Reviews at Metal Archives

I don't know about most of you all, but it seems to me that most reviews I read at Metal Archives this last year or maybe even longer seems to full of crap. I bet I disagree with 90% of the negative reviews there.

Metal-archives is one of the worst sites on the net. Sure, the info on discographies and band history is awesome, but the site is just as bad as Blabbermouth. Reviewers don't review there; whiny teenage turds do. And old, bitter, if-it-wasn't-made-before-1987-it's gay adults do as well.

The forum is an atrocious display of idiocy from all corners.

It's a great website where everyone gets a say.

i have no problems with the site, however i never read the reviews.

I write reviews for metal-archives, and am neither a whiney teenager or a gay adult...I actually find it funny how bitter people get when their favourite bands aren't drooled over by other fans.

Sure, I don't like the elititism/purism, but even for the most hated albums (St. Anger, Risk etc.) there's always at least one positive review.

Where else would you go for reviews? Amazon or Rateyourmusic, where there are one or two intelligient reviews for an album and the rest all say "great album, very nicle meldodies on teh keyboardz 8.5/10 KNOCK IT BACK", or perhaps a magazine like Metalhammer or Terrorizer, where every album only gets one view, and that view always seems to be inline with what the underground WANT to hear.

LMAo

I'm with Eyesore on this one. Most the reviews I've read on Metal Archives are just... useless. Now, don't get me wrong, there are some well written reviews that have helped me out, but when someone gives 8% to a Skyclad album and just whines about how 'angry' it makes him, it makes me wonder why he even bothers writing anything. A 'review' like that doesn't help anyone.

I like the site and use it, but I don't generally read the reviews.

There are other sites where you can leave reviews on CDs, such as BrutalMetal.com, HeavyHarmonies.com, HeavensMetal.com, Firestream.net. I often read opinions from these sites.

However, for metal, Metal-Archives is the most complete.

Smindas wrote:

I'm with Eyesore on this one. Most the reviews I've read on Metal Archives are just... useless. Now, don't get me wrong, there are some well written reviews that have helped me out, but when someone gives 8% to a Skyclad album and just whines about how 'angry' it makes him, it makes me wonder why he even bothers writing anything. A 'review' like that doesn't help anyone.

If there's a review that doesn't focus on the music and give legit reasons to back up the rating then report it in the reviews forum and it will be deleted.

I never go there. I read reviews at digitalmetal.com, blistering.com or usually in magazines. I'll have to visit Metal Archives.

I didn't say that I didn't like the site. I really like the site itself. It's just that most of the reviews that I read are so darn negative, that I often wonder if that's what the reviewer set out to do in the first place. Having said that, very rarely do I use a review to determine whether to buy an album or not.

I wish that I could say the same thing about food as I can say about metal. I like most of it, even the stuff that other people say is not worth listening to.

bgast1 wrote:

I didn't say that I didn't like the site. I really like the site itself. It's just that most of the reviews that I read are so darn negative, that I often wonder if that's what the reviewer set out to do in the first place. Having said that, very rarely do I use a review to determine whether to buy an album or not.

I wish that I could say the same thing about food as I can say about metal. I like most of it, even the stuff that other people say is not worth listening to.

Maybe you're just looking at generally unpopular albums then, because the positive reviews far outweight the negative.

I've written some reviews for there, but I stopped after awhile. Elitism IS a big thing there, one or two of my reviews were denied because the site admin disagreed with me. Bunch of assholes I say!

Rateyourmusic is great site for reviews.

Theirs more character and gonzo writing in the reviews than the straight faced mopey wannabe reviewers who write for Metal Archives or any of those other big metal review sites.

As JonFox would say knock it back!

DeathCult wrote:

I've written some reviews for there, but I stopped after awhile. Elitism IS a big thing there, one or two of my reviews were denied because the site admin disagreed with me. Bunch of assholes I say!

That's simply completely false. Everytime someone claims this, they put the review in the forum and it always turns out that it was poorly written. The only time disagreeing happens is when the description is completely out - describing Rhapsody as raw, or describing Scorpions as thrash, for instance. If there are positive reviews for St. Anger that got accpeted then it's safe to say that the mods opinions don't come into it.

You're full of smurf poo.

Muloc7253 wrote:

DeathCult wrote:

I've written some reviews for
there, but I stopped after awhile. Elitism IS a big thing there, one or
two of my reviews were denied because the site admin disagreed with me.
Bunch of assholes I say!

That's simply completely
false. Everytime someone claims this, they put the review in the forum
and it always turns out that it was poorly written. The only time
disagreeing happens is when the description is completely out -
describing Rhapsody as raw, or describing Scorpions as thrash, for
instance. If there are positive reviews for St. Anger that got accpeted
then it's safe to say that the mods opinions don't come into it.

Kmorg (owner of Metal-Metropolis) has had several reviews denied on Metal-Archives.

Well, the guy openly stated in the denial email that the release "didn't need anymore negative reviews" which really pissed me off because I had taken the time not only to listen to the album, but write that long ass review as well.

DeathCult wrote:

Well, the guy openly stated in the denial email that
the release "didn't need anymore negative reviews" which really pissed
me off because I had taken the time not only to listen to the album,
but write that long ass review as well.

What album was it? You should post it on BrutalMetal.com, if it's not too long.

If it is long, post it here.

ult

It was Metallica's Black Album.

Muloc7253 wrote:

DeathCult wrote:

I've written some reviews for there, but I stopped after awhile. Elitism IS a big thing there, one or two of my reviews were denied because the site admin disagreed with me. Bunch of assholes I say!

That's simply completely false. Everytime someone claims this, they put the review in the forum and it always turns out that it was poorly written. The only time disagreeing happens is when the description is completely out - describing Rhapsody as raw, or describing Scorpions as thrash, for instance. If there are positive reviews for St. Anger that got accpeted then it's safe to say that the mods opinions don't come into it.

No offense, man, but they list In Flames and Soilwork as a modern rock bands now. That's elitism to a T! And that's not the only example. There's little childish digs all over that site.

In Flames and Soilwork are modern rock? Pffft! Oh, but they're popular, and Insane Clown Posse fans might listen to them. Their CDs are sold in Hot Topic! Please. Both bands are still melodic death metal bands.

I personally love the site. They have bands on there that I have never came close to hearing about. From the legends to some band from Holland who may have put out one three song demo in 1983.

Eyesore wrote:

Muloc7253 wrote:

DeathCult wrote:

I've written some reviews for there, but I stopped after awhile. Elitism IS a big thing there, one or two of my reviews were denied because the site admin disagreed with me. Bunch of assholes I say!

That's simply completely false. Everytime someone claims this, they put the review in the forum and it always turns out that it was poorly written. The only time disagreeing happens is when the description is completely out - describing Rhapsody as raw, or describing Scorpions as thrash, for instance. If there are positive reviews for St. Anger that got accpeted then it's safe to say that the mods opinions don't come into it.

No offense, man, but they list In Flames and Soilwork as a modern rock bands now. That's elitism to a T! And that's not the only example. There's little childish digs all over that site.

In Flames and Soilwork are modern rock? Pffft! Oh, but they're popular, and Insane Clown Posse fans might listen to them. Their CDs are sold in Hot Topic! Please. Both bands are still melodic death metal bands.

I personally see new In Flames and Soilwork as metal, but I can understand why many don't. That's not just limited to the Archives, many metal fans, especially the old guard, don't consider new In Flames to be metal.

But heck, I consider Slipknot and Korn to be metal, so what do I know?

But Muloc, you're right. That's one of the issues with Metal Archives - the site itself is brilliant, but a lot of the reviews are wrapped up in their own sense of metal knowledge and classification. As much as the more true (read: elititest) metal fans don't want to admit it, In Flames, Soilwork, Slipknot and Korn are all breeds of the same metal beast. Denying that is like saying that eels aren't part of the fish species. Sure, they're a little different to say a trout or salmon, but they're still a type of fish. Except I bet with fishermen, you don't get debates like "this eel isn't a true fish, it's just a modern sea creature!"

mc666 wrote:

i have no problems with the site, however i never read the reviews.

Agreed. I never read the reviews or visit the forums.