Annoying Things in Metal Reviews

[Jrgen]

I would like to see more references and comparisons to other bands who play similar music or music with common influences. Also, a genre says more than "riffs sounding like 10 000 chainsaws on speed penetrating the walls of Hagia Sophia while angry muscular midgets are crushing your skull with the remains of ancient pharaoes."

 

[My Man Mahmoud]

I am a huge faggot, this is why I perfer stuff like new Amorphis over old Amorphis.

There man, I fixed it for you.

 

[My Man Mahmoud]

What things annoy you in metal reviews?

For me the biggest thing is the word "slab". It seems every review says "This is a good slab of metal". It just sounds stupid.

Given the 'quality' of most of the music to which this phrase gets applied, I think it's rhetorically perfect. Sure, it sounds stupid - but so is most of the music. It implies a comparison between the majority of metal and meat or concrete or any other stupid fucking product that Americans purchase and consume in ridiculous quantities.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

"Now, I don't usually like this genre..."

Worst way to start a review. EVER!

 

[Killbot]

Generally I don't bother with reviews, I only really check out reviews of albums I already own.

 

[Trylakos]

What things annoy you in metal reviews?

For me the biggest thing is the word "slab". It seems every review says "This is a good slab of metal". It just sounds stupid.

I also dislike when all the reviewer does is compare the band to other obscure bands. A few comparisons are helpful, but it can get over the top fast.

slab was the exact thing I thought coming into this thread

 

[MURAI]

I hate it when reviewers compare bands newer work with their past work. Most bands always start off the same way, either inexperienced musicians who don't know how to write real songs or completely play their instruments or a group of guys who are still finding their mesh together. This usually always ends with albums that are "raw, true and 'the best material' ". Of course later on when bands mature and the members become more developed with their instruments they find the groove they believe they were meant to be in. The music isn't as raw but it is much more developed. This is why I perfer stuff like new Amorphis over old Amorphis.

There are a lot of reviewers that have to understand that. And even as hard as a band tries they can never go back to writing those same types of riffs and songs because they know they can do better and those riffs are throw aways because they don't sound like the best they can do now.

Many reviewers compare it to their earlier work, because that's the easiest way to describe how they sound on the present album.

 

[Anti-Racism]

What things annoy you in metal reviews?

Praise of trivial, crappy metal.

 

[TylerTheNuke]

Ooh, this is a toughie. I'm stuck trying to remember if a review ever helped me at all. I guess if someone I know has good tastes praises it, I'm like "All right, I give it a shot", but otherwise, reviews just don't help very much. The best ones are the ones that describe it by comparing it to other music. I like to know the influences as well. Also, I like when one track is described thoroughly to explain what it is like. One track which is indicative of the album as a whole. That is very nice when done right. Also, descriptions should be specific. "Crazy and frenzied" is okay, but something like "it is indredibly abrupt and fast. I counted 15 riffs in a just one minute on the third song. The riffs are distinct and the transitions between them are non-existant, making a jarring sound like an eviler and darker dillinger escape plan" is much better. My pet peeve is track by track reviews.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Ugh I HATE track by track reviews now. They ruin all the surprise. A good review should:

1. Inform. Give a bit of background on the band (label, style, history, etc.) and establish why they should be checked out/avoided.

2. Persuade. Use a lot of objective words to describe the music, but lean towards making the reader want to believe your perspective. I'm not saying to slander the band, merely present a strong, unmoving opinion on the piece of work. If you flake out and can't make a stand, don't review it at all.

3. Conclude. Draw parallels to other bands of a similar style so that even if the review presents the band in a negative light, the reader may be reassured that there are either other bands doing it better, or that, if the reader like the band, you (the reviewer) attempted honestly to enjoy it but ultimately failed due to reasons mentioned. If the review is negative, perhaps make sure the reader knows that there may be other opinion on it and that yours isn't the only one. End your review with a sincere, concise summary.

 

[OldScratch]

I would like to see more references and comparisons to other bands who play similar music or music with common influences. Also, a genre says more than "riffs sounding like 10 000 chainsaws on speed penetrating the walls of Hagia Sophia while angry muscular midgets are crushing your skull with the remains of ancient pharaoes."

This is the stuff! I abhor unecessarily florid and verbose reviews(presumably delivered by frustrated would-be writers or Lit-majors) that effectively tell you nothing of substance about the music! Far too often, I come away from a review having no idea if the offering is one I would pursue or not. Terribly frustrating...

 

[Dazed and Brutal]

Ugh I HATE track by track reviews now. They ruin all the surprise. A good review should:

1. Inform. Give a bit of background on the band (label, style, history, etc.) and establish why they should be checked out/avoided.

2. Persuade. Use a lot of objective words to describe the music, but lean towards making the reader want to believe your perspective. I'm not saying to slander the band, merely present a strong, unmoving opinion on the piece of work. If you flake out and can't make a stand, don't review it at all.

3. Conclude. Draw parallels to other bands of a similar style so that even if the review presents the band in a negative light, the reader may be reassured that there are either other bands doing it better, or that, if the reader like the band, you (the reviewer) attempted honestly to enjoy it but ultimately failed due to reasons mentioned. If the review is negative, perhaps make sure the reader knows that there may be other opinion on it and that yours isn't the only one. End your review with a sincere, concise summary.

That formula seems to normally work, but sometimes if i'm absolutely immensed with an album (thinking it's fucking fantastic, or fucking awful) I go track by track in almost full detail of my opinion of every second, but this takes a while so...

 

[nissan]

an album is generally intended to be a cohesive work, not merely a collection of songs, so song-by-song analysis is retarded. individual songs should be mentioned, but their analysis shouldnt make up the entirety of the review

Yea, I agree...

Another thing I hate is when the dumbass writes an essay, with an introduction, body and conclusion, and somehow manages to completely disregard the drums and vocals - like "z0mg, this band is totally amazing! they rock. amazing guitar work, is this guy even human? the riffs are... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... The guitarist uses this guitar to construct this riff and ass a result creates this mood... ROCK ON! DEATH METAL! YEAH!! riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... Let me give you a brief 10,000 word introduction to the history of the band... *random bs to make review longer and to make reviewer look pr0/br00tal/l33t* riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... riffs... Bye bye, rock on! <3"

Fuck outa here ^bitch! You know who you are! Infact 90% of reviews are like that. Lift your review game up...

I also hate reviews that make bad comparisons.

 

[Jreg]

I hate it when reviewers compare bands newer work with their past work. Most bands always start off the same way, either inexperienced musicians who don't know how to write real songs or completely play their instruments or a group of guys who are still finding their mesh together. This usually always ends with albums that are "raw, true and 'the best material' ". Of course later on when bands mature and the members become more developed with their instruments they find the groove they believe they were meant to be in. The music isn't as raw but it is much more developed. This is why I perfer stuff like new Amorphis over old Amorphis.

There are a lot of reviewers that have to understand that. And even as hard as a band tries they can never go back to writing those same types of riffs and songs because they know they can do better and those riffs are throw aways because they don't sound like the best they can do now.

Well, that's true in the sense that many reviewers seem predisposed to thinking any band goes downhill after their second record or so. Even when it's true ("developed" doesn't automatically mean "better" IMO), the critiquing process gets so formulaic that it becomes useless to me. But there's nothing inherently wrong with comparing new work to a band's early material. You can never pinpoint your audience's musical background, but if nothing else, it's usually safer to assume they're familiar with at least one or two of the band's other releases. Granted, it probably wouldn't make sense to compare the latest Ulver album to, say, Nattens Madrigal, but that's an extreme circumstance.

 

[unknown]

even though it's already been said a number of times, I'm going to say it as well:

I cannot stand track by track reviews.

 

[cookiecutter]

but sometimes if i'm absolutely immensed with an album

I understand what you mean but I've never heard immense used that way.

Not to beat a dead horse but another thing I dislike about track by track reviews, is that they give you expectations on what the good and bad songs are. This means I subconsciously give the ones that are reviewed as "good" more of a chance than the ones that are "bad" and I may like the "bad" one just as much.

 

[Dazed and Brutal]

I understand what you mean but I've never heard immense used that way.

Not to beat a dead horse but another thing I dislike about track by track reviews, is that they give you expectations on what the good and bad songs are. This means I subconsciously give the ones that are reviewed as "good" more of a chance than the ones that are "bad" and I may like the "bad" one just as much.

I'm sorry, I think I meant to type immersed

 

[TylerTheNuke]

I agree w/ everything VVVVV said

 

[Anti-Racism]

There are no good metal reviews.

 

[Dazed and Brutal]

There are no good metal reviews.

You have no good posts, so it evens out.