Encyclopaedia Metallum: The Metal Archives

Message board

* FAQ    * Search   * Register   * Login 



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

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 5:38 am
Posts: 1020
Location: Behind the wall of fire v.2
PostPosted: Fri May 01, 2020 10:34 am 
 

nightbreaker33 wrote:
Hi, guys, I posted some reviews a month ago and they were rejected because they had line breaks. Can someone please help me solve the line breaks problem because other websites and text cleaner from google docs do nothing. I would really appreciate it. Help, please. As I know, line breaks are like when one sentence has the same length as the next sentence. Or when a sentence is continued in the next sentence.

Nope, you are thinking about things like sentence fragments. Line breaks are not really an issue of writing, but of presentation. It's when you leave a blank line between one paragraph and the next.

See, I just made one. The line breaks should be appropriate. Not after every sentence, nor should your paragraphs be too long. If you are using line breaks very messily, your review will probably be rejected, but it's an easy problem to fix.

Hope you can post your edited reviews soon. If you have further problems, post them in this thread and someone can take a look.
_________________
Five_Nails wrote:
unfuckable long-haired muffin-top titty-boy suburbanite I was

Top
 Profile  
nightbreaker33
Metal newbie

Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 11:20 am
Posts: 326
PostPosted: Sat May 02, 2020 11:16 am 
 

Image

An Example

So the problem here is that I can tell it's a bit messy because the sentences don't have the same words and there are blanks in all the paragraphs that make it look bad ok I get it. How do I solve this problem though? Do I need to write it from scratch or is there an option on apache open office ( That's what I'm using because it's free).

Top
 Profile  
gasmask_colostomy
Metalhead

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 5:38 am
Posts: 1020
Location: Behind the wall of fire v.2
PostPosted: Sat May 02, 2020 11:42 am 
 

nightbreaker33 wrote:
Spoiler: show
Image


An Example

So the problem here is that I can tell it's a bit messy because the sentences don't have the same words and there are blanks in all the paragraphs that make it look bad ok I get it. How do I solve this problem though? Do I need to write it from scratch or is there an option on apache open office ( That's what I'm using because it's free).

From reading this, I feel that the problem is not line breaks, but the length of your sentences. Especially in the first paragraph, you have really massive sentences that need to be broken into 2 or 3 parts each, in order to make the meaning clearer. For the first sentence, here's my suggestion:

"Crystal Winds is an old underground band from Greece that got its first opportunity to record a small album of 4 tracks [a 4-track EP] in 2016. Previously, the band had recorded a self-released demo in 2004 with vocalist Giannis Britsas, now of Crimson Fire fame, though this recent release features an entirely new line-up, except for founding member Giannis Vrontis."
_________________
Five_Nails wrote:
unfuckable long-haired muffin-top titty-boy suburbanite I was

Top
 Profile  
BastardHead
Worse than Stalin

Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 7:53 pm
Posts: 9819
Location: St. Charles, Illinois
PostPosted: Sat May 02, 2020 11:47 am 
 

Well from that screenshot I can also tell you right away that the line breaks are wrong. This is by far the most common formatting issue I've seen in my years in the queue and I really should get on somebody to rewrite the rules to be less confusing, because it asks for "two keystrokes" and so many people misinterpret that as "two blank spaces", when really we only want one. We want spaces between paragraphs to look like

this, not like


this, like you have it. Yeah technically that is "two keystrokes" of the enter key but I swear tons of people read "two" and then let their brain fill in the most logical next word in that context. Run on sentences can be an issue, sure, but it's much, much lower of a formatting priority because damn yo we're writing metal reviews, not thesis statements. Unless every paragraph is one two hundred word sentence I don't think that's going to cause much of an issue.
_________________
Lair of the Bastard: LATEST REVIEW: Vader - Litany
The Outer RIM - Uatism: The dogs bark in street slang
ALBUM OF THE DECADE RESULTS

Top
 Profile  
Grave_Wyrm
Metal Sloth

Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 5:55 pm
Posts: 3928
Location: Across the croggy plain
PostPosted: Sat May 02, 2020 12:40 pm 
 

Nice to see your name in red, BH.
_________________
Bigotry is a mental health issue.

Top
 Profile  
Metantoine
Lazy Wizard

Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 5:00 pm
Posts: 11883
Location: Montréal
PostPosted: Sat May 02, 2020 1:39 pm 
 

Grave_Wyrm wrote:
Nice to see your name in red, BH.

Nice to See Your Name In Red sounds like a mid 2000s screamo band.

nightbreaker33, like previously said, your sentences are way too long. Read the review aloud, it can help you add some punctuation to the whole thing.
_________________
Derigin wrote:
You look like you lift. Nice.

Metantoine's Magickal Realm

Top
 Profile  
Sweetie
Metalhead

Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2014 1:19 am
Posts: 928
Location: United States
PostPosted: Sat May 02, 2020 3:50 pm 
 

I thought BH's name was in red since the beginning of the year
_________________
"It's not the kill, it's the thrill of the chase" - Deep Purple

Top
 Profile  
Grave_Wyrm
Metal Sloth

Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 5:55 pm
Posts: 3928
Location: Across the croggy plain
PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2020 1:37 am 
 

Sweetie wrote:
I thought BH's name was in red since the beginning of the year

That may well be true.

Metantoine wrote:
Nice to See Your Name In Red sounds like a mid 2000s screamo band.

I almost felt happy
But now I feel dead
So fucking empty
I painted your name in a straight line
All of the things that I never said
Everything in my head
Blood red
_________________
Bigotry is a mental health issue.

Top
 Profile  
plague_witch
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2020 7:08 pm
Posts: 8
PostPosted: Sun Jun 07, 2020 1:33 pm 
 

hello. i wrote a few reviews and they were all accepted but i am curious as to how they compare to other peoples opinions of reviews. i don't really like reading long reviews (i sleep) so all of mine are pretty short - maybe that is good, maybe that is bad. anyway, they're mostly for bands that had no reviews and also they are all positive since i don't know how i would review something i don't like. i just felt like collecting my thoughts on some albums/EPs more cohesively than just "i like". any thoughts welcome

https://www.metal-archives.com/users/plague_witch

Top
 Profile  
ThStealthP
Metalhead

Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2013 3:16 pm
Posts: 678
Location: Dominican Republic
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2020 12:08 am 
 

Image

Top
 Profile  
gasmask_colostomy
Metalhead

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 5:38 am
Posts: 1020
Location: Behind the wall of fire v.2
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2020 5:26 am 
 

plague_witch wrote:
hello. i wrote a few reviews and they were all accepted but i am curious as to how they compare to other peoples opinions of reviews. i don't really like reading long reviews (i sleep) so all of mine are pretty short - maybe that is good, maybe that is bad. anyway, they're mostly for bands that had no reviews and also they are all positive since i don't know how i would review something i don't like. i just felt like collecting my thoughts on some albums/EPs more cohesively than just "i like". any thoughts welcome

https://www.metal-archives.com/users/plague_witch

I know you got feedback on your Sabaton review in the main thread, but that was mostly about the opinion. I just read your Dissipate review and noticed a few things:
- Good overall use of language, including some non-standard descriptions (e.g. "masticated"), which I find help to define the mood of an album.
- In-depth description of the music, from both technical and emotional points of view.
- Poor structure that just vomits forth basic information about the album and then settles into (almost) track-by-track analysis. Write an intro or some general impression first.
- A few dodgy bits of punctuation. I've spotted commas used where you need something more substantial: try colons.
_________________
Five_Nails wrote:
unfuckable long-haired muffin-top titty-boy suburbanite I was

Top
 Profile  
gasmask_colostomy
Metalhead

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 5:38 am
Posts: 1020
Location: Behind the wall of fire v.2
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2020 10:33 am 
 

ThStealthP wrote:
Spoiler: show
Image

I'm assuming you posted this because it was rejected? Please tell us what you want help with, we are not mind-readers.

If it was rejected, I can suggest several things for you to improve:
- You are mostly comparing Genesis to Doom. That's useful for anyone who know JFAC due to their EP, but useless for everyone else. You need to describe the album itself, not just saying it's more/less something than Doom.
- When you try to describe the sound of the album, it's too basic and unclear. You say the riffs are more consistent, more technical, and like Decapitated and Nile. You also say they don't exactly sound like Decapitated and Nile. So I don't know what the riffs really sound like. You say that Doom had slams and breakdowns, but I don't know if this album has.
- Mostly you are saying whether each bandmember performs well or poorly. We know they perform well because you say the album is good, but I want to know what they are doing. Of course the guitarists play riffs and the drummer plays blasts and double bass - how are they making music with them?
- Describe some of the songs, for god's sake.
- The structure is really boring, going one by one through the band. That's not how we listen to music, so try to focus on more general things sometimes and more specific things at other times.

Your writing isn't bad, but the way you have approached the review needs big changes. You should be reviewing and describing Genesis, but you have written "My evaluation of how JFAC members improved betweenDoom and Genesis".
_________________
Five_Nails wrote:
unfuckable long-haired muffin-top titty-boy suburbanite I was

Top
 Profile  
ThStealthP
Metalhead

Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2013 3:16 pm
Posts: 678
Location: Dominican Republic
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2020 10:58 am 
 

gasmask_colostomy wrote:
ThStealthP wrote:
Spoiler: show
Image

I'm assuming you posted this because it was rejected? Please tell us what you want help with, we are not mind-readers.

If it was rejected, I can suggest several things for you to improve:
- You are mostly comparing Genesis to Doom. That's useful for anyone who know JFAC due to their EP, but useless for everyone else. You need to describe the album itself, not just saying it's more/less something than Doom.
- When you try to describe the sound of the album, it's too basic and unclear. You say the riffs are more consistent, more technical, and like Decapitated and Nile. You also say they don't exactly sound like Decapitated and Nile. So I don't know what the riffs really sound like. You say that Doom had slams and breakdowns, but I don't know if this album has.
- Mostly you are saying whether each bandmember performs well or poorlycorrectow they perform well because you say the album is good, but I want to know what they are doing. Of course the guitarists play riffs and the drummer plays blasts and double bass - how are they making music with them?
- Describe some of the songs, for god's sake.
- The structure is really boring, going one by one through the band. That's not how we listen to music, so try to focus on more general things sometimes and more specific things at other times.

Your writing isn't bad, but the way you have approached the review needs big changes. You should be reviewing and describing Genesis, but you have written "My evaluation of how JFAC members improved betweenDoom and Genesis".

I just wanted to know if the spell / grammar were correct, Is that all. It's a rewritten review from yesterday

Top
 Profile  
gasmask_colostomy
Metalhead

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 5:38 am
Posts: 1020
Location: Behind the wall of fire v.2
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2020 5:49 pm 
 

ThStealthP wrote:
gasmask_colostomy wrote:
ThStealthP wrote:
Spoiler: show
Image

I'm assuming you posted this because it was rejected? Please tell us what you want help with, we are not mind-readers.

I just wanted to know if the spell / grammar were correct, Is that all. It's a rewritten review from yesterday

Passable but not great. As you can see from my earlier post, you’ve got bigger problems. Also, please remember to communicate well in this thread too.
_________________
Five_Nails wrote:
unfuckable long-haired muffin-top titty-boy suburbanite I was

Top
 Profile  
plague_witch
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2020 7:08 pm
Posts: 8
PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2020 6:45 am 
 

gasmask_colostomy wrote:
- Poor structure that just vomits forth basic information about the album and then settles into (almost) track-by-track analysis. Write an intro or some general impression first.
- A few dodgy bits of punctuation. I've spotted commas used where you need something more substantial: try colons.


Thanks for picking these up. Really helpful - inadvertently slipping into track by track for an EP feels much easier to do than for a full length.

Top
 Profile  
MohawksAmongUs
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 6:14 pm
Posts: 3
Location: Chile
PostPosted: Sun Jun 28, 2020 7:40 pm 
 

Hi, everyone. I wrote a review for Cattle Decapitation's "The Harvest Floor" and it got rejected due to spelling/grammar errors that make it difficult to read. I'm not quite sure what I'm doing wrong, so I'd love to hear your feedback.

Spoiler: show
Cattle Decapitation has a quite technical approach to deathgrind. The band experiments a lot with rapid sweep picking, non-stop shredding, and intricate songwriting. It is obvious that they are extremely talented - but can they deliver a proper album?

Let's start with the way this release is structured. There are flurries of rapid, dissonant notes that seem to clash with each other. An example of this can be found in the intro for "The Ripe Beneath The Rind": a swirl of confused, discordant notes that lasts mere seconds before going back to more orthodox riffing patterns. In contrast, one can find melodic, upbeat, and progressive passages which create a sort of sonic link between these two styles. Think of them as a less refined version of the melodies found on "Monolith Of Inhumanity".

Occasionally, the band slows down and delves into slam death metal territory; since CD plays in D# tuning, these slams unfortunately don't pack much heaviness.

The drumming is probably the most remarkable trait here. David McGraw performs a multitude of methods: relentless blast beats, groovy rhythms, and at times, patterns that are seemingly undirected, following the steps of the cacophonous string section. The bass, which is pretty high in the mix, seems to battle against the guitars, shining through the sharp, crystalline production.

Travis Ryan uses a myriad of techniques that prevent the music from becoming too dull. Standard death metal growls, incredibly raw and animalistic shrieks, extremely low gurgles - a truly versatile vocalist.

Despite the proficiency shown on this album, CD fails to comply with one of the most important factors in any musical project: memorability. At times, it sounds like the band members threw around a bunch of riffs with no real coherence or structure. It's not a bad album, but there are much more solid deathgrind releases out there.

Top
 Profile  
Slater922
Metal newbie

Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2020 6:24 pm
Posts: 41
PostPosted: Mon Jun 29, 2020 1:30 pm 
 

MohawksAmongUs wrote:
Hi, everyone. I wrote a review for Cattle Decapitation's "The Harvest Floor" and it got rejected due to spelling/grammar errors that make it difficult to read. I'm not quite sure what I'm doing wrong, so I'd love to hear your feedback.

Spoiler: show
Cattle Decapitation has a quite technical approach to deathgrind. The band experiments a lot with rapid sweep picking, non-stop shredding, and intricate songwriting. It is obvious that they are extremely talented - but can they deliver a proper album?

Let's start with the way this release is structured. There are flurries of rapid, dissonant notes that seem to clash with each other. An example of this can be found in the intro for "The Ripe Beneath The Rind": a swirl of confused, discordant notes that lasts mere seconds before going back to more orthodox riffing patterns. In contrast, one can find melodic, upbeat, and progressive passages which create a sort of sonic link between these two styles. Think of them as a less refined version of the melodies found on "Monolith Of Inhumanity".

Occasionally, the band slows down and delves into slam death metal territory; since CD plays in D# tuning, these slams unfortunately don't pack much heaviness.

The drumming is probably the most remarkable trait here. David McGraw performs a multitude of methods: relentless blast beats, groovy rhythms, and at times, patterns that are seemingly undirected, following the steps of the cacophonous string section. The bass, which is pretty high in the mix, seems to battle against the guitars, shining through the sharp, crystalline production.

Travis Ryan uses a myriad of techniques that prevent the music from becoming too dull. Standard death metal growls, incredibly raw and animalistic shrieks, extremely low gurgles - a truly versatile vocalist.

Despite the proficiency shown on this album, CD fails to comply with one of the most important factors in any musical project: memorability. At times, it sounds like the band members threw around a bunch of riffs with no real coherence or structure. It's not a bad album, but there are much more solid deathgrind releases out there.

There are some grammar issues I'd recommend fixing up:

    "Cattle Decapitation has a quite technical approach to deathgrind." should be "Cattle Decapitation has quite a technical approach to deathgrind."

    You should add a semicolon after "'The Ripe Beneath The Rind'", so it's "'The Ripe Beneath The Rind'; a swirl of..."

    "Think of them as a less refined..." should be "Think of it as a less refined..."

    "the band slows down and delves into slam death metal..." should be "the band slows down and dives into slam death metal..."

    "The bass, which is pretty high in the mix..." should be "The bass, which is pretty high in the mixing..."

    "Standard death metal growls..." should be "With standard death metal growls..."

    "CD fails to comply with one of the most important factors in any musical project..." should be "the CD fails to comply with one of the most important factors in any musical project..."

There are probably other grammar mistakes I didn't found, but these are the ones I recommend fixing. The review is decent overall, but its grammar issues are a problem.
_________________
FLORIDIAN DEATH METAL AND NORWEGIAN BLACK METAL IS KING

Check out my reviews

Top
 Profile  
BastardHead
Worse than Stalin

Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 7:53 pm
Posts: 9819
Location: St. Charles, Illinois
PostPosted: Mon Jun 29, 2020 1:58 pm 
 

I wasn't the rejecting mod, but I would never reject a review for completely insignificant word choice nitpicks like that. Every single one of those is fine as it is.

What I suspect the problem is is simply how it's written. It's very fragmented with loads of full stops and kinda reads like See Spot Run. "This is like that. That is like this. Sometimes a colon: but then it's like this". Try to make your sentences and ideas flow into one another, expand on what you're describing beyond three or four words describing what techniques they're using. How do the different elements and instruments interact with each other? How is the work when taken as a whole? You touch on most things we want in a review but it's like six words each and it's kind of a tedious read despite its brevity.
_________________
Lair of the Bastard: LATEST REVIEW: Vader - Litany
The Outer RIM - Uatism: The dogs bark in street slang
ALBUM OF THE DECADE RESULTS

Top
 Profile  
niix
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 3:48 pm
Posts: 484
Location: United States
PostPosted: Mon Jun 29, 2020 9:56 pm 
 

so I finally entered my first review, after all these years- and it was rejected. any particular reason ? it was for Kalmankantaja 'Musta Lampi'
.
_________________
the devil is in the details;
and that is where you will find yourself..

Top
 Profile  
Slater922
Metal newbie

Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2020 6:24 pm
Posts: 41
PostPosted: Tue Jun 30, 2020 10:21 am 
 

niix wrote:
so I finally entered my first review, after all these years- and it was rejected. any particular reason ? it was for Kalmankantaja 'Musta Lampi'
.

Can you at least show us the review so we can help you on it?
_________________
FLORIDIAN DEATH METAL AND NORWEGIAN BLACK METAL IS KING

Check out my reviews

Top
 Profile  
Luvers
Metal newbie

Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 10:34 pm
Posts: 327
Location: United States
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 10:40 pm 
 

I was rewriting my review from 2007 for Judas Priest's Demolition. I was wondering if anyone cared to view it before I post it?

It is not too long but I still added it in a spoiler for convenience.

Spoiler: show
Demolition, the Judas Priest album no one asked for or wanted, has bore many detractors from the onset of its release and it is easy to understand why. Unlike the energetic 80's albums, this album is mostly midpaced and very seldom ventures into breakneck territory, and unlike the revered 70's albums, this record is not a transcendent one. However, this album does share a significant connection to those 70's classics, it is a return to that style of composition. It might seem strange to write that about this release, mostly due to its universal disdain, but it was created in the same vein as Sin After Sin or Killing Machine.

For all of the excellence found on Jugulator, it worked for the same reason Painkiller did, it stuck to a particular style and rode that wave of consistency. It may have been ‘consistent’ but just like the two albums before it (Painkiller & Ram It Down) it can become a chore to enjoy in its entirety. For the first time since Turbo the band goes back to the light and shade formula - perhaps their lone identifiable mark - and developed a very inconsistent plethora of songs. None lack power so a knock on its consistency cannot be about that. Perhaps the biggest culprit behind the critical reception is the lyrical content and this is one of the few times that the silly inanity hurts the compositions. None of them are disasters by any means but for all of the talents Tim Owens has as a performer, he never mastered the ability to sing lyrics that are soaked in cheese (Devil Digger, Metal Messiah) and own the role. Halford had the theatrical style and charisma to still be taken seriously while singing songs like The Sentinel or Starbreaker.

Rob could have brought tracks like Machine Man and the criminally underrated Hell Is Home to different heights. He would have no doubt owned that role of depicting these ‘creatures’ to the audience in a way only Rob Halford could. However if we are going to credit Rob where it is due then we must credit Tim as well for laying down vocal melodies that would be impossible for Rob given both his current voice or his 2001 voice. Because Tim's has a naturally lower register than Rob he really gets to shine on the tracks that utilize his low end skill. If Jugulator was Tim's chance to scream like a banshee, Demoltion was Tim's chance to snarl like beast.

Like Subterfuge, with a throaty snarl denouncing totalitarian empires, he bemoans the subjugation with banshee shrieks and guttural grunts within seconds of each other. He uses the death grunts to great effect in Jekyll & Hyde, Devil Digger, Metal Messiah, but are used most on Cyberface. The entire album is a vocal tour-de-force, Tim is certainly not the reason this album failed, however I will concede that it is absent of the operatic screams the band is synonymous with.

Judas Priest were just being their typical self; ‘borrowing’ what was common in 2001. From the digital artwork, to aggressive title, industrial percussion, down-tuned instrumentation, low registered and also spitfire rap vocals, this album could not have been crafted to fit into the nu metal and groove metal scenes any more if it tried. As stated before however, this album does not wish to consistently beat you into submission for its entirety, it is more like Sin After Sin where there is a journey with plenty of circumventing forks.

So what of the music that exists behind the vocalist? The biggest knock against this record (and Jugulator to a lesser extent) is the lack of amazing solos. This criticism is slightly warranted but has also always perplexed me because while it is true that very few can shred like Tipton or Downing, guitar solos were not a very common element of metal music in the era.

It should be noted that Demolition does feature some well crafted solos, they are just more restrained here, less about flash and more about functionality. This is not the air-guitar glory days where solos served like a vacation from the composition itself, this brand is more about concise expressions. While this is subjectively good or bad, it does fit objectively within the context of what Priest were trying to achieve. They are nothing if not sufficient at copying the styles of others.

While the album does not contain as many memorable riffs as prior efforts, there are still plenty of substantive riffs that are the heaviest the band has ever laid down. By tuning down to C# the band was embracing the groove metal styles and this can be heard mostly on the albums two greatest tracks Subterfuge and Cyberface. I know I discussed them lyrically but musically the former is the bands sophisticated take on the Neue Deutsche Härte style made famous by bands like Oomph!, Weissglut or Rammstein, while the latter is an industrial themed opus of building thematic tensity. Much like Nightcrawler, this is high on atmospherics and suspense, while both are lyrically about an unnamed creature while sung mostly in a baritone range. The difference is the much slower pace, which allows it to build to a morbid crescendo similar to Depeche Mode, accompanied by Don Airey’s luscious synthesized backdrop. This mechanical arrangement lends a sort of credence to the lyrics, and it should be noted that this track was co-written by percussionist Scott Travis, adding to its deafening bottom end sensibilities.

As much as I have raved about this album, it does have some weak moments that keep it from being a top five release. The first two tracks are a terrible way to begin the release because even if they had been artistic masterstrokes they are entirely too long. One On One has a great driving riff but is six minutes when it should have been three, and Machine Man is a cheap second rate attempt at recreating Painkiller. As is most often the case with Priest the album gains serious momentum as it continues, with more vivid compositions buried in the grooves. The other weak moments are the other ‘hits’ from the album, Feed On Me and the second ballad Lost And Found.

Just like the other duds, these tracks have strong performances by Tim, the music is just uninspired and lacks a goal, meandering around before finally limping to the finish line. This is made even more egregious by the fact that Lost And Found is somehow the albums lone promotional video. What is wrong with the band’s management? Most of these songs have vivid depictions of the macabre, which would have translated well to video form, but little to no promotional effort was made with this release. It is one of the bands worst managerial missteps since 1986. If they wanted to promote a ballad they should have chosen, Close To You, one of the albums vocal and musical highlights.

Beyond that highlight are the hidden gems Hell Is Home, Jekyll & Hyde, In Between & Bloodsuckers, compositions cut from the same cloth as any from Stained Class. An array of different moods, atmospherics and tempos, the vocals snarling and shrieking at the appropriate measures. Tracks like Metal Messiah and Devil Digger are also weaker than the other tracks musically since not much happens in them, but are salvaged from being hollow by Tim’s masterful performances.

The Japanese version of this record contains a bonus track called What’s My Name, which is significant since it is the only song that Tim Owens had a hand in writing. The fact that his lone contribution was relegated to a bonus track shows the band could not sustain the novelty of a competent replacement for too long. It has been said the album lost steam as a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11. Priest were in Mexico and heading to the US for a tour that would begin that night, but they had to wait four months before their plans could be continued. The trek across the US was also slated to be with Anthrax and while it may have been a great lineup, the US was under the grip of Amerithrax and it was seen as poor taste. The bonus track What’s My Name is an enjoyable but forgettable track that is worth getting the Japanese release for.

The limited edition also features two more bonus tracks, a decent re-recordings of Green Manalishi and a severe mediocre remake of Rapid Fire. During the Jugulator tour the band introduced a new bridge in this song, which was a grand addition and the whole reason to rerecord it. Here they only half commit and without it - as well as the energy those live performances had - this becomes a weak and inferior remake.

This album has not found much warmth during reevaluation in the years since, most still see it as one of the bands worst releases. However most who dislike the album always tend to prefer releases like Painkiller and Stained Class. You will never find a single critique of this album that does not contain, “<i>This is too inconsistent</i>” But what exactly is the consistency these people speak of? Is it the consistency of enjoyment? Well that is subjective and hardly counts as critique. Is it the consistency of tempos throughout? Is it the consistency of riffs per measure?

Is the consistency referring to how often the album moves at a steady pace? Well, just because a metal album is predominately fast and goes slow a few times does not make it inconsistent. When it comes to any metal that does not fit under the more extreme styles, some of its greatest creations are those that feature interludes, which serve to break the monotony. These light moments by default cause the heavier moments to become even heavier. A rule I believe should be understood about traditional metal is that, “<i><b>It is not going to be heavy if it is heavy all the time</i></b>” …

You need the those lighter moments to strengthen the heavier moments and no one understands this better than Judas Priest, who is also never better than when they compose like they did on this release.

Highlights: Subterfuge, Cyberface, Bloodsuckers & Close To You
Lowlights:: Machine Man, Feed On Me, Lost And Found.
_________________
My Soundcloud | My Last.fm

Top
 Profile  
gasmask_colostomy
Metalhead

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 5:38 am
Posts: 1020
Location: Behind the wall of fire v.2
PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2020 3:41 am 
 

Well in fact, I think it's really really long and would be better if you combined some features into single points.

From the beginning of the review, I'd pick you up on the grammatical error ('bore' --> 'bored'), incorrect way of writing decades (80's --> '80s), and bad habit of starting every sentence with "this album" or "this record".

On the other hand, the content you've included seems reasonable and helpful, and despite the length you've avoided discussing it track-by-track. Certainly not getting rejected, but could be finessed a bit more before you submit.

Luvers666 wrote:
I was rewriting my review from 2007 for Judas Priest's Demolition. I was wondering if anyone cared to view it before I post it?

It is not too long but I still added it in a spoiler for convenience.

Spoiler: show
Demolition, the Judas Priest album no one asked for or wanted, has bore many detractors from the onset of its release and it is easy to understand why. Unlike the energetic 80's albums, this album is mostly midpaced and very seldom ventures into breakneck territory, and unlike the revered 70's albums, this record is not a transcendent one. However, this album does share a significant connection to those 70's classics, it is a return to that style of composition. It might seem strange to write that about this release, mostly due to its universal disdain, but it was created in the same vein as Sin After Sin or Killing Machine.

For all of the excellence found on Jugulator, it worked for the same reason Painkiller did, it stuck to a particular style and rode that wave of consistency. It may have been ‘consistent’ but just like the two albums before it (Painkiller & Ram It Down) it can become a chore to enjoy in its entirety. For the first time since Turbo the band goes back to the light and shade formula - perhaps their lone identifiable mark - and developed a very inconsistent plethora of songs. None lack power so a knock on its consistency cannot be about that. Perhaps the biggest culprit behind the critical reception is the lyrical content and this is one of the few times that the silly inanity hurts the compositions. None of them are disasters by any means but for all of the talents Tim Owens has as a performer, he never mastered the ability to sing lyrics that are soaked in cheese (Devil Digger, Metal Messiah) and own the role. Halford had the theatrical style and charisma to still be taken seriously while singing songs like The Sentinel or Starbreaker.

Rob could have brought tracks like Machine Man and the criminally underrated Hell Is Home to different heights. He would have no doubt owned that role of depicting these ‘creatures’ to the audience in a way only Rob Halford could. However if we are going to credit Rob where it is due then we must credit Tim as well for laying down vocal melodies that would be impossible for Rob given both his current voice or his 2001 voice. Because Tim's has a naturally lower register than Rob he really gets to shine on the tracks that utilize his low end skill. If Jugulator was Tim's chance to scream like a banshee, Demoltion was Tim's chance to snarl like beast.

Like Subterfuge, with a throaty snarl denouncing totalitarian empires, he bemoans the subjugation with banshee shrieks and guttural grunts within seconds of each other. He uses the death grunts to great effect in Jekyll & Hyde, Devil Digger, Metal Messiah, but are used most on Cyberface. The entire album is a vocal tour-de-force, Tim is certainly not the reason this album failed, however I will concede that it is absent of the operatic screams the band is synonymous with.

Judas Priest were just being their typical self; ‘borrowing’ what was common in 2001. From the digital artwork, to aggressive title, industrial percussion, down-tuned instrumentation, low registered and also spitfire rap vocals, this album could not have been crafted to fit into the nu metal and groove metal scenes any more if it tried. As stated before however, this album does not wish to consistently beat you into submission for its entirety, it is more like Sin After Sin where there is a journey with plenty of circumventing forks.

So what of the music that exists behind the vocalist? The biggest knock against this record (and Jugulator to a lesser extent) is the lack of amazing solos. This criticism is slightly warranted but has also always perplexed me because while it is true that very few can shred like Tipton or Downing, guitar solos were not a very common element of metal music in the era.

It should be noted that Demolition does feature some well crafted solos, they are just more restrained here, less about flash and more about functionality. This is not the air-guitar glory days where solos served like a vacation from the composition itself, this brand is more about concise expressions. While this is subjectively good or bad, it does fit objectively within the context of what Priest were trying to achieve. They are nothing if not sufficient at copying the styles of others.

While the album does not contain as many memorable riffs as prior efforts, there are still plenty of substantive riffs that are the heaviest the band has ever laid down. By tuning down to C# the band was embracing the groove metal styles and this can be heard mostly on the albums two greatest tracks Subterfuge and Cyberface. I know I discussed them lyrically but musically the former is the bands sophisticated take on the Neue Deutsche Härte style made famous by bands like Oomph!, Weissglut or Rammstein, while the latter is an industrial themed opus of building thematic tensity. Much like Nightcrawler, this is high on atmospherics and suspense, while both are lyrically about an unnamed creature while sung mostly in a baritone range. The difference is the much slower pace, which allows it to build to a morbid crescendo similar to Depeche Mode, accompanied by Don Airey’s luscious synthesized backdrop. This mechanical arrangement lends a sort of credence to the lyrics, and it should be noted that this track was co-written by percussionist Scott Travis, adding to its deafening bottom end sensibilities.

As much as I have raved about this album, it does have some weak moments that keep it from being a top five release. The first two tracks are a terrible way to begin the release because even if they had been artistic masterstrokes they are entirely too long. One On One has a great driving riff but is six minutes when it should have been three, and Machine Man is a cheap second rate attempt at recreating Painkiller. As is most often the case with Priest the album gains serious momentum as it continues, with more vivid compositions buried in the grooves. The other weak moments are the other ‘hits’ from the album, Feed On Me and the second ballad Lost And Found.

Just like the other duds, these tracks have strong performances by Tim, the music is just uninspired and lacks a goal, meandering around before finally limping to the finish line. This is made even more egregious by the fact that Lost And Found is somehow the albums lone promotional video. What is wrong with the band’s management? Most of these songs have vivid depictions of the macabre, which would have translated well to video form, but little to no promotional effort was made with this release. It is one of the bands worst managerial missteps since 1986. If they wanted to promote a ballad they should have chosen, Close To You, one of the albums vocal and musical highlights.

Beyond that highlight are the hidden gems Hell Is Home, Jekyll & Hyde, In Between & Bloodsuckers, compositions cut from the same cloth as any from Stained Class. An array of different moods, atmospherics and tempos, the vocals snarling and shrieking at the appropriate measures. Tracks like Metal Messiah and Devil Digger are also weaker than the other tracks musically since not much happens in them, but are salvaged from being hollow by Tim’s masterful performances.

The Japanese version of this record contains a bonus track called What’s My Name, which is significant since it is the only song that Tim Owens had a hand in writing. The fact that his lone contribution was relegated to a bonus track shows the band could not sustain the novelty of a competent replacement for too long. It has been said the album lost steam as a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11. Priest were in Mexico and heading to the US for a tour that would begin that night, but they had to wait four months before their plans could be continued. The trek across the US was also slated to be with Anthrax and while it may have been a great lineup, the US was under the grip of Amerithrax and it was seen as poor taste. The bonus track What’s My Name is an enjoyable but forgettable track that is worth getting the Japanese release for.

The limited edition also features two more bonus tracks, a decent re-recordings of Green Manalishi and a severe mediocre remake of Rapid Fire. During the Jugulator tour the band introduced a new bridge in this song, which was a grand addition and the whole reason to rerecord it. Here they only half commit and without it - as well as the energy those live performances had - this becomes a weak and inferior remake.

This album has not found much warmth during reevaluation in the years since, most still see it as one of the bands worst releases. However most who dislike the album always tend to prefer releases like Painkiller and Stained Class. You will never find a single critique of this album that does not contain, “<i>This is too inconsistent</i>” But what exactly is the consistency these people speak of? Is it the consistency of enjoyment? Well that is subjective and hardly counts as critique. Is it the consistency of tempos throughout? Is it the consistency of riffs per measure?

Is the consistency referring to how often the album moves at a steady pace? Well, just because a metal album is predominately fast and goes slow a few times does not make it inconsistent. When it comes to any metal that does not fit under the more extreme styles, some of its greatest creations are those that feature interludes, which serve to break the monotony. These light moments by default cause the heavier moments to become even heavier. A rule I believe should be understood about traditional metal is that, “<i><b>It is not going to be heavy if it is heavy all the time</i></b>” …

You need the those lighter moments to strengthen the heavier moments and no one understands this better than Judas Priest, who is also never better than when they compose like they did on this release.

Highlights: Subterfuge, Cyberface, Bloodsuckers & Close To You
Lowlights:: Machine Man, Feed On Me, Lost And Found.
_________________
Five_Nails wrote:
unfuckable long-haired muffin-top titty-boy suburbanite I was

Top
 Profile  
Maarghul
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 12:14 pm
Posts: 5
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2020 8:56 pm 
 

Ok, so I recently wrote my first review in awhile, and it was rejected, and the notes said I needed to expand on it, add more details about why I thought things were good instead of just saying they were good.
Anyhow, I did (in my opinion) as I was asked, re-submitted, and was again, rejected.
I've never had a review rejected, so this is a bit confusing, and I'd love to give this amazing album it's review.

So, lemme know what you think:

"Afsky is an act I discovered recently, to my delight.
In what seems like a tidal wave of 1-man BM bands, Afsky definitely elevates beyond the majority of the pack by writing music that tips it's hat to the classics, but also presents a fresh voice, by intertwining fresh ideas structurally, in addition to an extremely palatable production and overall sound. From the unique but powerful choice of album art, to the journey this album takes you on, this is a rare beast.


The music is intense but attractive, and packs a myriad of influences into it's 45 minute life, including some sublime acoustic passages, that summon a yearning for a place and time I'm not from, but wish I was. The style itself is a very organic version of black metal, reminiscent of early Ulver at times, which is never a bad thing. There are moments of real, raw intensity, but because the overall sound and vibe is so warm, this blends in such a unique way it gives it a different feel to so many recent releases.
The best way to describe this album, is 'emotive' ; It ebbs and flows, and pulls you along for a glorious ride.


There is a beautiful darkness put forth in sonic fashion in Afsky's 'Ofte jeg drømmer mig død', it's a complete album that doesn't rely on a couple of standout tracks, which is a testament to it's overall quality. The acoustic sections that are so tastefully interspersed are a gigantic positive, as it separates the album into movements, almost. There's a classical influence in the overall structure of this piece of work, and it makes it feel less one dimensional, and more lithe and writhing - a creature than even the most skilled hunter would struggle to get hold of.

2020 has been a very curious and interesting - albeit challenging - year, one that has been tough on artists in a multitude of ways, but the amount of quality extreme metal releases has been surprising, and Afksy along with a handful of other artists have really stamped their mark on the international scene.
A band to keep an eye on in the future, as this and the previous release "Sorg" are both top tier modern black metal, and I feel this musician still has a lot to give."

Top
 Profile  
Luvers
Metal newbie

Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 10:34 pm
Posts: 327
Location: United States
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2020 12:14 am 
 

gasmask_colostomy wrote:
Well in fact, I think it's really really long and would be better if you combined some features into single points.

From the beginning of the review, I'd pick you up on the grammatical error ('bore' --> 'bored'), incorrect way of writing decades (80's --> '80s), and bad habit of starting every sentence with "this album" or "this record".

On the other hand, the content you've included seems reasonable and helpful, and despite the length you've avoided discussing it track-by-track. Certainly not getting rejected, but could be finessed a bit more before you submit.
Thanks a bunch for the critique. How much should I cut for the sake of brevity?

The bore was not a grammatical error, I did not intend to write bored, I meant to write bore as in something bore something else, like spawned. Thanks for pointing out the decade error on my part, I will fix that. I did not realize where I was beginning the sentences the way you described. Could you point out where exactly I did this so I can have a better gauge on what you are referring to? Also, what would you suggest instead on the sentences where I wrote that?
_________________
My Soundcloud | My Last.fm

Top
 Profile  
gasmask_colostomy
Metalhead

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 5:38 am
Posts: 1020
Location: Behind the wall of fire v.2
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2020 12:08 pm 
 

Luvers wrote:
gasmask_colostomy wrote:
Well in fact, I think it's really really long and would be better if you combined some features into single points.

From the beginning of the review, I'd pick you up on the grammatical error ('bore' --> 'bored'), incorrect way of writing decades (80's --> '80s), and bad habit of starting every sentence with "this album" or "this record".

On the other hand, the content you've included seems reasonable and helpful, and despite the length you've avoided discussing it track-by-track. Certainly not getting rejected, but could be finessed a bit more before you submit.
Thanks a bunch for the critique. How much should I cut for the sake of brevity?

The bore was not a grammatical error, I did not intend to write bored, I meant to write bore as in something bore something else, like spawned. Thanks for pointing out the decade error on my part, I will fix that. I did not realize where I was beginning the sentences the way you described. Could you point out where exactly I did this so I can have a better gauge on what you are referring to? Also, what would you suggest instead on the sentences where I wrote that?

If you want it to be like 'spawned', the word you are looking for is 'birthed'. The passage below highlights where the sentence flexibility was an issue.

Luvers wrote:
Demolition, the Judas Priest album no one asked for or wanted, has bore many detractors from the onset of its release and it is easy to understand why. Unlike the energetic 80's albums, this album is mostly midpaced and very seldom ventures into breakneck territory, and unlike the revered 70's albums, this record is not a transcendent one. However, this album does share a significant connection to those 70's classics, it is a return to that style of composition. It might seem strange to write that about this release, mostly due to its universal disdain, but it was created in the same vein as Sin After Sin or Killing Machine.


I received advice myself to try to avoid using so many 'be' verbs as the main action of the sentence. It makes the writing seem dull and flavourless, plus can turn it into a list. English has a lot of active verbs that would make this kind of description more interesting.

In terms of length, I would probably cut about half of the review myself. It seems you want to approach it in a detailed manner, yet you're taking each element separately and not quite putting it all together. Only mention the parts that are most relevant, and avoid repeating your introduction in your conclusion (regarding the album's reception). Also, do we really need such a large paragraph about the bonus tracks? If the context about Owens being excluded is relevant to the album's discussion, that should be in your intro or conclusion.
_________________
Five_Nails wrote:
unfuckable long-haired muffin-top titty-boy suburbanite I was

Top
 Profile  
Luvers
Metal newbie

Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 10:34 pm
Posts: 327
Location: United States
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2020 10:52 pm 
 

gasmask_colostomy wrote:
If you want it to be like 'spawned', the word you are looking for is 'birthed'. The passage below highlights where the sentence flexibility was an issue.
Luvers wrote:
Demolition, the Judas Priest album no one asked for or wanted, has bore many detractors from the onset of its release and it is easy to understand why. Unlike the energetic 80's albums, this album is mostly midpaced and very seldom ventures into breakneck territory, and unlike the revered 70's albums, this record is not a transcendent one. However, this album does share a significant connection to those 70's classics, it is a return to that style of composition. It might seem strange to write that about this release, mostly due to its universal disdain, but it was created in the same vein as Sin After Sin or Killing Machine.
I received advice myself to try to avoid using so many 'be' verbs as the main action of the sentence. It makes the writing seem dull and flavourless, plus can turn it into a list. English has a lot of active verbs that would make this kind of description more interesting.
It was actually an attempt by me to be humorous and make point, looks like I failed. I have tweaked it since, want me to show the edit I've made to just this paragraph?
gasmask_colostomy wrote:
In terms of length, I would probably cut about half of the review myself. It seems you want to approach it in a detailed manner, yet you're taking each element separately and not quite putting it all together. Only mention the parts that are most relevant, and avoid repeating your introduction in your conclusion (regarding the album's reception). Also, do we really need such a large paragraph about the bonus tracks? If the context about Owens being excluded is relevant to the album's discussion, that should be in your intro or conclusion.
I have no problem cutting out what I have written if someone can show why it is needed. I realize my review is more than just a few paragraphs but I just do not see what I can cut and still make my point. Not saying I refuse or cannot be shown, just that I do not see it.

I suppose the paragraph about the bonus tracks is not needed, I included it because mentioning them are encouraged (at least from my interpretation of the review guidelines) since someone might be unaware of the album in question and any possible other tracks. Should I shorten that paragraph or exclude it altogether?
_________________
My Soundcloud | My Last.fm

Top
 Profile  
droneriot
incelgender

Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 1:17 pm
Posts: 10485
Location: Spahn Ranch
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2020 4:09 pm 
 

ESL guy is asking is "has bore" a real thing?

And if it is in some esoteric English grammar way correct, will any of the site's predominantly ESL audience understand it?
_________________
Why modern black metal objectively sucks
Deutschpunk - Why German Punk Rock Is... Different - [A Zero Budget Documentary]
- (droneriot drinks and rants...)

https://conservativetentacles.bandcamp.com/

Top
 Profile  
~Guest 454771
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2018 8:01 pm
Posts: 527
PostPosted: Fri Jul 17, 2020 8:07 am 
 

It should be "has borne". "He bore the weight." and "He has borne the weight."

Top
 Profile  
gasmask_colostomy
Metalhead

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 5:38 am
Posts: 1020
Location: Behind the wall of fire v.2
PostPosted: Sun Jul 19, 2020 7:26 am 
 

Maarghul wrote:
Ok, so I recently wrote my first review in awhile, and it was rejected, and the notes said I needed to expand on it, add more details about why I thought things were good instead of just saying they were good.
Anyhow, I did (in my opinion) as I was asked, re-submitted, and was again, rejected.
I've never had a review rejected, so this is a bit confusing, and I'd love to give this amazing album it's review.

So, lemme know what you think:

Spoiler: show
Afsky is an act I discovered recently, to my delight.
In what seems like a tidal wave of 1-man BM bands, Afsky definitely elevates beyond the majority of the pack by writing music that tips it's hat to the classics, but also presents a fresh voice, by intertwining fresh ideas structurally, in addition to an extremely palatable production and overall sound. From the unique but powerful choice of album art, to the journey this album takes you on, this is a rare beast.


The music is intense but attractive, and packs a myriad of influences into it's 45 minute life, including some sublime acoustic passages, that summon a yearning for a place and time I'm not from, but wish I was. The style itself is a very organic version of black metal, reminiscent of early Ulver at times, which is never a bad thing. There are moments of real, raw intensity, but because the overall sound and vibe is so warm, this blends in such a unique way it gives it a different feel to so many recent releases.
The best way to describe this album, is 'emotive' ; It ebbs and flows, and pulls you along for a glorious ride.


There is a beautiful darkness put forth in sonic fashion in Afsky's 'Ofte jeg drømmer mig død', it's a complete album that doesn't rely on a couple of standout tracks, which is a testament to it's overall quality. The acoustic sections that are so tastefully interspersed are a gigantic positive, as it separates the album into movements, almost. There's a classical influence in the overall structure of this piece of work, and it makes it feel less one dimensional, and more lithe and writhing - a creature than even the most skilled hunter would struggle to get hold of.

2020 has been a very curious and interesting - albeit challenging - year, one that has been tough on artists in a multitude of ways, but the amount of quality extreme metal releases has been surprising, and Afksy along with a handful of other artists have really stamped their mark on the international scene.
A band to keep an eye on in the future, as this and the previous release "Sorg" are both top tier modern black metal, and I feel this musician still has a lot to give.

Okay, so lack of detail may be the main reason your review has been rejected, but I don't think it's the only one. These are the issues I'm picking up, most of which should be easy to correct:

1. The paragraphing is wrong and inconsistent. You need a single line space between paragraphs, not 2 lines. Also, the end of the second paragraph has a single sentence attached in a new line, and so is the concluding sentence. Same problem for the first paragraph of the review.

2. There are a number of minor grammar and spelling mistakes. For example, "Afsky definitely elevates beyond the majority of the pack": you could say "Afsky is definitely elevated above the majority of the pack" or perhaps change verb to make the metaphor of 'pack' more fitting e.g. "Afsky definitely runs ahead of the pack".
Another point that I noticed: when writing 'it's' you should check whether you mean 'it is/it has' (in which case 'it's' is correct) or 'its' in the sense of 'his/hers'. When talking about the album, use 'its' e.g. "its 45 minute life".

3. Punctuation: be careful how you use this. You name one album using single quote marks ('Ofte jeg drømmer mig død') and then another using double quotes ("Sorg"). It doesn't matter which you choose, but be consistent. If you mention song titles, I suggest using a different method. Maybe double quotes for album titles and single quotes for song titles. In addition, note that the semicolon (;) in this sentence is formatted incorrectly. "The best way to describe this album, is 'emotive' ; It ebbs and flows, and pulls you along for a glorious ride." --> "The best way to describe this album, is emotive; it ebbs and flows, and pulls you along for a glorious ride."

4. Okay, let's talk about the detail. You've described the album fine in general, but told the reader nothing specific. You tell us what the album is like, but never back it up with examples. You say that the style is fresh but not how it's fresh, that it has some classical influence but not where it shows, and that it's emotive but not how it creates emotion. Your review is dying for some specific examples. Maybe you could write about a song or two as an example, or just go into detail about how Afsky make you feel emotions. Even a bit of analysis about who their riffs sound like or what kind of vocals are used would be welcome. Importantly, you need to show the reader why this album is good: currently, you're just telling us that you think it's good.
_________________
Five_Nails wrote:
unfuckable long-haired muffin-top titty-boy suburbanite I was

Top
 Profile  
Maarghul
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 12:14 pm
Posts: 5
PostPosted: Sun Jul 19, 2020 6:53 pm 
 

gasmask_colostomy wrote:
Maarghul wrote:
Ok, so I recently wrote my first review in awhile, and it was rejected, and the notes said I needed to expand on it, add more details about why I thought things were good instead of just saying they were good.
Anyhow, I did (in my opinion) as I was asked, re-submitted, and was again, rejected.
I've never had a review rejected, so this is a bit confusing, and I'd love to give this amazing album it's review.

So, lemme know what you think:

Spoiler: show
Afsky is an act I discovered recently, to my delight.
In what seems like a tidal wave of 1-man BM bands, Afsky definitely elevates beyond the majority of the pack by writing music that tips it's hat to the classics, but also presents a fresh voice, by intertwining fresh ideas structurally, in addition to an extremely palatable production and overall sound. From the unique but powerful choice of album art, to the journey this album takes you on, this is a rare beast.


The music is intense but attractive, and packs a myriad of influences into it's 45 minute life, including some sublime acoustic passages, that summon a yearning for a place and time I'm not from, but wish I was. The style itself is a very organic version of black metal, reminiscent of early Ulver at times, which is never a bad thing. There are moments of real, raw intensity, but because the overall sound and vibe is so warm, this blends in such a unique way it gives it a different feel to so many recent releases.
The best way to describe this album, is 'emotive' ; It ebbs and flows, and pulls you along for a glorious ride.


There is a beautiful darkness put forth in sonic fashion in Afsky's 'Ofte jeg drømmer mig død', it's a complete album that doesn't rely on a couple of standout tracks, which is a testament to it's overall quality. The acoustic sections that are so tastefully interspersed are a gigantic positive, as it separates the album into movements, almost. There's a classical influence in the overall structure of this piece of work, and it makes it feel less one dimensional, and more lithe and writhing - a creature than even the most skilled hunter would struggle to get hold of.

2020 has been a very curious and interesting - albeit challenging - year, one that has been tough on artists in a multitude of ways, but the amount of quality extreme metal releases has been surprising, and Afksy along with a handful of other artists have really stamped their mark on the international scene.
A band to keep an eye on in the future, as this and the previous release "Sorg" are both top tier modern black metal, and I feel this musician still has a lot to give.

Okay, so lack of detail may be the main reason your review has been rejected, but I don't think it's the only one. These are the issues I'm picking up, most of which should be easy to correct:

1. The paragraphing is wrong and inconsistent. You need a single line space between paragraphs, not 2 lines. Also, the end of the second paragraph has a single sentence attached in a new line, and so is the concluding sentence. Same problem for the first paragraph of the review.

2. There are a number of minor grammar and spelling mistakes. For example, "Afsky definitely elevates beyond the majority of the pack": you could say "Afsky is definitely elevated above the majority of the pack" or perhaps change verb to make the metaphor of 'pack' more fitting e.g. "Afsky definitely runs ahead of the pack".
Another point that I noticed: when writing 'it's' you should check whether you mean 'it is/it has' (in which case 'it's' is correct) or 'its' in the sense of 'his/hers'. When talking about the album, use 'its' e.g. "its 45 minute life".

3. Punctuation: be careful how you use this. You name one album using single quote marks ('Ofte jeg drømmer mig død') and then another using double quotes ("Sorg"). It doesn't matter which you choose, but be consistent. If you mention song titles, I suggest using a different method. Maybe double quotes for album titles and single quotes for song titles. In addition, note that the semicolon (;) in this sentence is formatted incorrectly. "The best way to describe this album, is 'emotive' ; It ebbs and flows, and pulls you along for a glorious ride." --> "The best way to describe this album, is emotive; it ebbs and flows, and pulls you along for a glorious ride."

4. Okay, let's talk about the detail. You've described the album fine in general, but told the reader nothing specific. You tell us what the album is like, but never back it up with examples. You say that the style is fresh but not how it's fresh, that it has some classical influence but not where it shows, and that it's emotive but not how it creates emotion. Your review is dying for some specific examples. Maybe you could write about a song or two as an example, or just go into detail about how Afsky make you feel emotions. Even a bit of analysis about who their riffs sound like or what kind of vocals are used would be welcome. Importantly, you need to show the reader why this album is good: currently, you're just telling us that you think it's good.


Thanks for the feedback. It's almost all useful, however your knowledge on "grammar" is incorrect, and your punctuation points are only 50% correct, but that's fine, because the other points are useful.
Two questions (well...sort of):
1) I am sure it says to put 2 lines between paragraphs in the writing/editing space, is that incorrect??
2) In the "detail"/4. reply: Firstly, I've seen literally hundreds of reviews with less detail, have they slipped through the cracks or what? Secondly, what do you mean, examples? Do you want me to literally compare bands? it's SO risky doing that, I generally dislike reviews that do that, I think it's misleading, and often detracts from the music you're reviewing.
Also, why does one need to expand on "emotive"? It's an adjective, it gives the colour to the sentence, I fail to see the need to dig any deeper, as I feel the word gives enough of an idea.
But anyhow, your section 4 feedback is interesting, despite being a tad basic in what you're trying to put across.

Top
 Profile  
gasmask_colostomy
Metalhead

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 5:38 am
Posts: 1020
Location: Behind the wall of fire v.2
PostPosted: Sun Jul 19, 2020 10:35 pm 
 

Maarghul wrote:
Thanks for the feedback. It's almost all useful, however your knowledge on "grammar" is incorrect, and your punctuation points are only 50% correct, but that's fine, because the other points are useful.

Lol ok, you tell me why your review was rejected then.

Maarghul wrote:
Two questions (well...sort of):
1) I am sure it says to put 2 lines between paragraphs in the writing/editing space, is that incorrect??
2) In the "detail"/4. reply: Firstly, I've seen literally hundreds of reviews with less detail, have they slipped through the cracks or what? Secondly, what do you mean, examples? Do you want me to literally compare bands? it's SO risky doing that, I generally dislike reviews that do that, I think it's misleading, and often detracts from the music you're reviewing.
Also, why does one need to expand on "emotive"? It's an adjective, it gives the colour to the sentence, I fail to see the need to dig any deeper, as I feel the word gives enough of an idea.
But anyhow, your section 4 feedback is interesting, despite being a tad basic in what you're trying to put across.

1. It says that you need 2 strokes of the enter key, I think. That means you'll end up leaving 1 blank line. This has confused a lot of people, a mod could help us and make it clearer.
2. Most of the reviews with less detail are older reviews, when the standards were less strict. Besides, I'm sure you're trying to write a good review, not just a passable one with dubious grammar and punctuation. I'm not encouraging you to compare bands, but the only name you dropped was "early Ulver" and that helped a lot to understand how the music sounds. Speaking about individual songs, moments, instruments, or techniques would all helpfully describe the music more and back up your points about it.

Maarghul wrote:
I fail to see the need to dig any deeper

This, however, probably sums up the current problem with the review.
_________________
Five_Nails wrote:
unfuckable long-haired muffin-top titty-boy suburbanite I was

Top
 Profile  
BastardHead
Worse than Stalin

Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 7:53 pm
Posts: 9819
Location: St. Charles, Illinois
PostPosted: Sun Jul 19, 2020 10:39 pm 
 

gasmask_colostomy wrote:
1. It says that you need 2 strokes of the enter key, I think. That means you'll end up leaving 1 blank line. This has confused a lot of people, a mod could help us and make it clearer.


Paging Dr. Whoever Can Change the Rules: I've been saying this for years now. This is, by a galactic longshot, the most common formatting error and I'm sure 99% of people who do this actually read the rules but were confused by the wording.
_________________
Lair of the Bastard: LATEST REVIEW: Vader - Litany
The Outer RIM - Uatism: The dogs bark in street slang
ALBUM OF THE DECADE RESULTS

Top
 Profile  
Maarghul
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 12:14 pm
Posts: 5
PostPosted: Mon Jul 20, 2020 1:17 am 
 

gasmask_colostomy wrote:
Lol ok, you tell me why your review was rejected then.

I appreciate the feedback, especially as the lone soldier here, the thing is, I used to get paid to do reviews for many years, so I understand grammar quite well. I'm not saying you're not worthy of commenting on it though. nor am I a doyen.

gasmask_colostomy wrote:
1. It says that you need 2 strokes of the enter key, I think. That means you'll end up leaving 1 blank line. This has confused a lot of people, a mod could help us and make it clearer.
2. Most of the reviews with less detail are older reviews, when the standards were less strict. Besides, I'm sure you're trying to write a good review, not just a passable one with dubious grammar and punctuation. I'm not encouraging you to compare bands, but the only name you dropped was "early Ulver" and that helped a lot to understand how the music sounds. Speaking about individual songs, moments, instruments, or techniques would all helpfully describe the music more and back up your points about it.


On point 1) Ok, thanks for the info. Thank makes more sense, and I really think it is poorly worded.
2) I thought that might have been the case, but keen for some discourse? I think this stricter style is great for proper reviews, etc - but this is essentially an archive that has been carefully crafted with thousands upon thousands of hours that have been gifted by thousands of staunch metal supporters, like myself (who has been on the ride since the very early days) - and this kind of bumps out a lot of people with good things to say, but maybe not the skills to formulate it to fit the guidelines. Do you see this as good/useful, or do you think it creates it's own set issues?
Anyhow, in regards to my personal submission, I have added a LOT of new stuff, including many things based on your info/feedback, so hopefully it's approved this time - and thank you for taking the time.

gasmask_colostomy wrote:
This, however, probably sums up the current problem with the review.

Well, if you say so, but I personally find a short-medium review with decent info a lot better than some 12 paragraph mega-review that tells me a bunch of stuff I don't need to know.
But look, i've taken it all on board, and should I submit more reviews in the future (not gonna lie, less enthused about it now after 3 re-submissions), I'll definitely attempt to get things square from the get-go.
Thanks again.

Top
 Profile  
gasmask_colostomy
Metalhead

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 5:38 am
Posts: 1020
Location: Behind the wall of fire v.2
PostPosted: Mon Jul 20, 2020 2:14 am 
 

Maarghul wrote:
gasmask_colostomy wrote:
Lol ok, you tell me why your review was rejected then.

I appreciate the feedback, especially as the lone soldier here, the thing is, I used to get paid to do reviews for many years, so I understand grammar quite well. I'm not saying you're not worthy of commenting on it though. nor am I a doyen.

gasmask_colostomy wrote:
1. It says that you need 2 strokes of the enter key, I think. That means you'll end up leaving 1 blank line. This has confused a lot of people, a mod could help us and make it clearer.
2. Most of the reviews with less detail are older reviews, when the standards were less strict. Besides, I'm sure you're trying to write a good review, not just a passable one with dubious grammar and punctuation. I'm not encouraging you to compare bands, but the only name you dropped was "early Ulver" and that helped a lot to understand how the music sounds. Speaking about individual songs, moments, instruments, or techniques would all helpfully describe the music more and back up your points about it.


On point 1) Ok, thanks for the info. Thank makes more sense, and I really think it is poorly worded.
2) I thought that might have been the case, but keen for some discourse? I think this stricter style is great for proper reviews, etc - but this is essentially an archive that has been carefully crafted with thousands upon thousands of hours that have been gifted by thousands of staunch metal supporters, like myself (who has been on the ride since the very early days) - and this kind of bumps out a lot of people with good things to say, but maybe not the skills to formulate it to fit the guidelines. Do you see this as good/useful, or do you think it creates it's own set issues?
Anyhow, in regards to my personal submission, I have added a LOT of new stuff, including many things based on your info/feedback, so hopefully it's approved this time - and thank you for taking the time.

gasmask_colostomy wrote:
This, however, probably sums up the current problem with the review.

Well, if you say so, but I personally find a short-medium review with decent info a lot better than some 12 paragraph mega-review that tells me a bunch of stuff I don't need to know.
But look, i've taken it all on board, and should I submit more reviews in the future (not gonna lie, less enthused about it now after 3 re-submissions), I'll definitely attempt to get things square from the get-go.
Thanks again.

Yeah, I noticed you've been with MA a long time, and I'm pretty sure there aren't any other publications that want the same kind of review as here. Certainly writing for print you don't often have more than 400-500 words to play with, even down to 150 depending on the format. In terms of what you say about the standard of acceptable reviews here being restrictive, I think I agree in the sense that it excludes people with less time, knowledge, or English skills, but by contrast it adds to the quality of the site immensely. If this place had Amazon-style reviews, I don't think we would be having this conversation. I got annoyed at first, but now I much prefer writing in this style to magazine reviews. While it encourages deeper analysis and explanation of how the album works, it also allows for a more personal touch than blurbs or purely descriptive reviews.

In terms of rewriting and re-submitting, I get the ache. When I was writing my first 20 reviews or so, I probably went through 25-30 rejections in total. For those that needed big changes, I just saved the drafts and did them later on, because it's frustrating to keep trying when you think your work is getting unfairly rejected. Sometimes a different mod will read it and feel that it's acceptable after all, which shows how subjective the rules can be. Your original review is definitely not one of the poor first drafts that end up in the Oven Fodder thread. As for the grammar stuff, obviously we both think we are right, but I don't believe that could affect rejection anyway, so stick to your style if that suits. Hope it gets accepted soon!

P.S. Also, you are the honored recipient of my 1000th post :-P
_________________
Five_Nails wrote:
unfuckable long-haired muffin-top titty-boy suburbanite I was

Top
 Profile  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic Go to page Previous  1 ... 96, 97, 98, 99, 100


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 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