To me, since music is art and so is subjective, the note I give is more about the feeling toward the album rather than technical explanations like "pioneer albums only should have 100%" or "100% is impossible because nothing is flawless". If I feel something to be perfect even if it's not concretely the case I'll eventually give it the maximum mark.

I just genuinely think that some albums ARE flawless, hence me giving 3 Scorpions albums 100%. A lot of my favorite bands have multiple 100% albums, although none more than 4 (the only band that has four 100% worthy albums is Judas Priest, and if you count lives, then 5). Sad Wings, Stained Class, Vengeance, Defenders, and Unleashed in the East are all flawless in my eyes. Literally can't find a single second where I'm sitting there wishing something was different. Therefore if I were to review them, they'd receive 100%. Some say I'm too lenient, I say I'm honest.

Edit: I DO however find it weird when people give every single record that they review 100%, or the majority of them. Of my 122 reviews, still only 4 have that.

Everyone has albums he loves to no regret, albums he personally interprets as being perfect in every way and albums he can have on constant rotation for the rest of his life and would get bored in the slightest. As long as 100% aren't you main review scores, you shall be fine.

Yeah, Priest have a lot of albums that I'd score very highly. In fact, with a lot of my favourite bands, the vast majority of their releases come in at over the 85% mark. Thing is, anything above 90 to me is, to all intents and purposes, perfect, with any issues being minor and most likely negligible. Therefore, a perfect score would suggest, to me, an album that is life-changing and transcendental. And as much as I love my favourite albums, I can't say they've changed my life. To each their own, however.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, I've only ever given one 0 and that was waaay harsh. It was for Danzig's Skeletons, and came after I listened to it four times and subsequently decided it was an unsalvageable hunk of shite. I stick by that opinion, but I don't think it deserves a 0. My Seven Churches review annoys me, with its baiting title and score which is even more harsh. From what I remember it prolly deserves around 35 or so. My Brujeria review where I gave a 12, however, I stick by.

I admire your integrity and high standards.

Kinda bummed that 6CORPSE6GRINDER6 just snagged that Heresy album because it was on my list of review challenge albums, but then I took a quick read of his review and honestly it's a bit of a head-scratcher at times. I agree with him that the album is not terribly good and has some nu-metal/metalcore-like elements to the vocals, but the analogy to Metallica's Load and Black Album are pretty out there. The album is way too fast to be analogous to either of those albums and the guitar tone is closer to an early 90s Slayer sound than Metallica's crunchy rhythm tone circa 1991.

Thanks guys, I wrote it on very little sleep after a long day at work but I figured I should make good on my word. Now for the long, arduous task of getting myself back up to 2012 form and keeping the queue as clean as he has for the past several years :/

Also, I believe the full gamut of the scoring system should be open for use, so I don't really care if people give out 100% or 0% scores (unless you pass an arbitrary line and it starts feeling like too many, because then your scale is fucked and your scores mean nothing). My personal belief is that trying to calculate how "good" something is is a pointless endeavor anyways so scores should just come from the gut instead of a math equation. Personally I've given out five perfect scores if memory serves me correctly, but three of them were written ten years ago when I was a teenager and did use an equation to calculate scores, and one of those three is a four track demo. Maybe all three of them would be knocked down a few points because I just don't like to give out perfect scores too often (and five across twelve years is too often for me apparently) but who knows. The two newest ones would probably stay at 100% even though I know neither of them are truly perfect. There are things about Painkiller that I know could be better but I don't give a shit, I still love every single second of it and wouldn't even change the less good parts, and In Somniphobia isn't even my favorite album from Sigh but I still think the album is stunning and creative enough to take me to another world when I listen to it so I'm still happy with the 100%.

I don't give many zeroes because I'm too nice, but there is one album I gave a negative score to so that has to count for something (Kelly McKee's You're Lost, if you're curious, it's not on MA so the review is only on my blog).

I rarely give 0 as well. An album may take years to be created, even if it's bad just for the effort of composition and the production etc I'd give something around 10%. But if it is clear that the album is only made for money or just fooling, insulting people, I'd give a zero.

I swear this kid got all his metal knowledge from that chart in Metal: A Headbanger's Journey and never bothered to delve any further. You know, the chart that called Cradle of Filth a Norwegian black metal band, grouped The Smashing Pumpkins in with Jane's Addiction as "hard alternative", called Today is the Day stoner metal, and called Corrosion of Conformity, DRI, Suicidal Tendencies, and SOD metalcore, among other insane inaccuracies.

You know, maybe Ed is Sam Dunn. Seems to line up right.

NO COMMENT

Yet, his Overkill review accepted on the same day is quite good. Doesn't namedrop a thousand bands, doesn't make any insane reaches for a comparison, stays on topic, and even avoids his biggest problem by commenting on the sorry state of metal at the time while keeping it perfectly in context and not just using it as an excuse to tag on nu metal. Really got to see both sides of Ed yesterday.




(psst - your first incarnation was best, now you're just too long and the weirdness doesn't shine through because there's so much stuff to wade through)

I agree to both statements about TrooperEd's reviews. Overkill = good, Bathory = bad. Also, Metal: A Headbanger's Journey tried to call Scorpions power metal.....

As far as the two recent Megadeth reviews, the mailman one was trash as always. Gas's "System" review was very intriguing. I don't agree with the score, as I actually like that album, but he made some interesting points. The only Megadeth album I actively think is bad is "The World Needs A Hero". Yes, I actually really enjoy Risk too.

Mailman's atrocious discography review as well as other reviewers' interesting opinions on them and my differing ones kinda make me want to do Megadeth as my second discography review in the near future. It would also be a bit of a challenge for me, trying to keep it interesting and original (seeing Rust In Peace has 31 reviews).

Also, for some reason when I published my DRI review last night, it pasted near the bottom of the "recent" list. Does that happen if you save a draft and submit it way later?

I have no idea myself, but logic would dictate that they would appear in the order they would accepted and published, wouldn't it?

The system works slightly different for regular users and scribes/mods actually.

For example, if you started a draft on Day X, but didn't submit it until Day Y, it would be sitting in the queue with Day X listed as the submission date. A week passes and a mod finally gets around to accepting it on Day Z, and it will then appear on the site with Day Z as the publication date.

However, since mods and scribes don't require approval, the publication date counts as when the draft was started. I just tested this myself by submitting an unfinished draft I started way back in 2012. The publication date was listed with the 2012 date instead of today.

Whether or not this is intentional or just a quirk of the system that nobody noticed/cared about until now is a mystery to me, but that's how it works apparently.

I'm also kinda intrigued about what you thought was intriguing about it. That album's got a lot of context, but it just seems like another logical step of what was happening to Megadeth around that time. If anything, Ellefson coming back was what turned things back towards a heavier approach. Referring to the score, I would have thought myself exceptionally mean about two years back, but I've tightened up on my scoring to use the whole scale more widely, as was discussed above. (I also have no 100% scores as yet.)





Yeah, BastardHead is right, mine always publish off the Recent Reviews list if I made a draft previously. It's a bit annoying, but sometimes I'll just delete the draft before I publish and copy it into a fresh screen.

Yeah, had a hunch. Why do you want to keep rewriting the same Om reviews over and over? Those albums are good but...

Intrigued in a good way, mostly interpreting it as a result of what was going on with Dave's life at the time, as I don't think it actually had much correlation. Good points overall, I think I just dug the style a lot more. People tend to hate that one because of the "hard rock" esque approach, but musically I think it's good. It's not traditional Megadeth but that will never turn me away.

As for the reviews thing, that makes sense. Since I publish mine directly, that would explain it.

I loved The System Has Failed when it first came out. I still enjoy that first half, hard rock influence and all, but gods is that second half rocky.

It definitely does drop off a little, and it's by no means even close to their best effort. I just like it better than most people seem to.

Hey Sweetie, I just found your review for Witchery's Restless & Dead! I'm really thrilled that you liked it because it's one of my immortal faves, though don't read my review of it because it was rejected twice back in the day. On the other hand, why the hate for 'Born in the Night'? I know it's nothing special technically but it totally rips from top to tail and now I'm listening to it and wondering if I've missed something. Also interested to hear that you found punk and rock 'n' roll in there as well, I guess it's true to some extent.

I just found Born In The Night very boring and very messy. I discovered it probably six months ago, listened to it twice, and then let it sit and see if time helped. After re-visiting I felt no different.

As for Witchery, I absolutely love what they've got going on! The rock 'n roll comes out in a lot of the rhythms that can be traced way back to '70s style hard rock. The areas that avoid faster picking and have a more "fun" vibe, if you will. Punk wasn't really present in the music itself, but the way the songs were constructed and held together was similar to punk music. That may not clear anything up, but it's the best I could do to describe it (this was kinda difficult to convey in the review too). But yes, for someone who really has no time for black metal, I very much dig blackened thrash.

The metallica influence on that album is pretty obvious though. ...it's not as though Ed is the first person to note it.

In an attempt to completely derail this thread... TrooperEd has replaced Kluseba as the site's worst active reviewer! Cheers for an incredible feat that so few have attempted with such unrestrained vigor and steadfast dedication to not improving.

Congratulations!

Ah actually that recent one that got rejected was one I wrote (mostly) at the same time as the others, 2010-ish. I changed jobs, used to work in a bar where I would basically just read books and write reviews all day, then I went to work in a factory and never had time to finish that one. It was mostly done though, I just had to polish it up a bit... aye that was the polished version, there was even more rambling cack in there before hahaha

Honestly I don't think any of my reviews would get accepted these days, that Gebel Barkal one I did was REALLY pushing it and is definitely even more blithering bollocks than the last one... the Navy Blue Vicar ones I was just pulling stuff out of my arse and having a great time of it you know... But the stakes were lower back then. There are people here that write great stuff, and people that really look to the reviews and take loads from them, I never really realised that before. And then you have my stuff which is just gently taking the piss out of the whole thing, but I suppose in a loving kinda way... I'm too much of an old codger these days to make the time to sit down and write about these things anyway, other than purely self-entertainment and I suppose that's pretty wanky.



I dunno, I liked to think it was some metaphor for Om playing the same song over and over with slight variations, but that was probably shite, I just liked the sound of my own gibbering pish. But I really did go through a period when I would only listen to Om, because I really do think it's kinda awe-inspiring that they limit themselves so much. It's borderline nonsensical how little they play sometimes, and also how samey all their songs are... But you look at it for what it is and it makes the most sense in the world. It's so nondescript it's special in a way.
To me they were as pure as the real, deep traditional music from anywhere in the world, but it's like they just replaced all the generations of accrued folk tradition with 2 or 3 Black Sabbath LPs and treated it like it was sacred... which is frankly hilarious as fuck.

Oh one other thing, the navy blue vicar name got banned because I submitted a band that wasn't a real band, and I laughed loads and loads about it, but then I felt guilty so I emailed saying MA should delete, and they did but then deleted me too hahaha

I've never knowingly plagiarised anything although obviously I rip-off the style of Lester Bangs and Hunter S Thompson loads so can't really get on my high horse about that.

Anyway yes "me me me me me me me me me" SHEESH.

Peace!

You mods do have a personal list available only to you that lists the reviewers by order of review's quality?? I need to read it.

Just popping in to say that I loved theearthaflame's review of the latest Primordial album. Very well structured and considered on the album's own merit, and its place in their discography; the reviewer clearly knows his Primordial back catalogue. And I noticed it's his first and only review! I would eagerly read more from him.

We don't... and I imagine attempting to create such a list would remove several years (or decades) off one's lifespan.

"The riffs are pretty basic, but it's Thin Lizzy, so what do you expect?"
- mailman

On one hand, I always felt like Thin Lizzy's greatest strength had more to do with Robbo's leads than his riffs (along with Phil Lynott just being the baddest motherfucker to ever live). On the other hand, "Johnny" has one of my all time favorite riffs to jam on. So yeah, dumb statement either way, especially considering Cold Sweat (the song he's talking about, if anybody doesn't know) is one of their riffier tracks.

Thin Lizzy were absolutely brilliant at writing catchy, kick ass riffs. It seems like disliking that aspect of their sound would indicate someone weaned solely on much more technical metal and not much other knowledge.

I don't get how "basic riffs" is a criticism tbh. Lots of badass bands have simple riffs.

From the recent Voivod - War and Pain review:


I've heard a fair amount of complaints about this great album (production, one guitar track, sloppiness etc..), but I've never heard this one before. Maybe it's me, but I don't think this album could've been improved with the inclusion of folk songs like a cover of Floyd's "A Pillow of Winds" or something, although Snake's vocals at the time would've made ballads sound pretty damn funny.

The only thing that would work for that era of Voivod is if they wrote something in the vein of Amebix’s “Darkest Hour”. Anything else would probably suck.

Damn, seeing Deathdoom start what looks to be another Megadeth discography, it really makes me want to start mine, but I need more time to study them and develop my thoughts on all of their albums more (in helping to make them seem less redundant).

I think the opposite. Do we need another damn major band (specifically Megadeth in this case) discog rundown? Especially so soon after the mailman ones? I think if people do those, they should probably focus it on a band that's not already stacked with reviews.

My discography reviews largely move at a glacial pace, you'll probably get yours done before mine whenever you start

Plus, when I get to the 2000s it is entirely possible that I'll lose interest. After all, sitting here now, I can't presently think of anything to say about The World Needs a Hero, Endgame, Thirteen or even Super Collider (from what I remember it isn't that bad).

Plus plus, saving a lot of obscure thing I'd normally review for the reviews challenge, so a widely known band it is.

Yeah big discography serieseseseses are fine in principle but and DD's are infinitely better than Mailman's but I still rolled my eyes when I realized he submit one for Peace Sells right after KIMB.

Those two were submitted more or less together since I know both of those albums like the back of my hand, I've not listened to their discography going forwards (with the exception of the 90-94 albums) too recently so they won't be stacked back to back in future, so hopefully it'll feel less likely like me spamming the queue with Megadeth reviews.

The fact I'm doing a series for Megadeth has little to do with Mailman (although I'll admit I didn't enjoy his reviews), and more to do with the fact Megadeth are pretty much my second favourite band on the archives and I've reviewed 4 of Alice in Chains' 5 albums (who are my runaway favourites), and so reviewing their stuff was always something I wanted to do. Maybe so soon after Mailman's was a bad idea but I was listening to KIMB recently and I just thought fuck it.

People do whatever they want and if they're fans of such bands that's normal for them to give their opinion on it, although I'm also a bit upset about seeing reviews for the same bunch of bands these last times... That's why I'm going to avoid reviewing huge bands like the entire Big 4, excepted bands I'm fond of. And from what I read SweetLeaf seems to be a way better reviewer than this Mailman. Perhaps he could bring something interesting to the discography.