http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/U ... eparasites

The trap of track-by-track reviews: Seven mentions of breakdowns without actually describing them, so I know there are a lot of breakdowns and he doesn't like them. Doesn't have much description otherwise.

He also mentions blast beats on two songs, there are no blast beats, I think he means the fills on the snare.

Should the recent review for Fall of Rauros - The Light that Dwells in Rotten Wood be here? I'm sure it'd be fine with a bit of editing, but seeing "blackmetal" in the first sentence was enough to make me shiver a bit.

Most of that guy's stuff got in as barely 3 pointers. For some reason he says blackmetal but separates the other genres just fine. I was just editing it myself because it's a really small thing and hopefully he'd notice and fix it himself in the future, but it looks like I forgot to on that first one. My bad.

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

This one describes the album, but it's sooooo poorly written. Bear with me on this one.

I skimmed a few more reviews by this guy and based on those I'm assuming he wrote all his reviews in this horrendous style.

It reads like one of John_Sunlight's stories converted into a review.

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/N ... eperoflamu

Engrish, poor format, and minimal description.

I'd take a look at the next oldest on that page, too, cause it's strange-bad. Misguides listeners with the Opeth and Lacuna Coil comparisons. http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/N ... ySonicDiet

Both nuked. The 2nd one doesn't describe the music, it only says "Opeth, Opeth, Opeth".

Thanks, keep this guy (http://www.metal-archives.com/users/gabalgabow) on the badman list. I'll sift through his stuff sometime this week to see what can be purged. Skimming through it, looks like everything can go.

This user's reviews are almost completely lacking any actual description of the music. Lots of ambiguous praise (half of the adjectives are "evil") padded by lots of historical context on albums where everyone already knows it (Mayhem, Bathory), He needs to visit the review feedback workshop. All of these reviews are brief and very bare in actual descriptions.
http://www.metal-archives.com/users/TheEndIsNigh

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/M ... eEndIsNigh
It's almost objectively inaccurate to state that this was faster than their contemporaries, as the bands named were around the same speed of everything around the same time. It is a glaring inaccuracy when he refers to a member of Mayhem as "Blackfire".

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/B ... eEndIsNigh
Poorly edited, the first sentence has a typo, second to last sentence in the first paragraph is missing a word or two. Describes the drums as being precise (it's a drum machine), says Bathory aren't known for keyboards (arguable, but very short-sighted). Lots of nonsense like this:
"The sound of all the instruments makes this album essential to be played at high volumes, especially with headphones."

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/M ... eEndIsNigh
The guitars have "incredible precision" - what? This album is incredibly sloppy. And uh... "While the bass can only be heard through noise-canceling, professional headphones"

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/D ... eEndIsNigh
This one is primarily an amateur overview with several somewhat irrelevant and completely inaccurate notes:
-Burzum formed in 1991, they weren't "just getting underway" in 1988.
-"It appears Nocturno Culto wasn't even in the band at the time, making drummer Fenriz the only original member on this release" (this was their first release, thus it had their original lineup).
-The context of death metal and grindcore being well established in 1988 seems out of place.
-"brutal death metal"

I'll check these out when I'll be back home with a good internet. Thanks to you both.

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/I ... /Messiah_X

Completely butt-hurt Blaze Bayley fan that provides as much substance as ConorFynes at the worst levels. First of all, he starts out (very first sentence) as a defense against the negative reviews (that have since been deleted), which can be implied that he wrote this with the intention of balancing out the negative score. Secondly, he takes up half the review talking about "The Angel and the Gambler" and makes a shitty (and I mean shitty) argument on the cleverness of the repetition (even if he doesn't like it). The next paragraph is the ConorFynes-esque track-by-track review that adds FUCKING NOTHING.

Please send this review to the void.

Felt like throwing this under the bus, too. From the review discussion thread.

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/V ... ber_marcin

This album has 11 other reviews... I don't think this one is needed since:

1) After reading it, I still have no idea of what the album sounds like;
2) Too many !!!!s;
3) Too long;
4) He writes an essay about why he took so long to buy the album;
5) The whole thing sounds childish.

TikrasTamsusNaktis's review for the same album is too short and also pretty weak, but still much better than that one.

I wanted to call out this one, too. Those huge chunk paragraphs are a chore to read, and that first one isn't even about the music.

wat

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/M ... o/266/Wooh

One of the most irritating things I've ever read. Too much caps, too much ranting (about negative reviews that aren't even there, I might add), and just too fucking annoying generally.

Ah, looks like the retarded cousin of this review. ""Where is my black metal? SELLOUT!"" http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/S ... Tony_Danza

Annoying as hell to read.

Yeah, I remember that review. I think I actually read it once in its entirety without skimming over (large) parts of it, which is more than I can say for the one I linked to. =P

As an aside, I sort of feel bad for pointing out bad reviews, since I'm really self-conscious about the ones I've written - which is why there are so few of them. But that one just jumped out at me in a way that very few have ever done before. I'd never presume to know how a rape victim feels, but....

This review is a little bit "amazonesque" to me and has some weird parts (and many spelling mistakes)...

"The theme of this album is pretty consistent, almost to consistent. It remains heavy and ends heavy." - This line lacks of precision.

"Another good song is Firestorm, it kind of sucks becasue he sings some of the song in Japanese. But it is probably the fastest song on this album." - A song by a Japanese band sucks because it has a passage sung in Japanese? Why is this bad? And what does the track offer apart of being fast?

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

Agreed, it's gone!

While I have to agree that he makes some good points about the music he does voice them out in such a retarded way that it makes it hard to read.

I live in a country bathed by the Mediterranean Sea and Sin/Pecado is one of my favourite Moonspell albums, yet I can't possibly make out what he means by "mediterranean sounding". I also think he doesn't understand what "irony" means. Mods... your call.

I've used "mediterranean" in my reviews before when describing something like Novembre. A blend of romanticism and melody to capture this unique but stereotypical "sound". Imagine acoustics playing italian / spanish folk (from a American perspective of what it is supposed to sound like) and that echo-y, clean guitar sound.


Ugh, awful description, but what I described above is what I meant by that. Wow I suck.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Otherwise, http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/I ... 37/ict1523

Kill the review, and kill the reviewer. Bland as ConorFynes, and does very little to actually describe the music. It's so basic in its "good riffs! Inspired vocals... 'even includes a little solo which is pretty good and rare to come across in the black metal world.'" That's an Immortal review btw.

The one above it, http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/I ... Somberlain, is also bad but not as bad. Abbath actually got worse from Pure Holocaust.

Gee Ozzy, that "dividing line" has screwed up the page formatting.

Actually your description isn't half bad, although some would call it "purple prose". In the way you use it it gains a meaning but the other reviewer uses it a bit too loosely. Also, the Mediterranean bathes everything from Portugal to Turkey so calling something "Mediterranean sounding" isn't exactly indicative of anything in particular. Folk varies a lot from Portugal to Italy to Greece to Malta to whatever. I guess it's not a good descriptor unless you're using it in a particular example.

That indeed is a glaring example of purple prose. It's not necessarily a major issue, however, if purple, hackneyed descriptions aren't the only ones offered.

Hmm, fixed the line. My 21'' screen had no problem, but I didn't take into account lesser sizes. As for the description, I understand that the Mediterranean surrounds countries with a lot of different cultures, but from an American that doesn't know any better, that's how someone can write / type something like that and expect people to get it.

I removed the two Battles in the North reviews, no musical description, mediocre & subpar.

I get your point Ozzy and it makes sense.

This review is extremely superficial and it seems like he didn't even listen beyond the first track. It is basically glossing over, saying "yeah I know Opeth do fancy stuff but it's not catchy or groovy, just fancy and disjointed" without any examples. It sounds like he listened to the first track and reviewed from that, and the review even sort of suggests that he didn't have the patience to pay attention to the whole album, since some of the later tracks are sort of contrary to his descriptions. The nonsense about Linkin Park is just the reviewer spouting childish soapbox nonsense on the assumption that simply writing a review makes one's assertions credible.



http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/O ... 1/DodKrone


This one talks more about himself than the music.
http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/O ... ConorFynes

This reads like something we'd make fun of in the crappy diem thread. It doesn't describe the music beyond calling songs good/bad.
http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/O ... ConorFynes

I think we should look at ConorFynes' reviews carefully.

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/K ... ey_meedley

This one's probably a mercy killing because it's an overly-long track-by-track review. A fanboy 75% which doesn't really make much sense from a guy that's jizzes over the album.

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/K ... /ThrashInc

Approximately half of the review builds up to nothing but vague statements about Kreator still kicking ass. Doesn't describe the music much more beyond this:


http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/K ... engel_hell

This one is another vague as fuck review. It doesn't look like it, and it's also written well enough to look beyond that, but it says nothing. The pinnacle of his description is "This track sets an accurate tone for what's to come on the rest of the record: aggressive thrash metal with a pissed-off mood and melodic riffs." No shit, that's typically what thrash metal is. Fails to address the production (merely states that it isn't "Pleasure to Kill"), vocals, and more.

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/O ... ConorFynes

but it's a prog album.

Is he fucking serious?

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/S ... /276/arhar

I'm not exactly sure if this reviewer (chick?) knows what they're talking about. The style clearly isn't heavy metal, unless metal counts as downtuned playing. Fails to mention a host of other elements with the album beyond that and the tribal elements. Forgets the fact that half of the entire review (that large paragraph before the end) is mindless ranting on the lyrics (about how they're good) and then comes up with a decision. Not an atrocious review, but definitely an outdated one that doesn't present itself very well.

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/S ... 67/Defiler

This one is plagued by formatting and typo errors all over the place. Not a good review at all. I don't even think the guy has a proper grasp of the English language to be able to write a review.

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/S ... nix_Manhwa

Read this. Now. Engrish, and very bad.


http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/S ... 1/Egregius
Not good on the grounds that the guy talks around everything. He'll mention riffs and that the album is thrash, but he describes the music only by describing Schizophrenia (vaguely as well). Short and doesn't go anywhere after that.

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/N ... 12242/DEEK
Doesn't do a very good job of describing the album. So bland and by the numbers. Not that it has to be super descriptive, but this kind of review met the standard for 2004, not for 2012. That's another way to put it.

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/T ... uitr_freek

Almost nothing about the music except one track.

Okay enough, Ozzy. This thread is for reviews that are so bad they need to be nuked from the site, not for reviews that are merely average or mediocre (like arhar's and Egregius's). Let's not get overzealous now.

Like this?

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/V ... cial_curse

"amazing and very technical ... Some of the music seems "kinda emo" but the breakdowns show that they aren't an emotional band and they are here to inflict pain to your ears. "

This one has very few sentences dedicated to the music, some that don't go that deeply. It's also really short.

Keep in mind that very little is better than nothing when there's only one review.

This one, on the other hand, seems to have been made completely obsolete by Drowned's quality review.
http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/D ... ent_Storms

Is this guy even aware he is reviewing a grindcore album? Seriously, he wants solos on a grindcore album and the songs are too short?! What the...

That Scum review has been brought up countless times, and I personally think it's not all that great and is pretty much the classic example of somebody completely missing the point of the genre, but it's stood for nearly five years and that won't change. It's not bad enough to nuke, and it does describe the music well, the dude is just kinda dumb is all.

Fair enough.

Unfortunately this is the only review for this band, but it is really bad.
http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/S ... kullfucked

This one's pretty rough, but there's only one other review.
http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/8 ... _vertigo99


http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/8 ... 4_abortion

This one needs some spacing added, I'm not sure if that's something that is normally edited but it's pretty hard to read.
http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/8 ... /Vim_Fuego

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/B ... atHarrower

This one only talks about Bloodoline's portion of the split.

Edit: Yes I know it looks like I'm squeezing in another list but these are more deserving than a few of the mediocre ones on the last list.

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/T ... laopium138

There are maybe 3 lines of description in this review. It's mostly a bland retelling of the reviewer's experience around the album, rather than actually talking about the music beyond mentioning standout songs (he pretty much lists the entire album) and calling things good.

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/K ... Till_Death

A very outdated track by track review with super bland glances over the music. Reads like a first listen.

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

Guy piles the shit out of one paragraph all for a bad by-the-numbers track-by-track.