Encyclopaedia Metallum: The Metal Archives

Message board

* FAQ    * Register   * Login 



Reply to topic
Author Message Previous topic | Next topic
gasmask_colostomy
Metalhead

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 5:38 am
Posts: 1640
Location: China
PostPosted: Fri Sep 23, 2022 5:01 am 
 

Dishumanized: you need more description. Reading your review, I don't know what Slayer sound like at all, except compared to themselves. Imagine someone isn't that familiar with Slayer reading your review - what would they want to know?
_________________
Napero wrote:
the dismal stench of The Chicken Bone Gallows on the Plains of Mediocre Desolation was unleashed upon the unsuspecting world by the unholy rusty lawnmower molester horde that is Satan's Prenuptial Charcuterie from the endless field of tombs that is Butthill, Alabama

Top
 Profile  
Dishumanized
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2018 2:12 pm
Posts: 7
Location: Austria
PostPosted: Mon Sep 26, 2022 3:28 am 
 

Thanks to you all. I posted a new review and took your suggestions into account. Let's see if it gets approved this time :-)

greetings from Austria

Top
 Profile  
LongHairIsSoFuckingCool
Edgy Metal Noob Catchphrase Dispenser

Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2021 3:22 am
Posts: 547
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2022 4:41 am 
 

I can think of potential talking points for reviews, but I can't seem to turn those thoughts to prose. My mind becomes blank whenever I try to turn my raw feelings into a sentence and structured paragraphs.

How do I fix this problem?
_________________
recyclage wrote:
When a labeling of music gets stucked in the past, than germans are still nazi

recyclage wrote:
Anyone who writes "The Deftones" isn't trustworthy.

Top
 Profile  
TheBurningOfSodom
Metalhead

Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2015 9:28 am
Posts: 598
Location: Italy
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2022 5:11 am 
 

The simplest thing that comes to my mind - and is probably my cure for everything :lol: - is just... reading more reviews? Especially from different users. Seeing how each of them had their own way of describing things helped me a lot, and now it feels way more natural. At least it worked for me.
_________________
A very promising new reviewer wrote:
Big, juicy, veiny, throbbing hard riffs. Big heavy knuckle dragging, cock swaddling compositions for those in fear of soap/bathing. Listen at your own risk. No signs of intelligent life.

It's the dawn of descending...

Top
 Profile  
LongHairIsSoFuckingCool
Edgy Metal Noob Catchphrase Dispenser

Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2021 3:22 am
Posts: 547
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2022 5:14 am 
 

I read reviews all the time. Doesn't help.
_________________
recyclage wrote:
When a labeling of music gets stucked in the past, than germans are still nazi

recyclage wrote:
Anyone who writes "The Deftones" isn't trustworthy.

Top
 Profile  
thePowermetalLynx
Metal newbie

Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2020 7:57 am
Posts: 140
Location: China
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2022 5:45 am 
 

I would say, just sit down and force yourself to start writing, even if it’s a first paragraph. It’s my usual take when I’m reviewing an average album that sort of strikes a chord within me but I don’t have anything too definite in mind. Just start on that random aspect that first come to mind, and work from there. Also, I usually writes a track-by-track review for the draft, then start piecing them together. Keep on playing the album in the background as you write might help as well, or maybe that’s just me.

Also seconding Burning’s opinion, read other’s reviews, especially the ones by experienced reviewers , and see what they write. Note their language, their point of views, their references and such. Don’t just ,,read them all the time”. Reflect. If you like a reviewer, ask yourself why you like them, what is it in the way that they describe things that attracts you, how is it that they express ideas better, more efficient or more witty than you do. Then imitate. It’s the same for every form of writing.
_________________
Proud cheese-loving Power Metalhead

Old School is the only School

Consistency is a Virtue
Repetition is a Sin


Call me Shirley or Lynxie

Top
 Profile  
Slater922
Metalhead

Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2020 6:24 pm
Posts: 2342
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2022 8:05 am 
 

LongHairIsSoFuckingCool wrote:
I can think of potential talking points for reviews, but I can't seem to turn those thoughts to prose. My mind becomes blank whenever I try to turn my raw feelings into a sentence and structured paragraphs.

How do I fix this problem?

This is a problem I've experienced a lot, but one thing I do to get myself to review is planning in advance. By re-listening to an album and writing a list of the things I want to talk about, it makes it easier for me to type it since I already know what I want to say.
_________________
Under a serpent sun... we shall all live as one! - "Under a Serpent Sun" by At The Gates
Check out my reviews

Top
 Profile  
gasmask_colostomy
Metalhead

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 5:38 am
Posts: 1640
Location: China
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2022 10:44 am 
 

Maybe you are one of those people who could talk about the album better than you could write about it? Read some of Caspian's reviews, that's exactly what they feel like, just a dude talking, often without that much structure. Record a 5 minute voicenote first if that helps.
_________________
Napero wrote:
the dismal stench of The Chicken Bone Gallows on the Plains of Mediocre Desolation was unleashed upon the unsuspecting world by the unholy rusty lawnmower molester horde that is Satan's Prenuptial Charcuterie from the endless field of tombs that is Butthill, Alabama

Top
 Profile  
robotniq
Metal newbie

Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2007 6:08 am
Posts: 373
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2022 6:32 pm 
 

LongHairIsSoFuckingCool wrote:
I can think of potential talking points for reviews, but I can't seem to turn those thoughts to prose. My mind becomes blank whenever I try to turn my raw feelings into a sentence and structured paragraphs.

How do I fix this problem?


Literally just type whatever comes out of your head. Don't think about it, don't edit it. Just write all your thoughts about the record down until you've run out of thoughts. Put them into arbitrary paragraphs if you want, but don't put any thought into that either.

The leave it, come back a day or two later and edit/structure it.

Writing and editing are two different brain processes, one of them is a 'left hemisphere' activity, the other is a 'right hemisphere' activity. It is a waste of time trying to do them both simultaneously.

Top
 Profile  
Luvers
Writes generic (and possibly meandering) posts

Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 10:34 pm
Posts: 542
Location: United States
PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2022 5:52 am 
 

LongHairIsSoFuckingCool wrote:
I can think of potential talking points for reviews, but I can't seem to turn those thoughts to prose. My mind becomes blank whenever I try to turn my raw feelings into a sentence and structured paragraphs.

How do I fix this problem?
Writing can allow you to just emote first, then structure & edit later. I would suggest just writing in a stream of consciousness, spare no expense at just pouring out every word. Your punctuation, thoughts and prose could all be an embarrassing dumpster fire but once you have exhausted all the thoughts you could possibly muster, then you could string those words/thoughts into a more cohesive process. It will be a little taxing at first but it helps a lot of writers not just make themselves better but it also lets beginners know if writing is even in the cards.
_________________
[My Soundcloud || My Last.fm || Concerts I've Attended]

Top
 Profile  
LongHairIsSoFuckingCool
Edgy Metal Noob Catchphrase Dispenser

Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2021 3:22 am
Posts: 547
PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2022 6:03 am 
 

robotiq wrote:
LongHairIsSoFuckingCool wrote:
I can think of potential talking points for reviews, but I can't seem to turn those thoughts to prose. My mind becomes blank whenever I try to turn my raw feelings into a sentence and structured paragraphs.

How do I fix this problem?


Literally just type whatever comes out of your head. Don't think about it, don't edit it. Just write all your thoughts about the record down until you've run out of thoughts. Put them into arbitrary paragraphs if you want, but don't put any thought into that either.

The leave it, come back a day or two later and edit/structure it.

This worked. I'm gonna edit my writing down when I wake up and submit today. Thanks.
_________________
recyclage wrote:
When a labeling of music gets stucked in the past, than germans are still nazi

recyclage wrote:
Anyone who writes "The Deftones" isn't trustworthy.

Top
 Profile  
robotniq
Metal newbie

Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2007 6:08 am
Posts: 373
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2022 1:37 pm 
 

Glad that it worked. Splitting the draft/edit tasks makes everything much easier.

The other thing I'd say is that the old "kill your darlings" advice is really important. It is important for pretty much any type of writing, even reviewing.

Top
 Profile  
terrr
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2020 11:44 am
Posts: 12
Location: Cyprus
PostPosted: Sat Nov 05, 2022 8:11 am 
 

robotiq wrote:
Literally just type whatever comes out of your head. Don't think about it, don't edit it. Just write all your thoughts about the record down until you've run out of thoughts. Put them into arbitrary paragraphs if you want, but don't put any thought into that either.

The leave it, come back a day or two later and edit/structure it.

Writing and editing are two different brain processes, one of them is a 'left hemisphere' activity, the other is a 'right hemisphere' activity. It is a waste of time trying to do them both simultaneously.

This advice does not work for everyone. While for some people it really is the best to do that, others (such as myself) may find it much easier and more comfortable to write in a structured manner altogether. I'm glad it seems to have turned out okay for LHISFC though.

Top
 Profile  
TheBurningOfSodom
Metalhead

Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2015 9:28 am
Posts: 598
Location: Italy
PostPosted: Sat Nov 05, 2022 8:25 am 
 

Yeah I usually tend to already have a rough structure in my mind too, so I'd never have thought of that advice.

Admittedly, I do a similar thing during the review challenge - initially I just put down sparse, haphazard notes and memos regarding points I'll elaborate later - although it's not my favourite way of writing. Interesting to read a different pov about that though.
_________________
A very promising new reviewer wrote:
Big, juicy, veiny, throbbing hard riffs. Big heavy knuckle dragging, cock swaddling compositions for those in fear of soap/bathing. Listen at your own risk. No signs of intelligent life.

It's the dawn of descending...

Top
 Profile  
robotniq
Metal newbie

Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2007 6:08 am
Posts: 373
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Sat Nov 05, 2022 8:37 am 
 

Having a structure is fine - and can work well.
My main point is more about separating the drafting process from the editing process, and recognising that they are different things. Drafting can be a fast and loose process, editing is much more time consuming.

Top
 Profile  
BastardHead
Worse than Stalin

Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 7:53 pm
Posts: 10857
Location: Oswego, Illinois
PostPosted: Sat Nov 05, 2022 9:12 am 
 

Yeah any bystanders reading the current convo, do keep in mind that the actual process of writing is going to be different for everybody so it's a good idea to consider basically everything mentioned just in case the first one you try doesn't work. There is no correct answer. Extensive outlines can really help some people organize their thoughts, sticking to a rigid structure can be a great way to ensure you cover everything you want to cover, just banging something out with no planning can give a real off-the-cuff vibe that makes it easier to read. But the reason I shy away from giving advice myself is because I adhere to basically zero conventional wisdom. And that's not me bragging because I'm just so super cool and talented (I'm only truly happy with like 20% of my reviews, I just keep posting because other people seem to like it and I have a pathological need to yap all the fuckin' time), I just mean that I'm an awful person to try to emulate when it comes to the actual writing process. I don't like outlines because any time I've tried I've wound up with like 1000 words right off the bat and wound up focusing on so much granular detail that it became uninteresting (or paradoxically, very meandering because outlines are sparse by nature and my monkey brain sees blank space and starts adding bullshit to fill it). I don't like rigid structure because it feels very rudimentary and amateurish, like I'm sticking to the structure I was taught in school as an eight year old, plus I find approaching art with a scientific lens like that to be completely backwards and removes the magic of the art in the first place.

So the way I do it is most like the third way: I just map out ideas and points I want to make in my head while I listen, then I sit down and bang out the entire review in like an hour tops with no editing at all beyond basic proofreading, and even then I only do that because I need to reread it in full for a second time when I transfer it from my blog to MA when I'm adding the html tags. I can count on one hand the number of reviews that I stopped partway through and actually came back and finished later (only three of them, and I remember clearly that one of them was the Years of Decay review and that was only because my wife came home early and picked up dinner on the way home, so even then it was like a ten minute break to eat some pizza). This way works for me but I suspect it's absolutely dogshit advice for newbies.

robotiq's advice is actually good for the exact reasons he elucidated: it can be helpful to separate the writing and editing processes because they're two very different things. My advice is awful because I just ignore editing entirely, so I'm either a hypocrite if I suggest it or a bad influence if I don't. The point is that there is no correct answer and the only way to really figure out what works for you is to just give different methods a try until you find one you're comfortable with.
_________________
Lair of the Bastard: LATEST REVIEW: In Flames - Foregone
The Outer RIM - Uatism: The dogs bark in street slang
niix wrote:
the reason your grandmother has all those plastic sheets on her furniture is because she is probably a squirter

Top
 Profile  
thePowermetalLynx
Metal newbie

Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2020 7:57 am
Posts: 140
Location: China
PostPosted: Sat Nov 05, 2022 10:39 am 
 

I’m more of a mix in between, while my first draft tend to be a longass list of random points and thoughts I’d jotted down from the first few spins, my editing process starts as soon as I type the second draft into the computer. I ‘m the kind of person that will fiddle endlessly with a paragraph if I found my wordings ambiguous or my logic lacking. Though I might throw all cautions to the wind if I feel strong enough for an album. As far as structure goes, nowadays I don’t really have any, but I do remember seeing someone’s summary for hells’s review structure and I’d noted it for reference for when my line of thoughts is too cluttered up.

But yes, at the end of the day, writing is a personal thing, and there is no sure way and no formula. Any method that will help you to voice your opinions clearly is a good method.
_________________
Proud cheese-loving Power Metalhead

Old School is the only School

Consistency is a Virtue
Repetition is a Sin


Call me Shirley or Lynxie

Top
 Profile  
LongHairIsSoFuckingCool
Edgy Metal Noob Catchphrase Dispenser

Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2021 3:22 am
Posts: 547
PostPosted: Sun Nov 06, 2022 6:04 pm 
 

The review I was working got rejected for grammar/spelling problems. I've started working on fixing the grammatical errors on my own but I would like a second opinion:
Quote:
In a odd move, the noisegrind legends known as Anal Cunt once did a split with some unknown thrash metal band that is merely average at best. The Raunchous Brothers (who's name I'm gonna abbreviate as TRB for the rest of this review) may not be the worst band ever, but the gap between them and Anal Cunt in terms of the quality of music on display here should be apparent from even a casual first listen.

TRB's part of this E.P. consists of 1 punk song with thrash metal style drumming and two metal songs, but the metal songs are so repetitive and simplistic riff-wise that they hardly feel any different from any random punk song from the 70s. Even so, I wouldn't say it's bad music, just bland enough to be not good, while also not unbearable enough that you feel forced to shut it off immediately. This music lulls you into a state of passive indifference where you can't pay attention. The worse this gets is when at one point, an attempt is made to break up the monotony by introducing a shitty breakdown that changes the direction of the song so it can now focus on the guy shouting "offensive" lyrics in a quasi spoken word manner. A shitty "bluesy" solo that sounds like it's being played from a toy guitar or kazoo also arbitrarily rears it's fugly head in the middle of said breakdown. The best thing about what I've heard of TRB's music (just this split) is that it doesn't overstay it welcome, with none of the songs making it to the three minute mark.

Anal Cunt's half of this E.P. on the other hand, is yet another demonstration of the band's awesomeness during their peak in the mid 90s to the early 2000s. Seth Putnam's interpretation on extreme vocals are amongst the greatest. On this album he will either sound like someone being repeatedly being stabbed to death on a online death video or a alcoholic demon yelling at his wife. He is on par, or superior to, a lot of the big names you hear people gush about in mainstream pop and rock music. The guitar tone is frequently gloomy and sludgy sounding, which enhances the wonderfully directionless guitar noise and groovy hardcore riffs being played. The music, while primarily fast, is not afraid to also change into a slower tempo so you can be engrossed in these crushing chords, not unlike the best doom or sludge metal albums ever made. Combine this with blast beats or sometimes even backing vocals which repeatedly shout one or two words and you'll feel like you're listening to a punk rock SYMPHONY up in this bitch! The pure fuckin' ART on display here is certainly enough to get even the ghost of Claude Debussy to start moshing or headbanging!
_________________
recyclage wrote:
When a labeling of music gets stucked in the past, than germans are still nazi

recyclage wrote:
Anyone who writes "The Deftones" isn't trustworthy.

Top
 Profile  
terrr
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2020 11:44 am
Posts: 12
Location: Cyprus
PostPosted: Sun Nov 06, 2022 8:42 pm 
 

LongHairIsSoFuckingCool wrote:
The review I was working got rejected for grammar/spelling problems. I've started working on fixing the grammatical errors on my own but I would like a second opinion:
Quote:
In a odd move, the noisegrind legends known as Anal Cunt once did a split with some unknown thrash metal band that is merely average at best. The Raunchous Brothers (who's name I'm gonna abbreviate as TRB for the rest of this review) may not be the worst band ever, but the gap between them and Anal Cunt in terms of the quality of music on display here should be apparent from even a casual first listen.

TRB's part of this E.P. consists of 1 punk song with thrash metal style drumming and two metal songs, but the metal songs are so repetitive and simplistic riff-wise that they hardly feel any different from any random punk song from the 70s. Even so, I wouldn't say it's bad music, just bland enough to be not good, while also not unbearable enough that you feel forced to shut it off immediately. This music lulls you into a state of passive indifference where you can't pay attention. The worse this gets is when at one point, an attempt is made to break up the monotony by introducing a shitty breakdown that changes the direction of the song so it can now focus on the guy shouting "offensive" lyrics in a quasi spoken word manner. A shitty "bluesy" solo that sounds like it's being played from a toy guitar or kazoo also arbitrarily rears it's fugly head in the middle of said breakdown. The best thing about what I've heard of TRB's music (just this split) is that it doesn't overstay it welcome, with none of the songs making it to the three minute mark.

Anal Cunt's half of this E.P. on the other hand, is yet another demonstration of the band's awesomeness during their peak in the mid 90s to the early 2000s. Seth Putnam's interpretation on extreme vocals are amongst the greatest. On this album he will either sound like someone being repeatedly being stabbed to death on a online death video or a alcoholic demon yelling at his wife. He is on par, or superior to, a lot of the big names you hear people gush about in mainstream pop and rock music. The guitar tone is frequently gloomy and sludgy sounding, which enhances the wonderfully directionless guitar noise and groovy hardcore riffs being played. The music, while primarily fast, is not afraid to also change into a slower tempo so you can be engrossed in these crushing chords, not unlike the best doom or sludge metal albums ever made. Combine this with blast beats or sometimes even backing vocals which repeatedly shout one or two words and you'll feel like you're listening to a punk rock SYMPHONY up in this bitch! The pure fuckin' ART on display here is certainly enough to get even the ghost of Claude Debussy to start moshing or headbanging!

Some glaring ones: a odd move -> an odd move; who's name -> whose name; any random punk song -> a/some random punk song; the worse this gets is when > this gets worse when; so it can -> so that it can; it's fugly head -> its fugly head; the best thing about what I've heard of TRB's music -> the best part of TRB's music in this split; on the other hand, -> on the other hand (remove the comma); interpretation on extreme vocals -> interpretation of extreme vocals (I'd also replace the word "interpretation" with something like "style" or "form" here, but it's up to you); he will either sound -> he either sounds like (no need to suddenly change perspective); a online death video -> an online death video; a alcoholic demon -> an alcoholic demon; on par -> on par with; not unlike the best doom or sludge metal albums ever made -> (add a "this quality is" or merely "this is" to the beginning of this); combine this with -> combine this with the album's; backing vocals which repeatedly shout one or two words -> backing vocals repeatedly shouting one or two words;

Also, a tip: "a" comes before words that phonetically start with consonants, "an" comes before words that phonetically start with vowels.

Top
 Profile  
TheBurningOfSodom
Metalhead

Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2015 9:28 am
Posts: 598
Location: Italy
PostPosted: Mon Nov 07, 2022 8:49 am 
 

Quoting most of terrr's annotations, may I add: [...]an attempt to break up the monotony is made by introducing[...] - it's always better not to split words that would clearly benefit from being placed one after the other, in this case all of those before the bold part, which indicates words that were moved.

You might even consider turning it into an 'active' sentence (e.g. 'This gets worse when, at one point, the band attempts...') if you want to be even clearer but I'd say it'd be fine as it is.
_________________
A very promising new reviewer wrote:
Big, juicy, veiny, throbbing hard riffs. Big heavy knuckle dragging, cock swaddling compositions for those in fear of soap/bathing. Listen at your own risk. No signs of intelligent life.

It's the dawn of descending...

Top
 Profile  
gasmask_colostomy
Metalhead

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 5:38 am
Posts: 1640
Location: China
PostPosted: Mon Nov 07, 2022 9:35 am 
 

There are some spelling and grammar (mainly grammar) problems in the review, but I think more important is that the sentences just feel very loose sometimes. Someone reading through the review quickly to decide whether it's acceptable may find the logic blurry. To illustrate, here's an example, along with how you could change it:
"the gap between them and Anal Cunt in terms of the quality of music on display here should be apparent from even a casual first listen"

Some of these words are wasted, some are in awkward places, others are exaggerated. Firstly, you've already said "TRB may not be the worst band ever", so we expect the coming qualification that they still aren't very good. You don't need to overstate it. Of course you are comparing them musically, because you're writing a music review, so you can take out that part:
"the gap between them and Anal Cunt here should be apparent from even a casual first listen"

The part about "a casual first listen" is also exaggerated, while "apparent" can be combined without adding more verbs. I agree with Burning that it would be better to use more active expressions, so try stronger verbs or more straightforward statements:
"the gap between them and Anal Cunt here is immediately apparent"

That would more or less be enough, though it still seems a bit wordy. So you could end up with:
"Anal Cunt's dominance here is immediately apparent"


Beside that, I would suggest you avoid moments of colour that add nothing special to the review. For instance, the long passage where you are trying to quantify just how bad TRB's songs are; instead, you could say what they do poorly and make others understand the quality problems. Describing Putnam's vocals has the opposite difficulty: you say they are awesome but then describe them in ways that I personally would find very unattractive to listen to. The reference to Debussy makes no sense either. When you are reading back the review, try to ask yourself whether you need each part, that might help give a bit of focus to the writing.
_________________
Napero wrote:
the dismal stench of The Chicken Bone Gallows on the Plains of Mediocre Desolation was unleashed upon the unsuspecting world by the unholy rusty lawnmower molester horde that is Satan's Prenuptial Charcuterie from the endless field of tombs that is Butthill, Alabama

Top
 Profile  
Anatomy_Malta
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2022 6:26 pm
Posts: 1
Location: Malta
PostPosted: Sat Nov 19, 2022 4:19 am 
 

Exactly after Dan Lilker left Anthrax, Nuclear Assault had formed. This delicious debut has amazing thrashers and guitar solo's that sound like chainsaws are ripping through your body, not to mention John Connelly's amazing vocals, which will rip the remaining parts of your body.

This album kicks off with the short instrumental track ''Live Suffer Die'' which sort of feels like an interlude to the chaos this album soon will unleash.

''Sin'' the first real song, is awesome. One of the best vocal work on the album, and great lyrics and atmospherical musicality.
''Cold Steel'' is a good song too. ''Betrayal'', despite having only one verse, still manages to kick butt, and is one of the best vocals on the entire NA discography. ''Stranded In Hell'' has one of the best choruses on the album, and very catchy guitar riffs that can't help, but, kick butt!
''Nuclear War'' Is one of the Top 3 best songs on the album. I love the lyrics and the solo. The riff is amazing as well.
''Vengeance'' is different, it's kinda punky, but it's still a great song, but i feel like it's overlooked and underrated.

''Brain Death'' is one of the best songs on here. It's the longest Nuclear Assault song too. There's cool riffs, even though it's sometimes repetitive, it's so good you probably would'nt give two shits. it's the closer too.

Overall I highly recommend the band and album. Highlights Include: Sin, Cold Steel, Betrayal, Radiation Sickness, After The Holocaust, Stranded In Hell, Nuclear War, My America, Vengeance, Brain Death.


TLDR: The album is ok and the band is good.

Top
 Profile  
gasmask_colostomy
Metalhead

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 5:38 am
Posts: 1640
Location: China
PostPosted: Sat Nov 19, 2022 8:25 am 
 

Anatomy_Malta, your review was probably rejected because it's a track-by-track review. The rules say that you should not write this kind of review, but instead try to describe the music in general, using examples from some songs when necessary. The reader doesn't need to know what your ranking of the songs is, they want to read some description to help them know what the album will sound like, how the musicians blend together, and whether there are highlights can be a small part of that. Currently, there's a lot of work to do, the review is also very short and lacks detail. I suggest you read some other reviews before re-writing this.
_________________
Napero wrote:
the dismal stench of The Chicken Bone Gallows on the Plains of Mediocre Desolation was unleashed upon the unsuspecting world by the unholy rusty lawnmower molester horde that is Satan's Prenuptial Charcuterie from the endless field of tombs that is Butthill, Alabama

Top
 Profile  
pure fucking metal
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2022 7:10 am
Posts: 3
PostPosted: Thu Nov 24, 2022 12:48 pm 
 

Hey everyone, I wrote a review but unfortunately, it's been rejected. I'd love to get some tips.

Cobracide - Inner Agression (EP)
75%

Cobracide is an upcoming thrash/death metal band from Belgium. I think this EP shows how much potential this band has. Only having released one EP, they already developed a recognizable sound that I really love. Their sound is old school and takes me back to the early thrash days, yet giving it the youthfulness it needs to make the sound their own. The riffs are smashing, heavy and of course thrashy. These riffs combined with the haunting screams of their lead singer are what make this EP great. Furthermore, the bass is very present. This is something that is often left out by many thrash metal bands. On the drums, there are no shortcomings either. The drummer easily keeps up with the fast-paced tempo of their songs. Multiple drumming variations during each song are what make this EP sound like they’ve been making music like this for years.

Sure, this band isn’t all great and they definitely need to work on a few things. But this EP sets off an amazing debut and demonstrates that this band yet has to create their best work, which is when they will peak. One of their main ‘issues’ is that they are still young, which is why their work can be chaotic sometimes. I blame this on youthful sloppiness. Also, the screams of their lead singer are nice and steady, but it could be improved, which only time and experience will teach him. He masters the fry screaming technique and effortlessly holds on to more high-pitched screams. Although these screams are rough, they need more variation if they want to make themselves known in the death metal genre.

I also saw them live a few months ago. I must say they were really nice and energetic, but they still need to work on their stage presence. First of all, it needs to be more dynamic. Moreover, they need to work on standing more relaxed on stage and not making it seem as if they are doing everything in their power to nail their solo.
I just want to add that they involved the public in their performance and played their EP even better and heavier than the studio version.

Top
 Profile  
gasmask_colostomy
Metalhead

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 5:38 am
Posts: 1640
Location: China
PostPosted: Sat Nov 26, 2022 8:38 am 
 

pure fucking metal wrote:
Hey everyone, I wrote a review but unfortunately, it's been rejected. I'd love to get some tips.

Cobracide - Inner Agression (EP)
75%

Cobracide is an upcoming thrash/death metal band from Belgium. I think this EP shows how much potential this band has. Only having released one EP, they already developed a recognizable sound that I really love. Their sound is old school and takes me back to the early thrash days, yet giving it the youthfulness it needs to make the sound their own. The riffs are smashing, heavy and of course thrashy. These riffs combined with the haunting screams of their lead singer are what make this EP great. Furthermore, the bass is very present. This is something that is often left out by many thrash metal bands. On the drums, there are no shortcomings either. The drummer easily keeps up with the fast-paced tempo of their songs. Multiple drumming variations during each song are what make this EP sound like they’ve been making music like this for years.

Sure, this band isn’t all great and they definitely need to work on a few things. But this EP sets off an amazing debut and demonstrates that this band yet has to create their best work, which is when they will peak. One of their main ‘issues’ is that they are still young, which is why their work can be chaotic sometimes. I blame this on youthful sloppiness. Also, the screams of their lead singer are nice and steady, but it could be improved, which only time and experience will teach him. He masters the fry screaming technique and effortlessly holds on to more high-pitched screams. Although these screams are rough, they need more variation if they want to make themselves known in the death metal genre.

I also saw them live a few months ago. I must say they were really nice and energetic, but they still need to work on their stage presence. First of all, it needs to be more dynamic. Moreover, they need to work on standing more relaxed on stage and not making it seem as if they are doing everything in their power to nail their solo.
I just want to add that they involved the public in their performance and played their EP even better and heavier than the studio version.

Probably the key thing is that it all feels a bit too general. The first paragraph is not bad but compartmentalizes the band's sound into Instrument A, Instrument B, etc. The second and third paragraphs don't add much about the sound of this record. While you could mention these comments about the band being young and needing a better live presence in passing, the main points should all be about how this album sounds. When you talk about "thrashy riffs", what sort of thrashy? Any bands you could compare with? You also mention the singer does death metal vocals, what is the balance of thrash and death? Which songs stand out? Are the songs repetitive or varied? Mention examples and go into detail, that's what will get the review accepted. Your writing itself is not a problem.
_________________
Napero wrote:
the dismal stench of The Chicken Bone Gallows on the Plains of Mediocre Desolation was unleashed upon the unsuspecting world by the unholy rusty lawnmower molester horde that is Satan's Prenuptial Charcuterie from the endless field of tombs that is Butthill, Alabama

Top
 Profile  
M_Mosher
JFC GDI

Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2022 11:43 am
Posts: 69
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Mon Dec 26, 2022 6:56 pm 
 

Review for Cave Blind's "Return of Iron and Steel" titled "Return of the Relentless Chiga:"

Moderators wrote:

Quote:
The contents of your review are acceptable, but the musical description could use some more appropriate words, instead of onomatopeias. Speaking of which, could it be that you meant 'chugga' instead of 'chiga'? I'm also not getting your opinion about the album – you rate it below 50% and call it often 'bland' and 'tiresome' in the middle, yet also 'well-written' and 'impressive' in the first and last paragraphs. You might want to explain yourself better?


Ah, I completely understand the critique. Here's what I was thinking: I did use "chiga" instead of "chugga" because the guitar tone is thinner than what would be normally expected for a "chug." As I was listening to it, it did indeed sound like a lot of continuous "chiga" (or perhaps "chigga," which I opted not to use because the spelling is too close to a certain notorious derogatory term for a gentleman of the more swarthy-complexioned persuasion). So, I went with "chiga," as it seemed to fit my thougts better. I'd reserve "chugga-chugga" for a deeper, bassier guitar tone, like that found typically in Death Metal.

My use of the onomatopoeia was itself decided upon to recreate the experience of what it was like to actually listen to the album. Referencing it several times in the text is illustrative of how often one has to endure it in the album, although one must endure it much more in the album than in the written text. I supposed that using it several times as a descriptive would be a fun and light-hearted (yet entirely truthful) description of what the music actually sounded like. Under the circumstances, I felt that it fit, even if a bit unorthodox as a writing principle. This was offset by the "tweedly-deedly" onomatopeoia, meant to humouristically show exactly what the music was like: you get lots of "chiga-chiga," with a dash of "tweedly-deedly" here and there lol.... what's worse, I find this is an absolutely representative description of the actual music.

Now, all those complaints aside, the music is indeed well-written and even impressive. The artist behind the project is obviously good at what he does, and it was my hope to sandwich my negative criticisms with some positivity. I didn't hate the album, I just didn't particularly like it, and didn't find that it stood out. Then again, I'm a hard sell on any release, and it's difficult to tell how I'm going to react to any album. Bearing this in mind, I thought I'd give it a 49% showing that it's at least good enough to get almost noticed on my radar.

I have re-written the review, keeping the onomatopoeia's intact, but hoping to flesh out the descriptors a little bit, and get my points across better. Now, it's not like I'm a genius (or have any idea what I'm doing), so I don't know if I've made it better or worse. Now that my thoughts about why I used the terminology I did are more clear (perhaps), it may make more sense.

At any rate, here is the 2.0 version, submitted for the forum to decide:

Quote:
From the calm of a rather generic, boring and uninspired intro (in this reviewer's opinion) consisting of six or seven synth notes played seemingly at random, the storm of Cave Blind's title track "Return of Iron and Steel" jumps out like an unsheathed sword. Immediately the music shows itself to be well-written thrash-inspired black metal, songs composed of multiple segments which flow into one another logically, leaving no loose ends. Vocals of the "orc in a cave" variety, scratchy mid-level growls with a decent amount of reverb, fit nicely to the continuous pummeling of the fast-paced riffage and typical thrash drum-beat.

The music itself is unrelenting in its constant "chiga-chiga-chiga-chiga" palm-muted thrash style, which some may enjoy. Indeed, this is what constitutes about 70% of the entire album, so for those who want that sort of thing, look no further. Personally, I find it gets a bit bland after hearing it on every track, but there is enough change throughout each song to keep them from becoming completely stale. The production value is crisp and balanced, basically meaning it isn't what I'd consider "raw," without being "too polished" either.

There are some satisfying but unfortunately too-short melodic parts here and there, in all the right places, giving a sense of completion to each composition. Just when you think the "chiga-chiga" is getting a bit tedious, a little "tweedly-deedly" guitar lead lets you get some relief, tying up any loose ends, and proving the competence of Cave Blind's songwriting ability. In slower moments on the record, the lead guitar will accent the rest of the music with a more balladic harmony, reminiscent of Ensiferum's higher points when they move into a slower tempo. Occasional samples of swords clanging and battle cries, remind the listener that the album concept is about medieval-style warfare.

Altogether, I suppose there's nothing really new or virtuosic on this album, but there doesn't really need to be either. The wheel doesn't need to be reinvented every time one sets out to create a kick-ass metal song or album, but there needs something to make it stick in the minds of listeners, prompting them to play it mutiple times. That being said, "Return of Iron and Steel" doesn't exactly stand out from the rest in that regard, but it's original enough to be noticed, and will surely appeal to a select few enthusiasts.

Cave Blind obviously do it for the love of the art, and this much shines through in their music: dedication to melodic and primitive black metal, with influences from speed and heavy metal. While the obligatory melodic parts are there, and the songs are expertly written, as a whole it doesn't necessarily "get me there," so to speak. It lacks a certain flair and "wow-factor" to make it memorable for me. The choruses aren't strong enough, and the parts I'd like to hear more of are just scattered pieces throughout the album. It has it's charming moments for sure, but it seems like one has to endure a lot of "chiga-chiga-chiga-chiga" between them just to get to the good parts.

As an example, The song "Flowers for Loyalty" excited me at first because I instantly fell in love with the opening riff, only to disappointingly realize it was an interlude about a minute-and-a-half long. As soon as I got into it, it ended. After that it was back to the thrashy "chiga-chiga-chiga-chiga," still interspersed with the now-predictable melodic part and now-expected change-ups, serving to break up the overall monotony.

In conclusion, I'm sure "Return of Iron and Steel" will appeal to purists of the genre, and while I did find some of it interesting, it ultimately wasn't my cup of tea. Nevertheless, it is an impressive effort from this outfit hailing from the Czech Republic, certainly doing no shame to their country of origin with this noteworthy, but mediocre release.
_________________
"A bakery across the Parisian street had a sign in the window, which blinked the word PAIN in red neon.
"These people understand," John thought to himself.
France had ruined him forever.

-Jim Stotz, "Bread is Pain"

Top
 Profile  
gasmask_colostomy
Metalhead

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 5:38 am
Posts: 1640
Location: China
PostPosted: Thu Dec 29, 2022 5:12 am 
 

M_Mosher wrote:
Review for Cave Blind's "Return of Iron and Steel" titled "Return of the Relentless Chiga:"

Moderators wrote:

Quote:
The contents of your review are acceptable, but the musical description could use some more appropriate words, instead of onomatopeias. Speaking of which, could it be that you meant 'chugga' instead of 'chiga'? I'm also not getting your opinion about the album – you rate it below 50% and call it often 'bland' and 'tiresome' in the middle, yet also 'well-written' and 'impressive' in the first and last paragraphs. You might want to explain yourself better?


Spoiler: show
Ah, I completely understand the critique. Here's what I was thinking: I did use "chiga" instead of "chugga" because the guitar tone is thinner than what would be normally expected for a "chug." As I was listening to it, it did indeed sound like a lot of continuous "chiga" (or perhaps "chigga," which I opted not to use because the spelling is too close to a certain notorious derogatory term for a gentleman of the more swarthy-complexioned persuasion). So, I went with "chiga," as it seemed to fit my thougts better. I'd reserve "chugga-chugga" for a deeper, bassier guitar tone, like that found typically in Death Metal.

My use of the onomatopoeia was itself decided upon to recreate the experience of what it was like to actually listen to the album. Referencing it several times in the text is illustrative of how often one has to endure it in the album, although one must endure it much more in the album than in the written text. I supposed that using it several times as a descriptive would be a fun and light-hearted (yet entirely truthful) description of what the music actually sounded like. Under the circumstances, I felt that it fit, even if a bit unorthodox as a writing principle. This was offset by the "tweedly-deedly" onomatopeoia, meant to humouristically show exactly what the music was like: you get lots of "chiga-chiga," with a dash of "tweedly-deedly" here and there lol.... what's worse, I find this is an absolutely representative description of the actual music.

Now, all those complaints aside, the music is indeed well-written and even impressive. The artist behind the project is obviously good at what he does, and it was my hope to sandwich my negative criticisms with some positivity. I didn't hate the album, I just didn't particularly like it, and didn't find that it stood out. Then again, I'm a hard sell on any release, and it's difficult to tell how I'm going to react to any album. Bearing this in mind, I thought I'd give it a 49% showing that it's at least good enough to get almost noticed on my radar.

I have re-written the review, keeping the onomatopoeia's intact, but hoping to flesh out the descriptors a little bit, and get my points across better. Now, it's not like I'm a genius (or have any idea what I'm doing), so I don't know if I've made it better or worse. Now that my thoughts about why I used the terminology I did are more clear (perhaps), it may make more sense.

At any rate, here is the 2.0 version, submitted for the forum to decide:

Quote:
From the calm of a rather generic, boring and uninspired intro (in this reviewer's opinion) consisting of six or seven synth notes played seemingly at random, the storm of Cave Blind's title track "Return of Iron and Steel" jumps out like an unsheathed sword. Immediately the music shows itself to be well-written thrash-inspired black metal, songs composed of multiple segments which flow into one another logically, leaving no loose ends. Vocals of the "orc in a cave" variety, scratchy mid-level growls with a decent amount of reverb, fit nicely to the continuous pummeling of the fast-paced riffage and typical thrash drum-beat.

The music itself is unrelenting in its constant "chiga-chiga-chiga-chiga" palm-muted thrash style, which some may enjoy. Indeed, this is what constitutes about 70% of the entire album, so for those who want that sort of thing, look no further. Personally, I find it gets a bit bland after hearing it on every track, but there is enough change throughout each song to keep them from becoming completely stale. The production value is crisp and balanced, basically meaning it isn't what I'd consider "raw," without being "too polished" either.

There are some satisfying but unfortunately too-short melodic parts here and there, in all the right places, giving a sense of completion to each composition. Just when you think the "chiga-chiga" is getting a bit tedious, a little "tweedly-deedly" guitar lead lets you get some relief, tying up any loose ends, and proving the competence of Cave Blind's songwriting ability. In slower moments on the record, the lead guitar will accent the rest of the music with a more balladic harmony, reminiscent of Ensiferum's higher points when they move into a slower tempo. Occasional samples of swords clanging and battle cries, remind the listener that the album concept is about medieval-style warfare.

Altogether, I suppose there's nothing really new or virtuosic on this album, but there doesn't really need to be either. The wheel doesn't need to be reinvented every time one sets out to create a kick-ass metal song or album, but there needs something to make it stick in the minds of listeners, prompting them to play it mutiple times. That being said, "Return of Iron and Steel" doesn't exactly stand out from the rest in that regard, but it's original enough to be noticed, and will surely appeal to a select few enthusiasts.

Cave Blind obviously do it for the love of the art, and this much shines through in their music: dedication to melodic and primitive black metal, with influences from speed and heavy metal. While the obligatory melodic parts are there, and the songs are expertly written, as a whole it doesn't necessarily "get me there," so to speak. It lacks a certain flair and "wow-factor" to make it memorable for me. The choruses aren't strong enough, and the parts I'd like to hear more of are just scattered pieces throughout the album. It has it's charming moments for sure, but it seems like one has to endure a lot of "chiga-chiga-chiga-chiga" between them just to get to the good parts.

As an example, The song "Flowers for Loyalty" excited me at first because I instantly fell in love with the opening riff, only to disappointingly realize it was an interlude about a minute-and-a-half long. As soon as I got into it, it ended. After that it was back to the thrashy "chiga-chiga-chiga-chiga," still interspersed with the now-predictable melodic part and now-expected change-ups, serving to break up the overall monotony.

In conclusion, I'm sure "Return of Iron and Steel" will appeal to purists of the genre, and while I did find some of it interesting, it ultimately wasn't my cup of tea. Nevertheless, it is an impressive effort from this outfit hailing from the Czech Republic, certainly doing no shame to their country of origin with this noteworthy, but mediocre release.

I've been following this dude's releases too, I get what you mean. Fun, but not always very creative. Actually, there doesn't seem that much wrong with the (second version) of your review, but it doesn't address the point that the moderator made. Since you say you understand the comment about why "chiga-chiga" and "tweedly-deedly" seem odd, why not explain them in your new version? You've still not said what they mean. And by explaining them, you may find you actually come across better terms. Otherwise, it will probably be rejected for the same reason again.
_________________
Napero wrote:
the dismal stench of The Chicken Bone Gallows on the Plains of Mediocre Desolation was unleashed upon the unsuspecting world by the unholy rusty lawnmower molester horde that is Satan's Prenuptial Charcuterie from the endless field of tombs that is Butthill, Alabama

Top
 Profile  
TheBurningOfSodom
Metalhead

Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2015 9:28 am
Posts: 598
Location: Italy
PostPosted: Fri Dec 30, 2022 5:50 am 
 

I'm the one who rejected it and I reckon I've probably been a bit harsh with the rejection, as your review was more like borderline. But yeah, as gasmask already said, it could use some little more explanation like you did here – not the whole post of course, but already the mention of the thin guitar tone, which doesn't appear anywhere on the review, will help getting some context.

That is the more obvious example, but try to think a bit about how else you can be clearer, then feel free to resubmit. Your edits seem to be fine, as far as I can remember your original submission lol.
_________________
A very promising new reviewer wrote:
Big, juicy, veiny, throbbing hard riffs. Big heavy knuckle dragging, cock swaddling compositions for those in fear of soap/bathing. Listen at your own risk. No signs of intelligent life.

It's the dawn of descending...

Top
 Profile  
morbert
Metalhead

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 2:36 am
Posts: 1276
PostPosted: Sun Jan 01, 2023 3:00 pm 
 

I just laughed so hard my coffee came through my nose!
https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/Helloween/Walls_of_Jericho/676/TheHumanChair/778696

Although I do agree, Kai wasn't at his best on this specific album, the reviewer clearly never heard 'Land of the Free'. Damn.
How can I stop laughing? I dunno! He/she/it/them was born in 1992. I cannot blame him/her/it/them for that. But come on, stop being a grumpy young whatever hahahha

TheHumanChair wrote:
"How Many Tears" is far and away the worst track on the entire experience


He/she/it/them surely never went to a Helloween concert nor even ever talked with any Helloween fan and failed to see the influence this actual song had for decades to come! WOW. I am amazed at such.... out-of-touch hermit-thinking. Not recognising 'How Many Tears' for the groundbreaking influence and overall awesome track it was on itself and how it set the bar for powermetal...
Wow. Still laughing! This goes in my book already for contender of worst review of 2023
_________________
Magna res est vocis et silentii temperamentum.

Top
 Profile  
Auselesspileofflesh
Metalhead

Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 11:41 pm
Posts: 667
Location: Australia
PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2023 8:08 pm 
 

Looking to get some feedback on my latest review if anyone is willing to spare the time.
https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... esh/142422

Top
 Profile  
robotniq
Metal newbie

Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2007 6:08 am
Posts: 373
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2023 1:46 pm 
 

Auselesspileofflesh wrote:
Looking to get some feedback on my latest review if anyone is willing to spare the time.
https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... esh/142422


I think it is fine (which is probably why it got accepted). It isn't the style of review I tend to write, but everyone has their own style.

Some of the wackiness seems a little over-played (e.g., 'GASP!'). The para about female-fronted metal could be cut. This is a good topic to discuss, but it is irrelevant to your central argument (Amott ripping off Dismember). Better to save a paragraph like this for a review when you're going to have it as the central argument.

I'd tend to disagree with the claim that Amott ripped off Dismember. Yes, he was in Carnage, but Carnage were practically the same band as Dismember in the early days. It is less about him ripping Dismember off, more about him drawing from a well of his youth that may have begun to run dry (i.e., Swedish death metal). I don't know whether Amott, who is probably the most 'Dismember-adjacent' person I can think of, can ever be accused of ripping Dismember off.

Top
 Profile  
the_satanic_cannibal
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2023 12:06 pm
Posts: 7
Location: United States
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2023 7:14 pm 
 

Hello everyone. I have given a go at writing a review, but I am very inexperienced and was hoping that someone could take a look at this review for Eaten Back to Life:

Blood Soaked Death Metal with Thrash Flavoring
95%

Cannibal Corpse’s debut effort Eaten Back to Life is, much like the other three albums which constitute the Barnes era of Cannibal Corpse, a very unique album. Eaten Back to Life displays a more thrashy style of death metal with its thrash oriented riffs and Barnes’ vocals essentially being gutturals sung in a more swift and sloppy (in a good way) manner. This comes as no surprise seeing how Cannibal Corpse has taken influence from the works of the infamous thrash metal band Slayer.

Eaten Back to Life is, in my opinion, one of the greatest Cannibal Corpse albums to date. Everything about the album is utilized to almost utmost perfection. The riffs are heavy and brutal yet catchy, the drums accompany the riffs excellently, and Barnes’ vocal delivery is savage and unrelenting. The bass is less noteworthy, as it is drowned out by the other instruments for most of the album, however there are a handful of good (and audible) bass lines featured on tracks such as “Put them to Death”, “Born in a Casket”, and “The Undead Will Feast”.

Scott Burns did a fantastic job with production, and he gave the album that signature old school death metal sound that modern death metal seems to be unable to replicate. The guitar tone also contributes to the osdm sound and fits the chuggy style of riffing that tracks such as “Shredded Humans”, “Edible Autopsy”, and “Rotting Head” have. The concise nature of the album (with a runtime of only about 36 minutes), the fast, pounding drums, and the shreddy solos which incorporate lots of whammy bar wankery gives Eaten Back to Life a frantic and chaotic feel to it which is extremely fitting for the style of death metal being played. This also gives the album a very hostile and dangerous atmosphere, which complements the lyrical themes of bloodthirsty, ravenous zombies and necrophilia very nicely.

All in all, Eaten Back to Life is a one of a kind, fantastic debut which serves as an essential listen to any and all fans of death metal, especially those looking to further themselves in their death metal listening.

This is my first review I have ever written, so feel free to be as harsh as you like.

Top
 Profile  
Auselesspileofflesh
Metalhead

Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 11:41 pm
Posts: 667
Location: Australia
PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2023 1:07 am 
 

robotiq wrote:
Auselesspileofflesh wrote:
Looking to get some feedback on my latest review if anyone is willing to spare the time.
https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... esh/142422


I think it is fine (which is probably why it got accepted). It isn't the style of review I tend to write, but everyone has their own style.

Some of the wackiness seems a little over-played (e.g., 'GASP!'). The para about female-fronted metal could be cut. This is a good topic to discuss, but it is irrelevant to your central argument (Amott ripping off Dismember). Better to save a paragraph like this for a review when you're going to have it as the central argument.

I'd tend to disagree with the claim that Amott ripped off Dismember. Yes, he was in Carnage, but Carnage were practically the same band as Dismember in the early days. It is less about him ripping Dismember off, more about him drawing from a well of his youth that may have begun to run dry (i.e., Swedish death metal). I don't know whether Amott, who is probably the most 'Dismember-adjacent' person I can think of, can ever be accused of ripping Dismember off.




Valid call. I do have a habit of going on tangents, some may love it and some may not.
Appreciate you looking into it, will do more album/ep based reviews which I'll post in here.

Top
 Profile  
BastardHead
Worse than Stalin

Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 7:53 pm
Posts: 10857
Location: Oswego, Illinois
PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2023 8:17 am 
 

the_satanic_cannibal wrote:
Hello everyone. I have given a go at writing a review, but I am very inexperienced and was hoping that someone could take a look at this review for Eaten Back to Life:

Blood Soaked Death Metal with Thrash Flavoring
95%

Cannibal Corpse’s debut effort Eaten Back to Life is, much like the other three albums which constitute the Barnes era of Cannibal Corpse, a very unique album. Eaten Back to Life displays a more thrashy style of death metal with its thrash oriented riffs and Barnes’ vocals essentially being gutturals sung in a more swift and sloppy (in a good way) manner. This comes as no surprise seeing how Cannibal Corpse has taken influence from the works of the infamous thrash metal band Slayer.

Eaten Back to Life is, in my opinion, one of the greatest Cannibal Corpse albums to date. Everything about the album is utilized to almost utmost perfection. The riffs are heavy and brutal yet catchy, the drums accompany the riffs excellently, and Barnes’ vocal delivery is savage and unrelenting. The bass is less noteworthy, as it is drowned out by the other instruments for most of the album, however there are a handful of good (and audible) bass lines featured on tracks such as “Put them to Death”, “Born in a Casket”, and “The Undead Will Feast”.

Scott Burns did a fantastic job with production, and he gave the album that signature old school death metal sound that modern death metal seems to be unable to replicate. The guitar tone also contributes to the osdm sound and fits the chuggy style of riffing that tracks such as “Shredded Humans”, “Edible Autopsy”, and “Rotting Head” have. The concise nature of the album (with a runtime of only about 36 minutes), the fast, pounding drums, and the shreddy solos which incorporate lots of whammy bar wankery gives Eaten Back to Life a frantic and chaotic feel to it which is extremely fitting for the style of death metal being played. This also gives the album a very hostile and dangerous atmosphere, which complements the lyrical themes of bloodthirsty, ravenous zombies and necrophilia very nicely.

All in all, Eaten Back to Life is a one of a kind, fantastic debut which serves as an essential listen to any and all fans of death metal, especially those looking to further themselves in their death metal listening.

This is my first review I have ever written, so feel free to be as harsh as you like.


This review is fine but it does have a lot of tells that you're new at this. They're more nitpicks of mine than crippling flaws but they're the type of thing you'll smooth out over time as you go.

The big overarching thing that kinda sums it all up is that it feels very robotic, like you have a checklist of every component that makes an album and spend one sentence on each checking the boxes as you go. One sentence about guitars, one about bass, one about drums, one about vocals, one about lyrics, one about production, et cetera. It feels very unnatural to read and, paradoxically, gives readers an unclear picture of what each component is really doing because so little time is spent on each and is never described much further than "good". HOW do the drums complement the riffs? HOW does the guitar tone work well will this particular riffing style, either in a vacuum or in comparison to other approaches? Your line about how frenzied the solos are meshing well with how frantic and unhinged the rest of the music feels is an excellent way to illustrate this sort of thing, so you're on the right track but would do well to try to link that kind of thing to other elements, because right now you just kinda list instruments and then say they're good while namedropping songs without really exploring or interrogating WHY they're good or what they even sound like. Switch the song titles around and this review could feasibly describe Cryptopsy perfectly despite sounding wildly different from Cannibal, ya know?

The review as a whole kinda feels like you plugged stuff into that five paragraph template we were taught in grade school (intro paragraph - three body paragraphs, and one conclusion paragraph that restates the body) and I think you'd do well to try just ignoring that format and writing more naturally.

And this is kind of a side complaint, but one of my biggest pet peeves in reviews is any mention of the bass being inconsequential and/or (in)audible in some way. I don't mean this as an insult, but I genuinely think people who say this either just don't know what a bass guitar sounds like in the context of a full metal band, or they just have nothing interesting to say about it but feel obligated to comment on it anyway due to the checklist thing I mentioned. Cannibal has never buried their bass and Webster is one of the most acclaimed death metal bassists in history for a reason (though Eaten isn't a particularly flashy showcase of his talent, but then again his willingness to hang back and supplement the groove is a big part of the reason he's so respected). The bass in almost every metal album besides excessively raw BM and a few notable outliers like And Justice for All is perfectly discernable, but since it tends to follow the guitar in metal I think a lot of newbies struggle to parse it out. If you just don't think there's anything interesting to say about the bass, just don't bring it up! It's totally okay to do that. Readers don't need an explicit sentence saying as such to infer that one exists, and merely pointing out that it's audible always inevitably feels like that statement is backed by surprise when really it's obvious and kind of exposes a gap in your knowledge that could've been avoided by just not opening up that door.

And specifically for this particular album, I think the way you talk about certain things shows that you could have a better grasp on the context surrounding it. Using the phrase "osdm" to describe anything prior to like 2008 is extremely weird because it usually indicates that a band is consciously trying to evoke an older sound. Calling Eaten osdm is like calling The Terminator "retro sci-fi" when it's actually the exact of-its-time thing that "retro" films are trying to emulate. There's a reason we all called Municipal Waste "retro thrash" but nobody in their right mind would use the term to describe Hell Awaits. And highlighting the thrash influence is good but seems to misunderstand where death metal even was as a style in 1990. Death metal largely came around because certain subsets of thrash were getting more and more extreme until it eventually became distinct. I'd argue that albums like Leprosy and Altars of Madness managed to fully break from thrash before Eaten came out but by and large death metal wasn't wholly solidified at the time into the style we know it as today. Eaten's thrashiness is absolutely worth pointing out but the implication that it was a conscious deviation from death metal orthodoxy is off-base because that orthodoxy wasn't established yet.

Apologies if this comes off as super harsh. Like I said the review could probably scrape by as a 3 pointer if I saw it in the queue but there's a lot of room for improvement. And that's why I encourage you to keep at it, because everybody improves with practice!
_________________
Lair of the Bastard: LATEST REVIEW: In Flames - Foregone
The Outer RIM - Uatism: The dogs bark in street slang
niix wrote:
the reason your grandmother has all those plastic sheets on her furniture is because she is probably a squirter

Top
 Profile  
Gaynebula
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2023 11:17 am
Posts: 1
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2023 4:09 am 
 

Hi there. I'm new to this site, and a little confused by the practicalities of the style guide/review guidelines.

I've had two reviews rejected and two approved. One of the rejected reviews was understandable- I was crossposting from AOTY, and forgot to elaborate on a stub before posting. However, one of them is confusing me, purely in terms of what moderators are actually looking for.

I'll post two paragraphs from two reviews which most illustrate my confusion. The accepted review was for 'Scenes From Hell' by Sigh. The rejected one was for 'Geometria' by Thy Catafalque.

The root of my confusion is the stated reason. The feedback I got was: 'In general, we ask that writers avoid a track-by-track breakdown of an album and this is a good example why. They make for long-winded, tedious reads that don't actually describe the music nearly well enough. We want to know first and foremost what the album sounds like and how it listens - the basic style, notable influences (comparisons to other bands if necessary), a breakdown of the songwriting style, the performances, the production, the lyrics and atmosphere too if need be. As it stands I can't really glean how this album is meant to sound from this review. I would recommend starting over with this review and not resubmitting until these points have been addressed. I also recommend looking at the guidelines under our rules and the Review Feedback Workshop on the MA forums for further guidance.'

On the face of it, the idea of avoiding track by track breakdowns is perfectly simple to abide by- and longwindedness has always been an issue of mine, as this very post evidences. However, my confusion comes from the qualitative substance of the feedback- that I didn't describe the actual sound of the album in enough detail. Here are my two examples.

From the accepted review:

'Sigh are a band with a wide, wildly-varying discography. Despite this, 'Scenes From Hell' is near-universally agreed to be among the absolute pinnacle of their magnum opuses. Claustrophobic yet dynamic, eerie and haunted yet capable of not taking itself stiflingly seriously, 'Scenes from Hell' somehow maintains an array of contradictory, sophisticated, chaotic moods within remarkably tight and accessible song structures. The horns handle the bulk of the true hooks, an ingenious sonic niche which imbues them with anthemic catchiness- this is evident in 'Prelude to the Oracle', 'L'art de Mourir', and personal favourite, closer 'Scenes from Hell.' They're nothing short of gorgeous, resounding majestically and with satisfyingly perfect tasteful aggression.

This is not an especially emotive album, opting instead for an extreme, raw rollercoaster of an experience- yet those scant emotive moments are backed by an enthralling, perpetual dramatic forward motion. The band compels this through the most ingenious interweaving of neoclassical and progressive blackened death metal I've heard in recent memory. This is most evident in the contrasting tones the strings strike, between wonderfully melodramatic, infectious song 'The Red Funeral' and 'The Summer Funeral's' more emotionally rich textures. The two complement each other wonderfully, their oscillation between grief and revelry towards their carnage unfolding with it a deeply natural elegance.'

From the rejected:

'Szamojéd Freskó is immediately heavier, opening with a whirring black metal riff over blastbeats, which decay into a death-metal-style breakdown, erupting into creepy melodies and raspy, distorted black metal shouts. Although not as prodigal as the opening track, the drums carry this song. Were it not for the constant flood of snare attacks, this song could be underwhelming, due to its simplicity- however, it's arranged humbly enough to ground all other elements in their passionate performance.

Töltés, along with the opener, is a core part of why this transcends to 11/10. It's the song I most associate with this album's most positive traits, despite its unbelievable simplicity. Thirst-quenching 303s whirr over otherworldly electronic percussion, Martina Horvarth's sonorous vocal melodies taking centre stage in the absence of any guitars. She owns this song, pushing it into the realm of true transcendence. The breakdown in the midsection resembles Igorrr's Probléme d'èmotion, pulling back like a tsunami before she comes back in, harmonising angelically with herself. Simple, and devastatingly effective- this song wrenches frequent tears from me despite not knowing Hungarian.'

In my eyes, I actually succeed MORE in describing and evoking the sound of Geometria than Scenes From Hell- I go into more detail regarding more instruments, and describe their precise emotional impact. Thus, the criticism pertaining to this aspect has me extremely confused. Additionally, my review of Sigh does actually indulge in a track by track breakdown- it just lumps the tracks into categories for comparison and contrast. Is the issue *literally* the format of listing tracks and giving them individualised breakdowns, or is it perhaps more to do with the repetition/redundancy?

Furthermore- albums such as Geometria all but demand a track by track lens, as each individual song is utterly idiosyncratic and lumping them together risks erasing its nuances. Since I normally watch YouTubers' reviews and read from other sites, I'm not used to the stipulation to avoid track by tracks. Would a group comparison and contrast of its songs by traits, like the Sigh review, better suit this?

I'm autistic, and usually can't grasp rules well without knowing their precise rationales. I want to ensure my reviews meet your standards, as I've loved this site for years and am thrilled at the idea of contributing to it. Thank you in advance for any tips people can provide.

Top
 Profile  
spiritedcaveman
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2022 10:38 am
Posts: 1
Location: India
PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2023 5:40 am 
 

i have written a review for a record, and it was not approved and the reply is like

"The track-by-track formula that you've used is discouraged, and doesn't make it easy and/or enjoyable to read. Focus less on namedropping and describing individual songs one after the other. Note that mentioning and describing single songs in detail is by all means welcome – just refrain from listing them in strict tracklist order, as it doesn't help the flow of the review.

If it isn't clear, it is recommended you read some reviews already present on this site to see how writers usually work it out. Also, please edit and resubmit, don't delete and resubmit, as all edits and messages get lost. Thanks."


one para in my review is....
The album is divided into eight tracks, each exploring a different aspect of nihilism. "My Buried Dream," sets the tone for the album with its dissonant guitar riffs and chaotic drumming. "Key to Timeless Laws," features a haunting saxophone melody and clean singing, creating a jarring contrast to the harshness of the previous track. "La Maison Dieu," is one of the album's most challenging pieces, with complex time signatures and dissonant harmonies. "Into the Void Eye," is a relatively short instrumental interlude, featuring ethereal guitar harmonies and atmospheric soundscapes. "Lost in Mental Ruins," is one of the album's most powerful tracks, featuring a driving rhythm and intense vocal performances. "Lost in the Antiverse", "The Black Veil of Original Flaw", "Nihil Quam Vacuitas Ordinatum Est," are the album's epic centerpiece and I look it as a whole outro track. It features a range of musical styles, from dissonant black metal to jazzy saxophone solos to haunting choral singing. The track's length and complexity make it a challenging listen, but also a rewarding one for those willing to dive deep into the album's message and philosophy.


looking forward to get some suggestion...

Top
 Profile  
Slater922
Metalhead

Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2020 6:24 pm
Posts: 2342
PostPosted: Thu Mar 02, 2023 9:19 am 
 

spiritedcaveman wrote:
i have written a review for a record, and it was not approved and the reply is like

"The track-by-track formula that you've used is discouraged, and doesn't make it easy and/or enjoyable to read. Focus less on namedropping and describing individual songs one after the other. Note that mentioning and describing single songs in detail is by all means welcome – just refrain from listing them in strict tracklist order, as it doesn't help the flow of the review.

If it isn't clear, it is recommended you read some reviews already present on this site to see how writers usually work it out. Also, please edit and resubmit, don't delete and resubmit, as all edits and messages get lost. Thanks."


one para in my review is....
The album is divided into eight tracks, each exploring a different aspect of nihilism. "My Buried Dream," sets the tone for the album with its dissonant guitar riffs and chaotic drumming. "Key to Timeless Laws," features a haunting saxophone melody and clean singing, creating a jarring contrast to the harshness of the previous track. "La Maison Dieu," is one of the album's most challenging pieces, with complex time signatures and dissonant harmonies. "Into the Void Eye," is a relatively short instrumental interlude, featuring ethereal guitar harmonies and atmospheric soundscapes. "Lost in Mental Ruins," is one of the album's most powerful tracks, featuring a driving rhythm and intense vocal performances. "Lost in the Antiverse", "The Black Veil of Original Flaw", "Nihil Quam Vacuitas Ordinatum Est," are the album's epic centerpiece and I look it as a whole outro track. It features a range of musical styles, from dissonant black metal to jazzy saxophone solos to haunting choral singing. The track's length and complexity make it a challenging listen, but also a rewarding one for those willing to dive deep into the album's message and philosophy.


looking forward to get some suggestion...

Besides the track-by-track format issue, You only spend 1 sentence describing each track, and there's not enough details for the reader to understand what the album sounds like to the fullest extend. Instead, I would recommend trying to broaden your scope and focus on the overall sound of the album, such as how well the guitar riffs and vocals sound throughout the album.
_________________
Under a serpent sun... we shall all live as one! - "Under a Serpent Sun" by At The Gates
Check out my reviews

Top
 Profile  
Auselesspileofflesh
Metalhead

Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 11:41 pm
Posts: 667
Location: Australia
PostPosted: Sun Mar 05, 2023 3:55 am 
 

Just realised I do that same thing with bass on a few of my reviews so I definitely need cut that out.

BastardHead wrote:
the_satanic_cannibal wrote:
Hello everyone. I have given a go at writing a review, but I am very inexperienced and was hoping that someone could take a look at this review for Eaten Back to Life:

Blood Soaked Death Metal with Thrash Flavoring
95%

Cannibal Corpse’s debut effort Eaten Back to Life is, much like the other three albums which constitute the Barnes era of Cannibal Corpse, a very unique album. Eaten Back to Life displays a more thrashy style of death metal with its thrash oriented riffs and Barnes’ vocals essentially being gutturals sung in a more swift and sloppy (in a good way) manner. This comes as no surprise seeing how Cannibal Corpse has taken influence from the works of the infamous thrash metal band Slayer.

Eaten Back to Life is, in my opinion, one of the greatest Cannibal Corpse albums to date. Everything about the album is utilized to almost utmost perfection. The riffs are heavy and brutal yet catchy, the drums accompany the riffs excellently, and Barnes’ vocal delivery is savage and unrelenting. The bass is less noteworthy, as it is drowned out by the other instruments for most of the album, however there are a handful of good (and audible) bass lines featured on tracks such as “Put them to Death”, “Born in a Casket”, and “The Undead Will Feast”.

Scott Burns did a fantastic job with production, and he gave the album that signature old school death metal sound that modern death metal seems to be unable to replicate. The guitar tone also contributes to the osdm sound and fits the chuggy style of riffing that tracks such as “Shredded Humans”, “Edible Autopsy”, and “Rotting Head” have. The concise nature of the album (with a runtime of only about 36 minutes), the fast, pounding drums, and the shreddy solos which incorporate lots of whammy bar wankery gives Eaten Back to Life a frantic and chaotic feel to it which is extremely fitting for the style of death metal being played. This also gives the album a very hostile and dangerous atmosphere, which complements the lyrical themes of bloodthirsty, ravenous zombies and necrophilia very nicely.

All in all, Eaten Back to Life is a one of a kind, fantastic debut which serves as an essential listen to any and all fans of death metal, especially those looking to further themselves in their death metal listening.

This is my first review I have ever written, so feel free to be as harsh as you like.


This review is fine but it does have a lot of tells that you're new at this. They're more nitpicks of mine than crippling flaws but they're the type of thing you'll smooth out over time as you go.

The big overarching thing that kinda sums it all up is that it feels very robotic, like you have a checklist of every component that makes an album and spend one sentence on each checking the boxes as you go. One sentence about guitars, one about bass, one about drums, one about vocals, one about lyrics, one about production, et cetera. It feels very unnatural to read and, paradoxically, gives readers an unclear picture of what each component is really doing because so little time is spent on each and is never described much further than "good". HOW do the drums complement the riffs? HOW does the guitar tone work well will this particular riffing style, either in a vacuum or in comparison to other approaches? Your line about how frenzied the solos are meshing well with how frantic and unhinged the rest of the music feels is an excellent way to illustrate this sort of thing, so you're on the right track but would do well to try to link that kind of thing to other elements, because right now you just kinda list instruments and then say they're good while namedropping songs without really exploring or interrogating WHY they're good or what they even sound like. Switch the song titles around and this review could feasibly describe Cryptopsy perfectly despite sounding wildly different from Cannibal, ya know?

The review as a whole kinda feels like you plugged stuff into that five paragraph template we were taught in grade school (intro paragraph - three body paragraphs, and one conclusion paragraph that restates the body) and I think you'd do well to try just ignoring that format and writing more naturally.

And this is kind of a side complaint, but one of my biggest pet peeves in reviews is any mention of the bass being inconsequential and/or (in)audible in some way. I don't mean this as an insult, but I genuinely think people who say this either just don't know what a bass guitar sounds like in the context of a full metal band, or they just have nothing interesting to say about it but feel obligated to comment on it anyway due to the checklist thing I mentioned. Cannibal has never buried their bass and Webster is one of the most acclaimed death metal bassists in history for a reason (though Eaten isn't a particularly flashy showcase of his talent, but then again his willingness to hang back and supplement the groove is a big part of the reason he's so respected). The bass in almost every metal album besides excessively raw BM and a few notable outliers like And Justice for All is perfectly discernable, but since it tends to follow the guitar in metal I think a lot of newbies struggle to parse it out. If you just don't think there's anything interesting to say about the bass, just don't bring it up! It's totally okay to do that. Readers don't need an explicit sentence saying as such to infer that one exists, and merely pointing out that it's audible always inevitably feels like that statement is backed by surprise when really it's obvious and kind of exposes a gap in your knowledge that could've been avoided by just not opening up that door.

And specifically for this particular album, I think the way you talk about certain things shows that you could have a better grasp on the context surrounding it. Using the phrase "osdm" to describe anything prior to like 2008 is extremely weird because it usually indicates that a band is consciously trying to evoke an older sound. Calling Eaten osdm is like calling The Terminator "retro sci-fi" when it's actually the exact of-its-time thing that "retro" films are trying to emulate. There's a reason we all called Municipal Waste "retro thrash" but nobody in their right mind would use the term to describe Hell Awaits. And highlighting the thrash influence is good but seems to misunderstand where death metal even was as a style in 1990. Death metal largely came around because certain subsets of thrash were getting more and more extreme until it eventually became distinct. I'd argue that albums like Leprosy and Altars of Madness managed to fully break from thrash before Eaten came out but by and large death metal wasn't wholly solidified at the time into the style we know it as today. Eaten's thrashiness is absolutely worth pointing out but the implication that it was a conscious deviation from death metal orthodoxy is off-base because that orthodoxy wasn't established yet.

Apologies if this comes off as super harsh. Like I said the review could probably scrape by as a 3 pointer if I saw it in the queue but there's a lot of room for improvement. And that's why I encourage you to keep at it, because everybody improves with practice!

Top
 Profile  
Kratopsis
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2023 12:07 pm
Posts: 2
Location: United States
PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2023 7:53 pm 
 

This is my reviews been rejected twice please help

I believe this is Metallica's best album because of how revolutionary this album was compared to "Kill em all", this album has a great opener of "Fight Fire With Fire" which really pumps you up for more. It has such a great feel to it and prepares you for the rest of this killer album. The title track of "Ride The Lightning" is also really good, the opening and closing riff are just so iconic it's a great head-banging song and as we continue listening to the album, "Trapped Under Ice" is one of the greatest songs of all time. It's a great song about emotions and feeling alone and having no-one to talk to. That song just gives me goosebumps whenever I listen to it and it also makes me feel happy because when I first heard it made me feel like I wasn't alone. "Creeping Death" is just great it has great songwriting with emotion, and great riff-age, it is one of the greatest songs of Metallica's in my opinion, it has one of the best Proto-Breakdowns about half-way through the song, and the song writing on this song is excellent. And as the album goes on "Call of Ktulu" is kind of a bummer track don't get me wrong its good but for a Instrumental but it is way to long for a song, but there are so many great songs and "Fade to Black" is just a great ballad about depression and emotions which is a high point in this album it is just so good. That is why I know this is their best album.

Top
 Profile  
AmogusEnjoyer
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2023 10:35 am
Posts: 3
Location: Croatia
PostPosted: Sat Mar 25, 2023 8:52 am 
 

Hi guys.

I'm writting my first review here and would like some feedback on what to do (should I expand, cut out some stuff, change up etc.).
I do not consider it worthy of submission yet though, so some things are probably going to change.



Blind Guardian - Imaginations from the Other Side

"Arguably even more important than Nightfall"
100%

When it comes to history of metal, there is a certain tendency to paint the early-mid 90s as a sort of a dark age.
And while it is true that, in regards to commercial success, metal took a whole other level of beating due to the advent of grunge, upon closer inspection one soon realises that the period from early-mid 90s hosts some of metal's greatest achievements, particularly in subgenres like death metal (Morbid Angel, Death), black metal (Darkthrone, Mayhem, Immortal) and especially power metal in form of Gamma Ray and Blind Guardian, and the latter would in 1995 release what I consider the greatest metal album of the 90s.

Stylistically, this album takes the the best of the 80s thrash metal which is brutality and aggression, and the best parts of Judas Priest and Iron Maiden which is melodic guitar playing and operatic vocal style and meshes them together into an unbridled rampage of anger, despair and even some melancholy. Songs like "I'm Alive" and "Another Holy War" just pummel the listener's ears with relentlessly brutal riffing, thunderous drumming and vocals that are mind-numbingly high while still maintaining a little bit of thrash metal's roughness. On the other side, we also have more softer songs which display more melodic and despairful tone, primarily in form of two power pseudo-ballads "Mordred's Song" and "Bright Eyes".Of course, there is still the mandatory bard-like,accoustic, medieval ballad "A Past and Future Secret" However, what pretty much surprised me on subsequent relistens is how well the album flows together. Raw,brutal tracks give way to more softer tracks, avoiding the danger of album sounding the samey, while still maintaining the sound that is unique to the album.

Production wise, all the instruments can be heard without intruding on one another (except the bass, it's definitely on the more quiet end).Guitars and vocals both shine high without overtaking each other, drums sound crisp and like thunder, but I would like to clarify I am listening to the more modern vinyl re-release which changes some things from the original and 2007 master. It sounds more clean and less raw and murky, and while I prefer the more cleaner production, it's understandable some people would be disappointed that some of the rawness in production is gone.


Performance wise, this is Blind Guardian collectively at their best.
Andre Olbrich just pulverises every single riff on the album while still introducing more complex and melodic playing in the album's slower moments and pre-choruses, and somehow it all sounds precise and concentrated at the same time.
This is Hansi's second best performance in Blind Guardian's history (I am firn in my belief that "A Night at the Opera" is his best work with the band). Not only does he manage to pull off ear-piercing screams and high pitched vocals, at the same time he blends in the grit and roughness that wouldn't be out of place on a thrash metal album, so what you get is very often the sound of a man screaming in anger and desperation.
Thomen is most mean drum machine here. Drumming is extremely fast and extremely aggressive while utilising the double kick to it's fullest potential, creating the sensation of a being in a middle of the hurricane.
Marcus Siepen is probably the least talked about on this album and is probably it's unsung hero. As a rhytm guitarist, not only does he play his riffs with laser precision, he is basically a human metronome, keeping the entire band together and turning the entire album from chaos to a laser precise artillery bombardment.
Really, only thing I would complain about is the bass. It's nothing bad and it's competently done, but it's not extremely creative and, like I said before, it kind of gets lost in the mixing, but it doesn't detract from the full experience at all, so it gets a pass.

The impact of the album cannot be understated either. While "Nightfall" is tradtionally held as Blind Guardian's most influential album (and not wrong, considering how many symphonic power metal bands got inspired by it), what IFTOS started was a wave of power metal that most modern bands like Powerwolf, Sabaton, Edguy, Nightwish and others are very much surfing to this very day.

Overall, this is an excellent album that combines best of thrash and power into a concentrated assault and as such I would recommend it to people asking for both the raw, aggressive assault and a more melodic approach to metal.

Top
 Profile  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic Go to page Previous  1 ... 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

  Print view
Jump to:  

Back to the Encyclopaedia Metallum


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group