So long you don't start writing something blasphemous about Mercyful Fate...

Never, Mercyful Fate are awesome. I could never even picture myself writing something bad anymore about MF.

I'd like to see a DBtO review, Ozzy.

But Mercyful Fate themselves are blasphemous, therefore it might fit to write blasphemous things about them.

Drudkh is next though, if anyone wants to know.

I think he said Blood in Our Wells.

Don't Break the Oath.

Man, that sucks. Your review of Mellisa was ace, I was hoping you'd do one for Don't Break the Oath. I would try myself, but all my attempts have been massive failures when trying to capture that much fanboy ranting about that record.

My review wasn't a problem.

Yeah, I've done that quite a lot, actually. Most of the reviews were I've found myself putting out the same ideas on a same band as I previously have wouldn't usually make it here; I've got a lot of half-baked reviews sitting round on computer that won't ever see the light of day. I found myself repeating the same ideas with some of my Motörhead reviews, so I've put a stop to doing any of their stuff lately. Funnily enough, I attempted a sort of story review for Don't Break the Oath - I actually just lost myself with it and was left scratching my head with own review (which is rare for me - I usually simply attempt to confuse others; it works apparently!). Good luck with that MF review, though, if it's as good as the description sounds it's set to be a great read. Hammer Horror references in reviews are always something I enjoy!

Hmmm, no money tonight. Think I'll try another Sodom review. It's for one of their fairly different releases so hopefully I won't be repeating myself.

What would someone conjure up as a negative Don't Break the Oath review?

Well, I often hear that the album is "epic." I suppose that would depend on one's conception of "epic." To once again give due credit, Emperor has avoided the pitfall of only playing at one speed on the album…every now and again, they'll lapse into a brief slower section, as in the doomier bit at the tail-end of "Thus Spake the Nightspirit", or that beloved-by-many little spoken bit in "With Strength I Burn." Of course, these slow sections are generally as inept as their more volant counterparts, but it's the thought that counts, I suppose. So, is that it? Is it this vulgar contrast between fast and slow that makes it "epic?" Intense; relaxed; trickle of renewed intensity. Is that it? If so, most of you have probably had bowel movements more "epic" than this.

Okay, on the second thought, there are far worse reviews. Thing is, I really don't see any reason to give anything less than a 50 or 40. Does stuff that bad actually exist? It would be nice if people tried to describe the music instead of trying to lower the average rating. This site is often times not helpful at all when deciding what to purchase. Here is a question for all to answer me: Who puts effort into reviewing albums, as opposed to being lazy and reviewing bands you are biased against? Why not review bands you legitimately thought you would enjoy for what they are? No more of this "it sucks, this band sucks." It just doesn't bring anything to the table.

Thing is, I really don't see any reason to give anything less than a 50 or 40.

People use scores ranging from 0-40 liberally, with the goal of lowering the average score of a band they may not enjoy.

Yeah, but that doesn't mean there aren't still people who do it because they feel that some albums do deserve it. I'd wager that the odds are pretty low that a great amount of people do it to "lower the average," so much as that they're speaking their minds.

Well, I would say the guy giving "In the Rectory of the Bizarre Reverend" 1% probably wanted to do that, aswell as "Lana" on Deathspell Omega's "Fas", or many of Kruel's 0% reviews for that matter.

Well... 50% is a failure? Is 2,5 on a scale of 5 also a failure, or just a modest record that don't stand out very much? I don't really know if I agree with that notion.

So basically we have a terribly ambiguous system with no guidelines that can be interpreted many ways, leading to much confusion and conflict. At least that's the way I see it.

The mathematical equivalent of 2/5 is of course 40%. If you get 40% on an assignment in school that's a clear F and you ought to be panicking. So a problem on this site is that a lot of reviewers view anything below 50% as an F. You can see where the above poster is coming from saying that nothing should be lower than 40% or 50% - it's pretty much impossible to get lower grades than that if you actually hand something in, no matter how much of an idiot you are. But if you read a review giving a movie 2/5 it's likely to be pretty mixed, maybe more like a C. An F on this scale is more like a 0/5. I think some viewers see the system more like that.

Yeah, and serious guidelines for scores would lead to much worse conflicts, not to mention cramp reviewers' styles. Ours is the worst system except for all the others we could try.