The first thing you say is true, for instance apparently my most-reviewed genre is death metal, but I barely consider myself a death metal fan. I think it's because doom death and melodeath etc are all included, while I've probably reviewed a comparatively small number of true death metal releases. I'm up to 56 countries by the way.

I'm pretty fascinated that my top 3 similar reviewers are Twisted_Psych, UltraBoris, and Empyreal, but I don't even appear on the lists of the latter two writers. I guess that a high concentration of virgin reviews accounts for having such a low percentage similarity to anyone else. You and me Hells (on my list) are at 11%, you and Twist are the only people who I have over 100 same reviews with.

Interested to know if there's anyone in this forum that doesn't have America as their country with the most number of reviewed albums.

That's a pretty lame line from a middling review, but eh, might just be the curmudgeon in me speaking.

I liked Firmament1's review of Pain Remains, though it's a bit formulaic (the footnotes/endnotes need to go IMO). This, though



...I agree with, surprisingly. Gave that album a shot recently, and was pleasantly surprised with the quite beefy overall sound that's not at all synthetic and glossy.

As much as I dug Xevon's Load redeemer, which makes a ton of valid points in its maligned favor, I noticed his reviews for both Load and Reload are one and the same. It's a fun and rare occurrence, where a single review will double up. It can also happen when you write up splits and demos. Anyhow, I've an urge to rehear the "golden oldie".

Annable Courts seems to be going through an existential reviewer crisis with their spate of 'semi-hot takes' at the moment. I can't quite work out why they are writing them, or who they have in mind as an audience for them.

Yes, "Seven Churches" has plenty of hardcore/punk influence, but the important thing is how it deviates from it, so statements like this are misleading at best: "from a song-writing standpoint we're given a form of aggressive old school hardcore punk as far as the main substance for the rhythms". Has this person listened to much old school hardcore? Have they listened to "Seven Churches"? There are more differences than similarities, and those differences are the important part.

I understand the temptation to rail against established opinion, sure. But these recent reviews are a mix of jargon and factual errors, topped off with a sheen of pseudo-objectivity (e.g., "minimalist guitar work consisting of repeating, nearly mechanical power chord tropes over rushed upbeat cadences"). I have little idea what that sentence means, and the errors elsewhere mean that I can't be bothered to reach for my guitar and verify it.

I'll give the benefit of doubt and say it is a phase to get to more likable/readable reviews in future. I have liked some of their reviews in the past. I hope it isn't just some elaborate and time-consuming form of trolling.

Considering that Seven Churches was released in 1985 (for crying out loud) and much of what was done on there didn't have much precedence, anybody using the word "tropes" to describe any aspect of it loses me completely. There are hot takes, and then there is just plain wrong. Furthermore, pointing out a commonality between any album within the thrash metal sub-genre and hardcore and just leaving it at that is tantamount to calling water wet without any further exploration of the topic. You can not like the album or consider its historical significance to be overstated (I don't agree in either respect), but levying anachronistic charges at it or resorting to punishingly obvious platitudes is the wrong way to go about expressing such a position. I haven't read much of Annable Courts' material, and it looks like I may pass on it if this is typical to it.

Well, that latest review from GuardAwakening alerted me to the existence of... something I wish I was never alerted to the existence of.

Masters of Disguise deserve to have their entire discography reviewed. I expect Alpha/Omega to sound like what I would expect from MOD and the review says everything that you should expect. I just prefer MOD than Stratovarius and Sonata. I need to start listenting from the song "Knutson III" though because I'm curious to see how they fucked that up.

An old reviewer [Ultraboris] calling some thrash 'pussy thrash,' and other stuff he doesn't like, 'donkey crap,' has a funny side to it.

Bayern has an insane number of obscure metal band reviews. Impressive... Most impressive.

And, BuriedUnborn's 'Lux Eterna' review, pretty much sums it up.

yesterday dont mean shit, that is it

morbert's review for "A Blaze..." is pretty strange, rather a personal story than a music description. Some tragic elements are included. For example, he listened to a song "a trillion times", only to discover that it is a 0%-stinker. And the only reason for his new rating is that he has (surprisingly?) grown.

Honestly, I also do not understand the cult status of the album, but I think it's completely weird to give an album 0% with the background that he once loved it. Of course, some albums do not stand the test of time, but I doubt that it makes sense to play the totally uncompromising 0%-reviewer.

And we should not forget that it is a little (but inevitable) weakness of M-A that reviews for albums from 1979, 1992, 2001 and so on stand shoulder to shoulder with those that have been relesed 24 hours ago. What I want to say: you cannot expect to feel the enthusiasm anymore you felt at the time of their release. So I am sorry, I do not defend the music on "A Blaze...", but this approach does not convince me.

I also find it weird that he compared the album to Regurgitation's Organic Backwash and claimed they stole from them. Maybe for the vocals, but I don't see the similarities instrumental-wise in my opinion.

That's a pretty bad review right there. Morbert spends half of the time about the background/his personal experience and then dives into the actually review... which is more of a rant than anything else. Besides, who uses 'FFS' in a review, anyway?

gasmask_colostomy writes art review for Steel Inferno's Evil Reign. Mad Max Fury Road, meets Steel Inferno's Evil Reign. The cover is stupid.

Well I didn’t mean to write an “art review” exactly, but that’s usually Felix’s job and he forgot to comment. So I feel it was necessary to poke a bit of fun.

And also forgot to give props to CHAIR’s pun-happy Grim Justice take. I still haven’t listened to it, but now I have the opinion that matters!

Hi Gasmask,
I lost a few words about Steel Inferno's artwork... anyway, I am happy to know that I can rely on you whenever my rotten brain fails to manage things right.
By the way, cool review from your side.

Re: Vincevon's review of Anthrax's Among the Living, his first point goes 'To be honest, Anthrax really should not be in the Big Four of Thrash Metal.'

It's common knowledge that the 'Big 4' are the biggest selling bands in the genre, so Anthrax belong in there – not Exodus or Testament. And, I'm saying this as someone who'd go to Overkill, Exodus, Megadeth, Slayer, and early Metallica, before Anthrax.

Vincevon also makes this assertion: 'This is the reason Anthrax can’t be in the Big Four. You can listen to “Master of Puppets” or “Rust in Peace” or “Reign in Blood” all the way through and not have a problem'.

It's not only an asinine remark, Metallica's MoP isn't the complete listen, either. Far from it, actually.

I actually don't think that's common knowledge at this point anymore. The whole concept of the "Big 4" has morphed fully away from its original meaning. The fact is, it was coined in the late 80s/early 90s to describe the four bands in the genre that vastly outsold the rest by a gargantuan margin, but as long as I've been on the internet and reading the words of metal dorks (so like... late 90s?) I've seen statements/complaints that Anthrax shouldn't count and be replaced by either Exodus (because they were there first and had much more insular influence) or Testament (who, in the years since, have had more continued success). The whole concept was already widely misunderstood and debated merely a few years after it came into effect. The original meaning is totally vaporous nowadays after popular discourse misunderstood it so hard for so long. I'd really like it if the term just died already because I'm just as tired of people misunderstanding it as you are.

Whaaaaaat. The landmark Sofia, Bulgaria show was called The Big Four, which has gotta be one of the most attended and highest grossing metal concerts ever. I consider The Big Four a crumb of trivia. The "Metalhead" Jeopardy question for $200. When you start getting into "The Big 3 of Teutonic Thrash + Tankard", or "The Big 2 of Never-Involved-in-Controversy Black Metal" then sure, that's what I'd call vaporous. Don't get me wrong, Anthrax's eternal role as the plucky underdog (or pretender to the throne) of some made-up "super hero squad" of thrash metal is hokey as hell, but it's commonly known hoke.

As for the review, I would take Among the Living over Puppets any day. Indians, Caught in a Mosh, Skeletons, goodness gracious. Some of the catchiest, most energetic and accessible thrash anthems ever written, and with none of Puppets' egregious fluff.

I'm genuinely intrigued by that.

Also, in a couple of weeks, Emperor and Mayhem will be playing a show here and I guess it will be the furthest from that concept

Lmao I was actually going to mention something about how the rigidity of a "Big Four" permeated so deeply that we wound up trying to cram the idea into every scene imaginable and was going to use German thrash as an explicit example since there are only three super obvious huge superstars (Kreator, Sodom, Destruction) and so people had to immediately start scraping the barrel to find anything passable with a modicum of a fanbase and that's how mediocre shlock like Tankard wound up sharing the same space as three bands that are so far out of their league that it almost looks like an intentional joke. I couldn't think of how to phrase or connect it though, so I dropped it. Funny that you used it as an example of how the concept doesn't really work after all

"Vaporous" is probably too extreme of a word to use, I'll concede that. I think my main point still holds though: The original meaning of the Big Four is irrelevant now but the idea itself never died so people have been redefining/recontextualizing it for decades now. It was obvious in 1988 why Anthrax was a member of such an elite club but less than a decade later there were people questioning why it had to be them instead of Exodus or Testament or Overkill or whoever. The bands themselves don't even seem to put too much stock into it beyond marketing purposes*. Kerry King has both referred to it as a "Big Five" so he can include Exodus and has mused that Machine Head should be the fourth member instead of Anthrax in modern times (which is just... shut up and paddle your whammy you Goron lookin' dork). "Big Four" was coined when it explicitly referred to album sales, but nobody gives a shit about that anymore so the popular framing is built more around influence or popularity, and Anthrax's claim to that title is much more tenuous when viewed through that frame. Don't get me wrong, I think Anthrax has a bunch of great records in their classic era and deserve all the acclaim they've gotten, but I get why they're so frequently questioned in this context.

* - And this is the only logical and correct way to approach it even in the modern day, imo. It was just a way to group the four most popular bands into one bloc and it makes total sense from a marketing perspective to never ever ever let that title fade away. It just makes far less sense to have a standardized group based on perceived quality and then to lock it in place and never reevaluate it, which is what happened when the idea persisted but the function listeners projected onto it moved away from the original meaning. And that's why in 2022 we still get reviews from kids and oldheads alike who seem to not know or have forgotten that "The Big Four of Thrash" has fuck all to do with quality.

Good to see an Insanity rehearsal review, and the new one is more detailed than mine.

[I actually listen to "Chemical Invasion" (which is the only really good Tankard album) way more than I listen to any Sodom and Destruction material. I love the crossover vibes on that record.]

This is why I miss Tanuki posts/reviews so bad lol. Especially "Metalhead Jeopardy question for $200."

Also, the thing that makes me most uncomfortable about BastardHead's current signature is that the word "probably" is in the wrong place.

Morbert! I so dig your Pantera review of Hell Cowboys! I feel like you wrote it for me, so thanks!

Every point you made was valid, right on the nose, the same reasons I dig said album but not quite the band as a whole, or for what they'd become and leave behind. (I also dig old time morsels such as "Nothing On (But The Radio)" and "Ride My Rocket", from what I can remember from their wild hair days.) You got my wheels spinning; since I've actually a long winded spiel on Cowboys From Hell in my drafts, expect a touch-up soon, as it's long been filed under "classic review imminent", along with some Witchfinder G. and particular pair of Pentagram comps - you know the drill.

Really, your review made my day and spurred me back on the workhorse, as this morning, I was kind of stewing on the fact yesterday I lent (or more likely, "gave") my good pal Mick 200$ to put a deposit on and secure our neighbor's Acer Predator PC - gamer champagne - which I kind of wanted to buy myself (yet was never presented with an offer). A first world problem, (sm)all things considered.

Anyways, I had to let you know what a right opinion you have.

(Haha, I was up in a tizzy when I saw a new Tower album listed, which turned out to be no more than simple name imitator's.)

Haha, thank you buddy! It feels good to be back.


I agree. The big 4 was nomenclature that was 100% definitely birthed from ambigious, since-irrelevant means. It was definitely a product of its time, pre-internet, when marketing and commercialism was really hamfisted. If you'll excuse my nerdiness, it's kinda like the 90's "Console Wars". Most people will tell you it was between Nintendo and Sega. Some enthusiasts might jump up and say "What about Turbografx or what about NEOGEO" or whatever. And this actually proves your point. The Big 4 was never an indicator of quality, or even similarity, and constant in-fighting does make the term feel a little... Uh... Not "vaporous", but...

Honestly though, the term is concrete in the fact that it's known. People trying to redefine it never get far. The most common variation is "Exodus should be included", but Zetro himself said he didn't care if it was or wasn't. I could say the Big 4 of Orchestral Metal is Dark Lunacy, Diablo Swing Orchestra, Fleshgod Apocalypse, and Metallica. People could - and should - reply "Tanuki, put a sock in it, exit your Excel Spreadsheet without saving, and go to an actual concert." But I don't think their knowledge of the original Big 4 would be diluted. But dude, I could be totally wrong here. I hope I'm not. Honestly, maybe if we interviewed random zoomers in Ghost shirts, they couldn't define the Big 4. Or, they might know exactly what it is, but will offer their own opinion and say Cyclone Temple should replace Slayer or something. I think that'd be unfortunate, because I think part of the fun of metal is its history, mythology, and lil' nuggets of trivia and talking points like this.

One thing we can absolutely agree on? Kerry King absolutely looks like a Goron, holy shit I'll never be able to not think that now.

Wow, thank you!
It came from the heart. And a bit from the head

You're welcome! (Oh, in my excitement yesterday, I ended up committing myself to five more reviews - hopefully, before the year is up.) Some Cowboys lore, here: when I was 14 or 15 or so, one of the first things Pat Knup (of Foreshadow) showed me in guitar class was Domination in its full rifftastick glory, along with the solos, as well as killer opener's main riff. Great times! (He also nailed down, by ear, Megadeth's chromatically kickass Soul Tornado...)

When I was a senior in high school, the band I was in played Domination for the school talent show. I was rhythm guitar.

\m/!

Hey guys, how does the similar reviewers system work in Empath? I see that there are two columns with numbers but I don't know what each one represents.

The preposterously low--and, in other cases, ridiculously high--scores ascribed to certain albums are definitely one of the Metal Archive's weak spots. I wish moderators were a bit more critical of those. I can understand someone not being into some of metal's biggest classics, like, for example, A Blaze...

Groupthink is never a good thing. Form your own opinion, by all means. But as soon as someone gives such albums, especially highly influential ones that played a critical role in the evolution of an entire metal subgenre, a ridiculously low rating (like in the 0 to 20 percent range), you cannot take the review seriously anymore. Those very low scores should be reserved for the really, really bad albums--bad as in, band X can't even properly play their instruments or vocalist Y can't even hit the right note most of the time.

Whenever some dude hands out an abysmally low rating for one of metal's perceived classics, chances are he is either trolling or has some personal bone to pick with a certain band. I mean, if you absolutely do not like A Blaze..., maybe give it a 30 or a 40 as well as a reasonable explanation why you don't like it. Not just, "album X sucks because I hate musician Y's oily hide", or something.

I thought this sentence was going somewhere better.



Stop caring about numbers. They don't mean anything. They aren't real.

After a few tests, I came to the conclusion that the second column counts the number of common bands reviewed by both of you. Don't really know about the first one, though - it might be some sort of indicator of how much you have agreed with them in terms of rating? But it's not easily comprehensible.

In regards to Felix's introspective spiel on all things morbert, allow me to simply point out you meant to say "she" (of jocosely heartfelt interjection) instead of "he"...I also dug lonerider's culturistic tale about Bavaria's Grab, it of the desktop background worthy adornement i.e. its ever-lugubriously dope artwork!

I used to think it was the percentage of same albums reviewed. But actually doing the maths, it's not very close to that, so it might be same bands. However, that's not good for these numbers either...

What I do know is that depending whose page you're on, the percentage (first figure) will change, because it calculates according to the compared reviewer's total number of reviews/bands, not the page of the reviewer you are on. That's why if I compare me and Twisted_Psychology, the right hand number is 122 in both cases, but on his page the percentage is smaller. That makes sense, since he's written less overall reviews and written on less bands, so the number from which that 122 is taken is larger (my total). If anyone can make the numbers work, please let us know, I've left the basic data there for this purpose.

Twist's page: 0.144 // 122. He has reviewed 565 different bands.
My page: 0.184 // 122. I have reviewed 920 different bands.

Anybody know if sisters_of_merciless is able to be contacted at all? We could always just ask him, but the fact that I don't think there's been any sort of update with empath in like a decade tells me he may not even be around or interested in it at all anymore.

hahahaha, thanks for the fun.
Anyway

Thanks. I was kind of shocked there weren't any reviews yet. Zeitlang is too good an album to go virtually unnoticed.

Hey gas! Thanks for steering me back towards Toitube's (Voustube in France) Metal School; I'm now watching its Ratt* expose before heading to work (which could be cut short due to snowfall, as ye olde food trucks might be stalled); it's a fine switch from yelling at harebrained internet sleuths re.: them sordid as Hell Potato State murders (let the investigators do their jobs, already, without encroaching impediment). By the way, I haven't forgotten or shirked my ulterior holiday/end of year commitments...just delayed them a bit, following my second playthrough of Guardians of the Galaxy, where I'm aiming for the "fashion" achievement i.e. amass all character costumes. (It also means I had to start the game over a few times in order to collect the first Rocket/Groot outfits, scurrilously hidden as they are!)

*ps why in frig is this landmark glamorizer MA blacklisted?!? I so want to review Out Of The Cellar/Invasion Of Your Privacy...

I really love Metal School, because that dude (is he really narrating, or is that an auto-voice?) focuses on bands that I can't be bothered to do all the research on, usually American ones. Sometimes it's a bit formulaic, especially when he shows all the music videos they've ever done, but he also digs out interviews for some of them which are cool. The intro to Manilla Road was especially helpful, recommend that one in particular.

Hmm, Ratt I can kind of see why they'd be rock...but close to borderline compared to some of the others, certainly.

Great to hear back! Now that you mention it, Metal School is a wonderful source of reviewal fodder for the budding (or waning) scribe, alike. As for the narrator, he's pretty cool, does a wicked job detailing music videos. In regards to Ratt (and its rather hip vids) though, I mean, how can shaken/not stirred Warren DeMartini soloing not be considered metal?! With Def Lep being on the site, it's only fair Ratty gets an MA nod, too! (Should I bother contesting our Lords' decision, regarding this? Will anyone else here back me up?!)