Hey, dude, I'm on your side here. You're saying there aren't grounds enough to remove it. Looked to me that according to the point of the thread, you were right.

Oh, my bad I thought that was directed at me. I need to relax more *electrocutes self*

Well okay then, let's leave this

[I'll still secretly plan a conspiracy though but don't tell anyone]

What do you think about this review?

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/C ... addyZeus67

Seems to me, to be in somewhat of a "grey area". There is a good amount of musical description here (certainly more than any Kruel review), but I feel that it deserves to (at least) be looked over, because it is not actually a review, so much as a rant about how much the author hates anything post-"The Bleeding". It's not entirely surprising, considering it was authored by usernamepassword (you may remember him as the guy who called everyone who didn't agree with him "closed minded" or an "elitist", and then stated that "all black metal sucks" and that he out-right refused to listen to or check out any black metal bands that were well-received simply because they played black metal, ).

I was just gonna review Thrash Zone by D.R.I there and noticed these pretty poor reviews

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/D ... irGenocide

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/D ... 352/Diablo

As much as I love this album and think it's a classic of the crossover genre and it pains me to try and get rid of two 100% reviews for the sake of integrity I feel they're not up to scratch to the sites standards.

Sorry if this is too piddly-ass a thing to complain about. This review states that Be Persecuted singer Zhou Qiang is a woman; according to his artist page that is not the case. Reviews can be removed for factual inaccuracy right?

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/B ... 99/krampus

Sad because i otherwise enjoyed the style, and agreed with the judgment, of this review.

Apologies if I've complained of this same review before, but the factual incorrectness is rather gross.

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/L ... /GoliathJT

1. The review complains that the album consists of chugging. This is not true, there's very little chugging going on.
2. The review complains that the majority of vocals are growls, which is technically incorrect - together with the claims that the riffing comprises mostly of chugging as well as pointing out that the guitars are downtuned (as if there was any apparent difference to the previous couple of Lunar Aurora albums), as well as some other points regarding the album's supposed dullness, give the idea that Hoagascht sounds like a Dying Fetus album
3. The review is very bare-boned

In conclusion, an extremely misleading and blatantly fallacious review.

Obviously, the album sounds absolutely nothing like slam death metal.

If this album is chugging, then all Andacht is is faster chugging.

And I'll be damned below Judas if "Sterna", my favorite song of last year, is supposed to be compared to a slam death metal song.

To be fair, he DOES call it black metal earlier in the review, he knows it isn't slam. That line was really just a comparison to a similar problem in a different scene. That said, the review IS very bare bones... Maybe a three pointer.

This review's rating seems to be solely based on metal's future, and then it seems to be a boring track-by-track review: http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/M ... UltraBoris

Nope. It can't be deleted just because you think is boring. He explains very well why he doesn't like the album.

Also, IMO, that review it's funny and a classic review in MA.

Wasn't really wanting it to be deleted, I just thought I would point it out.

Thanks, this was an invaluable post, nobody knew Ultra Boris!

Clearly someone wasn't prepared for the large boner of thrash.

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/G ... gabalgabow

This is たわごと.


Now let's back up and see how much of that was the actual review.

That's about all there is to it - name dropping. Not to mention that more than one of those bands changed things up a bit.



Another bad one. English is crap. So many spelling mistakes.
http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/E ... 4/beldegir



The first few reviews for the album aren't very good at all, but this one is on a whole different level of suck.

So I was looking through AA reviews and saw this: http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/A ... _Unchained


A_U got really lazy with this one. He really doesn't cover the album very well. The gist of it is that the album is boring compared to the other ones. The review is like 10 sentences tops, and count how many of them actually go into describing the album. The album already has 17 other reviews, so is this one really necessary?

Annunaki - Throne of Chaos (100%)
http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/A ... ki/144979/

This review is really bad, regarding all aspects. It's just unrelated fanboyism, there's no arguments to defend such a high score. He poorly and barely describes the music, making horrible comparisons such as Melechesh and Dark Funeral (what the fuck, really?). All he talks about is the riffs and he simply does not have enough knowledge to write about music. You can tell he can't make a difference between pull-off and hammer-on riffs... This is lacking content and kind of frustrating compared to the record overall greatness. Lots of great stuff to talk about, the war themed lyrics, the vocals (double vocals use = quite effective on this), the melodies which remind me alot about Unanimated, the drumming, the tempo transitions, the basswork...

Yea I'm not happy about this, so i'll make a worthy review for this release. Cheers!

I have to agree that the Annunaki review in question is horrible. It is little more than a fanboy gushing about the music. He does a horrible job actually describing what the album has to offer. What are the riffs like? What's the drumming like? What kind of vocals does this band employ? How about lyrical themes? Any atmosphere to the music? What's the songwriting like? How about the production, where do they fall in that area? Reviews like this (be them fanboy gushing 100%s or completely uncalled for rage 10%s) just make the site look bad. How can anyone trust that this site has credible reviews for albums with shit ones like this.


While I'm at it, the review for the new Arsis album from Depersonalizationilosophy is equally as terrible. This person does 'explain' things about he album, but he does so in a way that makes me question whether he was actually listening to that album or not. His views about their previous albums also seem contradictory to his criticisms regarding this one. The review also starts off with a rant about Nuclear Blast records. This is a biased, objectively bad review that is just dragging the score down for no reason. Maybe once he has listened to it a few more times, dropped his bias against Nuclear Blast, and actually objectively analyzed the music he can come back and write a more accurate review, regardless of the score he gives it.

(Here's the link for the Arsis review)
http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/A ... onilosophy

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/D ... odIronBeer

Barely any musical description, and what is there is kinda innacurate (at this point in Dead to Fall they had excised most of their melodic death metal influence so yammering on about it for half the review is pointless). Also he misses the fact that the album is basically a joke (as far as the lyrics go at least) but idk how important that really is.

Both reviews for Legion of the Damned's Feel the Blade are pretty bad.

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/Legion_of_the_Damned/Feel_the_Blade/177550/BagABones
The first here is just an absurd way to go about writing a review. If it was done in a way that actually described the music well I could swallow it, but as it is there's barely any description and it just tries way too hard. 90% crap, 10% review.

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/Legion_of_the_Damned/Feel_the_Blade/177550/DGYDP
This one isn't as ridiculous but it resorts to using a pros/cons list which is pretty lazy. This guy is capable of writing decent reviews, I think he just got really lazy here. If I was to keep one of the two reviews though it'd be this one. The first is just barely a review.

"Gore Vomit drafted a new law, creating endeavouring and pernicious brand of black metal to be financed by compulsory contributions from both production and music. The production’s claim on this demo represented the equivalent of organic music, members applied this to all forms of applicable layers including percussion, vocals and guitar. By eliminating “artificial” production, this new law was supposed to protect black metal from getting infected by commercialism by devaluation of the production deeper and deeper into the earth’s crust. It was part of the drive to improve black metal and thus promote an efficient sound.

Under the new law, members promulgated ancient and devouring names such as Slaughter Hammer and Crucifixion. The overly blasphemous and black contingent reiterated these names as well as in form of music and obvious band tittle Gore Vomit. These guys were proud dissidents and believed such lack of investment in the making of the band required an equally effective functioning music sector. Nightmare subjugated laborious incursion of growls and shrieks. It is completely random when uses these both but does it very well. Fast pace, mid space, slow pace may contain a growl and/or shriek. It may also serve as an opening and/or the closing of the section. Slaughter Hammer simply being merciless as unusual, takes his two sticks and starts to beat one part of the drum to death. Crucifixion has tuned his guitar so high to bumblebee guitar effect. He makes as much irritating noise as possible by strumming to a few extremely high ended notes. This change was denounced by commercialized brands of metal. They argued that Gore Vomit were losing were losing their credibility, specially losing their chance at making money in return for an anti-musical form of metal that could easily offend the mass audience."

So close, yet so far from being acceptable. Stranger yet, the submitter is from Ontario?

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/C ... 59/Spektrr

Only one paragraph of vague musical description without actually describing what the core of the music sounds like.


What I know about this album without references to Cryptopsy (assuming I've never heard them):
- They have jazz breakdowns
- They have elevator music
- It's polished

So... Cryptopsy is a smooth jazz album. Okay.

I was just about to talk about this, half of the time, he talked about how bad the song titles and cover art was.

My favorite part:



Yep, oven fodder if I've ever seen it.

Definitely not acceptable -_- NUKED.

Wow, I nuked it at the same time. That has to be the first review to ever get double-nuked.

*high fives Metantoine*

I hope we didn't cross the streams!

And if this produces a black hole that will destroy the universe?

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/D ... 29/2722/kd

^ This very old (2003) Dissection review is poorly written and does not do anything else but state the obvious, or what do you think?

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/R ... ationRites
Not too sure about this review being up to standards.

Wow this is one of the worst ones I've read in awhile.
http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/Thy_Primordial/The_Crowning_Carnage/5896/
"hey some bands sound like Darkthrone or Dark Funeral or Marduk"

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/N ... a_are_gods
Doesn't properly explain the music contained within.

I came across this gem of a review of Akitsa's La grande infamie:





Forrest Gump topics?

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/A ... nedracusio

"The drumming is ritualistic in the highest degree and the sound is somehow muffled, reminding me of a girl with bunnywabbit shoes during a pajama party."

WTF... nuked!

I think you guys overlooked this one! it's really short and the only real musical description in the whole review is "Thy Primordial are playing the same old formula that to a new fan will seem like hell as opened its arse and shit out the sounds of Satan’s bridal chamber. Fast and furious hate imbued darkness." BTW it's a hell of an album if you've never heard it, too bad they split up a long time ago.

A lot gets overlooked in this thread. Things just get buried over time. I got 3 up top if you want to look at that too, Zodi.

Wasn't this Akitsa review by cinedracusio at least a few years old?
It was a shit review anyway and I'm glad it was nuked!

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/M ... saint_doug

Talk about a tilted signal-to-noise ratio. Seven paragraphs, one of which brokers almost-adequate musical description, and five of which just compose an inexplicable obscene tirade against people who don't like Load/Reload (and metal fans in general), and blaming said dislikers personally for metal not being as mainstream as Beiber.

And I'm not even a Load hater, I'm squarely in the "meh, it's ok" camp. But this review is just...

Yeah, that was probably the worst review I've read this year. I don't think even my most defensive power metal reviews from my first year as a reviewer were this whiny and reaching. The part yammering about metal geeks hating on pop culture is laughable. I'm not sure about everyone else, but I stopped following anything relating to pop culture soon after Creed was considered a viable rock band.

P.S. - I'm not sure if this review quite qualifies as ovenfodder, but there are at least a couple of metal genres with capital letters in it.

"Purist metal geeks are the smallest, most insignificant demographic in the music business"

I really, REALLY don't think that's true. Especially not in the 2010s.

"your type isn't the type to allow themselves to emotionally connect to lyrics or songs about REAL LIFE."

Hahaha, holy shit, so no metal from the 70s and 80s has anything connecting to 'real life'? Metallica's Load is just the be all end all of that type of music? Jesus fuck.