Annoying Things in Metal Reviews

[Hatebreeder]

I hate it when reviews compare dueling guitar solos in ANY metal album to Iron Maiden's classic Adrian Smith/Dave Murray lineup. It's annoying as all fuck.

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

Lol, please agree with me - I need this

You're weird. Coming from me, you should be concerned about a statement like that.

 

[nissan]

You're weird. Coming from me, you should be concerned about a statement like that.

I like you...

I hate people who spend time giving a review just to give the album a 50% or whatever.

If the review, then I don't see what is wrong with that...

We need to be warned... uke:

 

[CF87]

I have never once red/read a negative review getting an idea about an album. I believe music is subjective and regardless if you think something sucks does not mean it actually sucks where you need to review negativly. That's not going to help me picture an image in my head to see if I might like it or not just because you don't like it. I don't see the point in 5,10+ reviews for an album ranging from 25% to 50% because that still does not mean that album sucks. There is people that will see negative reviews not checking something out and influence on someone is not fair to the musicians of that material. I have seen people constistanly review bands albums negativly.... YEAH YOU DON'T LIKE THE BAND.... GET A HOBBY. I don't get how negative reviews give people an idea about an albums contents or if it's good or not,etc... Do people who like to do this think they are somehow some internet musical authority figures. If I think something sucks the last thing i'm going to do is spend time with a paragraph or more explaining that I don't like something/think it sucks. How is someone going to base something on that regarding music. How is someone who came across that going to get something from that.

I don't think saying if an album sucks or is really good in terms like that is the best way to approach because that's not purely what the point is in my opinion. There has to be better ways of approach in a way where you get to think whether or not that cd might be good or bad by the description of the cd over someone being like 'THIS IS CRAP,,,, BLAH,, BLAH... or this is brutal and classic, this song is brutal, the next song is faster, this one is fast and brutal.

 

[Necro Joe]

I believe music is subjective and regardless if you think something sucks does not mean it actually sucks where you need to review negativly. That's not going to help me picture an image in my head to see if I might like it or not just because you don't like it.

You are pretty much entirely missing the point of music reviews, it isn't about providing you with a buyers guide to tell you what you might like, its about offering an analysis of music so that the bands who are breaking new ground or writing great songs or communicatng their message well or pushing the boundries of expression or whateverthefuck it is you think music should be doing get recognition. You write: 'out of all the music I've heard this year/week/day/second this album is really *insert positive comment* which makes it stand out from everything else and I want you, the person reading this review, to know that'. That is the format of almost every good review ever written and so obviously in order to discuss music in any way whatsoever other reviews need to identify the 'everything else' otherwise nothing can be praised. That is what bad reviews are for.

 

[Necro Joe]

Oh and by 'good' and 'bad' I'm talking about the opinion of the reviewer regarding the music, not the quality of the review.

 

[VittraEternity]

Elitist reviewers who believe they're extending their vocabulary, and those who use cliches such as "this album boasts dollops of...that will have you..."

Also people who are slightly disappointed with an album, or consider to be mediocre yet give the album a score of about 10%. That rating hardly reflects a mediocre album, rather it should be used with a terrible one.

 

[The Bringer]

Elitist reviewers who believe they're extending their vocabulary, and those who use cliches such as "this album boasts dollops of...that will have you..."

Also people who are slightly disappointed with an album, or consider to be mediocre yet give the album a score of about 10%. That rating hardly reflects a mediocre album, rather it should be used with a terrible one.

I wouldn't call them "elitist reviewers"... maybe educated. What if he had gone to university for 4 years majoring in English Philology? Of course he will have an extended vocabulary.

I agree with the scoring. A mediocre review should never get below 40%. I would say that 40-50% would be for a mediocore album from a band who had always released great albums. 50-60 (70)% from a band who may have suddenly released an album that is above their others but still maybe mediocre to good in their own genre.

 

[VittraEternity]

I wouldn't call them "elitist reviewers"... maybe educated. What if he had gone to university for 4 years majoring in English Philology? Of course he will have an extended vocabulary.

I agree with the scoring. A mediocre review should never get below 40%. I would say that 40-50% would be for a mediocore album from a band who had always released great albums. 50-60 (70)% from a band who may have suddenly released an album that is above their others but still maybe mediocre to good in their own genre.

I agree. My opinion of a mediocre album would indeed be in the 40-50% range.

And a good review is always appreciated but some take it to the point where its no longer about the music. Someone pointed this out, on another site. He may be a 'great' writer, but much of this is just asinine and there is far too much redundant vocabulary usage.

Brainwave tendencies of sloping melodies move like rock n roll and this music repeats too often the idiosyncrasies of that genre, yet the vocals carry rasping not toneless melodies disembodied through the waves of music, richly harmonic and subversively rhythmic in an exacting evil dissonance rather than the sleazy nihilistic apathy of rockstar gluttony. Melodramatic, melancholic, dark music emanates emotional beauty with sad interlocking melodies speaking an essence of epic mental sensation through fantasy, metaphoric gateway to the artistic content inspired by this release in the listener.

 

[dill_the_devil]

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

Worst way to start a review. EVER!

As a metal reviewer myself, this is one of the only things I've agreed on in this thread so far.

As for the rest of you; so, you don't want comparisons to other similar bands, you don't want any categorisations as part of a description of the band's sound, but you also don't want us to use adjectives to describe the individual passages (as surmised from the 'face-ripping solos' comment). You don't want a band criticised in comparison to either the same band's previous work or to comparable bands in the same style.

So what's left? Cover art and a tracklist.

Tell you what, it'd make my life easier, certainly.

 

[R.I.P.2]

but you also don't want us to use adjectives to describe the individual passages (as surmised from the 'face-ripping solos' comment).

nah, I just don't want stupid nonsensical descriptions like 'face-ripping', 'jaw-cracking', 'neck-snapping' etc to describe music.

 

[dill_the_devil]

How is it nonsensical? And how else would you prefer us to describe a solo or whatever? Display the tablature? How would you go about describing individual parts of a song then, considering that (here on UM) we're supposed to write no less than 200 words?

Not being arsey here, just curious as to what you (and others here) would like to see - you never know, might start to see a change in my reviews if there are any good ideas.

 

[Mr_Haze]

I dislike when reviews for non-essential albums end with "BUY THIS NOW!!". It's like advertising instead of a critique.

 

[skeptik]

I can appreciate albums that focus on the theoretical aspect behind the themes and concepts that the composer was working with, but these reviews generally only work for people who are already extremely familiar with the album in question and do next to nothing for people who have no fucking idea what's going on (see this review for an example).

 

[R.I.P.2]

How is it nonsensical? And how else would you prefer us to describe a solo or whatever? Display the tablature? How would you go about describing individual parts of a song then, considering that (here on UM) we're supposed to write no less than 200 words?

Not being arsey here, just curious as to what you (and others here) would like to see - you never know, might start to see a change in my reviews if there are any good ideas.

Nonsensical in that it doesn't make any sense. I'm pretty sure solos can't rip faces off and I'm also sure there are better ways of describing them using actual words. I dunno, fast? Tonal/atonal? The mood? And no, I'm not considering the fact that you at UM have to write a review in under 200 words* because this thread isn't even about UM reviews. I'm not having a dig at your reviews since I can't even remember reading one from UM, my point was simply that I hate the lazy and retarded metal lingo found in reviews that tell you nothing about the music.

*I assume that's what you meant otherwise I don't understand the problem.

 

[dill_the_devil]

Nonsensical in that it doesn't make any sense. I'm pretty sure solos can't rip faces off and I'm also sure there are better ways of describing them using actual words. I dunno, fast? Tonal/atonal? The mood? And no, I'm not considering the fact that you at UM have to write a review in under 200 words* because this thread isn't even about UM reviews. I'm not having a dig at your reviews since I can't even remember reading one from UM, my point was simply that I hate the lazy and retarded metal lingo found in reviews that tell you nothing about the music.

*I assume that's what you meant otherwise I don't understand the problem.

There's no problem, I was just using UM reviews as a frame of reference.

Sticking with solos for the sake of discussion, you suggest using 'mood' as a descriptive basis - but I find that equally as 'nonsensical' as using expressive terms like 'face ripping', because while a solo admittedly cannot actually tear the flesh from someone's face, it also cannot be considered plaintive, mournful, exuberant or any other emotional adjective you might care to attach to it.

I do use terms like face ripping, ball blazing, flesh searing et al in my reviews (not saying that you were having a go at my reviews here, just putting my personal opinion across), mainly because I think it provides a more interesting and personal expression of my reactions to a given passage than something like "at 2:38 there is a 30-second flurry of sweep-picked arpeggios followed by a sustained pinched harmonic" - the latter seems sterile to me.

 

[My Man Mahmoud]

ok i read i review once where the guy wrote about 3 pages, but never once mentioned the actual MUSIC. He just ranted the fuck on about his interpretation of what it all symbolised, but not one mention of anything to do with the music? He wrote pretty well, but nothing to do with the music = worst fucking review ever

Art is communication - that is, it is ABOUT something. The primary purpose of any review should be to tease out what that something is and then relate the work's effectiveness at conveying it. This is metal - you already know what an album "sounds like" without needing a reviewer to obsess about the aesthetic gloss.

 

[My Man Mahmoud]

There's no problem, I was just using UM reviews as a frame of reference.

Sticking with solos for the sake of discussion, you suggest using 'mood' as a descriptive basis - but I find that equally as 'nonsensical' as using expressive terms like 'face ripping', because while a solo admittedly cannot actually tear the flesh from someone's face, it also cannot be considered plaintive, mournful, exuberant or any other emotional adjective you might care to attach to it.

I do use terms like face ripping, ball blazing, flesh searing et al in my reviews (not saying that you were having a go at my reviews here, just putting my personal opinion across), mainly because I think it provides a more interesting and personal expression of my reactions to a given passage than something like "at 2:38 there is a 30-second flurry of sweep-picked arpeggios followed by a sustained pinched harmonic" - the latter seems sterile to me.

I think what you'll find that most people are reacting to here is the simple triteness of that kind of verbiage. It's like reading love poetry that starts "Roses are red..." If you find yourself reaching the point where only cliche will do to describe an album, that's a strong indication that the album itself consists of nothing but cliches strung together in a format that 'sounds like' metal, but has none of the spirit (you know, the kind of thing that might evoke the moods and emotions you deride). If that's the case, why are you reviewing it at all? There's plenty of mediocrity in metal without validating more of it with reviews.

 

[dill_the_devil]

I think what you'll find that most people are reacting to here is the simple triteness of that kind of verbiage. It's like reading love poetry that starts "Roses are red..." If you find yourself reaching the point where only cliche will do to describe an album, that's a strong indication that the album itself consists of nothing but cliches strung together in a format that 'sounds like' metal, but has none of the spirit (you know, the kind of thing that might evoke the moods and emotions you deride). If that's the case, why are you reviewing it at all? There's plenty of mediocrity in metal without validating more of it with reviews.

I wasn't deriding the emotions at all, and in fact what you describe as 'trite verbiage', I see as a way of expressing whatever feeling/emotion/response that passage evoked in me. Plus, I was merely saying that calling a guitar solo 'mournful' is just as nonsensical as calling it 'face-ripping' - not denying that a solo can evoke a mournful feeling in the listener.

 

[My Man Mahmoud]

I wasn't deriding the emotions at all, and in fact what you describe as 'trite verbiage', I see as a way of expressing whatever feeling/emotion/response that passage evoked in me. Plus, I was merely saying that calling a guitar solo 'mournful' is just as nonsensical as calling it 'face-ripping' - not denying that a solo can evoke a mournful feeling in the listener.

Here's the difference: "mournful" is in general usage and its relationship to be emotive content of music is obvious. "Face-ripping" is one of those bullshit metal cliches with no actual relationship to anything.

Plus, it sounds fucking stupid.