Metal Reviews

You're welcome to comment on:


Click here to see the review.

I didn't really expect another Rheingold, and indeed this one is certainly not a mindblowing masterpiece. Very well crafted, though.
Did anyone notice a certain similarity between the riff in Grave in the No Man's Land and a certain Enter Sandman? ;)

yeah, there's sure a little Sandman in that riff... it's very obvious on the begining when it's only accompanied by bass & drums ! so, shall we call them sell-outs now ? :twisted:

Grave digger never really did it for me....I bought Excalibur...and promptly sold it (i'm not even sure if thats what the album was called) Anyway..they kind of reminded me of early Running Wild...but far suckier.

I guess I'm on the other side of the fence here. I was somewhat disappointed in Rheingold as some of the riffs seemed rehashed and the direction they had headed on The Grave Digger seemed lost, replaced by more standard GD-fare. This is not to say that Rheingold wasn't expertly crafted, it's a great album but, it seemed like they stepped backward for the first time into a trusted formula. Well, The Last Supper puts GD back on track IMO. The album is packed with some of the freshest sounding riffs GD have come up with in a long time. The choruses took more time to be absorbed but they have a melodic twist that grabs and doesn't let go. A slight improvement over Rheingold and probably a 92/100 over all. I dig it. 8)

I don't have it yet, but I refuse to believe it is as bad as the score indicates.

Wait a second here... My score shouldn't make you think that it's bad. Maybe there are too many 80's and 90's thrown around here to give that impression, but a 67 to me literally means "fair to good."

There are a lot of very good moments on this disc. However, there are some dull moments and other qualities that detract from my enjoyment of the album. As a result, I can't honestly give this album a very good score, even though I love Grave Digger's music.

I would say this with any review: Don't pay as much attention to the score, and focus more on the body of the review. From that, form your own thoughts. I think several paragraphs are a lot more useful for you guys than a lonely number at the bottom of the review...

I rarely waste time reading reviews of CDs that I will get no matter what. I know what Grave Digger are all about and I heard one of the songs from the new album. To me it sounded like their sound was closer to the Excalibur CD.

But I wish you guys would give a more consistant scores--some mediocre stuff is getting 90's and even 100's, while some excellent albums are getting 70's (Jag Panzer), 60's (Space Odyssey) and even 50's (Iced Earth)

What is "mediocre"? What is "excellent"?

It's all a matter of the individual's opinion. Every time I read a review I can agree and disagree to various extents, but there is no "wrong" and no "right" here... just different people with different ideas.

There is no way anyone in their right mind can agree that Glorious Burden is 50/100

so let's say some reviewers are a bit too enthusiastic on the scores.... one thing is true, if you always say excellent when it's only good what are you gonna say when it's excellent ? that it's divine or that sort of thing ? and when it's really divine music.... well you have no words for it... same goes with the rates, if you rate 100/100 an album you thought was very good how will you rate an album that stroked you by its genius ? :roll:

sometimes I think reviewer's personal biases get in the way a bit. For example Running Wild is very good, I like them, but the 3 albums with above 90% that is crazy, they are more likely somewhere in the upper 70s and mid 80s.

I'm gonna chime in here. If you see a review by me of an album in the seventies, that means I really like the album and either bought it, or will buy it. Eighty means this is outstanding, go out of your way to get it, 90's is essential, get it or die.

Sixties means that there are good moments like Mike said, but just as many dull ones, Fifties, avg and unremarkable, everything under that, dont waste your time.


Those are Ben's standards.

Ben

Some guy was bitching about why Iced Earth's last album got a 50/100. Well I'll tell you why. Because they suck and they've sucked for a long time now. Thats just an opinion as I'm sure there are plenty of people here that see them as the new Iron maiden. But maiden has creativity and energy...not boring riffs and songs about 9/11. IE is boring, so is Grave Digger. Now the next time I check this board, I expect a string of insults and useless fag banter about how wrong I am.

sorry, but this is just laughable, especially from someone who thinks Lost Horizon is so great, when they are way more boring than any of the bands here mentioned.

you can laugh...free country right? I agree that it is easy to laugh at LH because they all look like morons...but I do enjoy their music. Its a cosmic odyssey each time I pop the disc in....but take note that its their disc...and not Iced Earth's

I am not laughing at Lost Horizon, I am laughing at you "cosmic odyssey" :roll: What a bozo.

A lot of people were badly let down by that one... I personally dig it, but I would never claim to be more right or smarter than those who don't.
The core of the question is that I don't really give a damn if people agree or disagree with my tastes, I just stick to what I enjoy, and fuck the rest ;)

Exactly. Glorious Burden really seems to have split IE fans: love it or hate it. Personally, I love the album (see 2004 awards). However, I'm not going to try to convince a GB hater that the album really is great, nor will these folks be able to convince me that it sucks. Tastes will always differ, and if not, there would be no need for CD reviews or forums

If you can't go on a cosmic odyssey when listening to music...then you my friend are a casual listener....and by calling me a bozo you're not hurting my feelings, but fueling my opinion of superiority over you. So thank you, it helped a lot.