| 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 143 of 239 |
| Author: | The_Boss [ Wed Nov 11, 2009 2:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=227319#13255 This review is fairly short, but contains one mere sentence about describing the music and really gives no help whatsoever. Saying the music is "bouncy" and having the rest of the review being based on how he dislikes the entire subgenre of the music. Terrible review. The first review, by user: Aetheraeon. |
|
| Author: | 206 [ Thu Nov 12, 2009 4:44 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Makes you wonder why he wrote the review in the first place. That last paragraph says it all. |
|
| Author: | Zelkiiro [ Fri Nov 13, 2009 7:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
http://metal-archives.com/review.php?id=224938#211961 Not poorly-written, exactly, but it's one long-running factual error. |
|
| Author: | rexxz [ Fri Nov 13, 2009 9:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Care to point it out? |
|
| Author: | OzzyApu [ Fri Nov 13, 2009 10:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
He's just pissed that someone gave it a positive, don't mind him. |
|
| Author: | Zelkiiro [ Sat Nov 14, 2009 1:17 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Have you heard the album yet? Reliving the experience through a positive review left me feeling violated. D: |
|
| Author: | OzzyApu [ Sat Nov 14, 2009 1:22 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Yes I have heard the album, and being an soldier in the US Army while hearing that album was wounding. However, it's just a review and you've never met the reviewer, so it's not that bad in reality. |
|
| Author: | OlioTheSmall [ Sat Nov 14, 2009 5:39 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=1789#97743 - Diamhea A lacking in substance and quality and I don't believe it fits the site's formatting rules. |
|
| Author: | Acrobat [ Sat Nov 14, 2009 3:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
http://metal-archives.com/review.php?id=45868#14987 Bonzo's review, truly not needed. |
|
| Author: | pandaemon [ Mon Nov 16, 2009 12:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
http://metal-archives.com/review.php?id=29 Arch Enemy's "Wages of Sin": *shagnarokvonlustmord's review ... well it isn't actually a review. It's more of a short personal opinion you say at a bar to your friends. Résumé: "It's repetitive. The musicians are good. I had problems convincing people a female is singing. -The dumb Ocean11 comparation-. I hope for better melo-death albums." *ZackT618's review: He only talks about the vocals, NOTHING about the music! I can't believe this was accepted! |
|
| Author: | Ribos [ Wed Nov 18, 2009 12:35 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Now, I know I'm hardly an objective source on this one, but please hear me out... http://metal-archives.com/review.php?id=124399#132884 Yes, Kruel's negative review for Sigh's Hangman's Hymn. I know what you're thinking, and I'm not pulling a butthurt fanboy here. Kruel, quite simply, is factually wrong about the musical contents. Quote: There is very little counterpoint or thematic development – granted, occasionally there is a short contrapuntal passage, like the one in 'Inked in Blood' or the subtle piano usage in 'The Memories of a Sinner,' and there is a theme that recurs throughout the album, but these are really just exceptions. I don't know what definition of "counterpoint" Kruel is working off of, but any time the orchestral parts play something that is not the riff... that's counterpoint. You literally cannot go a minute through the album without some form of counterpoint showing up. This is not my opinion, this is the definition of the musical term. Likewise, the "thematic development" argument is wrong in most of the same exact circumstances. There are many riffs, both in the guitars and in the orchestral parts, that resurface throughout the album in different contexts. If I must point out examples, I will, but this should be self-evident aside from that one melody he gives an exception for. The Finale part of the last track is the most obvious case of this: for a good minute or so, the various themes of the album are all revisited one on top of another. Each musical idea there can be found earlier in the album, and that is thematic development. Oh, but wait, he actually talks about this very section in his review: Quote: That last song also has the themes from previous songs appearing together (but not simultaneously) as its bridge, and while it is an interesting idea, Mirai is not Mozart, 'Hangman's Hymn' is not the fourth movement of the Jupiter Symphony, this section is not contrapuntal (let alone having a quintuple counterpoint), and it sounds chaotic and random. Another device is that the 'Dies Irae' part, which is first introduced in 'Dies Irae' (obviously), reappears near the end of 'In Devil's Arms.' At what point do citing exceptions make the exceptions a rule? And is he seriously detracting points for the fact that the album does not make use of quintuple counterpoint, which is something Mozart never did either? Moving along... Quote: The requiem mass is incorporated into the album; many songs feature purely orchestral and choral interludes with no metal part (the 'Dies Irae' part is almost a Mozart rip-off), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dies_Irae#Manuscript_sourcesThe melody sounds familiar because it is, in fact, a historic musical reference. One of the most famous one could possibly make, actually. I find it especially amusing that he calls it a Mozart ripoff when it was at least four hundred years old by the time Mozart got used it. There's also this little bit: Quote: Song structures are extremely simple: verse, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge and solo, verse, chorus – yes, it's the dreaded pop structure at display on this "requiem-based, movement-oriented" album. This completely goes against the symphonic grandeur the band seems to have aimed for. The band actually did NOT attempt to write a symphony, but an album based loosely off the requiem mass (as evident by the song titles). Kruel even alludes to this earlier in the review. My point is, look at the way parts of the requiem masses are set up: verse chorus verse chorus, etc. And it's not just in requiem masses that this structure popped up... Schubert's lieder, if anything, are simpler, often using only two or three verses with no chorus or bridge (though he does use intros and outros with some regularity). Or, in a more contemporary and familiar example, how about most thrash songs out there? Considering he acknowledged that the album has a strong thrash basis, I find it odd he's complaining about song structures.
You will notice that I have not complained about his calling the thrash riffs "ineffective" or "lacking heaviness." Those are more subjective statements, and if he wishes to deduct points for reasons like that, I will not try to stop him. However, the points that I have cited attempt to mislead the reader about the musical content of the album. These are factual errors that comprise a significant portion of his arguments. I will not pretend I am not somewhat biased in this case, but my bias does not change the objectivity of my claims. I am strongly considering listening to the Obtained Enslavement album he reviewed a 97% for to determine whether he made similar faults in his claims there, but I will not make those attacks when I am unfamiliar with the band. |
|
| Author: | hells_unicorn [ Wed Nov 18, 2009 7:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=10066#612 Pretty crappy review. The score and title do not gel with the description at all. If anybody has heard a repetitive and boring album that was worthy of an 82 out of 100, please let me know so I can throw something at you. Factual inaccuracies regarding their sound (sounds nothing like Jag Panzer, old or new), and though there is a level of content, it's pretty damn vague. This entire review is a really rough read too given all of the singular clauses passing as thoughtful sentences. If this review gets nuked, I can review this for the challenge to make up for it being the only review. |
|
| Author: | ~Guest 193166 [ Thu Nov 19, 2009 12:29 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=1396#8829 All this particular reviewer (overkill67) has essentially done here is compare the album to some of the more popular and over-appreciated thrash bands. The formatting is an overall eye-sore here as well and here is how he decides to end it: overkill67 wrote: You if you haven't heard this album...then stop saying that "reign in blood" is a landmarker...you're selling yourself short...It is my understanding that Dave hasn't been in writing mode for some time now, but as of September 2003 when I last spoke to him in Toronto, he did say that he had an album worth of material that he was reluctant not to record...my optimism is dying off however because there hasn't been an update about these guys in almost 6 months...I hope we are graced by at least one more Razor offering before Mr. Carlo really does call it a day.
To me, this particular section (if not the entire thing) sounds more in fact like a persuasive essay rather than a review for an album. M-A's review standards for what is considered tolerable, satisfactory, and/or sufficient have changed since the time this review was written and above all this is for a full-length album. |
|
| Author: | DrSharK [ Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
This has good grammar, but he spends most of the review meandering over how much he hates grindcore. Why would you review a grindcore album, then? I found none of the points in the review to actually have anything to do with the album other than stating "its grindcore". Short songs? Check. Short solos? Check. Punky riffs? Check. Sloppy playing? Check. Blast beats? Check. Shitty production? Check. Incomprehensible vocals? Check. Very very few of his points have anything to with the actual album, like I said. Its mostly just critisism of grindcore as a whole. http://metal-archives.com/review.php?id=2989#154734 |
|
| Author: | hells_unicorn [ Thu Nov 19, 2009 9:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=14827 Here's another worthless review that tells next to nothing, probably survived this long because it was the only one. If the mods see fit to nuke this one, once again, I can hit it during the review challenge going on now to replace it. |
|
| Author: | OzzyApu [ Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Can you guys take a look at TheSunofNothing's Underoath review? http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=161247 For 99%, I hardly understand why he scores it as such. He goes into a lot of descriptions with the vocals, as they're apparently different styles, but he assumes to much on behalf of the reader. He expects them to know exactly how later Underoath sound, and he can't hold them accountable for that. Not only that, but he berates one of the songs and doesn't consider the drumming anything but "normal." It's "very good," but he doesn't provide a lot of reasons as to WHY it's very good (or any reasons at all). It's all fact, but nothing's there to persuade me into agreeing with him. Not to mention grammar and punctuation errors up the ass. |
|
| Author: | pandaemon [ Fri Nov 20, 2009 10:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ikuinen Kaamos - The Forlorn Quote: Written by Bartman on May 12th, 2007
IKUINEN KAAMOS started as far back as in '97, but quite soon disbanded. Original member Jarno Ruuskanen brought the band back to life again in 2003 with some new members, and with a couple of demos in 2003 and '04 they got a deal with the (yet) small Dutch label Descent Productions. There are five long songs on The Forlorn, their debut album. All are varied, epic, agressive, melancholic, you name it... It almost gave me goosebumps all the 53 minutes it lasts, as it is so clever in arrangements, so wonderfully performed and packed in a perfect production. All hails to guitarist/bassist Jarno Ruuskanen for creating such a monster of an album, guitarist Juhani Mikkonen, Henri Villberg for growls and screams from the depths of Gehenna, and also to Artu Romo for beating the Hell out of his drums. After the first spin I was more or less certain this was a 9/10 album, but now after countless rounds on the computer, in the car and on the stereo I've realized that if this isn't a top score then no album would deserve that tag. I admit that it isn't insanely good all the way, but overall this is such a vital and important release that it deserves all the cred it can get. I could write page up and page down about The Forlorn, but I'll leave you with this order: If you enjoy dark, prog, death, black and classical in a superb package you have no choice but to check out this future classic. I tried to imagine how the music sounds like by reading the review. The result was: i don't even know what genre the album is )))
|
|
| Author: | Mishalra [ Sat Nov 21, 2009 3:28 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=227559 I'm not sure how this review got accepted six months ago, it has little substance, doesn't say anything in particular about the performance or the music for that matter. It's not even factually correct - how the fuck does an NSBM band make a cash grab? It's suitable for livejournal or other blog sites that prohibit personal rants, but please I thought we have standards. |
|
| Author: | Dexter [ Sun Nov 22, 2009 4:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
This band is not that interesting, but this review is as useless as shit on spaghetti: http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=170754 Band: Scarpoint Album: The Silence We Deserve Quote: Annoying and it lacks real brutality - 0%
Written by Mordant on February 17th, 2009 The silence they deserve, how about the silence I deserve, why do people insist on subjecting my conservative ears and musical taste with hodge-podge music. I'm sorry but it's not a great idea mixing and matching several types of music. Mixing Gothenburg (melodic) Death Metal with the more modern American variation, then throwing in some Hardcore, blended with some modern Thrash Metal and top everything of with some US. Power/Heavy Metal doesn’t work. At least not in my book. Sure they sound like they are really angry, and they probably jump up and down at their concerts but that doesn’t make this better then it is. I'll admit that I'm not the right guy to review this type of music, I don't like it, I think it's annoying and it lacks real brutality, and it's to sleek and to clean, but that's just me. We are all different (well I'm different) and our tastes wary, you might like this. If you like Lamb Of God, In Flames, Chimaira, Skinlab, Machine Head, Pantera this might satisfy you. I don't like this, but just because I dislike something doesn’t mean that you should dislike it. Now I'm going to listen to some Carcass, that's what I deserve. |
|
| Author: | Karnstein_Records [ Mon Nov 23, 2009 6:58 am ] |
| Post subject: | - |
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=22656 No music description besides "sounds like a drunken cannibal corpse" (which it doesn't), smiley faces, lots of spelling errors, very brief. |
|
| Author: | Empyreal [ Mon Nov 23, 2009 10:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.ph ... 685#202381 The world would not suffer from the loss of this. Mediocre writing, mediocre delivery of opinions and no opinions that have not already been said. Reviews like this piss me off worse than really bad ones, because they're technically not awful, but they just plain insult my sensibility as a writer. This is a very childishly written piece that I have trouble expressing why I dislike, because of course not everyone really cares about this the way I do, but yeah. It's poor. |
|
| Author: | Acrobat [ Wed Nov 25, 2009 4:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Whilst being annoyed that Extreme Aggression's rating is still so high, I came across this clunker by winterglownautical. Track-by-track with individual ratings!
http://metal-archives.com/review.php?id=874#63799 |
|
| Author: | MercyfulSatyr [ Wed Nov 25, 2009 4:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Terrible formatting, too. |
|
| Author: | Forbinator [ Thu Nov 26, 2009 12:22 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
This Marduk review is terrible, full of irritating errors and very sparse musical description. Amazingly, it was written by an American. I was expecting it to be someone from a non-English speaking country. http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=1419#202055 Quote: If you believe the hyper in the mind-90’s, when Marduk were on the quest for fastest and most obscene, you would be in for some sort of culture shock when you finally played this album. Forget everything you know about these Swedish beasts and you will be pleasantly surprised.
The whole album kicks off with an untitled intro which would in later pressings be titled The Eye of Funeral, an eerier piano part played with some discordant strings giving this listener a slightly uncomfortable feeling. As soon as you catch your breath and your sanity, Marduk kicks in the door with lots of cold riffs, tempo changes and a set of vocals that seem to channel demons. I must say that, for a band this early in their career, they are very adapt at handling their roles in the band. Andreas seems to channel the Ancient Ones, filled with anger, with every verbal lashing he hands out. Joakim Göthberg seems to fill the drumming position nicely, and would for years to come. Main man Morgan seems to share guitar duties with Devo Andersson, something he would later want full control of. And Rickard Kalm seems to fill in the bassist slot well enough, but you can tell that he doesn’t really fit there. Musically, the combinations of the individuals play a variety of slower, doom-laden death metal (see Within the Abyss, Dark Endless and Holy Inquisition), mid-paced burners (The Sun Turned Black as Night and Departure from the Mortals) and some truly blistering fast black metal songs (the rest of the songs). Also, the music while being fairly basic, does make limited amount of instrumentation in those days, including very sparse keyboard in a non-overpowering way, a militaristic drum beat the fits directly into the song, a funeral keyboard, an acoustic guitar used in a depressive manner, some killer and evil leads in certain spots, and well as an ending that is muffled, eerie sounding and (from what I understand) spoken entirely in Swedish. This means don’t accept them ever releasing those lyrics – even if they did, do 90% of use think we could understand it? An overall view of Dark Endless is a positive one for me. This record has a groundbreaking aura of a naïve new band with a fascination with both death metal, black metal and the occult. If you’ve only heard the faster material (Panzer Division Marduk, Heaven Shall Burn When We are Gathererd), you absolutely owe it to yourself to give this a proper listen. |
|
| Author: | Dinosaurssuck [ Sat Nov 28, 2009 12:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Alright, well, I can't seem to get a link to the review (For whatever reason, when looking at it the bar with the web address simply displays as http://www.metal-archives.com, so if anyone would let me know how to get links for these things, it'd be nice, please excuse my ineptitude), but it's for Grom's "By Oak, Ash and Thorn". Calling it a review is too much of a compliment though, I think, as it is little more than blatantly obvious and shameless fanboyism. Quote: Written by Werewolfsblood on March 7th, 2005 This is the first full length CD from America's finest Black Metal band. This CD is so good I can't even put into words how many times I've played this over, and over again. Aryan Solstice is the opening intro to the album, and reminds me of something off of Absurd's Werwolfthron, but better. After the intro, there's a sample from an NS sympathetic movie, which gives the raging thrash-holocaust you're about to listen to a very powerful spirit right from the get-go. The first song, "Temples Shall Burn" is definately the right song to open up an album with. From the very first song, Grom identifies themselves immediately as seperate from the stereotypical Black Metal forumula as well as the trend-ridden Death-Black Metal crossovers you see coming out the woodwork as of late. No, Grom is influenced exclusively from the most elite of the 80's death and thrash bands... as well as many touches of oldschool Black Metal. In sum, Temples Shall Burn is a raging Anti-Semitic hymn. The next song is "Piast," which is sung completely in Polish, and follows the similar Death/Thrash forumla of days long gone. The third song is "Beastial Onslaught" which also appeared on the previous output, entitled "Beastial Onslaught." The transition happens right here, as the next song "Frontsoldatten," probably the best Grom song, kicks in with full force with machine-gun blastbeats, however, this time the guitars and bass are more high-end. The end result is as if two seperate entities are battling side by side. The next song, "For The Fallen..." is another thrash song, however the riffing at certain points lean towards an Iron Maiden influenced style, and the main riff reminds me of if a song from "Show No Mercy" and Bathory's "Raise The Dead" got drunk and had a kid... BAM!- you have "For The Fallen." "Hellenic Warspirit" is an addition taken from the "Sons Of Zeus" split with THE SHADOW ORDER, and is a great installment, even through taken from a different release, however, recorded in the same session most likely. "Hail Genocide," reminds me somewhat of older Black Sabbath, only very technical guitar riffing and has a very 70's feel, opposed to the dominate 80's feel the entire album has. "One Face, One Race" is such an awesome song, mainly because it's an RAC song mixed with Black and Death/Thrash elements, amazing lyrics, and a great "shout-out" at the end. The last song "Pagan Existance" is the last song, which is also spliced with the outro. The right way to end such a raging album is with a very somber song, which has some raging moments, however for the most part, it's a song that makes all Black Metal bands that have tried to do ballads look like fools compared to Grom. The outro, "Aryan Sun" has a very positive, relaxing feel to it, and a great way to end an album that will change the way people will view Black Metal. This album is COMPLETE, where as most albums are not. The production is harsh, and abrasive, but it's also very WELL produced. When you buy this CD, expect that you're going to be buying something with great production. Without a doubt, this CD is beyond critique, and there are no negatives about this album that a Black Metal fan will be able to find. This album gets a score 100%, as should ALL of the Grom releases. Each is the essence of the confrontationalistic nature of what Black Metal in it's purest form that it once was, and now, thanks to Grom... is again. Edit; MercyfulSatyr wrote: Either right-click on the review area and click "this frame only" (if you're on Firefox) or right-click the review link on the album page - or better yet, the review link on the reviewer's page - and click "copy link."
Thanks bro. Link is here; http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=50437#30606 |
|
| Author: | MercyfulSatyr [ Sat Nov 28, 2009 12:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Dinosaurssuck wrote: Alright, well, I can't seem to get a link to the review (For whatever reason, when looking at it the bar with the web address simply displays as http://www.metal-archives.com, so if anyone would let me know how to get links for these things, it'd be nice, please excuse my ineptitude)...
Either right-click on the review area and click "this frame only" (if you're on Firefox) or right-click the review link on the album page - or better yet, the review link on the reviewer's page - and click "copy link." |
|
| Author: | pandaemon [ Sun Nov 29, 2009 9:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
The content is probably good, but it's almost impossible to read: SlaugherofSoul's review: http://metal-archives.com/release.php?id=6628 |
|
| Author: | Empyreal [ Sun Nov 29, 2009 5:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=299#78978 Quote: At the Gates needs to appear in every book written about the history of metal. Not only are they influential in the development of the melodic death metal, but their music isn't overrated. Sadly, they even get a lot of undeserved bashing done by the narrow-minded death metal elitists who can't understand why they've progressed.
First off, their music isn't overrated? That's an objective fact and a reason why they should appear in metal history books? I don't follow. And then..."waaah, anyone who doesn't like my favorite albums must be an elitist who can't understand it!" This review sucks. The rest of it is scanty and poorly written, without any really good descriptions. Misanthropic lyrics that everyone can relate to? Since when do we all have to be misanthropic? And why does he quote random lyrics at the end of the review? |
|
| Author: | Hellrisen [ Sun Nov 29, 2009 7:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=13312#560 That review has really been here for 7 years? |
|
| Author: | ThePipster [ Sun Nov 29, 2009 9:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
[url]http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=199[url/] The newest one is the 6th perfect rating for the album, and it’s presented in a simple checklist fashion praising it so highly. Considering that it’s the 25th review, I feel that it should be better than it is, if it was say the 8th review for None So Vile, I would let it slip. |
|
| Author: | pandaemon [ Mon Nov 30, 2009 1:46 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Empyreal wrote: http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=299#78978 Quote: At the Gates needs to appear in every book written about the history of metal. Not only are they influential in the development of the melodic death metal, but their music isn't overrated. Sadly, they even get a lot of undeserved bashing done by the narrow-minded death metal elitists who can't understand why they've progressed. First off, their music isn't overrated? That's an objective fact and a reason why they should appear in metal history books? I don't follow. And then..."waaah, anyone who doesn't like my favorite albums must be an elitist who can't understand it!" This review sucks. The rest of it is scanty and poorly written, without any really good descriptions. Misanthropic lyrics that everyone can relate to? Since when do we all have to be misanthropic? And why does he quote random lyrics at the end of the review? First of all, the mods can read the review and make their own opinions, as they've did just yesterday. I have a "vague" impression that you want to argue, but i won't let this topic get out of hand, so this his is my first and last explanation to you: Quote: Misanthropic lyrics that everyone can relate to? Since when do we all have to be misanthropic? Use a little imagination when reading. It's clear that an optimistic "Britney Spears" kid wouldn't fit the "everyone" i used. I'm referring to people more mature that like this kind of stuff. Quote: First off, their music isn't overrated? That's an objective fact and a reason why they should appear in metal history books? I don't follow. The same with the "history of metal": Use your imagination to get the connotations! A good book written about metal (melodic death metal included) should have a reference to At the Gates, as they are one of the pioneers of their genre. It doesn't matter what i think of them or what you do. The past remains the same, they have been an influence for many bands and that's the main thing that makes them noteworthy. Quote: And then..."waaah, anyone who doesn't like my favorite albums must be an elitist who can't understand it! No. Did i say that? For example, I don't like power metal. It is much too upbeat for me, but that doesn't mean that they are not good bands and there's nothing wrong with who likes them. An idiot would go: "Crappy band! Lame and not tough enough! Pussy music!". KVLTISTS always did exist and always will, not just in music. Music Elitists usually think the fact that a sub-genre is universally better than another and have ideas in this manner. At The Gates has had its share of such people.. Should i not use a cliche when it is true? Quote: And why does he quote random lyrics at the end of the review?
It shows how well the lyrics from all of the songs can blend together and form a poem (I'm sure you can figure what is the consequence of that). They also give an overall feeling of the record. LE @ Nightgaunt: Contradicting my world views? Childish? Not at all. I think this message made that clear to you. |
|
| Author: | Nightgaunt [ Mon Nov 30, 2009 2:00 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
The section of text that you have referenced, Empyreal, is indeed craven juvenile prattling that contradicts in essence and in form worldviews that the text's author presumably holds. This is a very common--indeed, perhaps bordering on characteristic--feature of Enlightened discourse. However, here it is kept mainly to that blind jab in the opener, and can in no way reasonably be claimed to be the heart of the review; the majority of the review is standard description-based content. In the interest of not untowardly limiting expression in reviews, I don't think the review is removable on these grounds, though if I had handled it myself, I think I probably would have refused it, simply because the album has already been reviewed to death and the piece is far from unusual in either presentation or sentiment. I do not feel any infraction is pronounced enough for me to simply overrule a colleague's decision in this case, however. |
|
| Author: | whensunburnsred [ Mon Nov 30, 2009 3:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I found this Voivod review. http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=24412 This is an old one, and it's the only one for that release, but I don't think it meets the site's standards. |
|
| Author: | MediaCult [ Mon Nov 30, 2009 1:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
First of, sorry for initially posting in the wrong thread. This http://www.metal-archives.com/userrevie ... _Unweeping http://www.metal-archives.com/review.ph ... 090#127248 http://www.metal-archives.com/review.ph ... 710#127248 http://www.metal-archives.com/review.ph ... 061#127248 Ok, he doesn't like the albums... But 0%? That's way too extreme, and anyone who's listened to these albums know that they deserver more, even though it's not your cup of tea (Wolves... isn't mine for instance, but I can surely see why they appeal to some people). ALso he talks about metal as if he's listened to it since the beginning, but oh, he's only 20 years old.... He writes allright, but it's not very serious giving these releases 0% it seems like a showoff thing for him. |
|
| Author: | Napero [ Mon Nov 30, 2009 1:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The fact that you got irked by these reviews just shows that he got what he wanted: attention. Good work feeding him. This will give him strength to carry on, perhaps even choosing one of your favourites as his next victim. I hope you haven't mentioned your favourites anywhere on the web? You have? Oh my... We all know those scores are extreme, and politically motivated, bigoted hatred against everything we hold dear, at least 70% based on racial hatred, lactose intolerant, and they only aim at causing us an itch that will make hydrocephalics of our future children, but hey, they fulfill the acceptance criteria, and unless you point out an error that shows they are against the rules, they will stay. End of this particular discussion for a fortnight. Thank you, you've been a mediocre audience! |
|
| Author: | Octavarium64 [ Wed Dec 02, 2009 10:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Is the original of an edited review oven fodder?... |
A while ago, I posted a review to Neurosis - "Through Silver in Blood", my second at the time. It didn't take too long after its acceptance to realize how lucky I was to have it accepted, since I would not have accepted it myself. So yesterday night, I completely restructured it, with little of the old review remaining, and submitted a revision. My question is: the old version was removed from the site some time after I revised it (and there hasn't been a decision on accepting it yet, so that seems even more unusual). Is this standard procedure or was the old review oven fodder? I would think if it was standard, the original would be invisible the moment a revision is submitted, but if it was intentionally kicked out, the responsible mod would likely have seen the revision in the queue shortly after. I didn't see any discussion in here either, so I'm just confused. I don't know where I would put this discussion, but it seems to fit pretty well into the oven fodder topic, so it's here. |
|
| Author: | BastardHead [ Thu Dec 03, 2009 2:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Is the original of an edited review oven fodder?... |
Octavarium64 wrote: A while ago, I posted a review to Neurosis - "Through Silver in Blood", my second at the time. It didn't take too long after its acceptance to realize how lucky I was to have it accepted, since I would not have accepted it myself. So yesterday night, I completely restructured it, with little of the old review remaining, and submitted a revision.
My question is: the old version was removed from the site some time after I revised it (and there hasn't been a decision on accepting it yet, so that seems even more unusual). Is this standard procedure or was the old review oven fodder? I would think if it was standard, the original would be invisible the moment a revision is submitted, but if it was intentionally kicked out, the responsible mod would likely have seen the revision in the queue shortly after. I didn't see any discussion in here either, so I'm just confused. I don't know where I would put this discussion, but it seems to fit pretty well into the oven fodder topic, so it's here. When you edit an old review, it reenters the queue and needs to be accepted again. So yes, the old review disappears as soon as you submit the new one, granted you just erased and completely rewrote one in the edit box as opposed to deleting it first and then submitting a new review. The new one will show up in the same place as the old one with the original submission date if it is approved. No need to worry, I can't comment on the quality since I never saw it, but if it really is an improvement over your previous review it'll almost surely be accepted. |
|
| Author: | Octavarium64 [ Thu Dec 03, 2009 5:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Is the original of an edited review oven fodder?... |
BastardHead wrote: When you edit an old review, it reenters the queue and needs to be accepted again. So yes, the old review disappears as soon as you submit the new one, granted you just erased and completely rewrote one in the edit box as opposed to deleting it first and then submitting a new review.
Okay, I think that clears things up...I was sure I still saw the original for some time after, so that's why I asked the question. |
|
| Author: | hakarl [ Fri Dec 04, 2009 9:37 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I think the following review by Black_Metal_Bastard for Diabolical Fullmoon Mysticism should go. http://metal-archives.com/review.php?id=235#2763 It's extremely lousily written, and while it has some description, there are other reviews that say it all much better. The reviewer can't get enough of saying how fuzzy the guitars are, but well, they really arent that fuzzy on second wave black metal standards. |
|
| Author: | Ribos [ Sat Dec 05, 2009 1:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
robotiq's reviews should be thrown up for question. Several of his are only two short paragraphs, and in many cases don't add anything the other reviews offer. See for example: Sabbat's Dreamweaver Grotesque's In the Embrace of Evil Mutilator's Grave Desecration And this one is the only review for the release, but it's definitely lacking: http://www.metal-archives.com/review.ph ... 377#126459 Also, Scissor's review for the Grotesque album is similarly useless. |
|
| Page 143 of 239 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|