man, that was possibly the most autistic thing I've ever read on MA, which is saying a fair bit really.

The main question is, can the Metal Archives survive writing as bad as the last paragraph of that MOP review?*


*not meaning to single out just that last paragraph, as they're all basically that bad

Point taken, especially given the massive amount of reviews it already has on here. Personally I don't read reviews for anything that Metallica puts out anymore, I'm sick of a band that hasn't done anything worth listening to in decades hogging up all this attention.

In regards to "Revenge reviews:" calling other writers out by name and/or explicitly stating in the review that your score is artificially influenced by these outside factors ("I was going to give this an 80%, but I found that hells_unicorn was way too harsh, and he obviously has shit taste, so I'm giving it 100% now to balance the score!") are insta-reject.

Drummerboy25 came close at points, but his crappy positive review helps restore the balance unsettled by Napalm_Satan's crappy negative review, so let's all take a deep breath and move on.

Eh, I don't know. I only had time to read the first few sentences but even then it was an impossible to read trainwreck. I quickly scrolled through the rest and saw both "on to the review" and what I think was an instrument-by-instrument checklist. If that's what I got without even reading the entire thing to pick apart whatever else was wrong, plus the fact that it was a super explicit revenge review, I would have never let that one by.

Any review that has "Now, onto the review" in its second paragraph or further, needs to fucking trim it down and be more concise. I've probably done it myself in the past and I'm glad I learned better.

Haha, yes. A very accurate indicator of directionless blather.

I also hate reviews that start with, 'Ah, [band/album name].' Yes, I know the band and album you're talking about; that's why I'm here. Fucking get on with it.

These statements actually make me feel a bit ashamed...

It's all a matter of opinion of course, but I think statements along that line are fine in the right context. I know a lot of people here have expressed dislike for the introduction-body-conclusion type structure, but you do need some kind of introduction (and structure in general). Of course, this just depends on the band, but there are plenty of cases where talking about history or something can add meaningful information and context to the review. Nobody wants to hear that crap for Metallica or whatever, but it could be useful or at least interesting for a lesser known band. And of course, that would be a pretty logical way to introduce a band/album and then the next paragraph you might make an offhand "as for the music/album/review/whatever" as the dependent clause.

Edit: Slowpoke here, but I also just noticed TheStormItRide's review for the latest ningen-isu album. Nice job though; it pretty much covered everything I would have said.

If you're talking about the band in general, that's fine. But a lot of reviewers who are new tend to ramble on about nothing and then "get to the review" later on, which is all I meant.

Another peeve of mine is the lame, ironic usage of "Kvlt" "Trve" et al. in reviews. Here's a snippet from a review I'm looking at in the queue:

"...major chords and upbeat tremolo progressions layered over top, and a similar (though more irritating) vocal style. If you're TRVE KVLT, this is the exact sort of thing you'll deride as gay and toss aside so you can get back to your Burzum worship as soon as possible. For Deafheaven fans, this still might not cut it."

This is one of the quicker ways to piss me off as a reader. It isn't funny, it isn't endearing, I don't know what it is.

But I don't like it.

Is it a kluseba review?

That kind of thing sucks because it makes the criticism about the fans, not the music - always a bad way to review or criticize art. Fans like all kinds of things for tons of different reasons.

You could always start a livejournal for that? Seems like you like to write. You don't have to limit yourself to music reviews ya know.

On a side note, I think the style of let's dissect this to death and use smart words reviews really doesn't work with thrash. I mean I generally don't like them anyways, but c'mon.

A lot of the good reviewers from the mid 2000s were teenagers. I don't think any of them are active any more but I was always impressed to find out one of my favorite reviewers was just a kid in high school on the forum.

Well said.

I don't think it's very offensive even when it's targeted at someone with my tastes, but of course it's tremendously condescending, and enough for me to stop reading. I find that good reviews establish a sort of sympathy between the author and the reader, and no matter how well you write, you'll piss it all away by doing that.

See, who cares about weird Master of Puppets reviews when people go around saying Beherit is a death metal band...

Someone simply needs to make an appointment with a psychologist. And I mean it in a friendly, helpful manner.

MikeyC's review for Sloth's "M-A NOT Accurate..." is actually so fucking funny. I've read it numerous times before, but the new review for one of Sloth's new singles got me to read Mikey's review again. It doesn't describe the music sufficiently, though. Should be deleted .

There's really no music to describe, though, haha. Glad you like it - you might be the first one!

If a certain review makes you want to read another review, then the latter one must be truly good (or better, at least). Congrats, Mikey.

I was just trolling you, man. Just like Sloth trolled you .

Thanks! I have no idea how they keep it up, but man those guys can write some killer music. And I just read that Kenichi Suzuki recently left his longtime job to completely focus on the band!

Yeah, I can't believe for decades he was working a dayjob while releasing quality after quality album. Absolutely brilliant.

Even if it's 688474884678478 Reign in Blood review I have ever seen, Felix 1666 did a really good work. Interesting, something different this time.

Felix has really had a string of solid reviews. Even one I've read of his has been a decent read at worst.

I mentioned it ages ago, but I agree that Felix 1666 is a very good reviewer, no matter what he's tackling. Keep up the good work!

He's really sorta the "model" reviewer, I say. He stands out for being consistently readable, succinct, and well informed. I'm prone to the grandstanding and histrionics as much as any of the more visible writers, but he's the kind of guy that I think I speak for all mods in saying that we'd truly like more of.

Even though he wrote a lot of bad reviews, I wish all of UltraBoris's writings were still on the Archives, partly because there are albums he praises in other reviews that don't have any reviews by him themselves, and I'm sure they must once have. 'Painkiller' especially glaringly stands out. Man, he was a fun reviewer.

Of course, it is always nice to get positive feedback, but this time I am overwhelmed. "Model" reviewer, that's really a huge compliment - and it is a good motivation to go on. Nevertheless, I think there are a lot of great reviewers that deserve this title as well.

Thanks for all the comments.

I have the feeling that 500 reviews are still not enough.

Excellent review as ever Felix, a fitting tribute to 'the heaviest of them all'. Keep it up!

I have to agree that Felix wrote an excellent Reign in Blood review.

And it looks like Reign in Blood will soon catch up with Time I.

Good, that album deserves to be the most notorious on the archives, not that Wintersun pap.

Nothing will ever dethrone Penis Metal, Napalm.
Not even the mighty Reign in Blood. It may dethrone Time I but it will never be the most notorious.

Oh shit, almost forgot about the almighty Penis Metal. That dick of an album clearly deserves its spot as the most stroked- I mean reviewed album on the archives.

Yeah, Penis Metal deserves all the attention it gets. Despite the infinite stupidness of the lyrics, I genuinely like that goatzilla dick of an album.

It is blasting 'war metal' about the phallus, an ode to the most metal object of them all. The impact it has on the body is far greater than its length would suggest due to its vicious banging-inducing nature.

Wow, that's such an accurate description of the EP. I don't remember reading those lines in your review, perhaps you should update it?

That's actually a good idea. Considering I've already substantially edited one of my reviews, what's another one right?

EDIT: It is kind of in there, just worded a bit differently across two sentences. No matter!

Just read it. Your edited MoP review is readable, even a nice read I could say. It feels like reading a novel and represents the opposite of everything I think about MoP but, in the end, it's a good review.

Well, that's a start. I don't intend to edit it any further; I just removed that ridiculous (but personally life-affirming) rambling at the end.