Stuff like this can get annoying, not sure if it's grounds for deletion.

http://metal-archives.com/review.php?id=1528
See: IrishDeathgrip's review: "Jus Osbourn"
Fungicide's review: "Jus Osborn (coincidence?)"

http://metal-archives.com/review.php?id=21124

no reason needed

good call!

It's just a capsule review like something found in a movie digest. There's no minimum of length for reviews. If it's really brief like that one but generally informative then so be it. Not everyone wants to read long reviews for an album all of the time. If everyone has to write the same way then it becomes uninteresting.

Latest Bathory review by Peter31095Metalhead- he's just telling a story and fitting track titles into it, I see no musical description whatsoever (or am I missing something?).
http://metal-archives.com/review.php?id=754#182648

I came in here just about to mention the same thing. While it's very creative, I agree with you that there is little to no music relavence in his review.

Ah ok, glad I'm not the only one who saw that.

Recently found ScatologyDomine's review of the Coffins/XXX Maniak split. I know it's the only one so it doesn't have to be very good, but from the way he talks it sound as if he's never even heard the Coffins side, passing over it to review the XXX Maniak side, of which he is an obvious fan. "I'll start with Coffins. They're an interesting doom metal band, one of the stoner/Sabbath worship type, from Japan". Coffins=stoner/doom?!

"As for the music... It's pretty standard fare as far as stoner doom goes, with the bluesy riffage and slow drumming". Bluesy riffage? Pretty standard slowed down death metal riffage has little "bluesy" quality to it. Did he even listen to this?

http://metal-archives.com/review.php?id=221491

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=231252

Soul of Darkness'review of the new 1349 full length. The writing is shitty (obviously Mr. Darkness is ESL) and there is no description of the music beyond the vague sense that it is less 'fast and brutal' than the old albums. Most of the review is stupid whining about how 1349 have betrayed 'the fans' (ughhhhh). And who the fuck says 'I'm not saying this is a bad album' then gives it 0%

EDIT: Never mind

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=102693

Short, vague, lots of bad spelling, looks like it might have been let through by accident.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=1796#3804

WASP debut album - review by UnleashTheHeathen

Lame format, doesn't describe the music as well as the other reviewers. Kind of looks like a review you'd find out of a magazine article with less than 200 words in a side-box or something.

http://metal-archives.com/review.php?id=118168

Gorgoroth's "Ad Majorem Sathanas Gloriam"- Review by Droneriot

There's nothing really said about what the album sounds like. It needs a bit more validity in what he's saying.



What do the weaknesses sound like? Is it the production, the songs structures? I'm lost. He hints every once in a while that the production is the flaw, but never really seems to go in depth about it.

I don't know, just take a look at it.

Comments on the below? The review's attached to the wrong release.

Must've overlooked that. I'll take care of it.

Review titled "Ancient Occult Metal" by Sue, for Theli by Therion.
As someone reading these reviews to get an impression of the album before I buy/download it, I would have been screwed if it weren't for the other 9. All I can gather from the review is that it has occult lyrics, orchestras and choirs. And so does a lot of other metal.

www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=412#139765

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.ph ... 720#155752

And this is from an English speaker? Often awkward as hell, if not grammatically incorrect.

The newest one for Kill by Cannibal Corpse (by Benevolentbob)

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.ph ... 564#198052

We already have 16 reviews, is a checklist styled one paragraph wonder really necessary?

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=121507

The earliest review. Poor formatting, track-by-track, bad punctuation ("best album you'll ever hear in you're life") and just general silliness ("riffs made of ass-kickery and win").

Very overrated album, I need to get down to reviewing that one myself.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.ph ... 904#187443

Says literally nothing about the music.

Deleted the Cobalt review.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.ph ... 3202#99317

First of all, I would like to eliminate any possible speculations. Yes, Dysthymya is my band, and it never in a million years would cross my mind to complain about an honest review, even with a 0% score for the release.
1/3 of the text is about other famous black metal bands, about how young their main members were when their first ever demos/EPs were released to the world.
The remaining first and third paragraphs are about how unoriginal and cliched this is compared even to the likes of "Zarach 'Baal' Tharagh". He never really talks about what he heard or what it sounds like, like the other two reviewers did. He only babbles about how much he hates it. It's like the guy never actually listened to the songs.
I find his review quite useless for people who might be looking for information about the music.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.ph ... 748#194956

Review at the bottom. With the two already up, this old review can probably get the boot.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=222303

Review for my band's first demo. It's a 100%, so obviously there must be some justified reason for me wanting it taken down. From reading it, it's quite apparent that this guy has not actually heard the demo, but only listened to a few tracks from our myspace at the time of writing. So I contacted the guy, and it turns out that my suspicions were actually correct. I don't mind praise of course, but I at least want it to be somewhat reasonable.

edit: Thanks a lot, whoever took care of this :)

Cannibal Corpse's Bloodthirst review by Cheeses_Priced
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=894
I find this review to be inadequate. The intro is about this made-up character "BluesRocker1967" who feels Cannibal Corpse is awful. It seems like a harmless intro but when then review is just barely reaching three paragraphs it is a large piece of the review.

The following paragraph moves forward onto , "the notion of accessibility in music"? This section deals with the author's ability to recognize Cannibal Corpse songs while he (or she) is unable to define Deeds of Flesh songs. While this seems harmless , combined with the intro this makes nearly 66% of the review; which isn't very much.

We have yet to discuss the actual music contained in this album and we are nearing the closing. Opening into our third (which is really the only true paragraph) section we are made aware of the fact the author is opposite of his (or her) character "BluesRocker1967". He infact enjoys a sonic barrage of missles in his ear.

The only real music criticism or praise is of Corpsegrinder's vocals which is noted that the author dislikes. In addition the only other notes of musical criticism are as quoted ; "this does not sound like the product of a group of guys who wanted to rock the boat too much" and "there are just enough little time signature and tempo changes to maintain interest, and it's pretty catchy at points". The author notes that it really isn't a bad album but would rather spend money on something else.

Closing the review the author stated that we shouldn't mind "BluesRocker1967" attitude.

In my opinion I feel this review should be deleted for not actually reviewing the music. This review does infact show the author's ability in recognizing music very rapidly. As well as the general intelligence of Youtube comments.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=21633#66546

Doesn't really tell anybody much about what the album actually sounds like. Obviously the reviewer doesn't digest Maidens later day style nor Bruce in general, which about the sum of information that can be gathered from this "review". Given proper reasoning any score for any album wouldn't be a problem, but there is none to be found in this review.

I agree that grimdoom's Maiden review is utterly worthless. Not only is it vague as fuck but it also contains false information like Journeyman being written by Nicko.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=1165#21585 A_lesson_in_violence

Poor track by track with only vague style descriptors and band comparisons.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=64#15620

Awful single-paragraph, four-line review for Cradle of Filth that mostly says "this album sucks" several different ways. Granted it's from 2004, but it's bad even for then.

Looking at that page now, it's clearly in need of a cleaning. Reviews by Hawks10pec (poor spelling, bad track-by-track format, factual inaccuracy in the very first sentence), Blackmetalbastard (terrible spelling and negligible musical description) and shadow_hunter (just empty, really, and again, atrocious spelling) are gone. Couldn't find that four-liner though..someone else must have dealt with it.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.ph ... 3202#99317

First of all, I would like to eliminate any possible speculations. Yes, Dysthymya is my band, and it never in a million years would cross my mind to complain about an honest review, even with a 0% score for the release.
1/3 of the text is about other famous black metal bands, about how young their main members were when their first ever demos/EPs were released to the world.
The remaining first and third paragraphs are about how unoriginal and cliched this is compared even to the likes of "Zarach 'Baal' Tharagh". He never really talks about what he heard or what it sounds like, like the other two reviewers did. He only babbles about how much he hates it. It's like the guy never actually listened to the songs.
I find his review quite useless for people who might be looking for information about the music.

It isn't a good review, but it does have description, though really, really vague. I haven't heard the album, but I did get an idea of what makes it low quality in the opinion of the reviewer.

Looking at a review for Burzum's Filosofem, I noticed something odd: a one-sentence review written by someone called Reign_of_Praine.

Link: http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=382#153339

Upon further inspection, all of his reviews are like that.

http://www.metal-archives.com/userreviews.php?id=153339&nickname=Reign_of_Praine

That's very odd. I used to talk to him on occasions through Last FM and his reviews definitely weren't worthy on deletion. He did just disappear after writing a few reviews and isn't anywhere to be seen these days. Perhaps he, oddly, modify his own reviews so they would be deleted because he didn't want them up anymore? He could have just deleted them ... This is weird.

He was probably trying to make some kind of statement. IIRC he made a big, dramatic "I'm leaving and never coming back!" kind of post a while ago and hasn't been around since. I might be wrong though.

http://metal-archives.com/review.php?id=187417#702

It says almost nothing about the music, and there are several other reviews that are similar without saying "Testament sucks" more than anything about the music.

www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=36411#7341

The review by Wohmatak at the bottom of the page. Its very short with little description of the music, the ... phenomenon at the end of a number of sentences and a factual error - Henriette Bordvik was not on the first album.

No, he came back and then others hit him with the "I thought you said you weren't coming back" line and then he left again. haha

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.ph ... 532#193455

Dunkeltrolls' review

For whatever reason, weird reviews of this album keep getting accepted, there was the one about Maiden's being Christian, and now this already small review uses half it's length to talk about how the album was too long so he used an audio program to trim down the songs. He only actually mentions one song, and doesn't say anything more than that it's pretty good.

Seconded. How this review got through is beyond me. No description at all. To top all that, there are already a huge number of reviews for the album before this. At least the christian review backed the weird talk with some arguments of merit and brought a new idea on the table. This one is just plain bad and shouldnt even have been accepted for a release with 2-3 reviews.

How odd. I take it he must have had some problem with things around here? He seemed like a nice enough guy to me. Oh well.