Metal Archives Site Updated.

chin_grin

Hey just wanted to point out to guys here that the Metal Archives has undergone some reconstruction (to me it looks a tad messy, but I'm sure they'll sort that out).

A new feature is the "Random Band" link on the left.

And just wondering does anyone here go on to review stuff or is on the forum there?

http://www.metal-archives.com/

I'm in no way affiliated with the site, so it was just as a friendly "ooh! Check this out!"........sort of.............way.

GrizzlyMan

yeah I use it from time to time, if I have come across a new underground band its a good site to get an idea of other releases they have! so not a bad site at all! I would deffo give it the tumbs up:)

Somnus

HAd never seen that site. I'll definitely come back to it. Nice for finding some new bands

Malice

I occasionally go on there to laugh at some of the terrible reviews that muppets put up.

chin_grin

Malice wrote: »

I occasionally go on there to laugh at some of the terrible reviews that muppets put up.

This is true. Found one for a death/grindcore band (can't remember the name.....I'll try a search again) giving them a very scathing review just because of the snippets from films at the start of each track. Which, given the genre, is the norm.

Oh wait, found it.

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/Amputated/Gargling_with_Infected_Semen/120019/MetalStrikesDown

G'wan have a chuckle.

Malice

chin_grin wrote: »

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/Amputated/Gargling_with_Infected_Semen/120019/MetalStrikesDown

G'wan have a chuckle.

Heh, that's a serious rant!

This is one of my favourites. It's just wrong on so many levels. It's a review of one of my favourite albums by one of my favourite bands. The review gets off to a great start with this:

I remember back in '98 or so, when I was in my metal infancy, I used to love this record. Nowadays, I listen to it and wonder what the **** I was thinking.

I can't understand people who, while still professing to be fans of a genre, can fall out of love with albums.

The second paragraph then contains this gem:

There are no riffs to speak of here

Seriously? I have a feeling the author might not know what a riff actually is.

The third paragraph brings us this:

There's not a hint of actual melody on this album.

So we can add not knowing what a riff is to not knowing what melody is. And that's before I get into the assertions that the music is all powerchords and Dino only uses two strings. As someone who can play most of the album on guitar, there are a couple of places even in the first song where more than two strings are required and single notes being played rather than chords.

The fourth paragraph re-enforces the point from the second paragraph in case we missed it:

there are no riffs on this album.

Honestly I don't know why someone would take the time to put together a review like that. The author is obviously intelligent enough to structure their review into a set of points and feels strongly enough to write it but it just gets so much so wrong...

Angron

It is a good site to look up stuff about some more underground bands, but a lot of the reviews are just laughable, and can make you question if the reviewer actually listened to the album at all. A lot of the negative reviews I've seen on it seem to be more insulting the genre of the band, not saying what they don't like on the album.


Oh, and for one of my favourite reviews, this bit of contradiction:

Essentially, the bass is mildly audible to inaudible for the entire album, except for the the entire album

old gregg

I've never used the site before today but am curious as to the genre categorisation of bands and how accurate regular users would see this.

For example, Lamb of God (I truly love this band) so was curious as to what the site had to say cos I figure if I start with something familiar then i can get an idea what to expect elsewhere. LoG are listed as 'Groove Metal/Metalcore'. They'd probably call themselves Thrash.

It's not that important in the grand scheme of things but what do y'all think?

Malice

old gregg wrote: »

I've never used the site before today but am curious as to the genre categorisation of bands and how accurate regular users would see this.

For example, Lamb of God (I truly love this band) so was curious as to what the site had to say cos I figure if I start with something familiar then i can get an idea what to expect elsewhere. LoG are listed as 'Groove Metal/Metalcore'. They'd probably call themselves Thrash.

It's not that important in the grand scheme of things but what do y'all think?

When it comes to genres I keep it simple. I divide music into two categories - stuff I like and stuff I don't like. I tend to pay little or no attention to ultra-specific genres and I'd actually struggle to define most of them, never mind something like Blackened-Industrial-Brazilian-Fart-Thrash-Deathcore.

old gregg

Malice wrote: »

When it comes to genres I keep it simple. I divide music into two categories - stuff I like and stuff I don't like. I tend to pay little or no attention to ultra-specific genres and I'd actually struggle to define most of them, never mind something like Blackened-Industrial-Brazilian-Fart-Thrash-Deathcore.

indeed, but that's not what I asked. I asked about the accuracy of categories as used on that site.

Malice

old gregg wrote: »

indeed, but that's not what I asked. I asked about the accuracy of categories as used on that site.

Ah, well in that case my answer is, as implied in my post, that I don't really know and whether they were accurate or not wouldn't bother me. I'd listen to the music first and decide then. I mean, I've seen Meshuggah described as avant-garde metal, industrial metal, math metal and experimental metal. Which is more accurate? I've no idea, I just know I like them!

Apologies if I've misunderstood your question for a second time, I'm off outside to try to catch the evening sun so this is a bit of a rushed post .

Angron

I'll say it's a lot more accurate than looking up bands on Wikipedia, and more precise than looking up the band on last.fm where you could get half a dozen different descriptions, most of which are just ridiculous.

old gregg

Malice wrote: »

Apologies if I've misunderstood your question for a second time, I'm off outside to try to catch the evening sun so this is a bit of a rushed post .

no worries, catching the evening sun is more important

sentient_6

Malice wrote: »

I occasionally go on there to laugh at some of the terrible reviews that muppets put up.

When i saw the thread title yesterday thats exactly what i thought about. I started listening to Scar Symmetry's new album recently, & tend to glance threw reviews out of interest when checking out new albums, not that id let it colour my opinion, but there's 1 review already up there for the album & its utter ****e. Such retarded opinions. Stuff like Pitch Black Progress 'left much to be desired' & 'Scar Symmetry does the two vocalist thing like the heinous Linkin Park or numerous annoying metalcore and fairyGoth bands'. :rolleyes:

Lawrence1895

For some reason, I did like the old version better

The don't have all bands on one page anymore (Bands by letter)

AaronEnnis

sentient_6 wrote: »

When i saw the thread title yesterday thats exactly what i thought about. I started listening to Scar Symmetry's new album recently, & tend to glance threw reviews out of interest when checking out new albums, not that id let it colour my opinion, but there's 1 review already up there for the album & its utter ****e. Such retarded opinions. Stuff like Pitch Black Progress 'left much to be desired' & 'Scar Symmetry does the two vocalist thing like the heinous Linkin Park or numerous annoying metalcore and fairyGoth bands'. :rolleyes:

....retarded opinions?

Why would someone saying 'much to be desired' be considered a bad review? Because you dont agree with the reviewer?

If its objectively bad, i.e. badly structured, immature, spelling mistakes, etc. then fine, but theres no point damning a review on the grounds that you dont agree with it.

I have a review up on metalarchives for Overoth's first release, wrote it a few years ago. Been meaning to do some more, but ended up doing them for a fanzine that's currently in progress instead.

sentient_6

Because if a reviewer thinks that a bands earlier effort 'leaves much to be desired', an album that is generally regarded as the bands finest btw, then naturally there not going to think much of the new album! Their opinion is coloured to begin with by simply not liking the sound of the band in first place so why bother at all? Its like someone saying they didnt think much of say Megadeths Rust in Peace, or anything else in the back catalog, but then going on to review Endgame & giving it an average review, well no sh*t sherlock, you dont think much of the band to begin with!

& now i'm now saying that only fans of a band should review albums, cos then you only get 100% reviews which are pointless, but if someone has no appreciation of what a band has done before how are they supposed to objectively review anything new? Especially when it comes to metal where a bands 'sound' tends to not change a whole lot, so if you dont like that 'sound' to begin with.......get me?

Malice

To be honest the part that jumped out at me was

heinous Linkin Park or numerous annoying metalcore and fairyGoth bands

You don't like Linkin Park, Metalcore or Goth? Is that in any way relevant to the review?

sentient_6

Malice wrote: »

You don't like Linkin Park, Metalcore or Goth? Is that in any way relevant to the review?

Is that a question for me? Or a general comment about the review(er)?

Malice

sentient_6 wrote: »

Is that a question for me? Or a general comment about the review(er)?

Sorry, I probably could have phrased that a bit better. It was aimed at the reviewer not you.

sentient_6

Malice wrote: »

Sorry, I probably could have phrased that a bit better. It was aimed at the reviewer not you.

sound.