Written by raul m on 03.03.2012 at 21:32

The review:

I'm going to be mean here (and, well, throughout my post) and say that it was fairly poorly written. It seems to wander aimlessly, as if glancing on different subjects in every sentence. After reading through it the first time, I had to go back to see what stands out in the music, since all i got was "standard melodeath". The subjects are also placed awkwardly, especially how you seem to go off on a slight tangent with them being unsigned which completely breaks the flow just as you seemed to get your feet finally on the ground. Mentioning the vocal performance in the very last sentences makes the whole review feel very rushed, confusing and a complete blur.

Furthermore, I suggest you never bring up the number of tracks unless it's relevant in the listening process (for example only having two extremely long tracks, making it hard to digest). There's a tracklist up there, I can see myself and mentioning it in the review makes it sound like your idea of a review is introducing a product instead of describing a piece of musical art

I realize you're most likely new at this and I'm sure there are many here to support you, I'm just going to play the part of the sour bastard.

The album itself:

Listened to the song that was said to be the best and I didn't find anything in there that would make me listen to more of these guys. Instead it puzzles me why something like this would receive a 9.0 score and that train of thought would probably end up with me pouring shit all over the musical taste of a person who would give it such a score. But I digress.

To MS:

It is, however, very nice to see that you're trying to liven this place up again, given how (at least to me) things have gotten fairly dull ever since Troy left.

Written by Milena on 04.03.2012 at 18:04

Whoa, what a thread... this might not be the best written review on the front page now, but it does have some nice information and figures, like the one I highlighted in my first comment. Furthermore, I think you've improved since your first review, and that the only way you're going to improve further is to keep on writing and, yes, keep on making mistakes

Written by Windrider on 04.03.2012 at 18:35

But don't blame people for giving criticism, without that we reviewers couldn't improve at all.

Written by Milena on 04.03.2012 at 18:49

Nah, didn't blame them, was just pointing it out. I think your biggest problem right now is negative transfer - using constructs not natural to English - but it can be very easily fixed just by reading more. Also, no matter how late you are with the review, when you're done with it, leave it sit for a few days, because a sentence that looks good to you at that time you've just finished may lose sense only a couple of days afterwards. I've had this bitter experience of submitting reviews and, hours after they were proofed, giving myself a facepalm and saying "what the hell was I thinking; God I'm so embarrassed Lyrinan had to proof this" and that only applies to mistakes, using proper grammar and logic but doing a crappy writing job still haunts me in some of the reviews I've published.

tl;dr version proofing yourself isn't harmful, except for your self esteem, but it's much less harmful than not doing it.

Written by malaikat on 04.03.2012 at 19:12

For crying out loud, raul just pointed out why he didn't like the review. It wasn't a big deal until you guys turned the thread into a autopoetic discussion about reviewer's trade.

Written by raul m on 03.03.2012 at 21:32

The review:

I'm going to be mean here (and, well, throughout my post) and say that it was fairly poorly written. It seems to wander aimlessly, as if glancing on different subjects in every sentence. After reading through it the first time, I had to go back to see what stands out in the music, since all i got was "standard melodeath". The subjects are also placed awkwardly, especially how you seem to go off on a slight tangent with them being unsigned which completely breaks the flow just as you seemed to get your feet finally on the ground. Mentioning the vocal performance in the very last sentences makes the whole review feel very rushed, confusing and a complete blur.

Furthermore, I suggest you never bring up the number of tracks unless it's relevant in the listening process (for example only having two extremely long tracks, making it hard to digest). There's a tracklist up there, I can see myself and mentioning it in the review makes it sound like your idea of a review is introducing a product instead of describing a piece of musical art

I realize you're most likely new at this and I'm sure there are many here to support you, I'm just going to play the part of the sour bastard.

The album itself:

Listened to the song that was said to be the best and I didn't find anything in there that would make me listen to more of these guys. Instead it puzzles me why something like this would receive a 9.0 score and that train of thought would probably end up with me pouring shit all over the musical taste of a person who would give it such a score. But I digress.

To MS:

It is, however, very nice to see that you're trying to liven this place up again, given how (at least to me) things have gotten fairly dull ever since Troy left.

Written by Sonic MrSumo on 06.03.2012 at 23:24

Dude, instead of reviewing the review, why don't you submit your own review of the album?

Written by Rumjunkie89 on 09.03.2012 at 01:44

Firstly, the reason the album was given a 9 was obviously because the reviewer liked the band... pretty simple really when u think about it, and funnily enough different people have different tastes in music, so this has been one long pointless thread. And if you "have no intention to ever listen to another song of theirs again as long as you can help it" then stop moaning and shut up, if you think you can do better then lets hear your album then? if you don't like melo-death then why even read the review????