Encyclopaedia Metallum: The Metal Archives :: View topic - The Official Review Discussion Thread

I don't even know if someone corrects the reviews but anyways I'll keep on writing the errors here

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/I ... _Dei_Ameth

of course the In Flames single he cites is called "The Quiet Place" and not "The Quiet Room"

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/Mercenary/The_Hours_That_Remain/119595/MindTorrent
This is even more annoying. The description is very generalized and doesn't really add more depth to the content.

How is this metalcore, you ask? Well, it's stuffed with a bunch of breakdowns. Isn't that always the argument? Moving on!

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/Nile/At_the_Gate_of_Sethu/339959/harkwhistler

While I'm not sure whether or not this is bad enough to warrant removal, it sure as shit is annoying.

This one is even worse, I'm surprised it was accepted because the track-by-track part is worthless.
http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/I ... rkwhistler

This album...I thought it was quite something when I was younger. But I've gone on to more mature tastes since then, and this album isn't the Holy Grail I once thought it was. However, it is far from devoid of enjoyment.

Hey, Zodijackyl, I would like to make a conference call with you and discuss ColdWorld's Melancholie².

MikeyC wrote:

Hey, Zodijackyl, I would like to make a conference call with you and discuss ColdWorld's Melancholie².

Can't say I'd mind this myself. What a boring, watered-down excuse for a DSBM album.

Oh yeah, he was so annoyed at the ignoring poor production thing that he made that review almost exclusively about production. I thought it was piss poor.

Hey, Zodijackyl, I would like to make a conference call with you and discuss ColdWorld's Melancholie².

I posted an overly long review of the latest Soundgarden. Anyone care to offer some criticism on it?
http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/S ... al/352569/

Though Soundgarden haven't put out an album since 1996's Down on the Upside, I never felt the full gravity of their absence. I know I’ve been turning back to Badmotorfinger and Superunknown, two albums of incredible staying power, resonance and musicianship, for fulfillment. Thus, when Cornell announced that the knights of the Soundtable rode again, ears perked to attention. When "King Animal" was announced, I was beyond excited - I was positively ecstatic. It was big. It was important. And It was happening at a point in my life when I knew where I stood on the band, and had developed my taste in music pretty extensively.

Metantoine wrote:

If you review it and give it a bad rating, be sure the band will badmouth you on their facebook account, they don't take criticism very well.

Honestly Zodijackyl's review is very interesting, I'm wondering why he didn't give the release a 0 rating though.

Rush dip their fingers into the holy water of prog and come out with a often misunderstood slab of rock. Everything you would come to know of Rush peeps out for the first time and shows its potential. Though this isn't the Rush we would all later know and love this record is definitely worth hearing to see where it all began.
...
In the end this is an experimental record in Rush's career and they seem to miss the mark in a few parts but it doesn't completely take away from this great record. This is a must have for any fan looking to see Rush's transformation into maturity and them trying new things.

Throwing in some odd times here and there for prog's sake.

the dude that wrote this introduction for a review of Vinterland's Welcome My Last Chapter needs to be slapped:

"There are almost 35 degrees outside my home in this moment and I’m quite sure I’m gonna die in few seconds. I had to find something with a great burden of coldness with icy sounds that could bring me virtually in another place where I can inhale the icy winds of a snow storm. In Italy the hot period is too humid as you could understand but the winter is quite cold and I already have nostalgic thoughts about it."

If you're saying what I think you're saying then I think I know what you're trying to say. But then again you might be trying to say something completely different from what I think you're trying to say.

You remember a few weeks ago when I was talking about writers whose writing is more about themselves than the music?

Author:	Zodijackyl [ Mon Dec 17, 2012 4:46 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread
Verd wrote: I don't even know if someone corrects the reviews but anyways I'll keep on writing the errors here http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/I ... _Dei_Ameth of course the In Flames single he cites is called "The Quiet Place" and not "The Quiet Room" That review is terribly written and says nothing about the music, it's just whining about the direction of the band. The same reviewer wrote a pretty bad review of Celestia's "Apparitia" that still manages to not be the worst. All three of these fall into the trap of comparing every black metal album to the same five bands, often very poorly and without establishing what aspect of the music is similar: http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/C ... tre/22620/

Author:	xexyzl [ Mon Dec 17, 2012 8:55 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread
http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/N ... rkwhistler While I'm not sure whether or not this is bad enough to warrant removal, it sure as shit is annoying.

Author:	oogboog [ Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:42 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread
http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/M ... indTorrent This is even more annoying. The description is very generalized and doesn't really add more depth to the content.

Author:	Zodijackyl [ Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:07 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread
That Nile review is a good example of someone who wants to write a review but doesn't have anything to say in it. A brief introduction attempting to match the theme of the band, some very vague generalizations and wandering descriptions evade actually explaining what the album sounds like beyond a very general description of the band. Lots of wasted words, like a high school creative writing piece before learning to edit one's writing. Seriously, what the fuck does this mean? Though the adjectives and expletives used to describe Nile and their mythological masterpiece might eventually be extinguished, their status still remains. This one is even worse, I'm surprised it was accepted because the track-by-track part is worthless. http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/I ... rkwhistler The mini-history contains the only decent evaluation of the music - it's Immolation, they're consistent, and that's good, but there's a terrible hyperbolic statement there - the forefront of innovation, and pure unadulterated death metal? Aimless, contradictory praise. The track-by-track is very general praise, assuming knows what "classic Immolation style riffing" is and needs a review to tell them that after 25 years of doing that, they haven't changed. The only thing that these reviews convey is that the reviewer is excited about them, which is not at all appealing to a reader.

Author:	Necroticism174 [ Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:31 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread
oogboog wrote: http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/Mercenary/The_Hours_That_Remain/119595/MindTorrent This is even more annoying. The description is very generalized and doesn't really add more depth to the content. This is terrible. 2004 quality. Oven Fodder material I'd say. As for that Nile review, notice that he gave it 90% and it's the worst Nile album/worst album of the year. That should say it all

Encyclopaedia Metallum: The Metal Archives https://forum.metal-archives.com/

The Official Review Discussion Thread https://forum.metal-archives.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=7444	Page 133 of 521

Author:	Mercenarion [ Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:43 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread
oogboog wrote: http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/Mercenary/The_Hours_That_Remain/119595/MindTorrent This is even more annoying. The description is very generalized and doesn't really add more depth to the content. So poorly written. Quote: How is this metalcore, you ask? Well, it's stuffed with a bunch of breakdowns. Isn't that always the argument? Moving on! I... ah, fuck it. I give up trying to comprehend this 'review'.

Author:	~Guest 82538 [ Tue Dec 18, 2012 12:30 am ]
Post subject:	Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread
xexyzl wrote: http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/Nile/At_the_Gate_of_Sethu/339959/harkwhistler While I'm not sure whether or not this is bad enough to warrant removal, it sure as shit is annoying. I wonder what does that album sound like based on this review... oogboog wrote: http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/Mercenary/The_Hours_That_Remain/119595/MindTorrent This is even more annoying. The description is very generalized and doesn't really add more depth to the content. Agreed, this is pretty bad! That line about it being metalcore because it has breakdowns is... is... OK, breathe now. Zodijackyl wrote: This one is even worse, I'm surprised it was accepted because the track-by-track part is worthless. http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/I ... rkwhistler Compared to the two above this is actually decent. Sure it has two paragraphs consisting solely of purple prose and the description is barebones but I've read much worse. Case in point, both above.

Author:	Thumbman [ Wed Dec 19, 2012 10:33 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread
I'm kind of interested in how reviewing culture here has changed over the years, and it would be cool if some reviewers who have been doing it for a while would like to share their opinion on how things have changed. I mean obviously the standards have become stricter since the site's inception, but that's not really what I'm getting at. Just from when I joined I have noticed some changes. For example, the "big name" prolific reviewers with 500+ reviews I used to read a lot of when I started reviewing in 2010, being Perplexed_Sjel, Caspian and Noktorn (in this last case more for his writing style than anything, as I largely disagree with his tastes) have stopped doing it (well I guess Caspian still does a review every few months or so). During that time reviewers like ConorFynes, Kluseba and FullMetalAttorney have popped up and written reviews at an alarming quantity, but haven't really been consistent in quality, which seems to have irked many users (including myself). So just wondering how other people think reviewer culture has changed on MA; the opinions of veterans would be especially interesting.

Author:	Zodijackyl [ Thu Dec 20, 2012 2:31 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread
Reviewing culture has changed along with the amount on information on the internet and the availability of music. 10 years ago I think reviews were a bit more oriented towards getting some thoughts on what was on the album as to not make it completely blind to explore new bands. More recently, I see a few reviewers giving more of an overview of the band and a glance at how they think an album will be received, sort of a blog newspost type of review. Some of the weakest reviews have been sorted out, since unlike 10 years ago, there isn't a need for a review with a review with two sentences of description, a few namedrops, and five sentences of enthusiasm. I can't say I appreciated the better written reviews ~8 years ago because I was younger, less patient, and not as well versed in metal. There have been a lot of similarities throughout the years though, in terms of more or less the "average" review, though I think the user-submitted but filtered format of the site has helped better focus a lot of reviewers. One old review of excellent, nearly timeless quality is MacMoney's review of "Pale Folklore". I remember reading that when I heard Novembers Doom were touring with Agalloch in early 2004 and finding it captivating. Unfortunately, the NYC show of that tour was cancelled because L'Amour shut down, and I also never got into Agalloch, but that's a great review! http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/A ... 0/MacMoney

Author:	Zodijackyl [ Thu Dec 20, 2012 8:54 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread
Quote: This album...I thought it was quite something when I was younger. But I've gone on to more mature tastes since then, and this album isn't the Holy Grail I once thought it was. However, it is far from devoid of enjoyment. [link]

Author:	OzzyApu [ Fri Dec 21, 2012 1:50 am ]
Post subject:	Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread
http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/C ... etal_Grail Something missing... hmm. Oh yeah, the mention of the god awful drum mixing. Those hollow snares... holy shit. No atmosphere is a minus, too.

Author:	Zodijackyl [ Fri Dec 21, 2012 5:12 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread
I think the most egregious lack of talking about poor production was that it took over a dozen reviews of Arsis' "We Are The Nightmare" until someone mentioned that it was tech-death produced like a beatdown hardcore album. The production on that is pretty much the same as The Acacia Strain's "Continent".

Author:	MikeyC [ Wed Dec 26, 2012 2:25 am ]
Post subject:	Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread
Hey, Zodijackyl, I would like to make a conference call with you and discuss ColdWorld's Melancholie².

Author:	MalignantThrone [ Wed Dec 26, 2012 2:27 am ]
Post subject:	Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread
MikeyC wrote: Hey, Zodijackyl, I would like to make a conference call with you and discuss ColdWorld's Melancholie². Can't say I'd mind this myself. What a boring, watered-down excuse for a DSBM album.

Author:	BastardHead [ Sun Jan 06, 2013 7:58 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread
Zodi has a problem with many things, best to let it sit.

Author:	Necroticism174 [ Wed Dec 26, 2012 2:28 am ]
Post subject:	Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread
Oh yeah, he was so annoyed at the ignoring poor production thing that he made that review almost exclusively about production. I thought it was piss poor.

Author:	MikeyC [ Wed Dec 26, 2012 2:50 am ]
Post subject:	Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread
MalignantThrone wrote: MikeyC wrote: Hey, Zodijackyl, I would like to make a conference call with you and discuss ColdWorld's Melancholie². Can't say I'd mind this myself. What a boring, watered-down excuse for a DSBM album. I like it. Thing is that I don't like a lot of DSBM, but this one is alright. Necroticism174 wrote: Oh yeah, he was so annoyed at the ignoring poor production thing that he made that review almost exclusively about production. I thought it was piss poor. The production was piss poor or the review was piss poor?

Author:	TheMizwaOfMuzzyTah [ Thu Dec 27, 2012 10:35 am ]
Post subject:	Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread
I posted an overly long review of the latest Soundgarden. Anyone care to offer some criticism on it? http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/S ... al/352569/

Author:	GuntherTheUndying [ Thu Dec 27, 2012 1:21 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread
http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/C ... nalAcrobat Great read. Very witty, descriptive, unique and individualistic.

Author:	Zodijackyl [ Fri Dec 28, 2012 6:28 am ]
Post subject:	Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread
MikeyC wrote: Hey, Zodijackyl, I would like to make a conference call with you and discuss ColdWorld's Melancholie². With me and who?!?

Author:	OzzyApu [ Fri Dec 28, 2012 1:50 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread
TheMizwaOfMuzzyTah wrote: I posted an overly long review of the latest Soundgarden. Anyone care to offer some criticism on it? http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/S ... al/352569/ Yeah, cut the first two paragraphs down considerably. Your Soundgarden life-story doesn't need to be such a key component to a review about one album, no matter how personal. We'll understand how personal the album is to you without you having to go into such detail. Quote: Though Soundgarden haven't put out an album since 1996's Down on the Upside, I never felt the full gravity of their absence. I know I’ve been turning back to Badmotorfinger and Superunknown, two albums of incredible staying power, resonance and musicianship, for fulfillment. Thus, when Cornell announced that the knights of the Soundtable rode again, ears perked to attention. When "King Animal" was announced, I was beyond excited - I was positively ecstatic. It was big. It was important. And It was happening at a point in my life when I knew where I stood on the band, and had developed my taste in music pretty extensively. THIS should be the extent (give or take) of the two paragraphs. Having them as they are is way too long and doesn't help the reader who wants to know about the album, not your life story. Not to dismiss that, I mean believe me when I say Soundgarden and I go back to 2004 when I was first amazed by them, but that's not for the review. If I feel like it should be for the review, it doesn't need to be two major paragraphs worth of it. That's just my advice. Proofread also, because I found some errors in your writing (they're easy stuff).

Author:	Zodijackyl [ Mon Dec 31, 2012 8:11 am ]
Post subject:	Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread
GraveWish wrote: Metantoine wrote: If you review it and give it a bad rating, be sure the band will badmouth you on their facebook account, they don't take criticism very well. Honestly Zodijackyl's review is very interesting, I'm wondering why he didn't give the release a 0 rating though. I sorted my reviews by score and looked at the range I was thinking of. It's worse than the Lacuna Coil single that I reviewed, but it's marginally better than the stuff I rated lower. I understand that it's a self-produced EP from an inexperienced band and I'll give them credit for not being as egregiously offensive as each release that I rated at 0%. It's not purely unlistenable like Rancid Entity, but it's still rated lower than Satanity for a reason.

Author:	TheMizwaOfMuzzyTah [ Mon Dec 31, 2012 12:09 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread
Thank you very much, OzzyApu, I'll keep that in mind next time. I may re-write my review on King Animal, even.

Author:	Zodijackyl [ Wed Jan 02, 2013 3:01 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread
Maybe it's not quite oven fodder, but here's one that has pretty much every single mark of bad reviewing all over it. This review is quite lengthy, but it's a poorly written track-by-track, instrument-by-instrument piece that barely says anything about the album as a whole. Worse, on the first three songs, the vocals aren't even mentioned and the guitars are only referred to with "some riffs" or "a solo". Everyone has their own opinions, but this really comes across like someone with a cursory knowledge of the band throwing wild pitches at the bigger picture and missing most of what's going on, especially when the vocals and guitar aren't even described, just referred to. Quote: Rush dip their fingers into the holy water of prog and come out with a often misunderstood slab of rock. Everything you would come to know of Rush peeps out for the first time and shows its potential. Though this isn't the Rush we would all later know and love this record is definitely worth hearing to see where it all began. ... In the end this is an experimental record in Rush's career and they seem to miss the mark in a few parts but it doesn't completely take away from this great record. This is a must have for any fan looking to see Rush's transformation into maturity and them trying new things. Sounds like a teenager who just "discovered" Rush beyond the radio and has only heard a few album. One more quote that demonstrates the inability to describe the music. Quote: Throwing in some odd times here and there for prog's sake. http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/R ... Xecutioner

Author:	Zodijackyl [ Fri Jan 04, 2013 7:03 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread
I have never read this review until now, but it's a much better description of the album than I managed. The philosophy of how this album is so terrible really shines. http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/T ... 68/Noktorn

Author:	Turner [ Sat Jan 05, 2013 7:31 am ]
Post subject:	Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread
the dude that wrote this introduction for a review of Vinterland's Welcome My Last Chapter needs to be slapped: "There are almost 35 degrees outside my home in this moment and I’m quite sure I’m gonna die in few seconds. I had to find something with a great burden of coldness with icy sounds that could bring me virtually in another place where I can inhale the icy winds of a snow storm. In Italy the hot period is too humid as you could understand but the winter is quite cold and I already have nostalgic thoughts about it."

Author:	Zelkiiro [ Sat Jan 05, 2013 10:52 am ]
Post subject:	Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread
Turner wrote: the dude that wrote this introduction for a review of Vinterland's Welcome My Last Chapter needs to be slapped: "There are almost 35 degrees outside my home in this moment and I’m quite sure I’m gonna die in few seconds. I had to find something with a great burden of coldness with icy sounds that could bring me virtually in another place where I can inhale the icy winds of a snow storm. In Italy the hot period is too humid as you could understand but the winter is quite cold and I already have nostalgic thoughts about it." "I feel like I'm going to die in a few seconds, so I've decided now is a good time to dedicate an hour to writing a review."

Author:	~Guest 82538 [ Sat Jan 05, 2013 7:15 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread
You guys should read the introduction to the new Soulfly review then, it takes that template to a higher place.

Author:	Turner [ Sun Jan 06, 2013 2:47 am ]
Post subject:	Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread
ah but the writer of the vinterland review wrote that in earnest. also that soulfly review stinks. half of what he's written there has nothing to do with the album itself, and a good solid chunk otherwise is hyperbole and the writer trying to begin a career as a comedy blogger. he even uses the term "killshit engayge", for christ's sake. i'm sure it'll be in his CV when he applies for a job as a columnist at cracked.com.

Author:	Zodijackyl [ Sun Jan 06, 2013 7:23 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread
You remember a few weeks ago when I was talking about writers whose writing is more about themselves than the music?

Author:	~Guest 82538 [ Sun Jan 06, 2013 7:27 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread
If you're saying what I think you're saying then I think I know what you're trying to say. But then again you might be trying to say something completely different from what I think you're trying to say.

Author:	Zodijackyl [ Sun Jan 06, 2013 7:34 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread
androdion wrote: If you're saying what I think you're saying then I think I know what you're trying to say. But then again you might be trying to say something completely different from what I think you're trying to say. Fucking christ, it's like reading the awful reviews that I'm bitching about!

Author:	~Guest 82538 [ Sun Jan 06, 2013 7:47 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread
Even when I try to shun off negativity with a bit of nonsense it comes back to bite me in the ass. With that being said I honestly have to ask this directly: Do you have a fucking problem with me?

Author:	Zodijackyl [ Sun Jan 06, 2013 8:15 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread
Perhaps I need more emoticons to indicate sarcasm

Author:	Turner [ Mon Jan 07, 2013 5:20 am ]
Post subject:	Re: The Official Review Discussion Thread
Zodijackyl wrote: You remember a few weeks ago when I was talking about writers whose writing is more about themselves than the music? i didn't see that, but judging by the entire first paragraph of that review (also the largest) being dedicated to the author's hilarious feeling of impending doom... yeah, i know exactly what you mean! and might i say DOWN WITH IT! (unless it's super-funny, of course. i read the articles at cracked as well)