Inconsistent Reviews In Metal Magazines

Morf

Ok i saw the new Trivium album given a 3 out of 10 by Terrorizer, I have no arguement with this. I didn't even read the review to be honest.

Then I read Metal Hammer and see the same album getting a 9, fair enough people can have totally different opinions. This same review I read and the reviewer goes on to point out several flaws and weak tracks and still it gets a 9? Sounds suspicious to me.The new Iron Maiden album got a 10 from Metal Hammer (a 5 i think from Terrorizer). I mean I haven't heard the new Iron Maiden album but I would surprised if its a classic album as this 10 rating makes it out to be.

The same Metal Hammer goes on to sing the praises of the new Red Sparowes cd saying something to the effect of "you couldn't ask for much more from an album" and only give it a 7.

I know I wont trust any Metal Hammer review in the future

byte

While I used to get MH and Kerrang years ago, I don't bother with them anymore. I did buy a MH mag a few months ago but thought it was full of rubbish, and didn't buy any more.

Must admit I've never read Terrorizer. Is there any decent metal mag out there?

pbsuxok1znja4r

"Out-of-10" scores on any form of art were always going to be pretty retarded.

Who cares what the metal hacks say; make up yer own mind, like.

smackbunnybaby

i really respect terrorizer as a magazine and buy it every month.the free cd is a cool way of getting into new bands.however i must admit the reviews can be quite annoying.
As you would expect from a magazine it has longer reviews for great albums or albums by great bands - these rarely ever get under 8 out of 10.
in my opinion 9 or 10 out of 10 should be reserved for albums which go down in history as being innovative and memorable, like a black sabbath album or Nine Inch Nails (downward spiral). however albums consistently get these high ratings?
I doubt its cus they deserve it cus you never hear about the album in a few years.

what i have learned from their reviews is that if a big band, say slayer gets 7 out of 10 then it is a poor album - big bands never get less than this.
i remember reading a review on Sunn O))) - Black One (i think or else Khanate - Capture and Release) when it came out.It got 7 /10 - so i was wary.So i read the review on why it got this score.The review was completely indecipherable.I learned nothing from it.

but sure at the end of the day it's all about opinion and they give it to their critics to review, its not like you should hang on their every word but it would be nice if the reviews actually reviewed the album instead of a lesson in creative writing.

(btw OP - I think Terrorizer gave Irom Maiden 8/10 and the new Slayer one got 7/10)

BleakestH

A lot of the Terrorizer writers seem to spend the entire review waffling about nothing, trying to see how many big words they can use out of context in one paragraph. Some of the reviews are simply ridiculous and say absolutely nothing about the album in question. The same goes for a lot of the interviews. Witness their Tool interview a few months ago and you'll see what i mean, the writer spent the whole thing trying to coax the band into agreeing with his stupid, over enthusiastic assertions of their 'mystery' or whatever, wheeling out these stupid pretentious remarks about the band. Tool rightly gave the interviewer stupid answers and pretty much took the piss, which meant we learned nothing about anything after a three page interview.
That said, it does have plenty of decent content and the cd can be good every once and a while.

On the other hand, Metal Hammer is a complete waste of time. Absolute cack of a mag.

adox

Classic Rock is the only music mag I bother to buy.

Motley Crue

Morf wrote:

I know I wont trust any Metal Hammer review in the future

I think the best thing that can be said is that the new Trivium album is good, but from Trivium themselves is shockingly average....i think it was set up to be there Master of Puppets or something....and it fell short, and journalists are asking why, but in reality its their faults...because the Industry hyped this album to everyone with ears and the fact is the band ARENT that good...not yet at least

Ph3n0m

and that is why I dont read magazines anymore.

cournioni

scouser.tommy wrote:

"Out-of-10" scores on any form of art were always going to be pretty retarded.

Who cares what the metal hacks say; make up yer own mind, like.

While I agree with you, that people should make up their own minds on music. I think that magazines like Metal Hammer and Terrorizer have an obligation to give people a decent review on the album. People pay the money and they have a right to know what an album really is like rather than contradicting the review with the ratings.

Not everyone has access to samples of new music through the internet or whatever, and they may not have the money to go out, buy an album and find out for themselves. Saying that for example, a Trivium album is reviewed as average, yet giving it a 9/10 is not very helpful to the reader.

Dragan

The problem with most mags is they have no structure to the reviews. They do not sit down the staffers and say, "right, we work on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being something so unbelieveably brilliant it changes your life, 9 being"……and so on and so on.

Rather the scale is left open to the interpretation of the staffer themselves. For me, and album would need to be the audio equivelant of a good fu*k before I would give it a 10….it would really need to be a once in a life time thing. Even a 9 would be hard to get….i would give a 9 to something I felt had no weak songs at all….for a 10 all the songs would need to be unreal.

And then you have the fact the different people like different things. So Reviewer A might give something a 6, Reviewer B might give it a 8. It's all bollix really.

pbsuxok1znja4r

PORNAPSTER wrote:

While I agree with you, that people should make up their own minds on music. I think that magazines like Metal Hammer and Terrorizer have an obligation to give people a decent review on the album. People pay the money and they have a right to know what an album really is like rather than contradicting the review with the ratings.

Not everyone has access to samples of new music through the internet or whatever, and they may not have the money to go out, buy an album and find out for themselves. Saying that for example, a Trivium album is reviewed as average, yet giving it a 9/10 is not very helpful to the reader.

Oh well I agree that reviews are very useful, but not mere ratings. If the reviewer instead described the album in detail then the reader would from that then have a pretty good idea as to whether s/he's going to like it.
I do think the mags are a useful window to new music. Not nearly so much as the interwebs, though.

Karl Hungus

scouser.tommy wrote:

Oh well I agree that reviews are very useful, but not mere ratings. If the reviewer instead described the album in detail then the reader would from that then have a pretty good idea as to whether s/he's going to like it.
I do think the mags are a useful window to new music. Not nearly so much as the interwebs, though.

That's why I always read a review, and never go on a rating alone.

Anyway, Terrorizer is an infinitely better mag that Metal Hammer, or very well any other rock/metal geared mag.

cournioni

Bring back Metal Works is what I say!

funky_buddah

Anybody remember the reviews in Metal Hammer back in the NWOAHM days?

Every band's singer "combined the harsh roar of Hetfield with the melodic sensibilities of Bruce Dickinson" and EVERY, yes, EVERY, guitarist was "fret-meltingly technical", even if the album consisted solely of drop-D chugging.

Made me lol so it did.