What's on your mind?

[SurgicalBrute]

1 hour ago, GoatmasterGeneral said:

So at the end of the day what we're really complaining about here is an album's aggregate M-A score and how unfairly low scored reviews can impact it unfairly. Or in some cases with albums that've only received a couple of scores, one 10% can tank it completely. Just like a bunch of 98% fanboi reviews can skew an album's aggregate score unjustifiably high. I reckon it probably all evens out in the end and I just don't get that worked up about stuff like that. I've seen heaps of bands' M-A pages where their albums have been scored and ranked in ways that I don't personally agree with. I've seen sub-par albums with scores that seem way too high to me as well as what I'd consider far above average albums with lower average scores which can happen even if they haven't received any silly 0% or 10% reviews. Whatcha gonna do?

Understand, I'm not getting my nose out of joint about it. I'm not even talking specifically about Metal Archives, they just happened to be the place to give me the example. As I said originally, I just don't get people who do that in general. What's the point? You didn't like a style that falls outside your normal comfort zone? That's not exactly news at 11. Why bother with writing a review and ripping on something you don't understand? All that does is fuck with other people's perception of an album

[RelentlessOblivion]

I found the same thing on the old Metal Reviews boards going back five years or so. And select handful of reviewers put serious thought into what they were writing, the rest just hero worship band state already liked, or would review something out of spite just to drag it through the mud. Specifically I recall someone who would give consistently low reviews to any album which wasn’t released in the 1980s.

[Dead1]

3 minutes ago, RelentlessOblivion said:

I found the same thing on the old Metal Reviews boards going back five years or so. And select handful of reviewers put serious thought into what they were writing, the rest just hero worship band state already liked, or would review something out of spite just to drag it through the mud. Specifically I recall someone who would give consistently low reviews to any album which wasn’t released in the 1980s.

Most reviews everywhere are sycophantic hero worship or even worse, glorified marketing.

 

I remember reading somewhere that many "professional" reviewers refuse to give negative reviews because it might impact on their ability to get access to band's future releases or interviews.  

 

The old metal mags ala Terrorizer, Iron Fist and Zero Tolerance actually displayed more editorial freedom in their reviews than review websites and blogs.

[AlSymerz]

Metal Injection pretty much does 7.5-8.5 for all albums. Whether it's to keep getting interviews who knows, it probably has something to do with it. It takes a lot for those sites to be at the top of searches (even when they are shit), and if the efforts could be undone by one average review it's understandably why they wont let it happen.

But M-A and other sites that don't do interviews and freebies, where the users are the ones rating things, I think jsut thrive on negativity.

 

[Dead1]

32 minutes ago, KillaKukumba said:

Metal Injection pretty much does 7.5-8.5 for all albums. Whether it's to keep getting interviews who knows, it probably has something to do with it. It takes a lot for those sites to be at the top of searches (even when they are shit), and if the efforts could be undone by one average review it's understandably why they wont let it happen.

But M-A and other sites that don't do interviews and freebies, where the users are the ones rating things, I think jsut thrive on negativity.

 

 

M-A reviews are either literally either sycophantic fanboyism or jus hate for sake of hate.  

Having said that I think there is some value to the score when it comes to obscure albums or where there is literally a ton of reviews in which case the average score is a decent enough indicator of overall "quality".

 

Any reviews for topical albums are best ignored other than as amusement - haters often come with really creative ways display their hatred for something.

 

I used to write reviews for Metal Storm and also Metal Archives.  I tried to be as honest as possible.   All opinion and also all subject to change.  My own reviews on M-A are a mixed bag.  I stopped writing there because I got sick of Morrigan's attitudes (and got banned from Metal Storm after angrily disagreeing with how it was being moderated).

 

https://www.metal-archives.com/user-reviews/Dead1

[SurgicalBrute]

1 hour ago, KillaKukumba said:

Metal Injection pretty much does 7.5-8.5 for all albums. Whether it's to keep getting interviews who knows, it probably has something to do with it. It takes a lot for those sites to be at the top of searches (even when they are shit), and if the efforts could be undone by one average review it's understandably why they wont let it happen.

But M-A and other sites that don't do interviews and freebies, where the users are the ones rating things, I think jsut thrive on negativity.

 

Metal injection is part of the Blastbeat network, along with sites like Metalsucks, Lambgoat and a few others, so yeah...they're really nothing more than a marketing arm for places like Relapse, Century Media and Metal Blade. I'd take pretty much any review by those sites with a huge grain of salt.

It also goes a long way to explaining why they always seem to cover the same bands over and over again, no matter how shitty. Cvlt Nation used to be the only one that was worth a damn, but even they've become a bit of a joke these days. Hell, most of their articles aren't even about music anymore

[Hungarino]

Shit I forgot about Cvlt Nation. I still check Grizzlybutts and Wonderboxmetal mainly to see if I am missing any new releases, but mostly BC and this forum is all I need.

[AlSymerz]

Most of those sites are little more than sources for clickbait. From a monetary point of view it makes sense. Get as many users to the site as many times as possible and you are making money, it might not be heaps with the numbers these sites generate it's still money. Those sort of sites don't review for truth they review for revenue.

Unfortunately these days from the review sites that do it for revenue to the sites that do it for traffic there isn't much in between.

[Dead1]

31 minutes ago, SurgicalBrute said:

Metal injection is part of the Blastbeat network, along with sites like Metalsucks, Lambgoat and a few others, so yeah...they're really nothing more than a marketing arm for places like Relapse, Century Media and Metal Blade. I'd take pretty much any review by those sites with a huge grain of salt.

It also goes a long way to explaining why they always seem to cover the same bands over and over again, no matter how shitty. Cvlt Nation used to be the only one that was worth a damn, but even they've become a bit of a joke these days. Hell, most of their articles aren't even about music anymore

 

I avoid those websites - not just are they sycophantic but I hate their overt politics.

 

Decibel magazine still has a good number of interesting online news and new tracks. 

[FatherAlabaster]

No Clean Singing will have some cool stuff sometimes. Good indie site but I don't jive with a lot of what their reviewers do. It's really rare that I find new stuff to enjoy through any of the Blastbeat review sites. Mentions on the forum here, RYM lists to remind me of older stuff I haven't heard, Youtube recs for random albums from any era, and a good word from IRL friends have the highest rates of return. 

[Dead1]

I just don't like 

4 minutes ago, FatherAlabaster said:

No Clean Singing will have some cool stuff sometimes.

I just don't like their writing style and aesthetic style.  

 

Your Last Rights is occasionally worth perusing.

 

https://yourlastrites.com/

 

[SurgicalBrute]

9 minutes ago, Dead1 said:

I avoid those websites - not just are they sycophantic but I hate their overt politics.

100% agree on that point.

They were at least entertaining when the comments section was a free-for-all and you could at least mouth off to the author and everyone else. Now that they're so heavily moderated that even cursing is blocked, it's all just a one-sided shit show with barely anyone posting there

[Dead1]

Indeed I used to go to Metalsucks just for the comments.  They were so hilarious.  

[AlSymerz]

1 minute ago, SurgicalBrute said:

100% agree on that point.

They were at least entertaining when the comments section was a free-for-all and you could at least mouth off to the author and everyone else. Now that they're so heavily moderated that even cursing is blocked, it's all just a one-sided shit show with barely anyone posting there

Yeah but the opposite side of little to no moderating is the free for all BS of Blabbermouth. That site might get regular traffic and high numbers of viewers but no one in their right mind would read the comment section these days.

[SurgicalBrute]

6 minutes ago, FatherAlabaster said:

No Clean Singing will have some cool stuff sometimes. Good indie site but I don't jive with a lot of what their reviewers do

Obviously I have some bias here, but in the last few years there's been some shifting in the type of bands Islander covers, and while he has every right to do that, I've found my tastes and his are starting to divide a lot more than they once did

4 minutes ago, KillaKukumba said:

Yeah but the opposite side of little to no moderating is the free for all BS of Blabbermouth. That site might get regular traffic and high numbers of viewers but no one in their right mind would read the comment section these days.

Never really went to Blabbermouth too often, but I can't imagine it as too different than Metalsucks back in the day

 

[FatherAlabaster]

7 minutes ago, Dead1 said:

I just don't like 

I just don't like their writing style and aesthetic style.  

 

Huh, I never even considered that. I kind of disregard the reviews everywhere, honestly, I'm maybe looking for a general overview of the music at most. I'll get a bug in my ear, skim through some recent posts, click on the links unless the description is a hard no, and go from there. I have a very, very dim view of metal music writing and criticism in general, so my expectations are low.

10 minutes ago, SurgicalBrute said:

Obviously I have some bias here, but in the last few years there's been some shifting in the type of bands Islander covers, and while he has every right to do that, I've found my tastes and his are starting to divide a lot more than they once did

I think I feel the same. He seems to really like a lot of stuff that I think is just ok. The vast majority of the bands I come across anywhere aren't keepers though, and it's pretty much down to me to be in a receptive mood when I'm hearing new bands. Hyperbolic praise barely even registers anymore.

[GoatmasterGeneral]

3 hours ago, SurgicalBrute said:

Understand, I'm not getting my nose out of joint about it. I'm not even talking specifically about Metal Archives, they just happened to be the place to give me the example. As I said originally, I just don't get people who do that in general. What's the point? You didn't like a style that falls outside your normal comfort zone? That's not exactly news at 11. Why bother with writing a review and ripping on something you don't understand? All that does is fuck with other people's perception of an album

Yeah alright, I hear ya, it does seem pretty pointless but you know how people are man. People tend to get fully invested in the shit that they like, but at the same time people love to tear shit down. We've all engaged in some form of badmouthing shit (albums, bands, styles, genres or all of the above) at least to some limited extent. Some of us love nothing better than to expose the Emperor as being naked as if these weren't just our own opinions.

We all choose our sides and then look to our fellow tribesmen for validation. It can break down by old school vs new school, mainstream vs underground, traditional vs extreme, prog vs punk, symphonic vs raw, nu-metal vs war metal, rap vs rock, east coast vs west coast, Florida vs Sweden, black vs death, metalcore vs deathcore, Metallica vs Megadeth, Lee Roth vs Hagar, Ozzy vs Dio, Varg vs Euronymous or there are a million other battle lines that can be drawn. It's like what we do.

And it really seems like most of us feel fairly righeous and justified in dragging the stuff that we do, because in our minds it so clearly has it coming for sucking so hard and for daring to exist while being so completely devoid of any possible redeeming musical value. Most of us don't want to see what we do as being the same as giving Bestial Warlust a 0%. Because when we do it we think "oh well that's different because that thing I'm trashing actually sucks." Even though we're all aware that someone else undoubtedly loves that shit we hate, we just dismiss them as having no taste or being dumb or inexperienced and not knowing any better, just any rationalization we can come up with to allow ourselves to come away feeling superior.

 

[Dead1]

10 minutes ago, FatherAlabaster said:

Huh, I never even considered that. I kind of disregard the reviews everywhere, honestly, I'm maybe looking for a general overview of the music at most. I'll get a bug in my ear, skim through some recent posts, click on the links unless the description is a hard no, and go from there. I have a very, very dim view of metal music writing and criticism in general, so my expectations are low.

I think I feel the same. He seems to really like a lot of stuff that I think is just ok. The vast majority of the bands I come across anywhere aren't keepers though, and it's pretty much down to me to be in a receptive mood when I'm hearing new bands. Hyperbolic praise barely even registers anymore.

 

I used to love reviews in magazines - got onto bands like Kataklysm and Black Tusk courtesy of great reviews in mags like Terrorizer, Iron Fist and Zero Tolerance.

However only mag still around is Zero Tolerance with its tiny font and terrible backgrounds (eg black writing on dark grey background!) and really shit covermount CDs.

---

 

Blabbermouth is like the gossip magazines of hard rock/metal - such as such said this or brought a house or got COVID.

Still they occasionally have an interesting interview.

[AlSymerz]

18 minutes ago, SurgicalBrute said:

Never really went to Blabbermouth too often, but I can't imagine it as too different than Metalsucks back in the day

Blabbermouth is convenient broad spectrum news site they don't do to many of their own interviews, it's mostly link farming and adding a paragraph or two of their own to make it unique content. But the comment section there is just a free for all of bullshit. People abusing each other, people claiming to be knowledgeable on every subject, people with political agendas. Blabbermouth doesn't help itself with the kind of articles it posts, shit attracts shit, but that's the kind of thing that thrives on the internet these days when people think they have a voice.

It's the kind of forum where someone like that madmick or whatever his name was a week or two back would thrive because he could say what he wanted, argue with any number of people, tell everyone else how wrong they are and tell management of said system how stupid they were without being banned. I don't know what sort of person it takes to enjoy reading those forums but there is always plenty of idiots to take it up, there are also people who do it with multiple accounts so they can agree with themselves.

 

[Dead1]

15 minutes ago, GoatmasterGeneral said:

We all choose our sides and then look to our fellow tribesmen for validation. 

 

 

I always tried to give any band I was reviewing an open mind.  That didn't mean I looked at the album as a stand alone entity.  It still got compared to overall scene because you need some sort of qualitative assessment against some sort of standard.

Eg Thrash album 13075 might sound awesome if it was the only thrash album in existence, but when compared to its peers it might just come across as a competent yet totally superfluous Testament clone.

 

 

4 minutes ago, KillaKukumba said:

Blabbermouth is convenient broad spectrum news site they don't do to many of their own interviews, it's mostly link farming and adding a paragraph or two of their own to make it unique content.

 

 

I don't really look at comment section on Blabbermouth too often.  It might link farm but it's a useful collator of these so you don't have to trawl dozens of different websites, most of which are crap.

---

In my ideal world, there'd be a super awesome magazine with great editors and writers and awesome content and that new magazine smell - ahh bliss.  Sadly these are on their way to being consigned to history's dustbin.

 

Indeed Iron Fist was probably my favourite mag of all time.  So sad it's dead.

 

http://www.ironfistzine.com/

[SurgicalBrute]

30 minutes ago, GoatmasterGeneral said:

And it really seems like most of us feel fairly righeous and justified in dragging the stuff that we do, because in our minds it so clearly has it coming for sucking so hard and for daring to exist while being so completely devoid of any possible redeeming musical value. Most of us don't want to see what we do as being the same as giving Bestial Warlust a 0%. Because when we do it we think "oh well that's different because that thing I'm trashing actually sucks." Even though we're all aware that someone else undoubtedly loves that shit we hate, we just dismiss them as having no taste or being dumb or inexperienced and not knowing any better, just any rationalization we can come up with to allow ourselves to come away feeling superior.

Yeah...but even then, I see kind of an extra step between a quick..."that band sucks" or "that genre blows" and actually taking the time to write up a short essay about why you hate a particular album or genre. Like, I'd have to really hate a release to go out of my way to do that...just seems like kind of an overall waste of time and effort to me. I guess some people just have an overdeveloped sense of outrage

29 minutes ago, KillaKukumba said:

Blabbermouth is convenient broad spectrum news site they don't do to many of their own interviews, it's mostly link farming and adding a paragraph or two of their own to make it unique content. But the comment section there is just a free for all of bullshit. People abusing each other, people claiming to be knowledgeable on every subject, people with political agendas. Blabbermouth doesn't help itself with the kind of articles it posts, shit attracts shit, but that's the kind of thing that thrives on the internet these days when people think they have a voice.

It's the kind of forum where someone like that madmick or whatever his name was a week or two back would thrive because he could say what he wanted, argue with any number of people, tell everyone else how wrong they are and tell management of said system how stupid they were without being banned. I don't know what sort of person it takes to enjoy reading those forums but there is always plenty of idiots to take it up, there are also people who do it with multiple accounts so they can agree with themselves.

 

That was literally Metalsucks until about 4 years ago

[GoatmasterGeneral]

8 minutes ago, SurgicalBrute said:

Yeah...but even then, I see kind of an extra step between a quick..."that band sucks" or "that genre blows" and actually taking the time to write up a short essay about why you hate a particular album or genre. Like, I'd have to really hate a release to go out of my way to do that...just seems like kind of an overall waste of time and effort to me. I guess some people just have an overdeveloped sense of outrage

To take the time to type up and submit a zero % review I'd think it'd have to be something that's been marinating for quite some time and the person just had to get it off their chest. Unless it's one dude leaving dozens of goose egg reviews and then he's just an asshole who gets off on being a contrary asshole and pissing people off.

29 minutes ago, RelentlessOblivion said:

Well that is definitely true, Alicia for the most part when we disagree about Penn State discussion is about why we don’t like them not just saying eww you like Bolt Thrower? They suck…

 

Well not anymore anyway

I hadn't heard Alicia got accepted into Penn State. That's awesome, tell her congrats from the GG.

[Dead1]

16 minutes ago, SurgicalBrute said:

That was literally Metalsucks until about 4 years ago

Isn't that when they put that ridiculous manifesto out?

[RelentlessOblivion]

3 hours ago, GoatmasterGeneral said:

To take the time to type up and submit a zero % review I'd think it'd have to be something that's been marinating for quite some time and the person just had to get it off their chest. Unless it's one dude leaving dozens of goose egg reviews and then he's just an asshole who gets off on being a contrary asshole and pissing people off.

I hadn't heard Alicia got accepted into Penn State. That's awesome, tell her congrats from the GG.

This right here is what happens when you’re in a rush and don’t take time to make sure Siri actually heard you correctly. Now I have no idea what the fuck I was trying to say…

[AlSymerz]

That's how I feel when I re-read some of my posts!