Encyclopaedia Metallum: The Metal Archives :: View topic - Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please)

Invisible Kid, that's the worst Metallica song ever. Mama Said is horrific too.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=3330

review of a torrent. Not the same as really having the album in your hands and listening to it with the real soundquality. + The reviewer wasn't even born when the album was released.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=141#156569

Seriously, how, oh, how was this accepted? It does not describe the music at all, it's got stupid fucking net memes, it's full of generalisations, and it's basically a disjointed conversation with himself. Please send this to the grime-filled depths of MA's rubbish bin.

Call_From_The_Tower wrote:

Seconded. That review is horrible, nuke it.

overkill666 wrote:

Call_From_The_Tower wrote:

Seconded. That review is horrible, nuke it.

I'll admit he needs more musical description but it was a short and amusing read. Oh and very true as well.

Description:

"Opeth's music is by no means deep nor is it inspirational..."

"Great. So we're going to disjoint the hell out of Pink Floyd's blues rock, turn up the volume, play some up-tempo sections, and use death metal grunts and hope no one notices what we're doing." - described in the first person instead of the third, but gets the message across to me.

"In all fairness Akerfail is a decent death metal vocalist. His grunt is loud, pissed off and menacing. His clean vocals are boring but not terrible. BUT FOR THE LOVE OF GOD SOMEONE TAKE THAT GUITAR AWAY FROM HIM. Akerfail's ideas are the musical equivalent of ee cummings. Not familiar with ee cummings poetry? Here's an example of the type of things cumming's writes:

O(hnohesg
otaguitar)pe(stilenceis
superior)thf(uckingchristidratherlistento
lateperioddeicide)ails"
- he's making the point that his style of guitar playing can make little or no sense. Also describes the vocals.

"They're talented musicians with dyslexia. Their song structures are broken, their vocal lines are broken and no one's told them that they need to be fixed."

Yeah, the review has an edge, and the music is described more in analogies than straight-forward description, but I got the point. Even with the few grammatical errors, I thought it was worth 3 points (though I could've given it 5, I don't remember - if I did it's 'cause I was entertained enough to not doze off halfway through).

I would agree with hose here who say that Thingy sucks; the only song they've done that is worse then it is Dirty Window of St.Anger. It's an awful song, truly horrendous.

Hey people. I'm nominatnig, or whatever, this review http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=230#139265 for the Oven.
Reason? It's not written by Thrasher53, it's written by UltraBoris for a whole other album. Check http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=547#147

This is horribly stolen - Thrasher53 didn't even bother to remove the section about "The Thing That Should Not Be", making this a very obvious theft.

How come this is still here?

it shows one of the main reason for people bitching aboot this band is sheer prejudice. Not an appraisal of musicianship, not a criticism of their sound. This is all aboot perception and deriding them because of aesthetics. If you’re making a criticism of their music itself I’m alright with that, but here’s the question: If you don’t like experimental metal music that uses samples, techno beats and the like…then why the fuck did you bother reviewing it? Why don’t you fucking leave off and leave it to the people who are going to deliver something worth something to those of us who do enjoy it and save yourself the hassle of listening to something you’re never going to like? I’ll tell you why. You’re an arsehole. They're myspace may read 'Metal just got gay' but there's nothing quite so gay as the sound of all you arseholes fucking each other.

He has another review that's not nearly as enthusiastically hyper.

I'm guessing "Hell Trucker" finally made him snap.

Edit: Nevermind, it's probably plagiarism.

How did this turn out?

Derigin wrote:

He has another review that's not nearly as enthusiastically hyper.

I'm guessing "Hell Trucker" finally made him snap.

Edit: Nevermind, it's probably plagiarism.

The 100% review suspect of plagiarism is still there.

Yeah, I don't get it either. The band isn't Canadian. The reviewer is British. Perhaps he's just weird?

The song proceeds with a senseless rhythm, the most classic of "Tu-Pa-Tu-Pa" with no virtuosity!

That UB review is fine, really. I mean, how much is it really necesary to say about Stratovarious and have the whole picture? Not that much.

Except now he's responding to a review that's been deleted.

Quote:

Except now he's responding to a review that's been deleted.

That is a pretty big issue, I don't know if the mods will decide to nuke it or not, but that first review had to go, it was more revolting than any of those trollish pieces of excrement that Falconsbane cursed this site with.

Author:	Kruel [ Tue Jun 17, 2008 9:18 pm ]
Post subject:
MoP would definitely be better without the thing that should not be (the title says it all), but it's the worst Metallica song ever recorded!??!

Author:	lord_ghengis [ Wed Jun 18, 2008 12:12 am ]
Post subject:
Yeah, it's a boring assed version of For Whom The Bell Tolls, so it's boring and unoriginal, but still, it's far from the worst thing they've done.

Author:	HowDisgusting [ Wed Jun 18, 2008 2:45 am ]
Post subject:
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=13204#38250 How this turd has survived for nearly 2 years is beyond me. All this guy does is complain about how the band uses 'cliches' [without offering any substantive evidence of it] and that they're rich indie kids trying to play black metal [which isn't true]. Someone nuke this.

Author:	caspian [ Wed Jun 18, 2008 3:04 am ]
Post subject:
I would agree with hose here who say that Thingy sucks; the only song they've done that is worse then it is Dirty Window of St.Anger. It's an awful song, truly horrendous.

Author:	Kruel [ Wed Jun 18, 2008 3:08 am ]
Post subject:
Wow, even caspian...

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

Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) https://forum.metal-archives.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=4153	Page 103 of 239

Author:	Acrobat [ Wed Jun 18, 2008 3:51 am ]
Post subject:
Invisible Kid, that's the worst Metallica song ever. Mama Said is horrific too.

Author:	caspian [ Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:36 am ]
Post subject:
ANationalAcrobat wrote: Invisible Kid, that's the worst Metallica song ever. Mama Said is horrific too. I always thought that buried beneath Invisible Kid's awful vocals/lyrics there were some half decent riffs. Have you actually heard dirty window? It's a good deal more awful. Mama Said would've been ok if it wasn't for the horrible guitars in the chorus. As it stands it's a bad song, but not on the same leagues as the other abortions that've been mentioned.

Author:	unrealbe [ Wed Jun 18, 2008 9:03 am ]
Post subject:
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=3330 review of a torrent. Not the same as really having the album in your hands and listening to it with the real soundquality. + The reviewer wasn't even born when the album was released.

Author:	Kruel [ Wed Jun 18, 2008 9:09 am ]
Post subject:
unrealbe wrote: http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=3330 review of a torrent. Not the same as really having the album in your hands and listening to it with the real soundquality. + The reviewer wasn't even born when the album was released. I'm not sure about the difference in sound quality there is between an actual album and torrents (doesn't seem like a big deal anyway, since he doesn't comment much on sound quality), but why can't someone review something that was released before he was born?

Author:	saintinhell [ Wed Jun 18, 2008 9:18 am ]
Post subject:
There are many reviews where the reviewer avers to a download or whatever. To the best of my knowledge, there is no bar on reviewing a downloaded version so long as it is factually faithful to the real thing. As for the other point about reviewer not being born when the album was released, I am reading Somerset Maugham's The Moon and Sixpence now and I fail to see why I should have been born then to appreciate it. I suppose the Pyramids should be torn down because nobody who was born then lives to this day to speak of their magnificence.

Author:	Call_From_The_Tower [ Wed Jun 18, 2008 10:17 am ]
Post subject:
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=141#156569 Seriously, how, oh, how was this accepted? It does not describe the music at all, it's got stupid fucking net memes, it's full of generalisations, and it's basically a disjointed conversation with himself. Please send this to the grime-filled depths of MA's rubbish bin.

Author:	overkill666 [ Wed Jun 18, 2008 10:23 am ]
Post subject:
Call_From_The_Tower wrote: http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=141#156569 Seriously, how, oh, how was this accepted? It does not describe the music at all, it's got stupid fucking net memes, it's full of generalisations, and it's basically a disjointed conversation with himself. Please send this to the grime-filled depths of MA's rubbish bin. Seconded. That review is horrible, nuke it.

Author:	zeingard [ Wed Jun 18, 2008 10:43 am ]
Post subject:
overkill666 wrote: Call_From_The_Tower wrote: http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=141#156569 Seriously, how, oh, how was this accepted? It does not describe the music at all, it's got stupid fucking net memes, it's full of generalisations, and it's basically a disjointed conversation with himself. Please send this to the grime-filled depths of MA's rubbish bin. Seconded. That review is horrible, nuke it. I'll admit he needs more musical description but it was a short and amusing read. Oh and very true as well.

Author:	Lord_Jotun [ Wed Jun 18, 2008 11:10 am ]
Post subject:
zeingard wrote: overkill666 wrote: Call_From_The_Tower wrote: http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=141#156569 Seriously, how, oh, how was this accepted? It does not describe the music at all, it's got stupid fucking net memes, it's full of generalisations, and it's basically a disjointed conversation with himself. Please send this to the grime-filled depths of MA's rubbish bin. Seconded. That review is horrible, nuke it. I'll admit he needs more musical description but it was a short and amusing read. Oh and very true as well. To me, it failed even on the purely amusing level - all it does is go through the whole "hurr hurr Opeth fans r teh pretenshus artfagz deluding themselvs into liking this lolz im so metuhl!!" bullshit that had been already done to death in 2003. Even Boris's review for the album goes deeper that that, and considering some of the useless garbage he used to contribute, it's really saying something. Oh, and please, someone nuke this piece of verbal crap.

Author:	Tepes_The_Unweeping [ Sun Jun 22, 2008 7:41 am ]
Post subject:
void

Author:	saintinhell [ Wed Jun 18, 2008 11:41 am ]
Post subject:
I came to post exactly the same thing. Rant by all means, but at least have the stuff to back yourself. As it is now, it's an amusing rant, but just that, a rant, not a review. I don't need to know what Still Life sounds like and so do many others but all the same it's a bare basic requirement in a review.

Author:	Gutterscream [ Wed Jun 18, 2008 12:41 pm ]
Post subject:
Description: "Opeth's music is by no means deep nor is it inspirational..." "Great. So we're going to disjoint the hell out of Pink Floyd's blues rock, turn up the volume, play some up-tempo sections, and use death metal grunts and hope no one notices what we're doing." - described in the first person instead of the third, but gets the message across to me. "In all fairness Akerfail is a decent death metal vocalist. His grunt is loud, pissed off and menacing. His clean vocals are boring but not terrible. BUT FOR THE LOVE OF GOD SOMEONE TAKE THAT GUITAR AWAY FROM HIM. Akerfail's ideas are the musical equivalent of ee cummings. Not familiar with ee cummings poetry? Here's an example of the type of things cumming's writes: O(hnohesg otaguitar)pe(stilenceis superior)thf(uckingchristidratherlistento lateperioddeicide)ails" - he's making the point that his style of guitar playing can make little or no sense. Also describes the vocals. "They're talented musicians with dyslexia. Their song structures are broken, their vocal lines are broken and no one's told them that they need to be fixed." Yeah, the review has an edge, and the music is described more in analogies than straight-forward description, but I got the point. Even with the few grammatical errors, I thought it was worth 3 points (though I could've given it 5, I don't remember - if I did it's 'cause I was entertained enough to not doze off halfway through).

Author:	Abominatrix [ Wed Jun 18, 2008 3:52 pm ]
Post subject:
Gutterscream wrote: Description: "Opeth's music is by no means deep nor is it inspirational..." "Great. So we're going to disjoint the hell out of Pink Floyd's blues rock, turn up the volume, play some up-tempo sections, and use death metal grunts and hope no one notices what we're doing." - described in the first person instead of the third, but gets the message across to me. "In all fairness Akerfail is a decent death metal vocalist. His grunt is loud, pissed off and menacing. His clean vocals are boring but not terrible. BUT FOR THE LOVE OF GOD SOMEONE TAKE THAT GUITAR AWAY FROM HIM. Akerfail's ideas are the musical equivalent of ee cummings. Not familiar with ee cummings poetry? Here's an example of the type of things cumming's writes: O(hnohesg otaguitar)pe(stilenceis superior)thf(uckingchristidratherlistento lateperioddeicide)ails" - he's making the point that his style of guitar playing can make little or no sense. Also describes the vocals. "They're talented musicians with dyslexia. Their song structures are broken, their vocal lines are broken and no one's told them that they need to be fixed." Yeah, the review has an edge, and the music is described more in analogies than straight-forward description, but I got the point. Even with the few grammatical errors, I thought it was worth 3 points (though I could've given it 5, I don't remember - if I did it's 'cause I was entertained enough to not doze off halfway through). I didn't actually read the review (of all the things in the world I need to see, another Opeth bashing on metal-archives seems very, very low on the list), but I must say I dig the Cummingss reference.

Author:	Nhorf [ Wed Jun 18, 2008 6:24 pm ]
Post subject:
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.ph ... 078#118904´ WTF, after NINETEEN reviews how this review got accepted remains a mystery to me. Really, it is not horribly written but needs paragraphs...

Author:	NecroFile [ Wed Jun 18, 2008 8:28 pm ]
Post subject:
Quote: I would agree with hose here who say that Thingy sucks; the only song they've done that is worse then it is Dirty Window of St.Anger. It's an awful song, truly horrendous. Fuck you guys, Thing is awesome.

Author:	Nightgaunt [ Wed Jun 18, 2008 10:26 pm ]
Post subject:
The last posting is gone. Also, this is an administrative sticky thread, not a Metallica thread.

Author:	Lade [ Thu Jun 19, 2008 4:16 am ]
Post subject:	Pantera review removal
Hey people. I'm nominatnig, or whatever, this review http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=230#139265 for the Oven. Reason? It's not written by Thrasher53, it's written by UltraBoris for a whole other album. Check http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=547#147 This is horribly stolen - Thrasher53 didn't even bother to remove the section about "The Thing That Should Not Be", making this a very obvious theft. How come this is still here?

Author:	Kruel [ Thu Jun 19, 2008 4:24 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Pantera review removal
Lade wrote: Hey people. I'm nominatnig, or whatever, this review http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=230#139265 for the Oven. Reason? It's not written by Thrasher53, it's written by UltraBoris for a whole other album. Check http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=547#147 This is horribly stolen - Thrasher53 didn't even bother to remove the section about "The Thing That Should Not Be", making this a very obvious theft. How come this is still here? I think "The Thing" was actually referring to the Metallica song, but nonetheless the format is very similar. I'm not sure what to make out of it, though.

Author:	hells_unicorn [ Thu Jun 19, 2008 1:28 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Pantera review removal
Lade wrote: Hey people. I'm nominatnig, or whatever, this review http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=230#139265 for the Oven. Reason? It's not written by Thrasher53, it's written by UltraBoris for a whole other album. Check http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=547#147 This is horribly stolen - Thrasher53 didn't even bother to remove the section about "The Thing That Should Not Be", making this a very obvious theft. How come this is still here? Because it's not outright plagiarism. The fact that a person gets ideas or even formats a review exactly like someone else's doesn't constitute it being a rip off provided they put it into their own words and show some extent of individual thought in their opinion. A lot of the points he makes about the album are similar to points I made in my review of the same album, which are quite different from Ultraboris'.

Author:	Pathological_Frolic [ Fri Jun 20, 2008 9:28 am ]
Post subject:
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.ph ... 2008#49347 Only about one whole paragraph of the review gives a solid musical description without going into a tirade against the other reviewers of the album. An excerpt that leads me to think the review should not be there as it now is: AngelofBreath wrote: it shows one of the main reason for people bitching aboot this band is sheer prejudice. Not an appraisal of musicianship, not a criticism of their sound. This is all aboot perception and deriding them because of aesthetics. If you’re making a criticism of their music itself I’m alright with that, but here’s the question: If you don’t like experimental metal music that uses samples, techno beats and the like…then why the fuck did you bother reviewing it? Why don’t you fucking leave off and leave it to the people who are going to deliver something worth something to those of us who do enjoy it and save yourself the hassle of listening to something you’re never going to like? I’ll tell you why. You’re an arsehole. They're myspace may read 'Metal just got gay' but there's nothing quite so gay as the sound of all you arseholes fucking each other.

Author:	Kruel [ Fri Jun 20, 2008 9:35 am ]
Post subject:
That's pretty annoying, especially given what band it is written for, but I think there are enough musical descriptions. It might be nuked due to the rule "avoid referring to reviews of other members," though.

Author:	Bezerko [ Fri Jun 20, 2008 9:35 am ]
Post subject:
Definite oven fodder, how was this even accepted? Half the review is whining about how elitest metal deride the album because apparently, they may not like the music. Nightgaunt will have a stroke if he sees this.

Author:	Empyreal [ Fri Jun 20, 2008 9:36 am ]
Post subject:
His review was fine, albeit extremely pretentious, but then it just fell apart when he started talking about how everyone who hated the band was fucking eachother or whatever. Seriously, what the fuck?

Author:	Kruel [ Fri Jun 20, 2008 10:31 am ]
Post subject:
How did this turn out? Derigin wrote: He has another review that's not nearly as enthusiastically hyper. I'm guessing "Hell Trucker" finally made him snap. Edit: Nevermind, it's probably plagiarism. The 100% review suspect of plagiarism is still there.

Author:	failsafeman [ Fri Jun 20, 2008 10:42 am ]
Post subject:
Kruel wrote: How did this turn out? Derigin wrote: He has another review that's not nearly as enthusiastically hyper. I'm guessing "Hell Trucker" finally made him snap. Edit: Nevermind, it's probably plagiarism. The 100% review suspect of plagiarism is still there. Oh, ha. Nightgaunt dursted the guy, but I guess he forgot to delete the review. Also, that Iwrestledabearonce review is gone; the guy whined about elitists, whined about other reviewers, plus the review needed a lot of proofreading. Plus, what the fuck was up with him spelling "about" as "aboot" every time?

Author:	Derigin [ Fri Jun 20, 2008 12:51 pm ]
Post subject:
Yeah, I don't get it either. The band isn't Canadian. The reviewer is British. Perhaps he's just weird?

Author:	Nightgaunt [ Sat Jun 21, 2008 12:38 am ]
Post subject:
I really ought to punish that reviewer. But seeing as how his review was somehow accepted, I don't suppose it would be quite right....

Author:	Baletempest [ Sun Jun 22, 2008 2:10 am ]
Post subject:
Derigin wrote: Yeah, I don't get it either. The band isn't Canadian. The reviewer is British. Perhaps he's just weird? Trust me, he's just the average short haired, fad hopping, PC muppet that infests the London Metal scene these days...

Author:	failsafeman [ Sun Jun 22, 2008 12:27 pm ]
Post subject:
Gone, along with a couple of other extremely sub-par reviews. As for Razakel's, I don't really care if he's imitating you, but he directly insults you and then says he's going to refute your position (a no-no around here), and then goes on to write a review that is at best barely acceptable given the other reviews; one plus the other = nuke.

Author:	hells_unicorn [ Sun Jun 22, 2008 7:40 pm ]
Post subject:
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=11173#205 Although I think both of the reviews here are lousy, I'm only requesting the first one be taken out because the English is extremely bad. The whole thing read like "I hard time like band, very bad with no good sound, my ass better sounds with twenty more".