Metal Reviews

Newest and Best Metal Reviews!
FAQ :: Search :: Members :: Groups :: Register
Login
It is currently Fri Apr 19, 2024 12:21 pm



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next   
Author Message
 Post subject: 'Asmegin - Hin Vordende Sod & So (#3572)'
PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 4:26 pm 
You're welcome to comment on:
Quote:
Image
Asmegin - Hin Vordende Sod & So
Spirited, Folkish Viking Metal
Quoted: 99 / 100


Click here to see the review.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:33 pm 
Offline
Svartalfar

Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 5:53 pm
Posts: 17
THIS IS ONE IS SO OVER QUOTED!!! I got this album and im abig folk metal friend but this album(and band) is nowhere near the other albums I got of folk metal. and cant get this review into my head...... a 99???
you must be joking
48/100


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:40 pm 
Offline
Metal King
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:25 am
Posts: 928
Location: Serres [Greece]
I also felt the quote was a bit misleading. As a "Spirited, Folkish Viking Metal" release it might be good but as a metal release it can not certainly score that high nor is it actually that good. I think that an album should be almost flawless and perfect to get a score above 90+ and for anything close to the top of the scale (97-100) it should be something completely unsurpassed under all points of view.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 2:00 am 
Offline
MetalReviews Staff
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 10:01 am
Posts: 7711
Location: Leeds, UK
Christ, a really good album: Tons of variety, tons of melody, tons of atmosphere, tons of energy.

But 99/100? Waaay too high! This music here is expertly played but there's not much I haven't already heard done by other bands to a comparable standard- Glittertind, Trollfest are the first two that sprang to mind. Not saying those bands are better, but the score implies that it is a work of unparralleled genius, which is not the case. It's just an extremely well made folk metal album.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 3:03 am 
Another review that mentions one song? :huh:


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 3:33 am 
Offline
Svartalfar

Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:57 pm
Posts: 7
When reviewing, I try to take a different approach to the formula describing atmosphere, idealism and imagery rather than the physical aesthetic of the music i.e. guitar tone and such ... it is simply my way to go about it. As for the rating, I personally think it's the best the genre gets, however, debating individual opinions on an album is an utterly worthless engagement.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 4:34 am 
Andrew wrote:
When reviewing, I try to take a different approach to the formula describing atmosphere, idealism and imagery rather than the physical aesthetic of the music i.e. guitar tone and such ... it is simply my way to go about it. As for the rating, I personally think it's the best the genre gets, however, debating individual opinions on an album is an utterly worthless engagement.

But what does that say to the reader? You're essentially writing poetry inspired by the album—which is cool, but does that really tell the reader a whole lot?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 8:57 am 
Offline
Svartalfar

Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 5:16 pm
Posts: 24
Location: tucson AZ
I have been hearing a lot of hype on thiis album for a long time. When I finally got it I was very disappointed. It is not horrible, but it is very over rated.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 12:18 pm 
Offline
Metal King
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:23 pm
Posts: 1059
Location: Sweden
Hell yeah. This is awesome, and more than a few songs remind me of Solefald, but where they lack energy and power in their last album, Asmegin has more than enough to go around. 99/100 is, as most have pointed out, very overrated, but nonetheless an adorable album which might end up in the 90s for me after more listens.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 1:08 pm 
Offline
Metal Slave

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 2:17 pm
Posts: 61
Location: Canberra, Australia
This review was garbage. Painful to read and RIDICULOUSLY overquoted. 99? Try 65.

I like this website.. I've discovered countless amazing bands thanks to the good work of reviewers such as Alex, Jay, Daniel and Misha.. But I gotta say, we've got some reviewers here that would be better of writing for metalpoemsnotreviews.com and quoting for isit98or99or100outof100.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 5:09 pm 
Offline
Svartalfar

Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:57 pm
Posts: 7
Well, concerning my "poetic" take on review-writing, assuredly anything straying from the norm of a scenario, any scenario, is going to be responded with by much disdain, as in this case as well ... some people enjoy the way I write reviews, as have I been told by these individuals, however, others certainly don't care for it, as seen here ... what can I do; one cannot please everyone, and even if he could, how woeful would it be!

Thanks for the responses, at any rate.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 6:07 pm 
blood_ame wrote:
This review was garbage. Painful to read and RIDICULOUSLY overquoted. 99? Try 65.

I like this website.. I've discovered countless amazing bands thanks to the good work of reviewers such as Alex, Jay, Daniel and Misha.. But I gotta say, we've got some reviewers here that would be better of writing for metalpoemsnotreviews.com and quoting for isit98or99or100outof100.com

Cut the shit, dude. Misha writes reviews about cabaret music. Saying this was painful to read, and something Misha wrote is fine is ridiculous. No offense to Misha, of course. Let's just not play favorites here.

I can't imagine this album is a 99/100; nor do I like the style in which it was written, but it sure isn't painful to read. In fact, it's a nice read; I just feel I can't determine anything about the album by way of the words.

Of course, some people dislike the way I review, so I can't really talk.


Last edited by Eyesore on Tue Dec 05, 2006 9:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 9:04 pm 
Offline
MetalReviews Staff
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2004 11:41 am
Posts: 3731
Location: Veldhoven - The Netherlands
Eyesore wrote:
Misha writes reviews about cabaret music. Saying this was painful to read, and something Misha wrote is ridiculous. No offense to Misha, of course.

No offence to Misha... First say that if I write soemthing, it's inevitably ridiculous, and then also claim you're not offending me :blink:

Anyways, can't you just not insult me all the time? I'm not offended or anything, you can have your opinion if you want, but I'm not grabbing every oppurtunity to make a big thing out of your nu-metal reviews, am I? Please show some more respect.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 9:54 pm 
Offline
Ist Krieg
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 7:40 am
Posts: 13758
Location: Canada
I like this style of review, mentioning general aspects of the album rather than specific songs gets across much more useful information + is more fun to read. :P

Then again my favourite reviewer on teh intarwebs writes stuff like this:

Quote:
Hank Taylor snuck another weary glance at his watch. The prosecution's closing statement had rambled on for well over half an hour, but even he had to admit that they certainly had a compelling argument. Hank, on the other hand, did not. If this case had gone to trial a year ago then he might have stood a chance, but in light of fresh evidence his own argument seemed flawed and desperate. This was not due to his inneffectual abilities as an attorney in a court of law, Hank had been, at one time, the highest paid lawyer in all of Texas. What was letting him down were his own clients, the defendants. He looked at them with the same weariness with which he looked at his watch. They looked like some kind of genetically enhanced twins; one had the look of the kind of geeky kid that got his dinner tray smashed from out of his hands every lunch time in the school cafeteria, and the other was beginning to take on the appearence of a goat. Both of them sported huge afros, the like of which is almost an anomoly amongst white people. They looked bored and Hank despised them.

He had been let down by a client only once before, back in the spring of '94. His client, a woman named Delilah, had been trying to sue her husband for three quarters of his earthly fortune, which amounted to roughly a cool $23 million, on the grounds that he wrongfully accused her of multiple infidelities and subsequently cut her out of his will and divorced her. She had turned up to the courtroom looking like a hooker come straight from a shift on Sunset Strip and stinking of perfume against Hank's better advice. The judge had raised an eyebrow but remained neutral, as a judge must. His opinion was dramatically swayed, however, when Delilah made an attempt to seduce her husband's attorney in the male bathrooms during a brief recess. Hank felt that she just wasn't working with him.

The prosecution was still delivering it's final statement. This was going on far longer than was necessary. A number of times it seemed as though the end was in sight, but then a new point was raised and another hyperbolic speech ensued that stretched out to infinity. Hank looked at his clients, but they were playing that damned game again with their hands that only they understood the rules to. He coughed and slammed his hand down sharply on the bench to stop them and they giggled like naughty schoolkids but eventually went quiet.

Hank mused over the proceedings that had taken place in the little court room over the last week, trying to ensure that any crucial last minute adjustments to his own closing statement were made before taking the to floor. The incidents he would try and gloss over and not dwell on, if mention at all, were numerous.

Firstly, the reply Omar (the geeky twin) gave to the prosecutor when he was in the dock would be stricken from all consciousness.

"Omar, would you say that you were overly excessive with regards your guitar techniques, in particular the solos?"

"No, not really. I don't actually like the guitar, it is just an instrument I use to compose. I guess my solos are an expression of what I am feeling at that time, it's the most personal touch I can give to the music."

"So if you were working on a song that was upbeat and snappy, but you were in a foul mood, your solo, would you say, would express your mood, but not compliment the song?"

"We try not to make our songs too upbeat and happy."

"Okay, what if you were in an upbeat and happy mood, but the music demanded you be down beat and glum? Your solo would just be self indulgent and would take away from, rather than add to the music, would it not?"

"Yeah, but in that situation I'd probably just cram a cocktail of drugs down by thorax until everything seemed at one when looked at with my inner eye."

Hank had slapped his forehead at this point and sunk low into his chair hoping that it might swallow him. The jury had seen this and he had quickly uprighted himself. However he repeated this body language again when Cedric (goat) was taking his turn in the line of fire.

"So Cedric, nice beard by the way. Cedric, were you an English major?"

"Objection, irrelavent."

"Part of a line of questioning Your Honour."

"Overruled, but get to the point counsellor."

"Cedric, were you an English major?"

"No."

"Then what gives you the right to butcher the English language like you do? I mean, Meccamputechture? What in God's name is that?"

"Objection Your Honour, calls for speculation!"

At this point Cedric had turned to Hank and said calmly, "No, I'll take this one." He then went on to a fifteen minute ramble about how language was an unnecessary construct and it's existence shouldn't be determined by such binding rules as "real words" or "grammar". This may have been an interesting essay for a philosophy college course, but when used in defence of a band facing their critics, it was tantamount to suicide.

A year ago Frank could have defended many of the finer points that the prosecution brought up; song structure could be expansive and linear provided the shift in mood was gradual, consistent and natural. But, when the prosecution presented Exhibit C - Amputechture, this argument was no longer backed up by strong evidence and it was only the schizophrenics who could enjoy the rapid and disjointed changes in the music, and the jury had been screened so that it wouldn't contain any schizo's or manic depressives despite Hank's insistance that the three bums he had found and brought in from the street were reliable human beings of sound mind.

A year ago he could have argued that, okay, these unusual twins liked rolling around in the muck of ambient soundscapes, but the pacing of their records was extraordinary and their strong sense of rhythm and pulse sustained listener's interests, but again, Exhibit C - Amputechture - had proved to be his undoing. Not only did it begin with a slow, ocean-like expanse of sound, guitar noodling and vocal heroics which nobody could remember after they had passed, it also ended on a similar note and so it was as though the record had drifted in from and returned into nothingness.

A year ago the sound was fresh, but now the only attempt to be different seemed to take the shape of slowing the whole thing down and drenching it in effects, most abrasively the harmonizer effect on the geeky one's extortionate effects unit.

No, Hank was going to have to concentrate on the strengths and hope that the weaknesses were too unmemorable to sway the juror's decisions. The strengths were a strong rhythm section which created and sustained a solid groove whilst Hank's clients strutted like roosters over the top of everything. Unfortunately, the goat-like one had mentioned to him earlier in the day that the drummer had now left the band; Hank decided to gloss over this point too.

But how was he going to compete with the length of the prosecution's closing address? If he was up for less than twenty minutes then his argument would seem weak in comparison and the case would be lost for sure. Although, maybe the jurors would be grateful of a respite from such lectures, they had sat there for - Hank checked his watch again - well over an hour now. An hour! The case against was stacked, Hank would have to use a lot of dramatic pauses to flesh out his speech....but then people don't like sitting around waiting for something to end.

"Mr. Taylor!" roared the Judge, and it was only then that Hank realised that his name had been called twice already by this point, he had been too absorbed in thought to notice. He turned to his clients, both grinning inanely having just finished another round of their hand game, and sighed.

"Listen boys," he said softly, trying to sound as fartherly as possible. "I don't think this is looking too good for us. The best we can hope for is a retrial, so I'm going to go out there and feign a heart attack. Should buy us some time. In the meantime, you boys had better put out something a bit more substantial, or else I don't see any hope for you in the long run."

And with that, Hank took to the stage, and prepared to play the biggest role of his professional career....


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 10:00 pm 
Misha wrote:
Eyesore wrote:
Misha writes reviews about cabaret music. Saying this was painful to read, and something Misha wrote is ridiculous. No offense to Misha, of course.

No offence to Misha... First say that if I write soemthing, it's inevitably ridiculous, and then also claim you're not offending me :blink:

Anyways, can't you just not insult me all the time? I'm not offended or anything, you can have your opinion if you want, but I'm not grabbing every oppurtunity to make a big thing out of your nu-metal reviews, am I? Please show some more respect.

:lol:

Whoops. If you look and think about it, grammatically that line really makes no sense. Especially in context of what I said after.

"Saying this was painful to read, and something Misha wrote is ridiculous."

That makes no sense as it is. It was supposed to say something like this: "Saying this was painful to read, and something Misha wrote is fine is ridiculous."

I am trying to make a point that you don't even review metal, and your reviews are very poetic like Andrew's, and this guy likes your reviews, yet he doesn't like Andrew's. That makes no sense, and it's obvious what's happening here.

I was not slandering your reviews in any way, Misha. Just a typo.


Last edited by Eyesore on Tue Dec 05, 2006 10:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 10:02 pm 
Offline
Ist Krieg
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 7:40 am
Posts: 13758
Location: Canada
Maybe he didn't think it was painful because of style and thinks Misha is a better writer?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 10:17 pm 
noodles wrote:
Maybe he didn't think it was painful because of style and thinks Misha is a better writer?

That's possible, but he didn't say either way, so I can only logically assume what he meant.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 10:36 pm 
Offline
Metal King
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:25 am
Posts: 928
Location: Serres [Greece]
noodles wrote:
I like this style of review, mentioning general aspects of the album rather than specific songs gets across much more useful information + is more fun to read. :P

Then again my favourite reviewer on teh intarwebs writes stuff like this:

Quote:
Hank Taylor .... yada yada yada
..... words & letters ....
..... more words & letters ....
blah blah blah .... of his professional career....


Dude, I honestly say I'd never bother reading a review like that even if it was about Iron Maiden. If I want fiction, I have my own books. What I need is information in a accessible and easy way that is not easy to be misunderstood. Maybe some people have way too much time in their hands to write or read stuff like that but I prefer to waste my time in other ways. It certainly looks entertaining but that's not the reason I'd read a review.

In my mind, there are two kinds of reviewers/reviews that work.

A) The first is an ultra-analytic and super-objective reviewer who pays attentions and takes into consideration all little and big things and then draws an equation on the board that will lead to a well understood and justified conclusion and score. The facts are there for all to see, songs, instruments, production, lyrical analysis, even historical data or anything that might be of relevance. For this the reader is not required to know anything beforehand. The reviewer gives the information and the reader uses as much of this information he/she likes.

B) Then there are reviews that use funny expression and strange words. The reviewer lays out a pattern of his own feelings or of abstract thoughts that are the result of the work he's reviewing. This might not appear initially specific to the work or even useful to some unless the reader has a way to actually understand the pattern of the feelings and adopt them on his own. To do this the reader is required to have an deeper understanding and trust of the reviewer or the reviewed item.

You see, we listen to music to produce feelings inside of us. In the first type, the feelings are decoded/translated to numbers and data, the data transfered through words to the mind of the reader who then uses that data to re-encode them into the potential feelings. In the second type, there's no decoding/translation, feelings are transfered as they are and your only option of getting close to the original feelings is to know the reviewer or the reviewed work already very very well. As you see there are requirements for both types of reviews. For the first you need to know yourself, what you want and have at least a basic understanding of the media (ie you need to know a bit of speed metal to fully understand a type A review of a Heavenly album). For the second you need to know the reviewer and/or the reviewed work. Which works best with each reader is based on individual tastes and preferences.

I was intending to present those thoughts in a separate thread but since it was brought up, I decided not to loose the chance. I hope I don't get misunderstood here but I'd welcome your opinions.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 10:42 pm 
Offline
Ist Krieg
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 7:40 am
Posts: 13758
Location: Canada
I generally read reviews to discover new bands or for interesting insights/opinions on a band, and the review I posted is more likely to intrigue me about a band than just like "They're similar to Meshuggah, Dragonforce and Metallica and really, really good" extented over 3 paragraphs :P


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 12:03 am 
Offline
MetalReviews Staff
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2004 11:41 am
Posts: 3731
Location: Veldhoven - The Netherlands
Eyesore wrote:
Misha wrote:
Eyesore wrote:
Misha writes reviews about cabaret music. Saying this was painful to read, and something Misha wrote is ridiculous. No offense to Misha, of course.

No offence to Misha... First say that if I write soemthing, it's inevitably ridiculous, and then also claim you're not offending me :blink:

Anyways, can't you just not insult me all the time? I'm not offended or anything, you can have your opinion if you want, but I'm not grabbing every oppurtunity to make a big thing out of your nu-metal reviews, am I? Please show some more respect.

:lol:

Whoops. If you look and think about it, grammatically that line really makes no sense. Especially in context of what I said after.

"Saying this was painful to read, and something Misha wrote is ridiculous."

That makes no sense as it is. It was supposed to say something like this: "Saying this was painful to read, and something Misha wrote is fine is ridiculous."

I am trying to make a point that you don't even review metal, and your reviews are very poetic like Andrew's, and this guy likes your reviews, yet he doesn't like Andrew's. That makes no sense, and it's obvious what's happening here.

I was not slandering your reviews in any way, Misha. Just a typo.

Yeah, the grammar didn't make much sense, but very often, you don't make any sense either :rolleyes:
Anyways, I'm glad it aws a typo. I haven't read the review because the genre tells me I'm not going to like it, but I think I can agree with you about not being biased in this.

Edit:
Ok, I've read it now, and I think it's a very good review. It might get a bit over the top at the end, but if all reviews were like this, I'd have a much better idea what I'd like and what not. Andrew, don't listen too much to people that diss your review, you're doing a great job as far as I can see. Although I think there are more styles than just Antonakis' A and B, I think he's basically right. I'm a type B reviewer, although I tend to throw some comparisons most of the time, just because I like to read type B reviews with some comparisons thrown in best. I also think it fits the music I review better, because it's not as easily categorized as most metal.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next   


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 137 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group