NLTM updated

NLTM was updated this weekend. Wait until Fat Freddy sees what's in store!

http://www.nolifetilmetal.com/updates.htm

Oh, no! Close the gate!

Ehehehehehehehe Killen's arcane steele vinyl strikes from above for NLTM!! Nice one Ult!

If anyone is interested, here's my blog from last year about the mighty Killen:

http://fatfreddyscat.hubpages.com/hub/Forgotten-Hard-Rock-Albums-KILLEN-1987

I think Scott was actually harsher on the album than I was!

I've never understood the Killen hate. Yes, it's cheesy, the vocals are weak, the production is poop, but I've heard far worse. There are actually some good tunes on the album, too, like "Victima." I think if some band out there re-recorded these tunes with quality vocals and a good production most people would agree.

Quote :

I've never understood the Killen hate. Yes, it's cheesy, the vocals are weak, the production is poop

The second part of your statement sorta contradicts the first part... haha.  But seriously...

I do realize there were and are worse metal records out there... but the Killen saga has always struck me funny, not only because of my oh-so-slight connection to them back in their "glory days" but also because of the rabid Star Trek following of tr00 Mettle Peepz out there who proclaim that album to be some sort of long lost classic.

In short... I find it hilarious that an album that is so spectacularly average has still somehow managed to attain such legendary status.

The point that the review misses is that it seems to polarize between two extremes. Not everything has to be either flawless or so unbearably shit. If you're going to write an objective review, then you need to weigh both the pros and cons. Almost every release has them, regardless of amount.

Killen's self-titled album, at least to people who generally dig into 1980s underground heavy/power/speed metal, is decent. No, it's not something that every collector should go after. Still, it's a solid album for fans of rawer metal, and I can think up far worse albums that have been given much higher praise on that same site.

I'd rather listen to Killen than Aerosmith or Kiss. Fight me!

Painkiller wrote:

If you're going to write an objective review, then you need to weigh both the pros and cons. Almost every release has them, regardless of amount.

Ult's not writing objective reviews though. He's commenting on his collection, sharing his opinions with us. There's a difference.

MetalGuy71 wrote:

Ult's not writing objective reviews though. He's commenting on his collection, sharing his opinions with us. There's a difference.

The CD Collection & Reviews

A lot of what I've read are indeed intended to be reviews.

Scott listened to the album, he thought it sucked, and he said so. Sooo...how is that not a 'review?'

If you go to a restaurant and you have a crappy meal, do you mention how nice the silverware was or how cute the hostess was when you write a review on Yelp, just to give it some "pros" to balance out the "cons?" No, you write "We ate here, and the food sucked."

Painkiller wrote:

MetalGuy71 wrote:

Ult's not writing objective reviews though. He's commenting on his collection, sharing his opinions with us. There's a difference.

The CD Collection & Reviews

A lot of what I've read are indeed intended to be reviews.

I think Ult would be the first to tell you that these are his thoughts and opinions on the albums he owns and listens to. Yes, they are "reviewed" as such, but seeing how he's not a professional or being paid to do so, he doesn't need to be objective in his statements.

MetalGuy71 wrote:

I think Ult would be the first to tell you that these are his thoughts and opinions on the albums he owns and listens to. Yes, they are "reviewed" as such, but seeing how he's not a professional or being paid to do so, he doesn't need to be objective in his statements.

I never said that it had to be a professional review. There exists a middle ground for everything. I just didn't consider it a very good review, and that has nothing to do with what I think of the album. Feel free to criticize it in the harshest manner possible, but at least go into details as to why it struck a nerve with you. I get that the production and songwriting were attacked, but he didn't really go into further detail. What didn't he like about the riffs? Were they too disjointed? Was the drummer playing too fast or being a carbon copy of Dave Holland? Was the vocalist trying too hard to sound like Rob Halford or King Diamond at times, and he ultimately made himself sound even more ridiculous than when he didn't? That kind of stuff is what makes reviews more interesting for me to read.

It's basically like someone saying that black metal sucks because it's "all noise". Not that much to really discuss.

I'm not a professional at reviewing, but I try to write more in favor of my audience than myself. Subjectivity is to be expected, but isn't it better to also be informative in your reviews? Maybe your review was so effective, it convinced the reader to immediately place an order on the album or give it a few listens and understand exactly what you were inferring to about what you disliked about it.

Reviews are more effective when they're not heavily biased. There will always be subjectivity in reviews, but it's not such a black-and-white thing. I can always provide a few examples of my own.

Anyway, take what you can from this post. I'm sure it'll still fly over your head, but that's alright.

Basically, never treat a review as a soapbox for your own ego and bias.

Fat Freddy wrote:

If you go to a restaurant and you have a crappy meal, do you mention how nice the silverware was or how cute the hostess was when you write a review on Yelp, just to give it some "pros" to balance out the "cons?" No, you write "We ate here, and the food sucked."

Yelp is one of the last places on the Internet that I'd consult for anything worthwhile. Most of those aren't even reviews.

Quote :

Yelp is one of the last places on the Internet that I'd consult for anything worthwhile. Most of those aren't even reviews.

I was merely using Yelp as an illustrative example, but I guess that flew over your head.

...and since I refuse to get into a dick waving contest about this, that'll be it from me on this thread. Peace out y'all.

Fat Freddy wrote:

I was merely using Yelp as an illustrative example, but I guess that flew over your head.

Not at all. You were comparing an artistic review to Yelp. That's what prompted a response.

My 5th grade education has severed me fine all these 40+ years. I understand your point just fine. But I still don't see why Ult has to justify his reviews on his website. He can go into as much or as little detail as he wants. He has no reason to be objective in his comments. It's his site and they are his discs to praise or criticize.

Perhaps you should take it up with him. Send him a detailed email or PM with everything you think his reviews lack. He hasn't had any good additions to his Hall of Shame lately.

Your review of Scott's review seems very subjective, was full of bias and didn't seem written for the audience.

I've seen harsher reviews on many music review sites.

MetalGuy71 wrote:

My 5th grade education has severed me fine all these 40+ years. I understand your point just fine. But I still don't see why Ult has to justify his reviews on his website. He can go into as much or as little detail as he wants. He has no reason to be objective in his comments. It's his site and they are his discs to praise or criticize.

Perhaps you should take it up with him. Send him a detailed email or PM with everything you think his reviews lack. He hasn't had any good additions to his Hall of Shame lately.

I wanted to give feedback, which has nothing to do with "forcing" anyone to do anything. Besides, opinions should be encouraged -- this is a forum, after all. Just as I have every right to criticize a review, the reviewer has every right to disregard my criticism. Doesn't affect me one bit if they do.

Like I said, you either take it or leave it. Again, that's totally fine by me. If someone were to criticize any review of mine, I'd be fine with that. I don't take any of it personally. The fact is that someone out there didn't think that said review was that good, and that person gave his reasons why. I don't see why it needs to be any more convoluted than that.

Nothing that gets posted online is above criticism.

Painkiller wrote:

I never said that it had to be a professional review. There exists a middle ground for everything. I just didn't consider it a very good review, and that has nothing to do with what I think of the album. Feel free to criticize it in the harshest manner possible, but at least go into details as to why it struck a nerve with you. I get that the production and songwriting were attacked, but he didn't really go into further detail. What didn't he like about the riffs? Were they too disjointed? Was the drummer playing too fast or being a carbon copy of Dave Holland? Was the vocalist trying too hard to sound like Rob Halford or King Diamond at times, and he ultimately made himself sound even more ridiculous than when he didn't? That kind of stuff is what makes reviews more interesting for me to read.

It's basically like someone saying that black metal sucks because it's "all noise". Not that much to really discuss.

I'm not a professional at reviewing, but I try to write more in favor of my audience than myself. Subjectivity is to be expected, but isn't it better to also be informative in your reviews? Maybe your review was so effective, it convinced the reader to immediately place an order on the album or give it a few listens and understand exactly what you were inferring to about what you disliked about it.

Reviews are more effective when they're not heavily biased. There will always be subjectivity in reviews, but it's not such a black-and-white thing. I can always provide a few examples of my own.

Anyway, take what you can from this post. I'm sure it'll still fly over your head, but that's alright.

Basically, never treat a review as a soapbox for your own ego and bias.

For those of us who have really good memories of what goes on in this place and for someone who also enjoys showing people for the hypocrites that they are, let's dust off your one sentence reviews of albums from 1984. So, Painkiller here is your REVIEW of Saxon and their album "Crusader" One of the weakest Saxon releases of the 1980s, apart from the amazing title track and a select few hard rock songs that are still miles away from the sucky Rock the Nations.

Since it's great to rake other people through the coals regarding their paragraph to two paragraph critical responses, why don't you elaborate on your one sentence review of this album and pretty much the rest of your 1984 black and white reviews, with a ton of one sentence bias that you gave us. Enjoy folks...

Painkiller's Top 100 albums of 1984.
http://forcesofsteel.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=1476

metalinmyveins wrote:

For those of us who have really good memories of what goes on in this place and for someone who also enjoys showing people for the hypocrites that they are, let's dust off your one sentence reviews of albums from 1984. So, Painkiller here is your REVIEW of Saxon and their album "Crusader" One of the weakest Saxon releases of the 1980s, apart from the amazing title track and a select few hard rock songs that are still miles away from the sucky Rock the Nations.

Since it's great to rake other people through the coals regarding their paragraph to two paragraph critical responses, why don't you elaborate on your one sentence review of this album and pretty much the rest of your 1984 black and white reviews, with a ton of one sentence bias that you gave us. Enjoy folks...

Painkiller's Top 100 albums of 1984.
http://forcesofsteel.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=1476

I'd like to thank you for reposting my list here. No, it was never meant to be a serious list in the first place, although there was some effort taken to list all of those albums in their order. I'm proud of most of the placements, and I will not apologize for posting it. Feel free to link it everywhere you go. It's staying on the Internet. I will not delete it.

Now, I believe that I must correct you on one thing. Lists generally aren't that in-depth. Mine is no exception. If I had to put several paragraphs into each listing, then that would've been too much writing. At the very least, I wrote my thoughts on each of my picks. Some were more vague than others, but again, most lists aren't that elaborate. I never hid the fact that I'm not great at making lists, and that was one of my few attempts. Again, thank you so much for reposting it.

Likewise, I think that you're in the wrong to be comparing a list to a review. Feel free to dig up any of the individual reviews that I've posted there, and get back to me on that. We can do this all day long. I really don't mind.

Want some examples of in-depth reviews that I've written, Metalinmyveins? I've reviewed albums that are good, average, and bad.

Feel free to point out any hypocrisy of mine. Again, it's on you for convoluting what was initially feedback of my own.

Painkiller wrote:

metalinmyveins wrote:

For those of us who have really good memories of what goes on in this place and for someone who also enjoys showing people for the hypocrites that they are, let's dust off your one sentence reviews of albums from 1984. So, Painkiller here is your REVIEW of Saxon and their album "Crusader" One of the weakest Saxon releases of the 1980s, apart from the amazing title track and a select few hard rock songs that are still miles away from the sucky Rock the Nations.

Since it's great to rake other people through the coals regarding their paragraph to two paragraph critical responses, why don't you elaborate on your one sentence review of this album and pretty much the rest of your 1984 black and white reviews, with a ton of one sentence bias that you gave us. Enjoy folks...

Painkiller's Top 100 albums of 1984.
http://forcesofsteel.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=1476

I'd like to thank you for reposting my list here. No, it was never meant to be a serious list in the first place, although there was some effort taken to list all of those albums in their order. I'm proud of most of the placements, and I will not apologize for posting it. Feel free to link it everywhere you go. It's staying on the Internet. I will not delete it.

Now, I believe that I must correct you on one thing. Lists generally aren't that in-depth. Mine is no exception. If I had to put several paragraphs into each listing, then that would've been too much writing. At the very least, I wrote my thoughts on each of my picks. Some were more vague than others, but again, most lists aren't that elaborate. I never hid the fact that I'm not great at making lists, and that was one of my few attempts. Again, thank you so much for reposting it.

Likewise, I think that you're in the wrong to be comparing a list to a review. Feel free to dig up any of the individual reviews that I've posted there, and get back to me on that. We can do this all day long. I really don't mind.

Want some examples of in-depth reviews that I've written, Metalinmyveins? I've reviewed albums that are good, average, and bad.

Feel free to point out any hypocrisy of mine. Again, it's on you for convoluting what was initially feedback of my own.

I kind of new you would find a way to spin this whole thing, I.E. a not so serious list versus that of a review. So, it's now been determined that Scott's lists, sorry I mean REVIEWS have to be serious, because you have determined he pours his blood, sweat and tears into it and yours are just lists. Essentially, he should be held up to a higher standard and your lists should meet no standards at all, so that nobody can find any fault with them. Okay.

metalinmyveins wrote:

I kind of new you would find a way to spin this whole thing, I.E. a not so serious list versus that of a review. So, it's now been determined that Scott's lists, sorry I mean REVIEWS have to be serious, because you have determined he pours his blood, sweat and tears into it and yours are just lists. Essentially, he should be held up to a higher standard and your lists should meet no standards at all, so that nobody can find any fault with them. Okay.

Now, hold on just a minute. There's nothing being "spun" here. I'm faulting you for comparing two different things. I was commenting about a particular review, and you linked to a list. No one wants to read a wall of text for each of the hundred albums that were listed.

You should've reposted any of my individual reviews, which would've made the comparison fair. I never implied that he should be held to a higher standard, and his lists that I've seen are really not that much better than the ones that I've made. I will give the man credit for maintaining his sites and other projects for so long, but I get the feeling that you are merely white knighting for someone who hasn't said a word in this thread yet. None of you get to speak up for him. He just happens to be another person who likes music, and anyone criticizing anything that someone's written is totally different from criticizing that person.

It's almost as if anyone who has a negative opinion about Ultimatum's music will get chased out of here, regardless of how it was expressed. That's the kind of thing that makes forums very one-sided, and I will not feign compliments for anyone because they're either my friend or otherwise highly respected in a particular community. If they post something that I disagree with or don't think adds up, then I will call out such a post. I am not sorry for my opinions.

None of my reviews or lists are above criticism, either, and I welcome any input from other people who wish to help me write better reviews next time around. I've never denied the fact that the first couple of reviews that I put together were amateurish, but over time, you can improve. Take note that I'm directing this to reviewers in general. The point of constructive criticism is to help people write even more entertaining reviews. Then again, if you think that an artistic review is no different from that of a typical Yelp review, then I don't have much else to say about it.

"objective"
adjective
1.(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts: Contrasted with "subjective"

"Objective" reviews are useless.(IMHO) How can somebody express how they really feel about what they saw, heard, or experienced ? The only purpose I see in them personally is that the individual writing them likes to hear themselves talk or assumes they are making some profound artistic statement. If the premise of an "objective" review for a music release is to state facts. Your limiting yourself to stuff like who played on the album, where & how the album was recorded, and the names of the songs. Then you have things like chords making up the progression of the main riffs, the scales used in the solos, the vocal melodies, and the time signatures/changes in the arrangements. That may be interesting to some to an extent, but in the end....people who read reviews usually want to know if something is good or bad. Once that is substantiated, no matter how eloquent it is stated, grammatically correct, or artistically expounded upon....it then becomes subjective.

"subjective"
adjective
1.based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions: Contrasted with objective.

James B. wrote:

"objective"
adjective
1.(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts: Contrasted with "subjective"

"Objective" reviews are useless.(IMHO)  How can somebody express how they really feel about what they saw, heard, or experienced ?  The only purpose I see in them personally is that the individual writing them likes to hear themselves talk or assumes they are making some profound artistic statement.  If the premise of an "objective" review for a music release is to state facts. Your limiting yourself to stuff like who played on the album, where & how the album was recorded, and the names of the songs. Then you have things like chords making up the progression of the main riffs, the scales used in the solos, the vocal melodies, and the time signatures/changes in the arrangements.  That may be interesting to some to an extent, but in the end....people who read reviews usually want to know if something is good or bad.  Once that is substantiated, no matter how eloquent it is stated, grammatically correct, or artistically expounded upon....it then becomes subjective.

"subjective"
adjective
1.based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions: Contrasted with objective.

I think that you might've gotten a few things mixed up. I'll try to clarify.

1. No review is ever fully objective. What I was discussing previously was to keep a fair balance between objective and subjective points. I'm all for outright praising or slamming an album, but is nearly anything ever released only within the two polar opposites of the rating scale? If you've read my Opus Eponymous review, I've made it clear that I actively dislike the album's concepts and find many of its songs to be utterly lame, despite acknowledging that they were in a way successful at what they wanted to do. Their musicians are fit for playing that kind of music, which I can't deny. They can play this sort of music much more effectively than Judas Priest or Kreator. That's being objective. The subjective part is me claiming that the songs themselves do nothing for me, and going into reasons as to why I'm not into them. It's just like why I think that Dream Theater is such a boring band, although they have evidently talented musicians.

2. Just as there are people who consult reviews to know if an album is worth their time, there are those who care more about what the author thinks about the album than considering the album itself. I was arguing against the latter group. This is especially true when you're browsing through reviews on Metal Archives. A lot of the reviewers are very biased, and I'm surprised that there are some very awful reviews accepted. I may think that Master of Puppets is a pretty average album that's given too much credit in thrash metal, but giving it a null score tells me that the person reviewing it has a stick up their ass about that album to want to be heavily biased and bash it to please their ego. The album definitely has its moments. The musicians are far from drifters, as they each show effort in their playing. That's still objective. Was Lars Ulrich showing effort on the album? If you look at it from a neutral perspective, he was. I may think that he's a pretty shitty drummer, but he wasn't just sitting around and doing nothing throughout the whole album. It goes on like that.

Personal / historic opinions are to me the most interesting when it comes to sites like nltm. Throughout the years the site went more and more into somewhat objecting reviewing, and to be honest, I find most of it rather boring read and I hardly even start reading when I see some long ass paragraph in front of me.
Remember King God Space? His site was about 1% objective, highly offensive, funny as hell and I still frequently visit it today (through archive.org) - as I do some of old nltm pages of bands I discovered through that page (sure was a lot of these ).

Crusader kicks ass.

Painkiller wrote:

metalinmyveins wrote:

I kind of new you would find a way to spin this whole thing, I.E. a not so serious list versus that of a review. So, it's now been determined that Scott's lists, sorry I mean REVIEWS have to be serious, because you have determined he pours his blood, sweat and tears into it and yours are just lists. Essentially, he should be held up to a higher standard and your lists should meet no standards at all, so that nobody can find any fault with them. Okay.

Now, hold on just a minute. There's nothing being "spun" here. I'm faulting you for comparing two different things. I was commenting about a particular review, and you linked to a list. No one wants to read a wall of text for each of the hundred albums that were listed.

Nobody wants to read a wall of text for each album? No, people with ADD don't like to read a long review or those who don't like that band don't want to read that long of a review

Painkiller wrote:

You should've reposted any of my individual reviews, which would've made the comparison fair. I never implied that he should be held to a higher standard, and his lists that I've seen are really not that much better than the ones that I've made. I will give the man credit for maintaining his sites and other projects for so long, but I get the feeling that you are merely white knighting for someone who hasn't said a word in this thread yet. None of you get to speak up for him. He just happens to be another person who likes music, and anyone criticizing anything that someone's written is totally different from criticizing that person.

Your quote to Fat Freddy: Basically, never treat a review as a soapbox for your own ego and bias. Yet, in the paragraph directly above you say that his (Scott) lists/Reviews are really not that much better than yours. Who cares! Why should it be a pissing contest to see who is more articulate regarding their thoughts concerning anything on here? If this were a concern of Scott's, he wouldn't be asking everyone to look for misspellings and other mistakes after he posts his reviews. Do you know why most people on here will defend Scott over someone like yourself? It's because Scott tends to be much more diplomatic than someone like yourself. I've never engaged in a conversation with you, because I see you as being very abrasive.

Here are two pot shots by yourself that never needed to be said, but you did it anyhow...

"I'd rather listen to Killen than Aerosmith or Kiss. Fight me!"

Though I didn't paste what you said before this, the argument you were making was cogent up until this point, but then you took the proverbial pot shot. You could have stated any other bands, but you didn't, because you know that Scott absolutely loves both and are his favorites. Newsflash, there happens to be quite a few bands that people talk about on here that I don't get their love of either, but I don't find the need to let that person know how overrated that band is, UNLESS the main idea behind the thread was asking us our feelings regarding that particular band.

"Anyway, take what you can from this post. I'm sure it'll still fly over your head, but that's alright."

This was in your post to Fat Freddy. Did you really need to say that to him? So, you're questioning his intelligence?

Painkiller wrote:

It's almost as if anyone who has a negative opinion about Ultimatum's music will get chased out of here, regardless of how it was expressed. That's the kind of thing that makes forums very one-sided, and I will not feign compliments for anyone because they're either my friend or otherwise highly respected in a particular community. If they post something that I disagree with or don't think adds up, then I will call out such a post. I am not sorry for my opinions.

This is an example of the feel pity for me syndrome that can be pervasive on this forum from a few peeps or those who enjoy playing the role of the disenfranchised. Your problem is NOT that you disagree with Scott or anyone else, but it all stems from your tone. I love it when people go against the grain. The problem is, you can't play the role of the protagonist and the antagonist AND then have people not recognize this. You do recognize this in yourself, correct? Because if you didn't, there wouldn't be any need for some of those silly pot shots which you take on a consistent basis. You seem to be an articulate person, who also seems to relish the role of sh!t stirrer. I'll give you an example of someone who enjoys playing the role of the antagonist on this forum. This would be Eyesore (Ken). The guy plays it to the hilt. He even has an avatar with a middle finger to us all, which states Eyesore wins! I love it! With that being said, he doesn't try to pretend to be something else and he understands that he offends people. I think every forum needs this type of individual, but then own it, and don't try to play both sides, as it's just comes off as being disingenuous.

Painkiller wrote:

None of my reviews or lists are above criticism, either, and I welcome any input from other people who wish to help me write better reviews next time around. I've never denied the fact that the first couple of reviews that I put together were amateurish, but over time, you can improve. Take note that I'm directing this to reviewers in general. The point of constructive criticism is to help people write even more entertaining reviews. Then again, if you think that an artistic review is no different from that of a typical Yelp review, then I don't have much else to say about it.

I hate to tell you, but some of the reviews on here are as bad as those typical Yelp reviews. Then again, there are some absolutely wonderful reviews, which make me want to check out a band or an album because of how passionate their thoughts were on the subject.