| 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 104 of 239 |
| Author: | AurvandiL [ Tue Jun 24, 2008 5:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The Darkspace III review was taken from Metal Storm. Here it is: http://www.metalstorm.ee/pub/review.php?review_id=5601 The reviewer on Metal Storm The MA user who submitted Seems to me it is a blatant copy/paste thing. |
|
| Author: | Gutterscream [ Wed Jun 25, 2008 1:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Not exactly Ovenfodder, but I think this one needed more description to be accepted, though I guess it could be argued to scrape the heels of a 3-pointer. http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=19044#98708 |
|
| Author: | The_Evil_Hat [ Wed Jun 25, 2008 1:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
In my Leviathan review i left out a '5' from the rating. I praised the album for ten paragraphs and then gave it a 9. I'm suprirsed it got accepted, and yes, i've now changed it. |
|
| Author: | failsafeman [ Wed Jun 25, 2008 2:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Gutterscream wrote: Not exactly Ovenfodder, but I think this one needed more description to be accepted, though I guess it could be argued to scrape the heels of a 3-pointer.
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=19044#98708 I didn't accept it, but I would say that for an album (and band, for that matter) with no other reviews, it's better than nothing. It does at least give a general idea of what the album is like. Also, for what it is, it's not poorly written. |
|
| Author: | Hellrisen [ Wed Jun 25, 2008 4:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
How has this been able to last for so long? http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=1306#5434 |
|
| Author: | Durandal1717 [ Wed Jun 25, 2008 5:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Speaking of Mortician: http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=11431#70830 Mine was accepted twice. I don't think it's bad, as it was accepted (twice, no less), but as this is the only place to show reviews that should be deleted... |
|
| Author: | Napero [ Wed Jun 25, 2008 5:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Corrected. I thought it was an update when I approved it again, but there obviously was a database glitch or something. |
|
| Author: | failsafeman [ Wed Jun 25, 2008 6:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hellrisen wrote:
Haha, there are still some of those early clunkers floating around that haven't been picked up yet. Eventually we'll get them all. |
|
| Author: | Wra1th1s [ Thu Jun 26, 2008 1:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
This is rather horrible. No formatting and there are already better written positive reviews for that album. |
|
| Author: | Muloc7253 [ Thu Jun 26, 2008 7:03 am ] |
| Post subject: | - |
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=146601 The review by Deucalion has terrible punctuation, especially no spaces behind any commas. It looks like it was only accepted because it was the first negative review, but now that they're more balanced there's no need to keep it, really. |
|
| Author: | hakarl [ Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:20 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
http://metal-archives.com/review.php?id=411#21543 Not badly written, but it's all "WAA THIS ISN'T OLD HYPOCRISY". It doesn't describe the music, it doesn't even try to analyze it at all; it simply states that it's bad melodic death metal with a nu-metal edge and then bashes it completely, and the reviewer wasties no time backing up the statements he makes. |
|
| Author: | MikeyC [ Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=188995#98996 Written before the album has been released. |
|
| Author: | failsafeman [ Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Going in order of posts: 1. gone, 2. gone, 3. it's the only negative review and as such is barely passable, 4. gone. |
|
| Author: | Wra1th1s [ Fri Jun 27, 2008 1:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
This: First four reviews need to go. Even OSheaman's. All short, all positive. also the top ones pretty much nail the album (although the second most recent is a track-by-track.) |
|
| Author: | failsafeman [ Fri Jun 27, 2008 1:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I deleted the other three you suggested, but kept Osheaman's. It does describe the music, and there are only two other reviews anyway. |
|
| Author: | Wra1th1s [ Fri Jun 27, 2008 5:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
This review needs to go, I find it very hard to believe that it was written by a veteran. No formatting (it makes my eyes bleed just trying to read it,) There are plenty of positive reviews for that album and all of them are much better (except maybe the track by track one) |
|
| Author: | failsafeman [ Fri Jun 27, 2008 5:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Gone. Formatting standards were much laxer back then, too. |
|
| Author: | ikuturiso [ Fri Jun 27, 2008 6:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=146123 - the latest one. Whole first paragraph is pretty much a useless blabber about the band, and the only description of the music itself I can find in the whole review is "evil and epic atmosphere", apart from the repeated "very good!". Gah! |
|
| Author: | MikeyC [ Sat Jun 28, 2008 8:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=81413#149525 What does everyone think of MetalSupremacy's review? I think he spends too much time explaining the difference between metalcore and groove metal, and then goes into a track-by-track review of every song. The review itself is much too long, I think. Although, it seems good enough to stay, so I'm not bothered one way or the other. |
|
| Author: | Nightgaunt [ Sat Jun 28, 2008 10:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Review posted by ikuturiso is deleted (error in the title, little depth of on-point content, etc.). The MetalSupremacy review is good enough to stay. |
|
| Author: | MikeyC [ Sat Jun 28, 2008 10:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Nightgaunt wrote: The MetalSupremacy review is good enough to stay.
No problem. |
|
| Author: | headbanger54 [ Sun Jun 29, 2008 9:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
For Anthrax's album We've Come For You All, there are two of the exact same review by two different people, morpheus_madman and MetalThunder. |
|
| Author: | lord_ghengis [ Sun Jun 29, 2008 10:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
headbanger54 wrote: For Anthrax's album We've Come For You All, there are two of the exact same review by two different people, morpheus_madman and MetalThunder.
Nice find... that's hilarious. |
|
| Author: | MikeyC [ Wed Jul 02, 2008 2:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=188995 Again, accepted before the album's release date. |
|
| Author: | failsafeman [ Wed Jul 02, 2008 2:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
MikeyC wrote:
Wow, AND it was a wall of text. Someone was really asleep at the switch on that one. |
|
| Author: | Avaddons_blood [ Wed Jul 02, 2008 5:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Tepes the Unweeping Cmon, this review is pretty pathetic. Other than saying it sounds like Dragonforce and pop he really fails to describe the music. He basically spends more time talking about GBK than Arghoslent for fucks sake. I don't care if he hates Arghoslent or not, just type a halfway decent review. |
|
| Author: | Kvisling [ Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Avaddons_blood wrote: Other than saying it sounds like Dragonforce and pop he really fails to describe the music. He basically spends more time talking about GBK than Arghoslent for fucks sake.
Completely untrue. |
|
| Author: | failsafeman [ Wed Jul 02, 2008 7:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Avaddons_blood wrote: Tepes the Unweeping
Cmon, this review is pretty pathetic. Other than saying it sounds like Dragonforce and pop he really fails to describe the music. He basically spends more time talking about GBK than Arghoslent for fucks sake. I don't care if he hates Arghoslent or not, just type a halfway decent review. Dude, he talks about GBK for one sentence. Get your head out of your ass. It is a tad weak on the descriptive side, but it does make the cut. |
|
| Author: | Nightgaunt [ Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
failsafeman wrote: MikeyC wrote: Wow, AND it was a wall of text. Someone was really asleep at the switch on that one. Been seeing a lot of outright bad reviews accepted recently. Next time a particularly egregious one comes up, don't delete it, so we can check and see who accepted it (my assumption is that it's someone who doesn't normally work with this particular queue). |
|
| Author: | Avaddons_blood [ Wed Jul 02, 2008 9:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
failsafeman wrote: Avaddons_blood wrote: Tepes the Unweeping Cmon, this review is pretty pathetic. Other than saying it sounds like Dragonforce and pop he really fails to describe the music. He basically spends more time talking about GBK than Arghoslent for fucks sake. I don't care if he hates Arghoslent or not, just type a halfway decent review. Dude, he talks about GBK for one sentence. Get your head out of your ass. It is a tad weak on the descriptive side, but it does make the cut. Its very weak. I'm very aware that he does talk more about Arghoslent than GBK, I was obviously exaggerating. |
|
| Author: | failsafeman [ Wed Jul 02, 2008 9:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Yes, you were obviously exaggerating in that you were totally incorrect and blew something way out of proportion to support your claim. |
|
| Author: | WHM_dudafros [ Thu Jul 03, 2008 12:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I also have a problem with that particular Arghoslent review. He claims that they seems like DragonForce without strong production and that they are void of songwriting or musical sense, but those accusations seem completely without merit when listening to the disc. What remains is his belief that they are a crowd band, made as a gimmick to fit a niche and not create good music, which has nothing to do with the sound of the album, and has no place in a review. To top it all off, he makes it seem as if all those who disagree are moronic brutes who don't understand what makes good music. |
|
| Author: | hells_unicorn [ Thu Jul 03, 2008 12:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Tepes has pretty unique tastes and a flair for pissing off fan boys. My only real complaint is that he doesn't write any positive material, which I think hurts his credibility. The review in question looks like 3 point territory, but it gets the job done, I think you guys just need to write your own reviews in order to get what you think is the truth out about these albums, it's much more constructive than targeting reviews that are not getting taken down. |
|
| Author: | Tepes_The_Unweeping [ Thu Jul 03, 2008 1:07 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
no |
|
| Author: | hells_unicorn [ Thu Jul 03, 2008 1:24 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: I am writing some positive reviews, just haven't got to them yet. I enjoy writing negative reviews, and I feel that such reviews are desperately needed on this site. Also, I'm trying to build up some content for another site I write for that only takes negative reviews, so my efforts are currently focussed in that direction. I see, that explains the large number of negative reviews. I'm pretty much the opposite, I have a hard as hell time writing reviews trashing an album and always find myself borrowing techniques from droneriot and ultraboris every time I do one. I've heard maybe 50 albums that I would give sub-40 scores for, maybe 5 of which would get zeros, but it takes me forever to write them. Almost all reviews I've gotten 8 point scores on are for scores of 95 and up, because I'm always in the zone when writing those. Quote: I agree. This is why I don't go around looking to take down dreadful fanboy reviews on albums I hate (and there are lots of those reviews out there).
Most of the stuff you've hit that I'm familiar with is pretty bland, though I'm not terribly familiar with Tyr or Arghoslent. |
|
| Author: | Avaddons_blood [ Thu Jul 03, 2008 1:34 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
failsafeman wrote: Yes, you were obviously exaggerating in that you were totally incorrect and blew something way out of proportion to support your claim. You clearly misunderstand. I know that I exaggerated, anyone who read the the review could see that. It wasn't suppose to be taken that way. It's like if you were riding in the care with your friend and he was driving very slow so I say, "can we not drive at a fucking snails pace". Clearly if I said such a thing I didn't actually mean he is driving at a snails pace, I just mean he was driving very fucking slow. It was obvious I wasn't trying to give misinformation about the review, after all I did give a link to it with the intention of you reading it.
|
|
| Author: | failsafeman [ Thu Jul 03, 2008 2:40 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I understand the concept of exaggeration, thanks. My point, which you clearly misunderstand, is that exaggeration in this case was totally uncalled for. |
|
| Author: | Avaddons_blood [ Thu Jul 03, 2008 3:08 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
failsafeman wrote: I understand the concept of exaggeration, thanks. My point, which you clearly misunderstand, is that exaggeration in this case was totally uncalled for.
Why was it uncalled for? He gave a short review that gave a poor description of the music. |
|
| Author: | NecroFile [ Thu Jul 03, 2008 6:40 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: I understand the concept of exaggeration, thanks. My point, which you clearly misunderstand, is that exaggeration in this case was totally uncalled for.
Can we not split hairs, people? His point was that the review sucked. The problem I have with Tepes' review is that while it is technically good enough to remain on the site, it is about as helpful as kidney stones. Is there any discussion of the individual songs? Any description of what the vocals sound like? Any comparison with similar bands? Nope. "It's pop, it's commercial, it sucks." And I'm not even saying that because I'm a fan of the band... |
|
| Author: | Catachthonian [ Thu Jul 03, 2008 7:03 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Avaddons_blood wrote: He gave a short review that gave a poor description of the music.
I agree here, after reading that review the only idea I had about the music was that it was something similar to DragonForce, except with deathocre elements, and overall sounding like pop music, which is not true at all. While technically it's OK (I have no problem with people bashing bands for non-musical reasons, as long as they're not too zealous), I think the part describing the actual music should be expanded a bit. |
|
| Page 104 of 239 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|