Metal Reviews

Maybe. But maybe not. I mean, seriously...on any quotation system, a cd that as a quote higher than 90% is a cd I should absolutly spend my 20$ on.

Yet, if I used this philosophy here, I would be spending 80$/week on metal albums. Anyway, the only thing I'm saying here is that by the quotation system that is supposed to be used, you reviewers tend to quote too high. That's just my opinion

And, btw, I'll stick to my litteral definition: "A masterpiece is an extremely good work of art"


Yeah ! 4 pages ! We made it !

I think you know the least about music out of everyone on this site—combined!

Radagast wins again!

(But well I'm not surprised, he's been on a winning streak lately. Everything he says comes out right one way or another!)

No. That's incorrect. There are three albums rated 90 or above this week. The genres are:

Modern Alternative Prog-Metal
Melodic Hard Rock
Alternative Metal

If a black metal album is rated 90 or above, should I absolutely spend my money on it? I don't like black metal! Suggesting the score indicates what any reader should do is not very accurate; nor does it mean anything because at the end of the day the review reflects what the reviewer hears/likes. You may love power metal, a reviewer may review a power metal album and rate it a 95/100; does this mean you'll like it?


No. I'd say we don't quote too high. I'd say we put the time in and really listen to an album and really give our opinion—our very accurate opinion. You're welcome to visit other review sites with reviews like this:


How many times do you think this guy listened to this album? He doesn't know if the band (Mahavatar) is American, nor does he know if its their debut CD or not. We review albums; our scores are accurate (except on this Evanescence review).


Well you're going to continue to be disappointed because very few albums are masterpieces. Taking the world too literally only sets you up for disappointment.

I think this website rates too highly because a score of 95+ should be used for bands like Death, Edge Of Sanity, Metallica, Ulver, Opeth, Nevermore, Tool, etc that are basically must-hear for anyone interested in metal. 90-95 would be for stuff like Mastodon, Arsis, Agalloch, Drudkh or whatever. I just don't really think stuff like Threat Signal or Into Eternity should have gotten over 85-90, and I think they did because the only way to get something noticed among the other high scores here is by making your score ridiculously high. Right now I just look at genres/band names instead of scores.

(depending on the reviewers taste of course)

Also I don't think he was complaining about the quality of reviews, just the high-ness of the scores.

But my point is that generally as a collective we do in-depth reviews; we really give the albums a good listen and our scores are accurate. The notion that 95+ should be relegated to only a certain amount of bands is about as ridiculous as trashing an album and then giving it a decent score because it sold well.

I think your "theory" is idiotic, especially coming from someone who clearly doesn't listen to music long enough to give a strong, knowledgable opinion on it.

I dunno, just the fact that like 40-50% of albums here get 85 or higher just makes the scores feel too high to me. Also it seems like very little gets in between 50 and 75-80 when thats where I think the majority should be.

That's because only a few of us review albums that are sent in from bands. The rest review stuff they like. It still doesn't mean the review scores are inaccurate.

Have you ever read any of the reviews you've posted here?

Yeah, reviewing stuff you like or hate is easier than stuff youre neutral on

Ok, come on now, don't be dumb enough to pretend you don't undertsand what I'm saying or where I'm coming from with this "critic". If you give a 90% score to an album is because YOU think that it's awesome an RECOMMAND ME to buy it. Isn't it what a review is supposed to be ? Distinguishing greatness from crap.



Yeah...? And..? Last week there was 5, and the genre were:
Barbaric, Epic, Swaggering Metal
Grandiose, Powerful Metal
Heavy Metal
NWOAHM / Thrash / Noisecore
Hard Rock/80s Rock

Duh ! I know I don't like all the genres and I'm not going to buy a metalcore album when I hate the genre.


And I'm never gonna critic the review, you all put great effort in it and you're all doing a great job. I'm saying the quote at the end tends to be too high. Hell, a score between 80 and 90 is still supposed to represent something that is OUTSTANDING ! And 70 -80 VERY GOOD.

I don't know if you buy all the albums you critic but maybe if you spent 20 $ on each one you review, you would score more accuratly. And maybe you quote too fast also, I don't know. Again I'm not talking about the review.

I don't think after listening to it for 2 years you would still quote as high as you do the first time. Yet, something post 90, im my opinion, is an album you should absolutly own (if you're a fan of the genre duh !). To explain what I'm trying to say with this (editorial ? ), I'm gonna quote Marty in his critic of Helloween's Kepper of the seven keys: The Legacy (which, btw, is my favorite reviewer on this site):

I think something above 90 shouldn't be easily classifiable in a certain genre unless its old enough to be one of the first of the genre

I agree with him. I'm guilty of the same thing, but I'm not a reviewer. The reviews are great, but the rating system is completely off. BUT, I will say I prefer well written reviews to random high ratings.

But you're suggesting that if we give a review a 90 or above that everyone has to check it out. That's retarded. I don't care if someone says a black metal album is the greatest album ever recorded, I'm not going to buy it.

If you like black metal, then yeah, check it out.


And that's my point! How can you determine what is an accurate score for a metalcore album when you just admitted that you hate the genre?


ALL of my scores and quotes are accurate. All of them. I'm not some part-time music fan like too many people out there.


You're starting to lose me here. You're now speculating on how we'll feel about an album two years after we hear it? Are you kidding? That's fucking ridiculous. We review the album based on what we think and hear at that moment. We can't speculate on what we'll think about it in two years; we can't know what we'll think! Scoring an album with that in mind would be totally inaccurate—which is funny considering you're saying our scores are innacurate now.


Again, this means nothing. Not a single reviewer of any medium can know what they'd think about an album years in the future. This concept makes little logical sense.

(And no offense to Marty, but I don't feel that if that album got so much criticism—which I don't understand anyway—he'd be saying that now.)

Ok...this is my final post because this is getting nowhere. All I'm saying is a score as high as 90 should be reserved for an album that is an album of the year contender. Something you just can't get enough of and that you think is the greatest thing you've heard in a while.

...

There's still one masterpiece a week in the power metal world which is too much.

There shouldn't be more of like 5 of those a year. Maybe more, if you really listen to EVERYTHING. Hell, my all time favorite band is Iron Maiden...still I would only score maximum 4 of their albums above 90.

You said:


You know what ? That's the point...

I've never questioned the crux of this band originating in Amy Lee and Ben Moody. My complaint is that now she refers to Evanescence as a "band". It's the first time it's felt like a "band" to her. She's thrown away what made this band great and that would be the musical guidance and sensabilities of Ben Moody. He made them great.....now they're boring and mediocre. She has free reign and if this CD represents the best of her creativeness she'll be saying "cream and sugar in that coffee sir?" faster than you can imagine.



My statement here was not that I expected an exact copy of "Fallen" but I expected better than the terrible drivel that was released in "The Open Door".

Again my comments are not directed toward her lyrics. It's the package in which they're wrapped. "Going Under" certainly has lyrics about a terrible relationship but that song is not piano driven, meloncholy, let me fall on my sword, Hot Topic goth pop. This entire CD is.


No not ridiculous. You seem to be the kind of fan that will never ever question what one of your favorite performers produces. Amy could lay the biggest musical turd ( which I think she has) and you eat it up and say...more please. There's good and bad music. This is just plain bad music with little to no direction. Ben Moody supplied the direction, the hooks, the riffs, and simply what made them great. Remember when Christina dyed her hair black? Put some Hot Topic clothes on her and have her give a rough vocal performance and you have the new and improved Evanescence.

MetalWizard, don't make assumptions about what kind of music fan I am! I question everything a band does; but I also try to never have expectations because expecations are hardly ever met or exceeded. If it's good I will say so; if not, I will also say so.

And like you suggest people should question bands and their decisions, I think it's more important to question "fans" and their stupid comments. After all, the fan is what keeps the music world moving along the tracks. To suggest Ben Moody gave the band direction is insane. This album is very consistent in style! And that style would be Amy Lee's style, I presume, since Moody left. But even with that in mind, the album does not stray from the formula of Fallen, it only adds to it.

But let's go over the tracks on Fallen and The Open Door, just for comparison.

Fallen:

01. Going Under (contains piano, electronics, and orchestration)
02. Bring Me To Life (contains piano, electronics, an asshole rapping, and orchestration)
03. Everybody's Fool (contains acoustics, piano, electronics, orchestration)
04. My Immortal (contains only piano and orchestration)
05. Haunted (contains electronics and orchestration)
06. Tourniquet (contains keyboard, electronics, and orchestration)
07. Imaginary (contains acoustics, piano, and orchestration)
08. Taking Over Me (contains piano and orchestration)
09. Hello (contains only piano and orchestration)
10. My Last Breath (contains piano, electronics, and orchestration)
11. Whisper (contains piano, electronics, and orchestration)

The Open Door:

01. Sweet Sacrifice (contains orchestration)
02. Call Me When You're Sober (contains piano, electronics, and orchestration)
03. Weight Of The World (contains acoustics, piano, electronics, and orchestration)
04. Lithium (contains piano and orchestration)
05. Cloud Nine (contains piano, electronics, and orchestration)
06. Snow White Queen (contains piano and electronics)
07. Lacrymosa (contains piano, electronics, and orchestration)
08. Like You (contains piano, electronics, and orchestration)
09. Lose Control (contains piano and electronics)
10. The Only One (contains piano, electronics, and orchestration)
11. Your Star (contains piano, electronics, and orchestration)
12. All That I'm Living For (contains piano, electronics, and orchestration)
13. Good Enough (contains only piano and orchestration)

Frankly, I'm shocked that they changed so drastically.

Not to take the focus off the debate, but if it's "a whole album full of self-pitying, oh poor me maudling," then shouldn't it be called "emo-goth" instead of "pop goth?" Pop can be fun, but an emo release is usually "a whole album full of self-pitying, oh poor me maudling."

Anyway, I haven't heard this release, so I'm not commenting on the songs. However, I'm repulsed by whining, so I think I'll probably be passing on it...

It's not that at all, though. "Call Me When You're Sober" is the only song even remotely like that.

Art fag.

I don't really take the quation system too seriously, I hardly ever look at it in fact. But my point was that a score of 60 was way out of line with the actual review. Whether you'd like to call a score of 60 fair, average, good, it doesn't matter. It still wouldn't fit with the impression I got when reading the actual text itself.

As for the site overquoting, I dunno. Since there's different reviewers doing different albums, surely they would each have the right to quote an album high if they think it deserves a high score. It's not like they'd have to look into what the other albums of the week got and then think: "Hmm, there's already three reviews this week with a score of 90 or higher. Maybe I'll have to lower my score a little, otherwise it'd look like we're overquoting."

I believe that most of the time the reviewers do give the records the score that they feel that it deserves, whether you'd think it's too high or not. It's all a matter of opinion. Then there's reviews like this one, which raise the score based on album sales, which is obviously the wrong way to go.