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 225 of 239 |
Author: | colin040 [ Thu Aug 09, 2018 10:26 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
Found yet another review that's not saying much. https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... 789/63300/ |
Author: | Cat III [ Thu Aug 09, 2018 11:49 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
I dunno. It is for a three song demo with no other reviews and it does describe the music, though in no great detail. |
Author: | Rodman [ Fri Aug 10, 2018 9:06 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
Get rid of it. https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... eath/62836 |
Author: | TheMeh [ Sat Aug 18, 2018 5:29 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
DarthVenom wrote: So, about that new Iced Earth review. https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... Meh/339203 I read the review twice to make sure, but there is no musical description here, just the constant refrain that it's "geared for radio play" and "meant to be played solely on the radio" and that it's "mainstream radio music". The closest that it gets to describing the music is when it says that a few songs "do resemble a lot of what Iced Earth has done in the past for me, a lot of what was right about their music, and a lot of what they should be doing." But that sentence would be meaningless to anyone who doesn't already know what Iced Earth sounds like. If the writer of the review is reading this: it's a pretty common criticism of IE that they have a few killers per album amidst a sea of fillers, but you need to be able to describe it with actual musical detail. If you want to express that Stu Block "performs well in all areas", then don't just say that; elaborate on specific parts of the album where he uses his range to great effect. And if you're going to accuse an album with a six-minute instrumental and a nine-minute epic as just being in it for the radio play, you really need to back that up with more than this. I noticed this at a very much later time than I probably should have, but I think it'd probably be good to respond. Incorruptible's a really strange album for me, but I feel like the album itself had, in a way, highlighted the growing mediocrity from the band. Of course, saying that they're gearing music for radio play is wrong, but it felt just like that when I listened to it. It clouded a lot of my thoughts on the album itself, and... if I'm being honest, I do find that this review was wrong in a number of areas, that particular factor included. Recently, I've come to realize that there's a particular way to write reviews, and that the focus itself should be on more points than just "oh, wow, this sounds like shit". I'm doing my best to be more descriptive with these reviews, and at this point, I'm still learning how to do it all with a good coat of paint. It's part of the reason I've begun to go back and rewrite my older reviews, and part of the reason I will likely do so for some of my less-than-worthwhile reviews. I try to strive for some form of acceptable standard with my reviews, and I'd feel bad if I let too many bad biases slip through like this particular review did. Given time, I'm probably gonna re-review it. I feel the album deserves at least that from me. I've been busy as of late, so I don't know if it'd be any time soon, but... it'll certainly be in the waterworks. So, with that in mind... thanks for bringing this to my attention. I appreciate it quite a bit. |
Author: | TheMeh [ Sat Aug 18, 2018 10:09 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
Ilwhyan wrote: Is he trying to say that the band has run out of inspiration, and is also conscious of the fact, attempting to make up for it by appealing to a lower common denominator? Yeah, I don't know if that's the kind of thought process that metal musicians might have when they streamline their style. Not even people like Jon Schaffer, I reckon. You're entirely right. I completely agree with you on that. I was wrong to go and say that. It was a shallow review in general, and I wrote that in a very much pessimistic and biased state of mind. While I won't go and say that the album itself doesn't FEEL streamlined, however, I definitely went about doing it the wrong way, and is probably the number one reason why I ought to rewrite the review when I get a chance to do so. As a relatively new person to reviewing, I'm still finding myself having troubles getting down to the exact points and putting down just why I feel that these albums don't perform well... and I can see I'm not the first to see just how bad that ends up getting with some of the older reviews. |
Author: | Grave_Wyrm [ Sun Aug 19, 2018 11:43 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
TheMeh, let's take this conversation to the Workshop. We can talk at more length there and help you get your thoughts articulated. This thread is mainly to bring fodder to the mods. |
Author: | DesecratorJ [ Sun Aug 19, 2018 11:46 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
A perfect example of track-by-track review that I found in this one heheh. https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... sman/23024 |
Author: | Sweetie [ Tue Aug 28, 2018 8:39 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... /axman/148 I can't possibly see this holding up to today's standards. King Diamond "Them" review from 2002. |
Author: | ~Guest 135946 [ Wed Aug 29, 2018 8:58 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
SweetLeaf95 wrote: https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/King_Diamond/%22Them%22/1068/axman/148 I can't possibly see this holding up to today's standards. King Diamond "Them" review from 2002. I'd like to see Jay and Silent Bob review it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2TbE8uHOJ8 |
Author: | Wilytank [ Fri Sep 07, 2018 11:56 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
Track by track. https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... ashi/65724 |
Author: | TrooperOfSteel [ Mon Sep 10, 2018 5:06 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
Hey all Back in 2017, I started a thread bringing up something similar to this, I probably came at it from the wrong angle, and the thread was shut down and locked. However, in the end, this massive thread is pretty much exactly what I was trying to get at, I'm surprised no one mentioned it at the time, but all good. As this thread is so huge, it began back in 2004 if I'm not mistaken, is the ultimate goal here for people, users, mods and admins to come across reviews they feel are "not up to standard" we'll say? I cannot see from my quick look, but I guess someone's view of a review that is not up to par differs person to person, so is there a guideline you guys are going by when selecting not so informative reviews? I know when writing a review, there needs to be standards to adhere to. But if there is some guideline, is it listed anywhere and ultimately what happens when someone brings up a link to the questionable reviews in this thread? Does it get discussed and then someone decides whether it gets deleted or not? I know this would be a massive job which would take a long time, as there are thousands of reviews on here.... |
Author: | Derigin [ Mon Sep 10, 2018 8:09 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
This thread serves the purpose of letting us know if you find reviews which don't follow our rules and were mistakenly accepted. We don't want people to go on crusades though; we'd prefer if users just posted reviews they might find in passing that seem to have been accepted in error. We'd much rather they not go hunting for such reviews. Once posted here, we'll look at them and decide if they were accepted in error or not. It's important to keep in mind that our rules for reviews are very basic; our standards for what we're looking for are pretty simple. I won't go into detail, because I have in other places before, but for reviews we look for three things: (1) that the review, above all, describes the music of the album; (2) that the review is well written and formatted correctly in English; and, (3) that the review is a genuine opinion. The latter can be hard to judge, but we usually weight on the side of it being a genuine opinion (even if a controversial or negative opinion). Your previous thread - on negative biases - seemed to be more focused on wanting to police genuine opinions and we don't police such things here. Even if the review attacks the band, or might not have anything novel to say, so long as it meets the three requirements we just listed then we will accept/keep it. |
Author: | TrooperOfSteel [ Sun Sep 16, 2018 4:44 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
Derigin wrote: This thread serves the purpose of letting us know if you find reviews which don't follow our rules and were mistakenly accepted. We don't want people to go on crusades though; we'd prefer if users just posted reviews they might find in passing that seem to have been accepted in error. We'd much rather they not go hunting for such reviews. Once posted here, we'll look at them and decide if they were accepted in error or not. It's important to keep in mind that our rules for reviews are very basic; our standards for what we're looking for are pretty simple. I won't go into detail, because I have in other places before, but for reviews we look for three things: (1) that the review, above all, describes the music of the album; (2) that the review is well written and formatted correctly in English; and, (3) that the review is a genuine opinion. The latter can be hard to judge, but we usually weight on the side of it being a genuine opinion (even if a controversial or negative opinion). Your previous thread - on negative biases - seemed to be more focused on wanting to police genuine opinions and we don't police such things here. Even if the review attacks the band, or might not have anything novel to say, so long as it meets the three requirements we just listed then we will accept/keep it. Thanks for responding and listing the review rules. I gotta say, after going through the first 5-10 pages of this thread, going back to 2004, I don't see any of those reviews anymore. I mean, all of them listed were shockingly bad and I can see why you want them gone. As for my previous thread about the negative bias, I guess I was coming from the angle that if the reviewer was just basically attacking the band and talking nothing really about the music and just saying "the singer sucks, the drummer sucks, that song sucks, the album sucks, the band sucks", aside from being a genuine opinion, it hardly qualifies as a decent review. So now I have the 3 golden rules and if I see any reviews that dont contain all 3 in my travels...then i'll post them |
Author: | Cat III [ Tue Sep 25, 2018 2:17 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
Track-by-track from 2004. There's three other good reviews so I see no problem axing it. I'm hesitant to get rid of reviews when they are the only one for an album, but this one is poorly formatted, confusing and not even very descriptive. |
Author: | BastardHead [ Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:34 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
poof poof |
Author: | Napalm_Satan [ Tue Sep 25, 2018 3:25 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
Scant on description? |
Author: | Aydross [ Sat Oct 06, 2018 2:03 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
This is bad. |
Author: | ~Guest 135946 [ Sat Oct 06, 2018 8:18 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
Aydross wrote: I think you just found the textbook example of what not to do in a review. |
Author: | BastardHead [ Sun Oct 07, 2018 2:45 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
Ay dios mio poof |
Author: | droneriot [ Thu Oct 11, 2018 12:32 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... p3tt/77113 Generic black metal with blastbeats, is that enough to describe the music? |
Author: | Cat III [ Mon Oct 15, 2018 9:58 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
Badly formatted and light on description. Barely a paragraph long, with only a few of the sentences describing the music. The other review for this album isn't great either, but has just enough description, I think it squeaks by. |
Author: | HuggieBigs [ Thu Oct 18, 2018 12:45 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
https://www.metal-archives.com/albums/M ... _Abyss/251 Anti semitic sentiments. Take it down please. |
Author: | BastardHead [ Thu Oct 18, 2018 1:27 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
Cat III wrote: Badly formatted and light on description. Barely a paragraph long, with only a few of the sentences describing the music. The other review for this album isn't great either, but has just enough description, I think it squeaks by. First one is poof. Second one is ehhhhhhhh. It's mega short and we frown on One Paragraph Wonders but honestly that might pass as a very succinct 3 pointer. I'll let another mod double check that. HuggieBigs wrote: https://www.metal-archives.com/albums/Mayhem/Wolf%27s_Lair_Abyss/251 Anti semitic sentiments. Take it down please. I'm not sure what you're asking for here? You just linked the album itself, not any particular review. I read the newest one and found nothing offending. If you're asking for the whole album to be taken down then yeah that's not happening. That's not how it works here. |
Author: | droneriot [ Fri Oct 19, 2018 9:16 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
Quote: Having embraced his Hebrew bloodline, Cashhammer embarked on a mission to revive this dead entity and to breathe life into it once more. Noctir's review, that's what HuggieBigs is asking for. |
Author: | ~Guest 135946 [ Fri Oct 19, 2018 9:28 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
droneriot wrote: Quote: Having embraced his Hebrew bloodline, Cashhammer embarked on a mission to revive this dead entity and to breathe life into it once more. Noctir's review, that's what HuggieBigs is asking for. I'm not sure about Noctir's personal views, but it seems like he was going for a laugh more than being outright anti-semetic. That looks like a light duty Cartman line rather than an indictment of a civilization, let alone a cornerstone to base anything more than a dig off of. Plus, he doesn't pursue it any further than that one line. He's talking about how the album is a cash grab and contextualizing it in a joke. I'm working on a review where I call the phrase "androgynous Frenchman" an oxymoron. Is that too mean or are we allowed to toss in an off color joke once in a while? |
Author: | Twisted_Psychology [ Fri Oct 19, 2018 9:49 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
"Having embraced his Hebrew bloodline" Not the worst thing ever but yikes. |
Author: | brain hammer [ Thu Nov 01, 2018 4:56 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
ttps://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/B ... zle/320274 "The real highlight of their career is famously Transcend The Rubicon; a lurching, heaving monster of mid-paced death metal with the inimitable bark of Barney Greenway leading the charge." Incorrect. Dave Ingram is the vocalist on Transcend The Rubicon, not Barney Greenway. |
Author: | CannibalCorpse [ Sat Nov 03, 2018 5:11 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/Rotting_Christ/Khronos/1202/Aurora_Rider/358588 Can anybody explain why this one has been accepted? Based on usual standards? This user's whole review record is quite awful and not worthy of being on a site like M-A. |
Author: | Derigin [ Sat Nov 03, 2018 5:27 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
He's passable. We don't really have the strictest standards; so long as you focus on describing the music of the album, you write well, and your opinion is genuine we will accept your review. He appears to check all those boxes. |
Author: | CannibalCorpse [ Sat Nov 03, 2018 6:50 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
Not in my point of view, not at all. Nearly a decade ago, this would not have been acceptable, but oh well - shouldn't do much harm, should it? |
Author: | gasmask_colostomy [ Mon Nov 05, 2018 12:43 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... 5/Lane/454 Deeply unsure whether this kind of track-by-track should be accepted. It doesn't lack content, but it's not a great review even if you ignore the middle part listing all the songs one by one. |
Author: | henkkjelle [ Fri Nov 23, 2018 12:30 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... isk/370988 Not a lot of musical description going on here. "Few are the albums that do not have something about them that, changed or rectified, would have made them that tiny bit better. Not so with Heir To Despair. I seriously cannot think of any element in Heir that makes me reconsider giving it top marks." But then he doesn't tell us what those elements are. At all. What I learned from this review is: Scenario IV: Dread Dreams is good, Graveyard is bad, Heir to Despair is good because it's similar to Scenario IV. But in what ways? I have no idea. What if I never listened to either Graveward or Scenario IV? The rest is the reviewer talking about how he rates albums, I guess. And that's it's a good album because it satisfies these criticisms. Again, I don't know how. Am I being nitpicky? |
Author: | Krister Jensen [ Fri Dec 14, 2018 11:53 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... head/19602 Doesn't really describe the release at all, even though it's just a compilation. |
Author: | gasmask_colostomy [ Sat Dec 15, 2018 11:26 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... all/216687 Is this an advert? It's like a poorly-written bio/promo page with no musical description. |
Author: | meshigene [ Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:15 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... tum/35505/
Spoiler:
show
very poorly written, barely descriptive, too short for its own good and, although it's subjective, quite misleading. https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... d__/222210
Spoiler:
show
not "bad" per se, but it's a trudge even for a track-by-track review and seems far too exaggeratedly emotional. |
Author: | Rodman [ Wed Dec 26, 2018 6:53 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
No chance in hell that this gets accepted today; https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... Death/9414 |
Author: | Tanuki [ Sun Dec 30, 2018 7:43 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
Just stumbled on this Exodus review. Extremely weak descriptions, "solos are faster than early Megadeth" is the most specific it gets, and cites inaudible bass when I can hear it just fine. Also: Quote: Get this album as soon as you can, but if you have Exodus' older stuff, get "The Atrocity Exhibition..." as soon as possible. Whoa, this is getting pretty complicated, I may need to draw a flowchart. |
Author: | Rodman [ Mon Jan 07, 2019 3:23 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
Couple of real turds here; https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... Dust/7878/ |
Author: | droneriot [ Mon Jan 07, 2019 2:34 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
Nothing to delete here, but I know moderators sometimes "fix" reviews for bad formatting, and the space before the period in this review is just hurting my eyes... https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... pie/154259 |
Author: | thrashmaniac87 [ Tue Jan 22, 2019 8:43 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please) |
https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... cat/223660 This one is downright bizarre. What's with the disco comments? |
Page 225 of 239 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |