From review of Deception Ignored: "My score of 79 is based on how much I enjoy this album (59%) and the peerless brilliance of performance (101%)."

That's kind of an irritating way to rate something, dontcha think? Maybe it's just that I'm biased because my enjoyment of it is equal to your rating for 'peerless brilliance of performance,' one thing I couldn't argue with.

It's hard for me to flat-out give an album a 0%, because they're probably doing right, musically.

Even albums I abhor (Kerion's Holy Creatures Quest) retain a rating above 0% because at least they're playing in time.

So what if they're doing right musically? Some albums are just so bad that they deserve nothing more than a 0%. That's how I see it anyway. I never liked that kind of rating system. If an album offends me that bad I'm not just gonna give it points for 'staying in time.' If it sucks, it sucks.

He prefers melody and emotion over speed, which is VERY rare in the metal world.

Ofcourse, because, 9 out of 10 times metal is nothing more than AN INSANE SHREDDFEST!

To be honest I don't get how he likes some songs and dislike others, to me Scream Bloody Gore is one of those albums with the appealing ''if you like one track, you'll like them all'' rule as it's really not that varied. Ah well.

Also, does anyone else really likes the way UltraBoris actually gave scores to albums? Sure, his description was minimal at times, but as far as scores go I really like how he didn't gave 90's all the times as some do.

Exactly. Ratings should always be based on how you enjoyed the album, and not on trying to make objective criteria for a good album and reviewing how the album did in each category of performance. However, if the band's playing perfectly in time brings you enjoyment and therefore adds value to the listening experience, it should be considered in the rating.

You could create a subjective-objective criteria for artistic endeavor and judge an album against an aggregate synthesized with personal enjoyment. That's what I usually go for, being that there are ways to appreciate a work of art beyond the visceral reaction one has to it.

Your rating shoudn't include such things. The review is for describing the music and pointing out positive and aspects, and the reader will generally be able to judge for himself whether he would like the album or not based on the descriptions. If someone criticised an album for being really heavy, dark and melancholic, I'd know it would probably be my cup of tea. The reviewer who does not like these things in music does not have to take it account in his rating that someone might find the very things enjoyable he dislikes the most.

A holistic analysis of a metal album (let's narrow the discussion down from works of art in general) shouldn't include things beyond one's emotional reaction? I disagree with that completely. I believe there are other levels of appreciation and interest fully worth discussing in the context of amateur reviews. I say this because such reviews have piqued my interest in various metal albums and, even when I have not grown to love or artlessly enjoy the albums having listened to them provided exposure to ideas and means of expression I don't regret experiencing and in some cases have afforded me either a wider capacity to appreciate other things or a more rationally narrowed understanding of where my natural inclinations lead.

Whatever brings you pleasure is worth taking into account when reviewing. Nothing else is.

I see pleasure as being a desirable result of experiencing a work of art, but neither the only possible result (in positive or negative amounts) or the only desirable result. I think this is the root of our disagreement on this matter and that we are on completely opposite poles.

And, not to sound gay, but I'm on your pole.

Whatever you consider to be positive in a record is an aspect that brings you pleasure. Therefore...

I guess if you want to conflate terms with different definitions so you can arbitrarily have "won" this debate, then sure... Of course, even then, I wasn't speaking purely of what I or someone might find "positive" but rather what can have a "positive" effect on them. I don't think erasing the shades of variance on this issue and the multiplicity of experiences and interpretations of those experiences that can be had is conducive to having a worthwhile discussion on this subject.

Ah hah, John. Let's not get into a discussion on the premise that a discussion is a contest which you must win. Nobody else cares about stupid shit like that, and you'll only make it much harder for me to understand what you're trying to say in the first place by constantly pulling some sleight-of-hand sophisms. It's that kind of dumbfuckery that ultimately kills all discussion.

I would like you to elaborate on this:

What is, then? These "shades of variance on this issue and the multiplicity of experiences and interpretations of those experiences"?

Yes, saying things like "Whatever you just said automatically proves me right, HA!" don't kill discussions, pointing out people saying things like that does.

In short, I believe there is a lot more that can come from amateur reviews than recommendations and explanations of taste. There are endless avenues of intellectual investigation and analysis to be had in regards to the nature of art itself, the sociological context of the work and it's manifestation, the precise methodology of the work in its form and presentation and its impact upon and derivation from that wider social context, the meaning of its form and symbols and allusions, the nature of interpretive analysis itself and its effect on the creation and perception of art, etc. The shades of variance and multiplicity of ideas refers to the vast possibilities (as opposed to endless possibilities should there be zero employment of scientific process) of what you could call "investigative critique".

Most of these things aren't seen as "positive" aspects of the music itself because they derive in large part from the reviewer's ability to derive meaning from both musical and background qualities that the artist may or may not have ever intended but I believe their discussion provides a positive benefit to interested readers. For me, such things have led to what I believe is a deeper understanding of and appreciation for metal as what it really is in no ideal terms. Further, I just find those kinds of things interesting and like to see them included in reviews.

I suspect that you don't find any of those things interesting and/or proper inclusions in an amateur metal review. I do. That is the disagreement of which I spoke.

You're misunderstanding me, and it's probably due to my poor wording in one of my posts. All along, I was only talking about the rating, not the review itself. I mostly agree with your above post, but let's word it this way: in my ratings, I only take into account the quality of the music as it is to me, and give no additional points for whatever cultural impact or anthropologic curiosities or whatever the album may be associated with, and equally take no points away due to said album's lack thereof. Also what you said about creating subjective-objective criteria for an artistic work and reviewing and rating it based on such is a terrible idea.

Ok, I wasn't thinking about the score at all. I agree with using the numerical rating the way you describe.

About the artificial criteria, I was thinking of it as more of an intellectual exercise to be carried out within the larger framework of the whole review, not to replace any and all other criteria by which the work is judged.

Perhaps. It's not entirely irrelevant to address what kind of tastes the album might please, if it doesn't please the writer's, and if some kind of appeal is clearly noticeable.

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/O ... MegaHassan

This review is stupid...first of all, he complains thrash metal riffs on a thrash metal album, then he goes on to cite "lack of energy". What?! Was this guy asleep during "Elimination", "I Hate", "Skullkrusher", "Evil Never Dies"...etc etc? Then, he starts complaining about Bobby Blitz's vocals, saying they sound "dead"...I always thought he sounded like a crack addict on this album! This review I think is a product of listening to an album with too high expectations.

I kinda like it purely because for the longest time I swore I was the only person who thought Years of Decay was the worst classic Overkill album. I wouldn't score it that low, but the long, drawn out slower songs don't hold my attention at all. The more typical Overkill moments are great (Evil Never Dies is one of my favorite songs of theirs), but I don't think the experimentation worked all that well.

Fuck that moron's opinions. The 70s was Halford's golden era.

Now I may love Ordo Ad Chao, but the newest review is just plain embarrassing.

Jesus take a look at that trolling/flamebaiting.

I found the rasp Halford uses on ''Island of Domination'' to be a bit lame sounding, but that's about it. His voice sounded great in the 70's.

Exactly. Aside from a few seconds of Island of Domination, an otherwise great song, he was a magnificent singer in the 70s.

Halford during the 70s is unparalleled. Not even by John Arch, Geoff Tate, or King Diamond.

Nah, I think it is too; I agree with you completely. Overkill is at their best on the first two.

If "classic" Overkill is the first 5 albums, I would say that The Years of Decay is third, behind the first two. I find Under the Influence in particular rather lacking in comparison to the others, and Horrorscope was already starting to move into a less savory direction.

Yeah I consider classic Overkill to be the first five. For me it goes chronologically except for Horrorscope and Years are switched. Under the Influence may actually be SLIGHTLY under Horrorscope for me, but Hello from the Gutter alone makes that album worthwhile. Soooo catchy.

I wish Overkill did more songs like Skullkrusher.

DEATH POOSHAAAA

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/A ... ls_unicorn

God damn right. Best song on AE's best album.

As for Overkill, TYOD's my favorite. First album I bought from them, and I do wish they did more like "Skullkrusher". Snare on Horroscope sucks ass though. Go listen to it on TYOD and then hear it on Horrorscope. Ugh.

I still like Overkill's debut waaaaaay more than anything else they did, but yeah they've got a handful of great albums.

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

! This review just cracks me up! How can you call a band "conformists" when the leader is well-known as a co-founder of the style? The entire review is based around the fact that there are other bands who sound like Disma, and how this makes them "trendy". The absurdity of this conclusion can't really be described as anything but "cute".

You heard it from theoctavarius first, folks - every single one of the millions of bands in existence has to bear no similarity whatsoever to any of the others.

He apparently forgot that there may be quality in music however derivate it is. i can understand him not liking Disma or Incantation, but those are some of the worst reasons ever for not liking it since "sounds like cookie monster and you can't even make out what he's singing".

Just noticed autothralls review on Ravenbanner - And Ravens Sing our Glorious Past. I don't see the point in blasting these albums, it's obvious that this project was not very serious, rather something that just came out of these guys meeting eachother. Who knows if it even was written and played in a very drunken state? It wouldn't be any better for that reason of course, but it seems autothrall refuses to recognize the fun and unseriousness of album, just like the demo is. My point is that such reviews are misleading in one way, because people who might enjoy it avoid checking it out. I like that album, not because it is very good but because it is fun, has the most sour guitars I've ever heard on an album and is also pretty brutal at times. If you like wolfnacht, especially his drumming, and also Der Stürmers cheesiness, this album is totally worth hearing. Autothrall should perhaps take some of these things into account when writing and placing score (since the score has a typical effect of scaring people off from the album before even reading the review), but then again I'm a person who rather prefer as objective reviews as possible rather than subjective.

If you want to hear a BAD album from these greeks, try Wodulf - From the Corpsegates... One would even think they are actually trying to be evil here.

Did you consider that perhaps authothrall found the album to be unentertaining, asinine and simply not good? Why should extra points be given because it might be possible that the musicians very really drunk; how does that improve the music's quality? Ratings should never be taken to heart. Anyone with sense will read the negative reviews and not simply neglect the album because apparently it was rated as quite bad by someone. Listeners have different tastes and different standards, and a good reviewer like autothrall tends to explain his own criteria to some extent so as to allow the reader to compare his standards with the reviewer's. If you read a review that described an album to have all the elements that you find appealing in music, yet said review gave the album a low score and criticised the album for those very reasons, would you not listen to it?

In short, perhaps the (possibly unwitting) humorous elements of Ravenbanner did not make it enjoyable to autothrall, and he though it pretty shitty.

You mean a review that agrees with your opinions, versus one that does not.

Alternatively he likes reviews that give everything a positive score even if the reviewer hates the album, because objectively speaking it might be enjoyable to someone, somewhere, and after all who is some upstart reviewer to detract an album, could he write better music?

I'm completely opposite. The slow songs are by far the best moments of the album. The four song streak from Playing with Spiders/Skullkrusher to the title track is so damn awesome, it's pretty much what I only listen to from the album. Especially Evil Never Dies is even a bit embarrassing in its inanity after those stellar songs. Then again, I've never been that big a fan of the classic Overkill-style. Feel the Fire has the title track and Overkill. The others range from above average to good mostly, but are rather fire-and-forget. Taking Over and Under the Influence are almost completely forgettable in their lack of abrasiveness. Horroscope is a more listener-friendly Years of Decay. You can hear them moving to a new direction, but still retaining most of the trappings of their older style.

Maybe he prefers all negative reviews because objectively nothing has any value and existence is absurd?