Shoutout to PorcupineOfDoom for covering Old Iron King! I'm just finishing up the review for the Secret Satan shortly; planning to get it out either tomorrow or Saturday.

Ha, thanks very much!


Hmm, no, I think we all must have just imagined that...

(Honestly I have no clue why I even wrote original, I gotta slow down for these virgin reviews apparently. Fixed now, thanks for catching that!)

Thanks man, I'm hoping it won't be the only review that I get done for this challenge but I've been pretty busy all week. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on my pick

Haha, I think I may do all three albums. I find it hard to review the latest album without knowing a band's previous work, so expect a barrage for that band soon enough.

Just caught the Obscure Sphinx review, Derigin, must say you did an excellent job capturing the essence of that album. I know it was a bit out of your comfort zone but I'm glad you enjoyed it!

Also happy to see Deathbell get some love - their debut is one of my favourites so far this year - but not sure Mailman's review entirely does the album justice despite the flattering score. Description is a bit weak and too much time is spent talking about what the album isn't rather than focusing on what makes it such an enjoyable listen.

Acrobat's new Slayer review is extremely well-argued, and a pleasant surprise, as I somehow never expect more seasoned reviewers to tackle such talked-about albums. not that there's at all anything wrong with doing that; in fact sometimes it's precisely why their perspectives on it might be welcome. I'm not sure I agree with everything he wrote there or the score, but it's the best Reign in Blood review I've read in a really long time. I like the way he addresses the different song-writing contributions from the two guitarists. Also nice dig at hawthorne there.

Dismember Marcin always touches on interesting stuff and paints a good picture for what the music is like, but man the reviews are tough to read because they're so messy. TrooperEd's Manowar review was actually a pretty solid read, as well as that Slayer one and the Immortal one. Also, shoutout to andreipianoman for actually making me want to check out a black metal album.

On another note, that Scorpions review was painful to read.

No kidding. I realize English isn't his native language, but I've yet to read a review of his that wasn't awkward and stilted. He tends to ramble too as in the first paragraph of this one. Have to admit, this opening sentence made me chuckle: "If someone will ever dare to say that nowadays there’s no point in buying CDs or LPs or MCs, then I strongly advice that person to shoot himself in the head." Ahem.


The music description is there, but the writer definitely hasn't got a grasp on natural flow. It reads like someone rattling off the reasons they like an album rather than a writer compiling his thoughts in a coherent order. I'd have thought they would improve in the eleven years since they posted their last review.

Holy shit! That may be the longest one paragraph I've ever seen in a MA review! And yeah, I totally agree, the description's there but the delivery of it is horrendous. It's like ordering great food but having a horrible server.

I submitted a review earlier this week and it is still pending. Why is this?

Some reviews just take a while to judge. That's especially true for a 20% review by a new user for Black Sabbath's Black Sabbath.

Oh no....

So you just censor opinions that go against the general consensus, then? How nice.

Edit: It was now rejected because "The submission did not properly follow the guidelines. Please read the guidelines carefully next time." Even though I followed all of the guidelines.

No, it just means that cookie cutter, edgy rags written by noobs with nothing interesting to say get the least amount of priority.

It was rejected because it was a stream of consciousness track-by-track that basically just said "this is a blues rock track" six times in a row. Put some actual effort into it if you want it to be accepted.

We let reviews sit for a while sometimes because frankly, all of us do this as a hobby because we enjoy it, but precisely zero of us want to read another review for Sabbath/Priest/Maiden/Metallica/Slayer/Megadeth ever again.

I did put actual effort into it, though. It took me a couple days to finish and proof-read, edit, etc.

And I thought the rules said that track-by-track reviews were appropriate with albums with a short amount of tracks (edit: it actually does, "For albums with short numbers of tracks, this is not a problem."), and the Black Sabbath album I reviewed has exactly five tracks. If you actually read the review, you would also see that I didn't call them all blues rock (even though this is the truth), as the title track is definitely not blues rock in the traditional sense.

That is a sad viewpoint to hold, especially when the person who wrote the review has a viewpoint that deviates from the norm. It's pretty clear that this site doesn't like dissenting opinions, as this whole thing has proven.

I don't get why people still go for the extremely big bands and want to be special review no. 666 on an album everyone knows about and was already described to death a hundred times.

I do big albums and underground ones alike, for the sheer reason that I like to talk about things that I like, regardless of if 30 other reviewers did it or not, as well as try my hardest to bring something new to the table. When it comes to less known albums, I do it for others to get a glimpse of something they may be unfamiliar with, as well as for my own interest. For ones that are very well known, I do its strictly for myself, to get my thoughts on paper. Since I'm a scribe, no mod HAS to read my Megadeth discography if they don't want to.

In this situation, however, I can totally understand why that would get rejected.

Total win-win-situation. Do people become scribes just so the mods don't have to read their megadeth reviews anymore?

Good point, reviewing the albums you want or feel like you need to bring your thoughts down is also my credo. Why force a review if you don't get paid for it anyway? It's a hobby not a job, but I don't know... I've just always been an "underground guy", never touched most of the "classics" and those I touched didn't gab my attention. I really enjoy reviewing virgins and obscure/forgotten stuff and there is just so much of it out there, tons of really strong albums no one ever heard of, probably even the musicians involved forgot about it So I don't quite see why I should want to "waste" my energy on stuff everyone knows to a certain degree and is common knowledge, loved/hated by many and played on constant rotation since the 80s or so.

That feeling of typing up a review when you have scribe status.

If that took you two days to finish, proof-read and edit, then I don't want to see what an effortless piece from you looks like. Regarding the track-by-track thing, it refers to things such as EPs or albums with two or three songs, tops. More than that and you need a more in depth analysis.

MA has no problem with dissenting opinions; otherwise, there would never be any positive or negative reviews for certain albums. The problem isn't the opinion, but how competently it's expressed, and your competence has been judged lacking. Try again.

Ozzy: Lol!

PaganiusI: I don't consider it a "waste" if I enjoy doing it.

I dunno man, that short albeit jocose and smug "Porra" vid is actually kinda creepy...

It's from a Renato Laranja parody commercial that was part of his short-lived talk show.

https://youtu.be/IXCjAcSwPvI?t=31m33s

You have to admit that a 20% review for Black Sabbath's debut on a metal site would be, if nothing else, interesting.

Yeah, I'm honestly looking forward to it getting accepted (if it does) just because I'm curious.

He just rage quit and terminated his account, so my guess is that you will have to wait a very long time.

Worth noting that he had a sketchy email address, immediately submit a harsh negative review of a well regarded classic with shaky reasoning on the same day he signed up, complained within a few days that it wasn't up already (which was obviously an attempt to goad us into some gotcha where he can accuse us of censoring him no matter what we do), and then deleted his account wholesale when his plan didn't work.

He was a troll, we didn't take the bait. Learn the signs.

Ah, what would life be without trolls, eh BastardHead?

Reviewing classic and well-known albums does have its practical uses. If I want people to consider my reviews for obscure and overlooked releases, it helps to have reference points to better known material. Maybe you'll be more likely to take my recommendation for some unheard of band signed to Horror Pain Gore Death if you know that Severed Survival and Mental Funeral are two of my most highly rated albums. Of course, this also works the other way. A thrash fan would probably eye my reviews with suspicion if they knew I had a middling opinion of Kreator's 80s albums (I don't by the way, just illustrating a point).

Plus, if you love an album, adding your voice to the chorus singing its praises may well be justification in itself.

Woooooo nice Xysma review, Abominatrix! Talk about a band who needs more attention... just amazing.

Well, if your going for that, you could just list classics with the score you'd give 'em next to your review rating scale on your profile or include them into it.

Yeah, I saw the review in question in the help thread and changed my mind, it was quite boring.

Empyreal: Shit really? Didn't know it was posted there all this time.

Cat: I agree. I've actually thought about this once: what if there was a way to rate the albums without needing to write a review? Meaning the score and the review itself are completely separate entities. Then, it would A. solve the problem you mentioned, by defining someone's taste. B. If you score something questionably high or low, other users can personally ask why your opinion is what it is without needing to submit a review. and C. The mods would stop complaining about there being 30 Reign In Blood reviews. I feel like the only issue with this would be trolls that get on, run through, and then give like every Sabbath album a 0% or something. I don't know. Anyone else ever think of this?

That type of user system is more or less what sites like Rate Your Music do only with star ratings. Seems to work for them fine.

Agreed. Also other note, Metalichunter's Ghost review says some stupid shit. How does it "not even classify as a rock album"? He mentions that Dance Macabre sounds like a love song. Yeah because rock n roll never wrote about that. He said that certain songs that sound poppy can't be rock. Has he ever listened to The Beatles? KISS? Aerosmith? All have plenty of poppy and heavy songs (minus the beatles for heavy) alike. And finally, he mentions how saxaphones aren't used in rock songs. Has he even looked at rock n roll origins? That was very normal in the past. Not even just with bands like The Coasters and whatnot, but Aerosmtih's "Same Old Song And Dance"...? How about Bruce Springsteen? Glenn Frey? This dude has no idea what makes rock 'n roll, rock 'n roll. People that say Ghost's newer work isn't metal, alright, I can see it. But that review was absolute shit. Not to mention that it was also stupidly laid out and made little to no good points.

Thanks, Abom. It's always hard to review favourites, but I'm happy with how it came out. What did you disagree with? I know you're more of a Hell Awaits man.

Cat_III, absolutely! I think it's nice to see the classics covered by MA staples - it does give your other reviews context, like, I'd be weirded out if someone had reviewed 30 brutal death metal albums but then slagged off classic Suffocation. Also, metal's biggest albums shouldn't be just left to the neophytes - they don't know what they're doing. I don't often touch "big" albums or, I haven't done so in ages, so I think I can review some Slayer on occasion. Now, I need to follow it up with Sabbat.

Abominatrix, I'm convinced. That "Deluxe" review made me curious enough to check that album out.

Oh my god thank you I was afraid to be the only person thinking that. I even screened it. It's a work of art. This review could be basically summed up as "not metal enough and too cheesy for a rock album".

You're completely right on the origins of rock. Also, he complains about the fact that the band shouldn't be added to the MA... well, listen to the first album and re-read the rules of submissions.

It's obvious that Ghost isn't a metal band anymore and I pretty much never considered them as it is. I rather consider them as a good modern rock/hard rock band with some metal influences but with Prequelle it sounds way more like a melodic rock/pop album with a lot of different atmospheres and changes. Sax is normal, love songs are normal, even ambient is normal because it sets a good mood that suits well the "Ghost universe". Nothing wrong if you know a bit about the history of rock n roll.

yeah! Love the Disembody review. Also slightly surprised not to be the only one who thought Satanasword was the last really good one. The follow-up was really just more of the same, and without osmond again, the band just sounds too "normal" thrash or something.

About the Slayer, I'm definitely not one of those "boo hoo only 'Angel of Death' and 'Raining Blood' are any good kind of guys, but yeah i very much do prefer hell Awaits all the same. And my second place would go to S&M of course. Typical boring old-school metal opinion maybe, but the dry, really stripped-down approach of RiB, while exciting in its own right, isn't quite as appealing. Of course you're totally right about "Altar of Sacrifice". I always play the album through and don't get bored or anything. I'd still give it a high score.

Thanks for the good words on the Xysma review, guys. Weird band and I thought maybe i was sounding too "apologetic" about it not being a death metal album, but I'm glad it didn't come off that way.