Encyclopaedia Metallum: The Metal Archives
http://www.metal-archives.com/board/

The Official Review Discussion Thread
http://www.metal-archives.com/board/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=7444
Page 116 of 323

Author:  androdion [ Fri Jul 20, 2012 8:38 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread

The review isn't bad, it's actually a good reading considering its length. It does make use of some redundancy but it doesn't get that much into my nerves. I guess that the album gets negative reviews like that because of all the deifying it got from the metal crowd, as many people will listen to it with the greatest expectations and most of the time will come out saying "Is that it?".

Now, RageW, and to put things in perspective, you do realize that this album was released in 1991 when this style was really in its infancy. Apart from Atheist, and to some extent Nocturnus and Gorguts, I guess no band in the death metal crowd was going for the more technical side of things at this point in time. And there is indeed death metal beyond gore and old school, and death metal can be clever. Now if you enjoy it or not that's another thing.

I can empathize with the feeling and the score on the review, but on the other hand I can't quite fathom a death metal fan not finding anything to like in Death's later output. Maybe you just your like your death metal '89 style, who knows? But there's 20 years of music you're missing out. And yes, I'm making assumptions here. :p

Author:  Empyreal [ Fri Jul 20, 2012 9:25 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread

Not a bad review, articulates itself well, although I completely disagree. :p I think it's a very well written, unified work with a nifty production job and some very solid, compact songwriting. Every song fits into place like pieces to a puzzle. I can see how RageW would feel the way he does and I used to as well, but the album has grown on me with time.

Author:  RageW [ Fri Jul 20, 2012 10:43 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread

I don't dislike that style as a whole, at least not all of it, but I never liked Death's take on it. I think they're one of those bands whose music is more enjoyable to play on guitar (I love jamming to some of their tracks!) than actually listening to it!

Author:  Akerfeldt_Fanboi [ Fri Jul 20, 2012 11:06 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread

I actually agree, to some extent, with RageW on Human. I always felt like it was struggling to be 'progressive' and death metal at the same time and came off as forced for the most part.

Now if he has the same to say about ITP...

Author:  Metal_Detector [ Fri Jul 20, 2012 11:16 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread

Akerfeldt_Fanboi wrote:
Now if he has the same to say about ITP...


Oh, he'll have even worse to say on ITP. :P

Author:  Necroticism174 [ Fri Jul 20, 2012 11:41 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread

Just read his ITP review and I want to fight him. 20%? I smell someone who just wants to lower the average.

Author:  MalignantThrone [ Fri Jul 20, 2012 11:54 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread

Hahaha, I like how the first review for ITP is called "Slight drop down", and the reviewer still gives the abum a 97%. :lol:

Considering that most people on MA seem to think that "a slight drop" for Death is still one of the greatest albums ever, they really need more reviews that are willing to kick them in the balls, for the sake of repesenting a wide range of opinions if nothing else.

Author:  Akerfeldt_Fanboi [ Fri Jul 20, 2012 11:56 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread

*reads RageW's ITP review*

Alright, them's fightin' words :-P

But, really, I agree with Malignant. If I'm reading a review on something I've already heard a ton before, I want to read a polarizing opinion - to spice things up if nothing else. Can't formulate a coherent argument without both sides to it, right?

Author:  BastardHead [ Fri Jul 20, 2012 1:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread

I haven't read the review yet but I've got to point out that ITP is my least favorite Death album and it's HUGELY underwhelming for that dream team lineup it has.

Author:  androdion [ Fri Jul 20, 2012 1:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread

I actually find interesting and compelling how RageW bashes the holy cow, yet again. Do I sense a 0% coming for Symbolic? ;)

That would really stir the boat! :D

Author:  Metal_Detector [ Fri Jul 20, 2012 1:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread

androdion wrote:
I actually find interesting and compelling how RageW bashes the holy cow, yet again. Do I sense a 0% coming for Symbolic? ;)

That would really stir the boat! :D


I would assume around a 40-55 for Symbolic knowing him. We'll see. :D

Author:  MalignantThrone [ Fri Jul 20, 2012 1:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread

I think he said something about planning to give it a 15% or something in that range. Which is still being generous.

Author:  Metal_Detector [ Fri Jul 20, 2012 1:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread

MalignantThrone wrote:
I think he said something about planning to give it a 15% or something in that range. Which is still being generous.


I thought he said it was better than ITP and TSoP?

Author:  MalignantThrone [ Fri Jul 20, 2012 1:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread

Did he? I thought he said that later Death was a continuous decline. *shrug* I guess we'll find out soon enough.

Author:  dystopia4 [ Sat Jul 21, 2012 5:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread

I'm not accusing RageW in particular, but when I see someone giving REALLY low scores to well respected albums with overwhelming high scores, I get a bit suspicious. Often I feel that the scores are hyperbolic and serve as an attempt to lower the score. Also, I sometimes suspect that at least part of it is just to get attention.

Speaking of negative review scores, whats with Dark Castle's sophomore album having an average of 33%. I thought that album was pretty cool, and the whole "it lacks songwriting" point doesn't really make all that much sense, as Dark Castle where never about having structured songs, the way I see it its about mixing chaos and atmosphere.

Author:  BastardHead [ Sat Jul 21, 2012 5:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread

Some people just really, really don't like well respected albums. Obscura would get a similar score from me.

Author:  Zodijackyl [ Sat Jul 21, 2012 6:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread

dystopia4 wrote:
Speaking of negative review scores, whats with Dark Castle's sophomore album having an average of 33%. I thought that album was pretty cool, and the whole "it lacks songwriting" point doesn't really make all that much sense, as Dark Castle where never about having structured songs, the way I see it its about mixing chaos and atmosphere.


The production is absolutely terrible and abrasive, there are way too many effects and the album is continuously noisy, with something drowning out something else all the time. There are no good riffs, and nothing that happens is memorable except the whole album being extremely disjointed. There's chaos because they don't have anything worth showing off so they strung together a bunch of boring ideas, and the noise is the only thing that's a constant throughout the album, so I guess that's the atmosphere.

It's all about aesthetics (which suck) and the contents are completely forgettable. Extreme beardcore.

Author:  Metantoine [ Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:40 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/K ... 63/kluseba

Kluseba has awful taste :(

Author:  OzzyApu [ Tue Jul 24, 2012 4:10 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread

Metantoine wrote:
http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/Kreator/Phantom_Antichrist/336363/kluseba

Kluseba has awful taste :(

Oh, we know.

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/R ... 13/kluseba
http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/D ... 98/kluseba
http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/I ... 88/kluseba
http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/D ... 66/kluseba
http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/M ... 87/kluseba
http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/Q ... 38/kluseba
http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/E ... 00/kluseba

Author:  Empyreal [ Tue Jul 24, 2012 9:04 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread

Metantoine wrote:
http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/Kreator/Phantom_Antichrist/336363/kluseba

Kluseba has awful taste :(


He's right about that one, though I dunno about 98% necessarily.

Author:  Zodijackyl [ Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:26 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/F ... ls_unicorn
- hells_unicorn, July 24th, 2012
Quote:
spilling it all out for the listener in the way a mass shooter might some random public place with bullets.


Really, dude?

Author:  MalignantThrone [ Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:41 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread

...Too soon? :lol:

Author:  Metal_Detector [ Tue Jul 24, 2012 12:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread

Ummm.... yeeeaaaahh.

Author:  Metantoine [ Tue Jul 24, 2012 1:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread

Zodijackyl wrote:
http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/Foreskin/Anger_Management/346436/hells_unicorn
- hells_unicorn, July 24th, 2012
Quote:
spilling it all out for the listener in the way a mass shooter might some random public place with bullets.


Really, dude?

Another douchey opinion in one of his review, not too surprising.

Author:  hells_unicorn [ Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread

Zodijackyl wrote:
http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/Foreskin/Anger_Management/346436/hells_unicorn
- hells_unicorn, July 24th, 2012
Quote:
spilling it all out for the listener in the way a mass shooter might some random public place with bullets.


Really, dude?


Just going for the shock value, and apparently I got the heads talking so mission accomplished. ;)

Metantoine wrote:
Another douchey opinion in one of his review, not too surprising.


Well, you said you wanted more discussion here, so there you go. :)

MalignantThrone wrote:
...Too soon? :lol:


Maybe, but better too soon than never. :p

Author:  Jonpo [ Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread

I'm not offended in any way by the reference, but it feels shoehorned as fuck and oddly written. If I say it out loud it comes off sounding really awkwardly structured.

Author:  hells_unicorn [ Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread

Jonpo wrote:
I'm not offended in any way by the reference, but it feels shoehorned as fuck and oddly written. If I say it out loud it comes off sounding really awkwardly structured.


You know, I just reread the review again and you make a good point. It would probably flow a little better if I dropped the "with bullets" part. If I get some time after work I may touch that review up a bit, especially considering that I kind of wrote in on the fly between the other several reviews I put up at around the same time.

Author:  Oblarg [ Tue Jul 24, 2012 3:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread

hells_unicorn wrote:

Just going for the shock value


What the fuck kind of backwards approach to review writing is this? Seriously? "Shock value" is about as piss-poor a rationale for content as one could possibly imagine.

Author:  oogboog [ Tue Jul 24, 2012 3:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread

Oblarg wrote:
hells_unicorn wrote:
Just going for the shock value


What the fuck kind of backwards approach to review writing is this? Seriously? "Shock value" is about as piss-poor a rationale for content as one could possibly imagine.

Well, perhaps what he had used wasn't the best reference at this time.

Author:  Metantoine [ Tue Jul 24, 2012 4:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread

You don't say!

"Look at me, I'm making shocking jokes!!"

Author:  androdion [ Tue Jul 24, 2012 5:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread

Am I the only one noticing something horribly wrong in this review? Is he reviewing Samael or Meshuggah?

Author:  MalignantThrone [ Tue Jul 24, 2012 5:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread

He apparently stole the review from this guy: http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/M ... /sirpudgy7

Author:  androdion [ Tue Jul 24, 2012 5:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread

Wow, talk about a bad case of copy-paste!

Author:  Akerfeldt_Fanboi [ Tue Jul 24, 2012 5:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread

That's pretty fucking insane. I honestly do not understand the motive behind that, but whatever - people are weird.

Author:  Metantoine [ Tue Jul 24, 2012 5:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread

Oh shit, hum sorry, I'll get the dude Dursted.

Author:  hells_unicorn [ Tue Jul 24, 2012 5:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread

Oblarg wrote:
hells_unicorn wrote:

Just going for the shock value


What the fuck kind of backwards approach to review writing is this? Seriously? "Shock value" is about as piss-poor a rationale for content as one could possibly imagine.


Not really, the sub-genre of metal I was writing the review for is pretty much defined by "shock value", so I found it an appropriate approach to grabbing the attention of the reader. You guys will probably spend the next week or so hating me or thinking I'm some sort of moral reprobate (just like the media and the whole PC crowd probably hated Billy Milano and Scott Ian for "Fuck The Middle East"), but Hassan's demo will have gotten a good bit more attention than it might have, so I'd say it's a pretty effective way of getting the word out.

oogboog wrote:
Well, perhaps what he had used wasn't the best reference at this time.


I'm curious, when is it a good time to make jokes about mass shootings? 4 weeks after the fact, a year maybe? And what is it about the passage of time that makes it a less terrible event? I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm just wondering.

MalignantThrone wrote:
He apparently stole the review from this guy: http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/M ... /sirpudgy7


Whoa, that's a new one on me. :o

Author:  Akerfeldt_Fanboi [ Tue Jul 24, 2012 6:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread

hells_unicorn wrote:
I'm curious, when is it a good time to make jokes about mass shootings? 4 weeks after the fact, a year maybe? And what is it about the passage of time that makes it a less terrible event? I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm just wondering.


I think it's the whole 'open wounds' thing; it's still a terrible event ten years down the line but people move on and it's less dick-ish. It's not okay to make that kind of joke at really any time, but it's less... I dunno, blatantly offensive for the sake of it I guess.

Author:  GuntherTheUndying [ Tue Jul 24, 2012 6:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread

hells_unicorn wrote:
You guys will probably spend the next week or so hating me or thinking I'm some sort of moral reprobate (just like the media and the whole PC crowd probably hated Billy Milano and Scott Ian for "Fuck The Middle East")

Wow, how fucking pretentious and full of yourself are you? Now you're comparing yourself to bands that received media reactions for anti-PC statements? Jesus Christ that's pathetic. Lately you've been licking your own balls harder than usual and I'm beginning to think Noktorn assassinated you and has been writing/posting under your name ever since. Either that, or you've undergone some huge ego boost, which, if that's the case, it's time to cut back on the melodrama and stop acting like a holy martyr. Get off your high horse.

Author:  oogboog [ Tue Jul 24, 2012 7:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread

hells_unicorn wrote:
oogboog wrote:
Well, perhaps what he had used wasn't the best reference at this time.


I'm curious, when is it a good time to make jokes about mass shootings? 4 weeks after the fact, a year maybe? And what is it about the passage of time that makes it a less terrible event? I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm just wondering.

I just prefered that it wasn't within four days. I despise that guy, and what he did was horrible. Maybe months from now, after this settles, I don't know. But not four days.

Author:  DodensGrav [ Tue Jul 24, 2012 8:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread

A good barometer of whether or not you should relay an "in poor taste" joke is to ask yourself how you would respond if a loved one was involved.

Page 116 of 323 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/