Metal Reviews

You're welcome to comment on:


Click here to see the review.

Still can't take your opinion seriously when you review bands like this.

Yes, because giving their self-titled an 84 shows that I'm biased against them.

When did you start liking "groove metal?" Don't make me eat my words again, fucker!

It's called Metalreviews, not Metalthatkenlikesreviews. Personally I like having such a wide variety of reviews and opinions on the site, keeps us from looking like elitist pricks.

Sigh...

In the past, certain reviewers of this site have been known to review albums by bands that they do not like. My initial comment may have been off base when it comes to this particular album, but Zaddy-poo has been one of those reviewers.

Regardless, I don't have this album, though I do dig this band a bit and will likely add it to my collection someday. I wasn't arguing the score, just saying I find it hard to trust reviews of albums by bands that play music the reviewer is known to not much like.

Oh, this old game.

1. Reviewers sometimes listen and write about music they don't like. Not rocket science.
2. This is the fourth Chimaira review I've done. I like them. This isn't "let's randomly pick a mainstream metal album and bash it" day.
3. Name when I've done that, and prove that that outweighs all the times I've reviewed bands that I "like".

1. Reviewers should never write about music they don't like.
2. My apologies.
3. Limp Bizkit. Korn. And they don't have to outweigh anything. You've done it. That's enough.

I think you're grasping at straws with Limp Bizkit; you liked Gold Cobra? Really? And we've had the Korn debate before. I tried it, it didn't work for me, and just because I don't share your view of it - or the LB - is not a reason that I shouldn't write about it. In any case, my not liking two nu-metal albums does not make me an unreliable reviewer, when I also review and give positive scores to everything from Foo Fighters to Sunn O))).

You had a build-up for that Korn review that went on for months if not years. You can't try to like something you know you don't like. To suggest that you'd never heard the album before then is ludicrous.

Same with Limp Bizkit. You knew you would never like it, so you used your position as a reviewer to just talk shit. Not that what you did was even remotely a review.

But for the record, I've never heard Gold Cobra. Maybe it sucks, who knows, but even if it's amazing your review would not have changed.

And I never said you were an unreliable reviewer. Simply that reviewers should not be reviewing work from artists playing music they're not fans of. Your job is to be fair and objective, and you can't be fair and objective when your opinion is skewed from the get-go.

Why did I never review black metal albums? I wonder...

Oh, nonsense. I can't give albums I don't enjoy another try? Never said it was the first time I'd heard the Korn. My Limp Bizkit review is a masterpiece, thankyouverymuch! Readers of this site will already be aware of their sound and style, and saying 'their frontman is a talentless thug who couldn't rap to save his life' is far less entertaining to readers than actually proving my own lyrical skills! If Gold Cobra (which I have listened to multiple times, so what exactly I'm being attacked for I have no idea given you haven't even heard it!) was an amazing album I think I'd have written a review saying 'fucking hell, Limp Bizkit have made a masterpiece!' When you have "Limp Bizkit" and "masterpiece" in the same sentence, it's not hard to construct a regular review, is it?

And ultimately, this is what we disagree on. I say you can write about things you're not a fan of, as long as you present the reasons for your dislike. What's the difference between that and writing about stuff you are a fan of, given that you're not being fair and objective if your opinion is skewed towards the album from the start? Case in point - didn't you review Moonspell? They might not be Burzum but I'd put them in the black metal bracket... Your ideal situation has people only reviewing albums from bands they'd never heard of, which is obviously ridiculous.

Dude I hate to be this guy but I can't believe that korn or limp bizkit were ever even mentioned on this website/forum.........

It was inevitable. People love to rage on forums, and name a band that will cause more hate/venom than those two.

On a side note, I couldn't help but notice that you called this a "job". That would imply being paid, or recieving some form of compensation. As I am aware, the reviewers here are all on a strictly volunteer basis. Sure, you can disagree with what is being written, but putting limitations on what they can/cannot do because "its their job" is not right. This entire site is based on a massive amount of opinions, so I would think rule number one would be "agree to disagree".

Oh and Chimaira....meh, guess I am one of those people suprised that they are still trying. Just never seems to pan out for them.

The word "job" means duty, obligation, etc. Among other things, of course.

Either way, this isn't about agreeing or disagreeing with a reviewer's opinion on an album. My initial comment, though misdirected this time, is something I've said on this forum many many times over the years.

There are plenty of reviewers out there who can objectively review something, even an album in a genre they rarely listen to. It's call being open-minded and honest. However, certain reviewers on this site have shown time and time again that they are incapable of doing that. Whether or not it happened in this particular review is at this point moot.

But I don't care if Zad dislikes Korn or Limp Bizkit or whoever.

You wanted moot right there, boss.

Leave it to Ken to swat the hornets nest