Does the new St.Anger review really need to exist? "The Weight"?? The non-existent keyboards she claims exist? The general redundant rambling? It's not like it hasn't been reviewed a huge amount of times already...

"The Weight" sure is retarded. So is that last paragraph which just doesn't make much sense. Overall I don't think it's oven fodder, the album has worse reviews.

Gotta let the voice of regular non-supergenius metalhead writers be heard.

overkill67's review for Lääz Rockit's "Annihilation Principle" lacks any kind of musical description:
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=2875#8829

Yeah that was fucking bad.

Well, I also remembered these two for Virgin Steele's "Life Among the Ruins":
One is UltraBoris':
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=450#147
and the other is Skyklad's:
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=450#96

Both lack musical description.

The one by Sinner above them is quite lacking, too. Sucks, because that only leaves the apologists' reviews.

I overlooked that one... well, you will have to provide one of your bashing reviews

I hope this was only accepted for April Fools.


http://metal-archives.com/review.php?id=258422

^:lol::lol:

I was just reading that. A real gem.

I was reading some of the reviews for Morbid Angel's Gateways and found some total crap on that page.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=324

noinnocentvictim's review only has half a paragraph of actual musical description and even that only tells me that there are "chugga chugga" riffs, "standard" blastbeats and that the vocals are nothing special. I don't expect every reviewer to go into nutso detail, but that's pretty bare-bones.

Aberrant's review has some decent musical description but the formatting is ugly as sin.

Alex_Dee_Rokket's review also suffers from shitty formatting as well as very little musical description other than the word "sludgy."

A few others there are pretty weak as well.

That's a damn good album too, if I were a prolific writer I'd probably do it myself.

Yeah, I had never heard it before, myself. I was actually reading reviews because someone posted a Youtube link to "Summoning Redemption" in that thread I made and I was shocked at what I heard. Didn't really sound like the Vincent-era stuff at all and frankly I liked it a lot more and wanted to see what the rest of the album could be expected to sound like.

The Belus review. No question. :lol:

I cleaned out that page. noinnocentvictim's review isn't very good, but it does have more than that one section of musical description - he calls it coherent but bland, etc. - considering it's the only negative review for the album, I'm letting it slide. If someone else writes a relatively negative review, we can re-evaluate the situation.

Thanks. Maybe I'll get around to reviewing this beast at some point.

Here's another, the new review by Xeroxification:

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=30982#196576

He refers to the other reviewer by name and the entire review is basically written as a response to Sargon_The_Terrible's negative review.

http://metal-archives.com/review.php?id=231249#88090

The review written by dooknocker on April 2nd.

This review contains very little musical description and the actual 'musical' description doesn't start until say the 3rd paragraph. The formatting is also another issue here. The extent of overall description here isn't enough to encompass a full-length album, in my opinion. I also don't think this review doesn't quite 'stand up' to the other reviews on the page in terms of quality.

doomknocker's generally terrible. His stuff largely needs nuking.

I got to say that ABHORRED's review for Gorgoroth's Pentagram is pretty bare. Not too much specific description aside from telling me that there aren't any synths and it's mostly raw black metal. He mistakes Infernus for being the vocalist, for one, but my main complaint is that he describes the genre, not the music on the album itself. Black metal void of keys is pretty broad - hardly any detail at all, which shows in worn out reviews from way back like this one.

Doesn't hold a candle to the other reviews and the absence of a full space between paragraphs makes this one look like a chunker, too.

http://metal-archives.com/review.php?id=2330#713

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=3052#3282 - Dethrone_Tyranny

Very little musical description. They say that the album is underrated in the title and don't elaborate much on that. Mostly just restate that point.

Cold Lake apologist. Bah, get it killed!

Anway, robotiq's - http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=491#126459 amazon quality reviewing on a release that's had plenty said about it.

It's good enough. The musical description doesn't start until the second full paragraph, yes, but it's only a two-paragraph review with an extra sentence and a little wrap-up at the end. For a shorter review it's got enough content; shorter reviews have their place.

Everything else has been cleaned up until this point.

Don't you post your reviews on Amazon?

Hah, I used to. If I could be bothered I'd delete all of 'em -- I mean my 'talents' are wasted over there.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.ph ... 633#154734
Something about that amuses me.

Mods might want to check out the Enslaved Isa page and be on the lookout for this review: http://metal-archives.com/review.php?id=60080#21329

This one by noinnocentvictim is extremely short compared to the other ones and damn well has the least amount of substance. Hardly reviews the music at all - "...mainstream rock song, thrown together with harsh vocals..." is extremely general and, having listened to the album, is quite off in fact. Has characteristics, yes, but not even in proximity enough to call it that. He gives it a 50% because "the extreme amounts of "alright" hardly gives this CD a reason for you to listen to all the way through".

Hmm, the only track that he actually mentions is the intro, which is less than a minute and doesn't mean diddly-dick when talking about the entire album.

This one by DaMiEnThEeMpErOr

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=32076#14021

A single paragraph, very short, some sentences are strange, to say the least:
"Almost all of the tracks here start with the violin and flute at high volumes wich in almost all of the songs sound like the same but here in this album there is no filler in my opinion."
...and there's almost no musical description.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.ph ... 452#210172 - MystifyXD

Shitty, really. I expect the album will have no shortage of reviews so there's no reason for this. First time with audible bass? Never heard Under A Funeral Moon -- or better yet, Soulside Journey! -- has he? Some grammatical errors and so on.

www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=2989

The title of this review is Grindcore music totally sucks! and in one of his lines he says Now I’m not a fan of Carcass, Napalm Death, or Terrorizer for that matter, so you can tell I wasn’t going to like the band they based their music off of.

The review is predestined to be bad because the reviewer is not into the genre and there for shows just blatant hate for it without understanding how grindcore works to begin with.

Big deal. No rule against reviewing genres you don't like.

Except linkavitch is a fucking terrible reviewer, and that review is pretty much worthless.

edit: OK, a LITTLE harsh. I guess I can't expect everyone to be a goddamned English major, but I really do not think his reviews are very good at all.

Everytime a reviewer says that he dislikes the genre but tried the album thinking it may change his opinion, I stop reading then and there. That said the review isnt exactly atrocious. Although the first 2 paragraphs are plain retarded.

He dislikes Napalm Death, Carcass etc but tried this album because he thought that he would probably like the founders of the genre. What the fuck are you?

@ empyreal - no offence meant but havent we seen enough English majors shit themselves on the site already?

http://metal-archives.com/review.php?id=7592

I know that this is only a single but really, is four sentences all someone needs to get a review for a single submitted? Mainly the guy is reviewing the main song but I would think that someone should go more in-depth if reviewing a song. As well the b-sides are hardly acknowledged with the only description of them being "killer... with good sound and good performances to boot".

Maybe I'm just being a whiny prick but in the time the review was written and now the standards for writing a review have changed significantly and this review seems much too short to be on the website.

I think it would be borderline acceptable if he had added one more sentence (or sentence fragment) telling us why he thinks it's trite even for Manowar. Without that I don't see why this should be kept. Anyone familiar with Manowar (but not that song) will already have guessed from the title that it would be an anthemic song, and anyone not familiar with Manowar doesn't really get much from that review.

Just like the post above mine, this post about the review is longer than the review itself.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=81141

This doesn't say anything and I'm going to submit my review for it in like an hour anyway.

OK, done up to here.


Yep, this is right. The grindcore review might not be useful to anyone, but dammit, he's got a right to express his opinion.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.ph ... 956#208330

Good musical description but looks like it was sent through a translator or something. The sentences don't make sense.


"Imaginably, the term is turned excessive to avidity particularly in Death Metal genre and some follow as consequence. Amalgamation is invested pragmatically not nowhere the form. Never the less, extolling to Ulcerate is proved in the album "Everything is Fire" same like their untainted beginning. Since forming in 2000 loyally Ulcerate have presented the different format by conscience, the musical outline. Whereby, this album is very excellent as aggression suggested. Entrusting the blackened shape fused into the plays and approaching the native substances to explore are decoratively theirs on deepening.

Desert and oriental tunes inspire much-more to the riffs with the dissonant insertion. In the meantime, the dark-crimson atmosphere is dauntlessly created to the long durations. Stand far away from the usual emphasizing the theme correctively like objectivity is not absurd fancifully. It might be on Nile or Necronomicon related but it's on axis reducing due the character. Philosophical and aesthetically the burden's made inside. Continuing the contents, the temps are extrinsic to cohesiveness and irregular to the speeds. Slowly but getting brutal in the middle or on the contrary so forth. Catchy to complexity for the longitudinal beats to how the mixture is technical mentioned. Indefensibly to endure on strumming and harmonious leads to refract the bass ignition while unpredictable and aggressive furrows are on the context. Besides that, the vocal is compatible to pitches with growling hoarse to emerge the ardency in each song. Waking contemplative to the all congruity whether that's upon sensitivity or within. And so parti-colored sensible to direct instantly some songs, for legible "Drown Within" or "Caecus" and deserving congruously the wonderful by "The Earth at its Knees". Fathoming sound that set rawer with lessening heaviness is valuable to balance mostly and instrumentality. An idiosyncrasy certitude it took in measure and advancing more the intensity at now.

Surfacing Ulcerate to the level where a band is capable to brainwork, this album is subjective audacity that they ever made innovative between , without defiance and neglecting to the intrinsic platform. A progressive step more the first album Of Fracture and Failure to widening the mutuals in scene -- not only for fans but also the fraternal bands correlation. It should be in merit to heed and assist this band to be perennially existed."

Pretty much the same I thought. I was wondering if perhaps the reviewer didn't know English very well but after reading some of his other reviews I don't think that's the case.

Maybe it was intentional and we just don't get it?

Well, I found something interesting with regards to this.

I checked his website that he links to in most of his reviews, and found a couple reviews that might explain this inconsistency:
http://www.brutalism.com/content/ulcera ... ng-is-fire
http://www.brutalism.com/content/the-fi ... st-the-end

Both reviews are posted here on the Archives. Now, if you scroll down, you find that they were written for said website by two different reviewers. Likewise, the Sikfuk review is from a third person. I'm sure there are other cases of this. Sounds like we've got ourselves a case of plagiarism on our hands!

Most likely, since at least one Brutalism reviewer already submits his stuff on here.