Written by Windrider on 10.05.2011 at 23:20

Well thank you, this says what actually should be clear in arts like music... And helps the reviewer who gets bashed by the comments haha

Written by corrupt on 10.05.2011 at 22:40

And then, some of those staffers, that obviously have to have a higher qualification to review music than their users, go ahead and give Nevermores The Obsidian Conspiracy the highest score known to this community. This album, according to this staff reviewer is as good as Megadeth's Rust In Peace and better than Death's Symbolic.

Written by Fallen on 11.05.2011 at 05:49

Excellent way of going about getting this out there. Thought I doubt that most trollers/nerdragers will even care enough.

Written by Slayer666 on 11.05.2011 at 12:13

Uhh... Bitter, it seems you and I have different views on the term "objective".
To me, "objective" means the reviewer does his best to describe, in full detail, both the pros and cons of an album. Every album has flaws, just as almost every (2% possibly excluded) one has its merits. Objective means you took time to write about both sides of the spectrum.
For example, I think anyone has full right to call ponderer's review of Axioma Ethica Odini completely non-objective, not only because he mentioned some things that were completely incorrect, but because he focused solely on nuking the album into dust, without mentioning any good aspects (and I'm sure even he found at least some).
The same goes for that review of Blackwater Park, only that reviewer described it as an album that God himself jizzes over. Not one word of critique, only praise. That's what non-objective means, IMO.

Written by corrupt on 10.05.2011 at 22:40

The fact that people take metalstorm somewhat serious for being a metalzine and the resulting expectation to see a degree of retention instead of every other popular album rated above eight obviously doesn't play a role for this author. It's not the lack of objectivity that's annoying sometimes, it's the lack of seeing the bigger picture. Music is no science and nobody is making it such. But as the staff so boldly tells us whenever there's a chance, staff reviews is what this site is about. User reviews are a nice read (sometimes) but that's it. And then, some of those staffers, that obviously have to have a higher qualification to review music than their users, go ahead and give Nevermores The Obsidian Conspiracy the highest score known to this community. This album, according to this staff reviewer is as good as Megadeth's Rust In Peace and better than Death's Symbolic.
Yes, I went there. I said 'better' and 'as good as' althouth comparison is a subjective matter. But as you said, this is subjective.

Written by Slayer666 on 11.05.2011 at 12:13

Uhh... Bitter, it seems you and I have different views on the term "objective".
To me, "objective" means the reviewer does his best to describe, in full detail, both the pros and cons of an album. Every album has flaws, just as almost every (2% possibly excluded) one has its merits. Objective means you took time to write about both sides of the spectrum.
For example, I think anyone has full right to call ponderer's review of Axioma Ethica Odini completely non-objective, not only because he mentioned some things that were completely incorrect, but because he focused solely on nuking the album into dust, without mentioning any good aspects (and I'm sure even he found at least some).
The same goes for that review of Blackwater Park, only that reviewer described it as an album that God himself jizzes over. Not one word of critique, only praise. That's what non-objective means, IMO.

Written by jupitreas on 11.05.2011 at 18:00

Written by corrupt on 10.05.2011 at 22:40

The fact that people take metalstorm somewhat serious for being a metalzine and the resulting expectation to see a degree of retention instead of every other popular album rated above eight obviously doesn't play a role for this author. It's not the lack of objectivity that's annoying sometimes, it's the lack of seeing the bigger picture. Music is no science and nobody is making it such. But as the staff so boldly tells us whenever there's a chance, staff reviews is what this site is about. User reviews are a nice read (sometimes) but that's it. And then, some of those staffers, that obviously have to have a higher qualification to review music than their users, go ahead and give Nevermores The Obsidian Conspiracy the highest score known to this community. This album, according to this staff reviewer is as good as Megadeth's Rust In Peace and better than Death's Symbolic.
Yes, I went there. I said 'better' and 'as good as' althouth comparison is a subjective matter. But as you said, this is subjective.

This just reveals the general problem with giving numerical ratings to works of art. It is bound to result in a mess because emotion is not quantifiable. This is not our problem alone, here at Metal Storm. Every single music magazine and webzine that rates albums runs into this problem. My solution is not to rate albums at all, but most people seem to enjoy applying numerical ratings to albums. I say, let them go ahead with that but lets just treat this entire thing with a grain of salt.

Written by jupitreas on 11.05.2011 at 18:00

Besides, who are you to say that Nevermore's album is not actually better than Death or Megadeth? Its just your opinion and this rating simply goes against the system of values that you have constructed yourself regarding the relative importance and value of each album. Other people have different values. Deal with it!

Written by Troy Killjoy on 11.05.2011 at 01:51

Firstly, none of us have to have a higher qualification than our users to be a reviewer. Most/all of us were regular users before turning to reviewing.

Written by Doc G. on 11.05.2011 at 07:27

Written by Fallen on 11.05.2011 at 05:49

Excellent way of going about getting this out there. Thought I doubt that most trollers/nerdragers will even care enough.

Oh well, I have no doubt more complaints about lack of objectivity will arise, luckily we can respond to them with a quick link instead of having to spell it out for them each time.

Written by BitterCOld on 11.05.2011 at 22:29

the faux-metallica review i put in there was to text the absurd "YOU HAVE NO OBJECTIVITY!" to the ultimate extreme on the other end to show how much subjectivity is required in a review.

Written by Marcus on 12.05.2011 at 06:51

Hmm, interesting article, but I've always felt all the people who decry reviews that don't agree with them as not being objective actually are trying to insinuate that the reviewer is biased in some way. I.e., lots of people will say an great review for an Opeth album is solely because a reviewer is a fanboy, or that a negative review is because someone just hates Opeth.

Although this is similar to objectivity/subjectivity, reviews are supposed to be subjective as they're someone's opinion but not inherently biased in their writing.

Written by BitterCOld on 12.05.2011 at 20:20

Written by Marcus on 12.05.2011 at 06:51

Hmm, interesting article, but I've always felt all the people who decry reviews that don't agree with them as not being objective actually are trying to insinuate that the reviewer is biased in some way. I.e., lots of people will say an great review for an Opeth album is solely because a reviewer is a fanboy, or that a negative review is because someone just hates Opeth.

Although this is similar to objectivity/subjectivity, reviews are supposed to be subjective as they're someone's opinion but not inherently biased in their writing.

that is pretty much exactly the point. they use "objectivity" as the weapon to attempt to cut down the reviewer whose opinion they disagreed with. the "OBJECTIVITY!" battle cry, 95 times out of 100, has nothing to do with objectivity at all, just a simple disagreement on comparative values.

it's the review equivalent of the racist tag. you can't disprove a negative. take my A7X review. many people who liked the album accused me of having an agenda or an ax to grind, blah blah blah... they couldn't accept that i simply found the album boring and sub-par, so they called my objectivity into question. there is nothing i can do to disprove that accusation, even though had i liked the album, i would have written a positive review. of course, then those who really, really dislike the album might have called me out with similar accusations, just from the opposite side of the coin.