you soak in the different chords and vocal arrangements.

Standout tracks include the opner "Veil of Maya", "The Eagle Nature" with its intense riffing and extreme time juxtapositions, "uroboric Forms" once again kicks ass, being one of the heavier offerings on here. The instrumental "Textures" is totally dreamy and space-jazz-proggy(I guess), the closer "How could I?" is also very cool.

The songwriting is very cool and very different, definitely one of the greatest metal offerings of all time.
_______________________

The peak of originality in the Death Metal scene - 100%
Luka_Carvalho, December 6th, 2005

Cynic, a legendary band that fused their love for Death Metal with a recent influence of Jazz/Fusion and progressive rock. The result is here, Focus is an album that was beyond it's own time, the instruments are all played perfectlly and, thanks to a crystal clear production they can be all heard clearly.

Paul Masvidal and Jason Gobel give a 2 guitar lead assault to your ears, most of the moments each one is doing a diffrent riff, and the occasional use of guitar synths are in the right place, extending the texture of the riffs or of the song itself. Paul and Jason work with other bands (most notably Death and Monstrosity, respectivelly), helped to give them experience in the Death metal field while hearing Chick Corea and Allan Holdsworth pavimented their way to the freedom and dynamics of Jazz/Fusion. Paul's robot voice just sets the mood through deep meaning and philosophical lyrics, giving the songs a more cosmic feel.

Sean Reinert plays here in a very jazzy style, in a few moments you can hear him repeating the brutality of his performance in Human (most notably in Uroboric Forms), but most of the time his playing is filled with jazz technics and complex rhytms, which makes him one of the best drummers in the world.

Sean Malone is a bass god and shows here all his talent and creativity, sometimes using the unusual Chapman Stick, just hear his bass solo in "Textures" to see what i'm talking about, and since his bass is high in the mix there will be no problems to experience his contribution here.

This album is a classic that should be experienced in max volume, it represents the golden era of Death Metal.

https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... aded/70321
https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... alho/53241

Author:  Jophelerx [ Wed Dec 13, 2017 5:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please)

All 4 of the reviews for Ram-Zet's Escape are pretty bare bones and/or have some kind of formatting problem, but this one is pretty obviously oven fodder material, terrible formatting and grammar and extremely track-by-track: https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... 2/mud/4391

Author:  Timeghoul [ Thu Dec 21, 2017 9:16 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please)

I am not a Christian, nor have I ever been in this band, but I feel this review is a bit jaded. This review gave it a 0% and part of the review was based on a death metal band having Christian lyrics. I ask for someone to review it.

https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... rn/198216/

Author:  Liquid_Braino [ Fri Dec 22, 2017 1:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please)

There seems to be enough musical and visual description for it to stay, but the fact that he equates "leftist, P.C. propaganda" as being Christian and seriously pro-life is hilarious. Either he's been getting the wrong pamphlets all his life or it's just bitterman trolling away as was his game.

Author:  Ontsarguiz [ Fri Dec 22, 2017 1:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please)

https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... 17/kd/3863 (seriously, look at his other reviews too)
https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... 666/280147 (not that bad until the atrocious track-by-track kicks in)

Author:  Napalm_Satan [ Sun Jan 07, 2018 11:28 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please)

This review is pretty bad.

Very lacking. A short list of what he doesn't like without much actual description, no mention of positives despite giving a positive score, etc. etc.


Track by track with one line per song.

Maybe being a bit harsh here but this also seemed to be very lacklustre.


EDIT: From the same album, this seems pretty light on description too

Tbh I'm just suggesting this one, because I guess by today's standards it could be accepted as a 3 pointer?

Author:  AddWittyUsername [ Mon Jan 08, 2018 11:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please)

Fails to describe the music other than a small number of specific songs, and even there it's light on details.

Short, light on details, no paragraphing, mid-sentence capitals ("Metal"; "Metalheads") while also lacking some needed capitals, garbled run-on sentences ("The vocals by ex Darkane member Lawrence Mckrory show a lot of emotion and blend perfectly with the tracks while thought to be the weak spot in the band by any it gives Andromeda a unique sound. (although they have recently released the album with a more generic power Metal type vocalist which knocks down the quality a peg or two)"), bad punctuation and misspellings ("Mckrory"; "genertal").

Extremely short. Has some description but other than genre, the only part I have a decent idea of after reading this review is the vocals. Even then, there are two other reviews that do at least as well in describing those.

Single paragraph. Light on details: description can be summarized as "catchy, non-preachy Christian metal with a vocalist reminiscent of Chris Cornell/Rob Lowe/Maynard James Keenan and good production for an indie release".

Author:  S9NE [ Fri Jan 12, 2018 6:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please)

https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... rget/55831
Numerous spelling/capitalization/grammar errors with little to no musical description.

Spoiler: show
just plain shit - 0%
before_i_forget, January 7th, 2007

I had nothing to do one day, so i decided to listen to some music. i found this. And after the last seconds of "my brain needs morphine" i just fellt like going out in the kitchen, pick up the closest sharp item and cut my ears off.

This is just a demo but i pray to God, Satan, Muhammed or whoever might listen "dont ever let them release a full length", Cause this is just plain shit.
After hearing this i felt abruptum's songs actually had som stucture.(No offence to abruptum). It basicly sound like a guy getting drunk, Stealing a drum machine, Playing a guitar upside down, And hope for the best.

If you like grindcore dont you ever listen to Auschwitz's "sex blood and satan" cause its not nearly as good as for example Nasum, Save your ears.
And since i can't find no lyrics i dont even know what the hell the songs are about, Its just some abstract noise whit no track of profesionality whatsoever.

But if i should say somethig good about it, I can only say that the guys responsible for it sure had a good time recording it, And me and my friends had a good laughter while listen to it.

Please stay away from it it's not worth those 3 munutes.

Author:  colin040 [ Tue Jan 16, 2018 5:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please)

https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... rean/5029/

...:lol:

EDIT: Here's another one.

https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... ind/56552/

Author:  Wilytank [ Wed Jan 17, 2018 9:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please)

So here's a review of a split album containing two very long songs, and the reviewer only reviews one of them.

https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... hade/89201

Author:  UnholyCrusada [ Thu Jan 18, 2018 8:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please)

^ Seeing that reminded me of this review. A split live video where the review doesn't even make mention of two of the three bands featured.

https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... cang/71509

Author:  doomster999 [ Sun Feb 04, 2018 3:51 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please)

https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... tKill/4115

Dude has no idea about the style of music he's reviewing. No substantial explanation of the album's sound whatsoever. Only sleeping....zzzz and all that shit. Awful biased and ignorant review. Should be nuked.

Author:  TrooperEd [ Sun Feb 11, 2018 6:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please)

https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/Megadeth/Rust_in_Peace/593/fullmetalraincoat/420587

Offending paragraph in question:
Spoiler: show
I’d like to address a few points though on this update, a few commenters said that I couldn’t possibly mention House of Atreus Act I and The Spectre Within on a Rust in Peace review because, apparently, according to these self-appointed authorities of metal, those albums are not in the same radar or wavelength as said thrash record, i.e. they are “inferior” metal subgenres. Not only is such an opinion invalid, it is also laughably absurd and stupid. Who are they to judge that the techniques used on said albums are less difficult to pull off than the tricks employed by Marty and Dave on Rust? Needless to say but even the technicality of neoclassical soloing were merely ripped off by thrash bands in the late eighties in the hopes of giving respectability to their earlier works; power and prog are separated from thrash and technical thrash by a very thin layer, the differences between the styles are really very minuscule. In fact the “mellower” forms of thrash associated with Metallica and Megadeth have more in common with hard rock, speed, power and prog metal; thrash itself sprung from a fusion of NWOBHM and hardcore punk (which itself is a very unmetal music genre). These commenters are a giant tank of human excrement for insinuating that power metal or prog cannot possibly aspire to become an equal or even surpass their beloved tech thrash classics; How childish and vain indeed, we are living in the 21st Century and we have these pitiful man-children; House of Atreus Act I would definitely fuck these geeks’ filthy ear-holes while they’re being pounded by their boyfriends from behind (tit for tat dude, I’m no homophobe but your closet homosexuality is quite revealing on that unicorn joke of yours, ha). Also, what is the big deal about this “hierarchy of styles” within metal? Shouldn’t albums be judged and critiqued based on the overall sound, fluidity, and cohesion of ideas of the completed effort? But the most perplexing conundrum here is the almost religious fervor that these people attach to a style or subgenre. “Technical” or “thrash” connote mystical, supernatural or divine qualities to these folks that other styles cannot possibly be any good or are beneath the said formats. As such, they believe, because they listen avidly to these styles, they have imbibed the qualities of an elite Special Forces operative or belong to a nobility of Spartan warriors, fighting heathen barbarians in some eldritch battlefield. More often than not though, reality bites them in the ass, they’re actually just inside a bathroom, whacking off like Kevin Spacey’s pathetic character in American Beauty. For fuck’s sake, thrash (or technical thrash) like all other metal subgenres, is just a tool or a kitchen implement like a rolling pin used to shape pizza dough. It is not something to be placed on an altar or shrine to be venerated or chant incantations to. Yes, people, everybody, bow down to the golden rolling pin, let’s offer sacrifices to the immaculate rolling pin!


Seriously, what the fuck is the projectional whining about other people's comments about reviews?

Author:  Derigin [ Sun Feb 11, 2018 11:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please)

Dealt with.

Page 222 of 239 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/