| 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 135 of 239 |
| Author: | Noktorn [ Sat May 09, 2009 9:22 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: - |
Karnstein_Records wrote: http://www.metal-archives.com/release.php?id=21664
Shadow0fDeath's review doesn't explain the music at all and and is about three sentences long. Frankly I think all of them can be deleted, I'll be getting to that album soon enough myself. |
|
| Author: | hells_unicorn [ Sun May 10, 2009 7:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=14639#1657 I know this is the only review for this, but he mentions hearing one of the 3 songs on this single on a separate compilation and spends half of a very short review ranting about the irony of it being on a compilation dealing with human rights issues, and makes no mention of the other two versions of the song on one version or the two on the alternate version. I have this single and I was thinking about hitting it while on my current non-studio album Sabbath craze, frankly this thing is just lousy, and what little description there is, comes off as both vague and incomplete. |
|
| Author: | caspian [ Mon May 11, 2009 10:52 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
http://metal-archives.com/review.php?id=230238#138011 Has a big rant about the previous reviewer, I dunno. Quote: , since I first noticed that 93% review that is lying below mine, but meanwhile I acknowledged something that irreversibly changed my expectations. You see, the review below, which awards this demo with a “great” 93% is so fake that it makes any Brazzers or BangBros models breasts look real. The guy who wrote it is Gorlim, member of the “experimental Christian black metal” band O, Majestic Winter, another band from this so called Christian metal fellowship. Curiously, O, Majestic Winter’s debut also received a review praising all his “original and innovative” ideas and dubbing it an “underground masterpiece”, from guess who? Matt and Zack Plunkett, the guys behind DRO. Nothing wrong here, for this would seem normal if their reviews were honest and sincere, but have you actually listened to both bands? It is obvious that these guys are just worshipping and praising each other’s bands like they were really great, just because they’re friends when they should be reviewing them objectively in order to make them evolve and get better. To me, this seems foolish and childish and one cannot take any of these reviews seriously, so I’ll try to be the first objective reviewer for these guys.
|
|
| Author: | EntilZha [ Mon May 11, 2009 12:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
His point does seem kind of justified. |
|
| Author: | Heraklyon [ Tue May 12, 2009 7:21 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I have this review posted here on Metal Archives, which if I'm honest is rather crappy, as I made it when my vocabulary was far less rich. Actually I'm working on a completely new review, for that same album, which is getting way much better and bigger and I wonder if I should erase the previous review and post the new one when its ready, or just edit and replace the old one for the new one. What would make more sense? |
|
| Author: | Call_From_The_Tower [ Wed May 13, 2009 2:19 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=9158 The review by optimuszgrime. Surely that review is not acceptable any more, especially considering there's a much more in-depth review above it. It has no music description and no real arguments. Complete shit. |
|
| Author: | Noktorn [ Thu May 14, 2009 7:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.ph ... 353#193305 Come on. |
|
| Author: | The_Orphanizer [ Fri May 15, 2009 4:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
http://metal-archives.com/review.php?id=122532#194092 The new AMoLaD review. He doesn't describe the music at all. All he talks about is how it's a "Christian" album, with a couple sentences of "Iron Maiden YEAH!!" thrown in for good measure. |
|
| Author: | ogmetal [ Fri May 15, 2009 6:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The_Orphanizer wrote: http://metal-archives.com/review.php?id=122532#194092
The new AMoLaD review. He doesn't describe the music at all. All he talks about is how it's a "Christian" album, with a couple sentences of "Iron Maiden YEAH!!" thrown in for good measure. Yeah, you do have a point; he doesn't describe the music very much, if at all. BUT, he does have some valid points and his review is like none other for that album. No one has talked about the lyrical content in that manner. I talked with Napero about this and we both think it should stay. |
|
| Author: | Empyreal [ Fri May 15, 2009 6:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
It's not a bad review, except it is pretty inaccurate. "For the Greater Good of God" is a sort of satire/attack against Muslim extremists and "Lord of Light" IS about Lucifer, and his reasoning about that song is just retarded. He does have his points otherwise though, as fucking weird as they are. It's a very odd, personal kind of review. |
|
| Author: | EntilZha [ Fri May 15, 2009 7:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
ogmetal wrote: I talked with Napero about this and we both think it should stay.
The true master of this site concurs. |
|
| Author: | ogmetal [ Fri May 15, 2009 7:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
EntilZha wrote: ogmetal wrote: I talked with Napero about this and we both think it should stay. The true master of this site concurs. droneriot, you know damn well that we talk about lots of stuff in #metal...well, perhaps you forgot since you are banned. |
|
| Author: | ogmetal [ Fri May 15, 2009 7:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Empyreal wrote: It's not a bad review, except it is pretty inaccurate. "For the Greater Good of God" is a sort of satire/attack against Muslim extremists and "Lord of Light" IS about Lucifer, and his reasoning about that song is just retarded.
He does have his points otherwise though, as fucking weird as they are. It's a very odd, personal kind of review. Yeah, he is inaccurate about "Lord of Light" and I'm beginning to change my mind on this review. It does have a different view point BUT no musical description (not like we don't know what Maiden sounds like musically) and a few inaccurate descriptions lyrically aren't helping his case. |
|
| Author: | ForNaught [ Fri May 15, 2009 9:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
If you were to remove the four or so sentences that mention it being some kind of music then the review could actually be a poetry review. It doesn't only not review or describe the music, it doesn't even mention that it's there. |
|
| Author: | Bezerko [ Sat May 16, 2009 4:37 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
ForNaught wrote: If you were to remove the four or so sentences that mention it being some kind of music then the review could actually be a poetry review. It doesn't only not review or describe the music, it doesn't even mention that it's there.
Exactly. MA should not accept a review with no music description just because it espouses an alternate view point. I do debate the things the reviewer says, true, but that's not the reason it should be nuked. The fact is, if I had not heard the album already, I would have absolutely NO idea what it sounded like. Let's assume that I'm new to metal, and haven't even heard of Iron Maiden before. All I would know from the review is that it's supposedly Christian and that it "rocks harder" than most Christian bands.. For all I know, it's a deathcore album. Sorry Napero and Og, but you're reasoning is stupid. I've seen "one sentence reviews" (you know, that lie around on blogs, people trying to be creative with reviewing or whatever) that have more musical description than this review. MA is, and always should be, review wise at least, a place for discussing the MUSIC of a band. |
|
| Author: | ogmetal [ Sat May 16, 2009 9:54 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
You guys make some valid points even though I find it quite a stretch that someone would stumble upon Metal Archives not having ever heard Iron Maiden. I will remove the review. |
|
| Author: | EntilZha [ Sat May 16, 2009 12:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
ogmetal wrote: EntilZha wrote: ogmetal wrote: I talked with Napero about this and we both think it should stay. The true master of this site concurs. droneriot, you know damn well that we talk about lots of stuff in #metal...well, perhaps you forgot since you are banned. ogmetal, you know damn well that as always, I referred to myself. 
|
|
| Author: | Byrgan [ Sun May 17, 2009 2:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=13210 I e-mailed optimuszgrime some time last year about his review, but he decided not to fix it. He initially said something about the language barrier. The problem is he phrases it like the whole band is female, when there is only one in the band. It seems like he got lazy and didn't check the names of the band members honestly, I don't know. There's now a review with a similar score up. |
|
| Author: | hakarl [ Sun May 17, 2009 4:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.ph ... 4500#37509 Songs of Grief And Solitude review by toxicparadox. Adds nothing, says little in the first place. I also find Scourge_Ov_Amalek's review to be a bit borderline due to lack of content. |
|
| Author: | Terminal_Tyrant [ Tue May 19, 2009 1:43 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Varcolac's review for Satanic Warmaster's Strength and Honor probably should be nuked since it reads more like a post. It's too short and he ends it with a non-rhetorical question about the release. It doesn't look like he knows what he is talking about or heard the album. Reviews should be informative. It's the the third review from the bottom of the page. |
|
| Author: | MaDTransilvanian [ Thu May 21, 2009 1:29 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Terminal_Tyrant wrote: Varcolac's review for Satanic Warmaster's Strength and Honor probably should be nuked since it reads more like a post. It's too short and he ends it with a non-rhetorical question about the release. It doesn't look like he knows what he is talking about or heard the album. Reviews should be informative. It's the the third review from the bottom of the page.
You're right that it's not a very good review. The musical description lasts only for one single sentence, with half of the review being dedicated to that unique 8th song, although that part contains some musical description as well. Still, I'm not sure whether this should be nuked, he has some decent ideas although they're far too underdeveloped. You're also right about that complete oddity of a question at the end, it really seems like he's expecting an answer. Here's the link to the review, this should be provided when posting here for easy access: http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=2629#11013 |
|
| Author: | Sagebear [ Thu May 21, 2009 3:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
As much as I dislike Visions of Atlantis and would hate to see the only negative review for their debut deleted, the only negative review truly sucks: http://metal-archives.com/review.php?id=19908#1545 |
|
| Author: | Catachthonian [ Thu May 21, 2009 3:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.ph ... 8522#70219 - the newest one by MindRuler33. There are no spaces between the paragraphs. |
|
| Author: | ~Guest 76452 [ Thu May 21, 2009 5:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Catachthonian wrote: http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=228522#70219 - the newest one by MindRuler33. There are no spaces between the paragraphs.
Taken care of |
|
| Author: | Scourge441 [ Thu May 21, 2009 10:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=767#147 The two oldest reviews (by chaossphere and UltraBoris), while not particularly bad, are really short and are made redundant by the presence of the other (all low-scoring) reviews. |
|
| Author: | MaDTransilvanian [ Thu May 21, 2009 10:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Scourge441 wrote: http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=767#147
The two oldest reviews (by chaossphere and UltraBoris), while not particularly bad, are really short and are made redundant by the presence of the other (all low-scoring) reviews. Boris' review isn't too bad. It's short, yes, but it does describe the music very well. Plus, in that album's case 25% isn't too low. |
|
| Author: | Misainzig [ Fri May 22, 2009 6:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
What is up with this release? None of these reviews are any good. http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=6091 |
|
| Author: | MaDTransilvanian [ Fri May 22, 2009 11:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Misainzig wrote: What is up with this release? None of these reviews are any good.
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=6091 Eh, it's funny to see those old 5-liners. I'd miss them. They're actually quite descriptive considering the minimal length. |
|
| Author: | Catachthonian [ Sat May 23, 2009 4:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=15921#78030 - Lithuanians are NOT a Slavic people, they're a Baltic people. |
|
| Author: | Byrgan [ Sat May 23, 2009 9:33 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Catachthonian wrote: http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=15921#78030 - Lithuanians are NOT a Slavic people, they're a Baltic people.
It seems like factual errors are getting less strict to consider deleting when posting in this thread. Though I'd make sense to just e-mail the guy for the minor correction, but he doesn't seem to have an address listed. |
|
| Author: | Sagebear [ Mon May 25, 2009 12:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sagebear wrote: As much as I dislike Visions of Atlantis and would hate to see the only negative review for their debut deleted, the only negative review truly sucks:
http://metal-archives.com/review.php?id=19908#1545 Anyone? The review is pitifully short (especially for a full-length album) and they only go on to say how much the band wants to sound like superior bands in the genre with no real description of the music. While I do agree with his review 100%, it REALLY needs to be removed. |
|
| Author: | Aeonblade [ Mon May 25, 2009 3:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
hells_unicorn's review of Ozzy's Paranoid single. It's not that it's a bad review, but he talks so much about Randy Rhoads and his solo, yet the songs in question are from Speak of The Devil, which had Brad Gillis on guitar, not Randy. just thought I'd throw that out there. http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=5806 |
|
| Author: | Perplexed_Sjel [ Mon May 25, 2009 3:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I'm sure the above suggestion is blasphemy? That review contributed to his challenge win. I know nothing about the style of music, so I can't say much about the actual review. |
|
| Author: | Aeonblade [ Mon May 25, 2009 3:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I didn't say it was bad, I'm just pointing out that he keeps talking about Randy Rhoads, though he has nothing to do with the songs. I'm not even sure this was the place to put this really. |
|
| Author: | Perplexed_Sjel [ Mon May 25, 2009 3:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
It most certainly DOES seem to be the place for it. Thing is, most reviews don't tend to get nuked unless there's a better review in place of it, along the same lines, and its only a single, right? |
|
| Author: | Aeonblade [ Mon May 25, 2009 3:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
That's fine, my know it all-isms and rampant Randy Rhoads fanboyism are showing. |
|
| Author: | hells_unicorn [ Tue May 26, 2009 9:51 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
The review in question has been fixed to reflect the actual facts regarding the "Paranoid" single. I was under the false impression based on word of mouth that the guitarist on that album was Rhoads, something which was further bolstered by how similar his replacement made him self sound to him. Still, the songs I've heard off of "Speak Of The Devil" are poorly performed, and my general opinion on the single hasn't changed. |
|
| Author: | morbert [ Thu May 28, 2009 1:31 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
track by track review by chainsawcarnage http://www.metal-archives.com/review.ph ... 907#131588 |
|
| Author: | OzzyApu [ Thu May 28, 2009 12:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Different from their modern stuff, but very solid - 85% Written by Waspman on August 30th, 2006 http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=1059 The review doesn't explain the music at all, aside from calling it "experimental" and saying that keys and female vocals are used. The first two paragraphs are just a summary of facts and so is the last paragraph. This adds nothing. |
|
| Author: | ForNaught [ Sun May 31, 2009 3:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Bit of a problem with deluge71's review of Åsmund Frægdegjevar by Lumsk, linked here. Nothing wrong with the review, except that it's obviously a review of the band's demo of the same name, rather than the full-length to which it is attached. It mentions the first track as being 'I lytinne tva' which is the case for the demo but not the full-length, and it also complains about the short total length of <20 mins, which again is true for the demo but not the full-length. I don't know whether the reviewer downloaded the demo and was mistaken as to what it was, or simply added it to the wrong release by accident, but it should not have been accepted in either case. |
|
| Page 135 of 239 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|