Metal Reviews

IMO reviews cant be objective, a single review is almost worthless to me, i must know the reviewer tastes and previous knowledge of his other reviews to decide if the review is helpful to me or not, its not just the text that matters to me but who wrote it.

Example: if you were to review a Sonata Arctica album, it would probably be worthless to me, because i know that you're a huge Sonata fan and im not, so our scores would differ greatly, for that same reason i always take Chris's Power Metal reviews with a grain of salt.

And about not being any bad albums, well thats a different topic but i think it was Frank Zappa who said something like: "If that kind of music exists, someone must like it", meaning that even St. Anger must have its fans, you cant objectivly give value to music without being elitist.

Oh and BTW Adveser is dead wrong.

IMO the closest thing to having an "objective" music review is analyzing the album in the context of what was intended by its creators. Ke$ha is good for what it's trying to do. St. Anger isn't. Ke$ha is (relatively) objectively good. St. Anger, by the same token, is bad.

I agree with The Voice. Reviewers should just go with their opinions rather than some attempt at being objective, which tends to be a painfully boring mishmash of popular opinion with the writer's personal thoughts.

Could not agree with The_Voice more. There is simply no reason to attempt to be objective in the way you're describing. Sure there will usually always be positives and negatives about an album, but it all depends on the reviewer's personal taste.



The problem with this is that not all art (and I think this is especially true for modern music unfortunately) is NOT created in good faith. A lot of it is produced simply to make money. Take Saint Anger for instance. You can listen to all the bullshit Hetfield spews about it, or you can look at the commercialization of it, which I find far more telling. But I digress. If a highly commercialized album makes a shit ton of money that does not necessarily mean it's "good" or that everyone is going to like it. It says practically nothing about the worth of the art itself, which I wouldn't even try to determine beyond my own subjective opinion.

People are never going to agree about topics of art, music, and what sounds good and what doesn't. In my opinion the best thing we can do as reviewers is tell people how albums sound and compare them to others so that they are better able to make an informed decision about what they're going to spend time and money on.

Haha well I just quoted Goat anyway so it's his fault.

I disagree because deciding whether what a band is "intending" is worthwhile is completely subjective. Maybe some pop star is "objectively" achieving what they intend, but I may not respect or value what they are intending to do, successfully or not.

Or one of the 1000s of DM bands that sets out to be just like Morbid Angel... you might objectively say well done guys, you did it, but that doesn't mean they should get a good review. I mean, I probably would give them one, because I'm always too lenient, but anyway...

http://www.metalcrypt.com is a great site with short and precise reviews. First review site I ever visitied frequently.

It's not that easy coming up with something that sells really fucking well. Hats off to GaGa and co.

Yeah, you need, like, an enormous marketing department.

Radagast! Of course he doesn't post here that often.

I agree although many times I am a bit amused with their reviews. Their review of Manowar's The Triumph Of Steel and Divina Enema's two albums are my favourites

Haha, they have a few black metal releases you guys haven't touched on. WHAT'S THE DEAL ZADDIUS?

Also there's a lot of stuff at that metal crypt site but their reviews aren't very helpful.

Oh come on, weight the two overall ffs. Just because they've been increasing the BM count recently doesn't change much overall.

Reviews on metal sites can be handy for general information about how a band sounds, but honestly, I try to ignore them as much as possible.

If I want to know if a new album is good, I'd much rather come here to the forum and see what the general consensus is, or check the opinions of the individual posters whose taste I have come to trust.

Even though, in the scheme of things, the reviews on this site are quite good, for each one that inspires confidence, there's one that makes me wanna vomit vitriol. Can't be helped.

Yeah, was their any reason at all for this site to review Mushroomhead's XIII or Slipknot's last album, knowing full well they weren't going to be given a chance at all. Especially considering how much press those albums were bound to get.

Even if it wasn't - it certainly appeared albums like that were shit upon as an editorial decision to make underground metal look superior. Especially the Mushroomhead review, that one reeked of not even been listened to at all.

No. If this site reviewed every platinum selling pop record and gave it an awful rating, aside from a few that certain people wouldn't let you get away with. obviously that is not objectivity. Someone who couldn't possibly like an album deciding it is worthless and pointing to the very few examples of where they thought something like that was good.

Well, Mike reviewed the Mushroomhead over six years ago, so I can't speak for him. But I reviewed the Slipknot since all their other releases were reviewed, and I like enough songs from their earlier stuff to have a good view of them in general, and I can promise that I gave All Hope Is Gone a very good chance. Look at how much I wrote on it, ffs.

And there was no 'editorial decision' made whatsoever. I know you like to believe in conspiracies and that there's a secret cabal of underground (probably jewish, communist or originating from some lizard-populated planet) metalheads plotting to give nu-metal bad reviews because underground metal is superior, but sometimes shit is just shit and that's the way it goes. Please, whatever you think the Masons are plotting, do not accuse me of being unprofessional.

...and in general you people get so pissed off if someone isn't drinking the kool aid and taking the very predictable and easy route of echoing every "classic" album is a masterpiece and everything that differs from that, such as any nu-metal album, is automatically bullshit.

Sorry, I listen to a ton of metal. Just because I think Iron Maiden's Number of the beast is somewhere around a 75 and Slipknot's Iowa is (what would equate to in your ratings) to a 95 does not mean I am a moron who doesn't really listen to metal or doesn't get it. I;ve listened to just as many records (thousands) as the rest of you. I might value different things and might like different things, but to suggest that everything is crap that isn't universally loved by the majority of heavy metal fans speaks volumes really on how little some people really actually feel this music. It seems at times people have been told what to like and that is the only way they can judge music at all.

It isn't necessarily the reviews, yeah, i think it is a bit over the top for 99% of any record over 20 years old to be a classic, it is more like the forum users that bitch and complain when you don't subscribe to the groupthink and absurd conformity that certain records are classics and anyone who says differently is not into metal, but a faggoty poser. Sorry, There are hundreds of millions of people buying records and none of these records have cracked diamond status other than a very few. So you lose that argument that there is such thing as a universally loved metal record that is canon. The fact is that the majority of metal fans do not like Maiden, Priest and Metallica judging by the amount of people listening to metal and the record sales. The loudest critics don't speak for everyone.

So here we go, do the predictable thing and talk a bunch of shit about how I'm wrong and don't get metal. My record collection begs to differ.

No one said any of that bullshit, so why insult yourself by even taking it that far. That just demonstrates the theory that saying anything that isn't herd conformity to certain metalheads means they think everything you say is suspect. You just lost all your credibility as far as i'm concerned if you seriously believe that because of my views in one area you may disagree with means i'm a nut who believes in lizard-people running the world or some dumb shit that is reality challeneged.

So this is how it is. Number of the Beast =/= best album ever = you believe secret jewish ninja lizards are running the planet from neptune and controlling our minds with an international conspiracy.

Oh, for fuck's sake, put your toys back in the pram.



This is what I was answering. YOU said it, thankyouverymuch! I certainly don't conform to whatever "groupthink" nonsense it is that you're accusing everyone of, and I gave Slipknot a very fair chance. Where did I insult you for not liking Number Of The Beast? Your little rant there has nothing to do with me, or most of the reviewers of the site, or most of its forum posters, merely this mad idea of yours that underground metalheads all think the same thing.

I'm sorry that my credibility is gone for refusing to believe in a conspiracy to keep the nu-metal underdog (ha!) down. No doubt thousands of baggy-trousered morons will chase me down and lynch me atop a giant turntable to the lush soundscapes of Limp Bizkit's Three Dollar Bill You All for this crime against music, but I'm sure I can take a few of the bastards with me.