Adam McAuley's LotFP Work

I'd say McAuley writes like English is his second language, but that might suggest he could be as good a writer as Andreas. So, I'm forced to say that McAuley writes like a babelfish translation of something that reads poorly in the original. Maybe he's a wonderful person, but his reviews wouldn't compare favorably to the average Blabbermouth comment. He's making LotFP look bad!
Sorry for coming back around the forum just to post this, I realize it's somewhat tasteless but as I think I slightly triggered this thread by e-mailing Jim about my concerns, I felt I should post here as well.

The reviews read like absolutely average reviews you find on the internet and as such clash with the type of incision I expect from LotFP. If I had wandered for the first time today on the LotFP blog and happened on one of McAuley's pieces first I'd have stopped at the second broken sentence and moved on. Never getting to stuff like 'Scum' or 'Impure Metal' because of such first impressions is a real shame. It's also quite probable this is happening because McAuley reviews a lot of stuff, he's everywhere on the blog.

Writing a review is ultimately about an in-depth examination of personal preference, sure. However I urge McAuley to at least do his homework. When reviewing Hollenthon he should know they're a sideproject of Pungent Stench. Given how distinct the two styles of music they go for are, is this not worth a mention? How about that the record references very blatantly (and somewhat tastelessly, even by HM standards) the work of Russian romantic composer Modest Mussorgsky? What does this say for a project aspiring to cross-over classical music and metal? Even if McAuley knew about these things that he doesn't paint a historical and cultural context wherein the art he is reviewing functions seems to suggest he doesn't care. This is the opposite of what LotFP was about as far as I had understood.


The ability to incorporate a keen classical flair is an aspect of the band that makes you want to strongly become attached to them in an ingenious manner. They have a method of incorporating horns and other instruments into the background in a way that makes them particularly appealing to people.

I would suggest dropping allusions to the tastes of some vague group of 'people'. That sort of consumerist mindset doesn't benefit reviews of Heavy Metal records, whose audience is very varied. And forget about the 'you' as well, as you know nothing about me. That is marketing-speak, trying to sell me stuff by directly referencing and enforcing a desire in the reader. "You will feel so much better when you have this car". Stick to the 'I', talk about what it means for you (not just how it appeals to you) and stand up for that, that is the bare necessity for a reviewer. The impersonal faux-objective style of reviewing is self-defeating.

Sorry for the harshness but I love the LotFP and we have to be able to criticize what we love.
Well, it seems that Mr. McA. is not only bad at writing, but also indifferent towards criticism. Does the dumbing down of Lamentations actually correspond with your brainless Facebook-comments, Jim?

I assume you have quite some fun with this, don't ya?
Well, it seems that Mr. McA. is not only bad at writing, but also indifferent towards criticism. Does the dumbing down of Lamentations actually correspond with your brainless Facebook-comments, Jim?

I assume you have quite some fun with this, don't ya?

Well I would have appreciated if he'd actually taken some advice and changed how he did things instead of getting advice and then continuing on doing the same damn thing.

As far as the Facebook comments... the 'status update'/Twitter kind of thing is so ridiculous that brainless comments are about all it's good for.
Not a fan. I only read the Twisted one and it was very difficult to read.

I'm not sure what the point is, anymore, of just describing what a band sounds like. Do we really need that? Reviews for music need to change with the times. Describing the sound isn't useful anymore other than to perhaps give a brief synopsis. I'm far more interested in how the album affected the person. What worked? What didn't? What views does the album put forth? Make the writing interesting. If you loved the album, and I'm not at least feeling a yearning to listen to it, you failed.
well my band just got a review that just said that we sound like band X, that was it. this suddenly doesn't seem so bad... but definitely nowhere near lotfp level still :)
unfortunately the majority of nowadays' reviews reads like that. Spreadsheet reviews: blablabla - insert bandname xyz. That comes from "hearing" music on crappy PC speakers and not listening. Also, the mass of releases does not help, especially if some people still have trouble understanding or even knowing the classics.
Most reviewers are trying to just get a review out and on the site so that they continue to get free CDs. I stopped reviewing, mostly, because I decided that I didn't like my reviews at all. They were too simple and added nothing to the world of reviews (other than to review a few discs that didn't get exposure). I'm starting to understand how I want my reviews to read, and I might start up again. But this time probably on my own site so I don't feel pressured in any way.

What is your band Antzor?