Metal Reviews

I see you've found an example from six years ago and used it to calculate generalisable "editorial decisions" made at the site! Well done!

Oh, and the slipknot one... Anyone that actually follows Zad's reviews will be well aware that he regularly goes right out of his way to bring in reviews that DON'T play to the choir. I mean, you REALLY think there is some anti-mainstream bias going on there? Have you seen his, say, Deftones review? Or how about the multitude of extremely positive reviews by other writers for "untrue" albums that are in a completely different world from Iron Maiden and Priest? Enthusiastic reviews for Paramore, Protest the Hero, Propagandhi... what an elitist den of underground metal purists we are!

I mean, maybe you do "listen to loads of metal" (good for you!) but you don't seem to have been following this site at all.

What conspiracy is that? You must be the only one who believes in it, since you made it up. You seem to be confusing two distinct things. What I think about political issues, which has been distorted into some ridiculous Alex Jones-like extreme in this thread, does not explain any of the above points that certain forms of music can't be given a fair shake. Listening to a record you can't like 500 times is still not going to result in an objective review. Getting someone who has no reason to hate or love the record is. I don't think a website that deifies every 20 year old record as having that capability.

How many times have I been called a fucking moron for not liking a "classic" metal record? That is one issue.

The other happens to be the glorification of anything old at the expense of anything that deviates from it.

I already addressed that and apparently it has been ignored.

If I went out and bought every Saxon record, listened to them all and ignored all but the best three of them, that would give the overall impression that I like them. If I hated Scorpions and made sure to review all of them, it would give the impression that I didn't like them.

All this nitpicking is missing the forest for the trees. The ratings here are predictable, and appear to have an agenda, not that they do or don't. If the reviewers here weren't being so defensive and insistent that the means and methods were 100% correct, maybe they'd see what some of the viewers of the site see.

Drop the persecuted act, it is pathetic. I'm sure you've been called a moron many times, although I don't recall any occasions on which it's been by a reviewer about not liking a classic album. If you have examples please show us. Now, if you've been insulted by members of the FORUM, then that's a completely different issue.

The last point is stupid, and would be pretty insulting to the reviewers here who are continually looking out for new and original music, if it wasn't so clearly informed by total ignorance. Again, you need to follow the actual reviews of new albums that are put up here, instead of just seeking out archive reviews that have been and then complaining because you don't like them. Old albums that get reviewed here get high marks for two reasons:

1. Reviewers like to give positive reviews, and so if they dislike a record they will tend leave the review of an archive to someone who does.
2. They are being archive reviewed precisely because they are seen by the reviewer as wothy of mention. There are 1000s of albums from 20 years ago that reviewers here don't like, but they don't get reviewed because there's no point singling something out from nowhere just to dump on it.

If older albums get higher scores , there's your reason, now get back to your lizards.

And yes, the idea that there is an editorial policy to discredit new music in favour of old is a conspiracy almost as stupid as anything Alex Jones can come up with. Yet AGAIN... READ THE REVIEWS.

Now the line is "you appear to have an agenda"... and you've apparently just dropped what that agenda is, but hey, there must be one, right? Right??

I'd love to hear what you mean by a "100% correct reviewing method".

I think reviewers here see very clearly what viewers of the site see. They see some people complaining that we review too much mainstream stuff. They see some people complaining that we don't review enough mainstream stuff. And then they see some weirdo going on about how "it seems like we have an agenda", without explaining what it could be, or doing anything other than repeating himself and playing the victim when called upon it.

*grabs popcorn*

Heh, those last few posts are kinda harsh, actually...

Not much left to say here... Adveser, honestly, if you follow the reviews more closely then I really think you will find you are talking nonsense.

Woah he really reviewed Propagandhi, that went right past my radar?!?!?!?! ZAD YOU POSER?!?!?! just kidding

I reviewed Propagandhi, but nice to see you're paying attention

Korn. Clearly reviewed with the intent on bashing it. Hell, the lead up to it was years in the making.

http://www.getcharocksoff.com

Someday this'll rock. Right now it's all jacked up, though.

Lies. I gave my honest opinion on that overrated p.o.s. and got more fanboy flak than if I'd have declared it a masterpiece. "Clearly" you're wrong - I never set out to trash any album.

I'm suddenly getting deja-vu from say....2006.

Man, someday you are going to have the horrible realisation that not everything you really, really wish were true, is actually true.

I mean, you clearly don't remember Goat going on at length about how he desperately wanted to like that album...

I'm surprised www.metalstorm.net wasn't mentioned. Granted I haven't been to that site in a while, but from I remember it had a pretty active forum.

I, too, never saw that review as a hatchet job. A lot of metal fans cite Korn S/T as "their only good album" and "a masterpiece" (while leaving the trashing to albums like Follow The Leader and Issues). So I don't see where SA got off saying that Zad was deliberately trashing the album. Actually, I found it to be a refreshing read since I always found Korn to be boring as hell (even the song Blind).

Korn is fucking awful and taking them seriously is lol

Dude, come on. You'd been threatening to review that album for years, knowing full well what your opinion was on it the entire time.

It wasn't a threat, though. I did try it again, and tried to like it - I don't form opinions about stuff that easily.

And it got high scores by other reviewers.

Yes, I know it was just me, but fuck it, my opinion still counts.