Lol...this is one of the best reviews ever written

I shamelessly post in this review thread in hopes that people will see this review. Underrated one indeed.

Preconceived notions of a genre based on one or two previous attempts at listening to something your friend recommended doesn't make for a good review in my opinion.

Written by Troy Killjoy on 31.05.2012 at 01:26

Preconceived notions of a genre based on one or two previous attempts at listening to something your friend recommended doesn't make for a good review in my opinion.

Shit dude why so serious?

Written by X-Ray Rod on 31.05.2012 at 01:34
Shit dude why so serious?

Eh. It's just annoying when you come across people bashing brutal death metal for what it is as opposed to bashing poor releases within the genre.

Awesome review.

Written by Troy Killjoy on 31.05.2012 at 01:36

Written by X-Ray Rod on 31.05.2012 at 01:34
Shit dude why so serious?

Eh. It's just annoying when you come across people bashing brutal death metal for what it is as opposed to bashing poor releases within the genre.

I don't see how this review is in any way different from other reviews by other staffers where they critize the band by also talking about the genre.
This is a poor release if I recall from the last time I heard it. I don't see a major bash to the genre at all. Fuck, I can only see three sentences when the genre was even written and only two of them were hostile.

Written by X-Ray Rod on 31.05.2012 at 02:07
I don't see a major bash to the genre at all.

About halfway through... "Brutal death metal? How original."

That's worth at least one of these: -_-

Also, there aren't too many official reviews that bash entire genres. None that I can think of off the top of my head anyway. Even in my Norther review I still manage to point out that heavy metal and hard rock aren't "bad" genres, even though they released a shit album comparable to the likes of Nickelback. When you look at a user's favorite bands and they're primarily symphonic/prog/whatever else melodic and they don't typically listen to extreme metal, it's not surprising they give one of the lowest possible scores to an album they don't like because it's something they aren't used to hearing.

Same goes for extreme metal fans listening to melodic metal.

Written by Troy Killjoy on 31.05.2012 at 02:11

Written by X-Ray Rod on 31.05.2012 at 02:07
I don't see a major bash to the genre at all.

About halfway through... "Brutal death metal? How original."

That's worth at least one of these: -_-

Also, there aren't too many official reviews that bash entire genres. None that I can think of off the top of my head anyway. Even in my Norther review I still manage to point out that heavy metal and hard rock aren't "bad" genres, even though they released a shit album comparable to the likes of Nickelback. When you look at a user's favorite bands and they're primarily symphonic/prog/whatever else melodic and they don't typically listen to extreme metal, it's not surprising they give one of the lowest possible scores to an album they don't like because it's something they aren't used to hearing.

Same goes for extreme metal fans listening to melodic metal.

I seriously believe you are overreacting. I don't see how this is a bashing to the entire genre. Let's face it. It doesn't matter if it's unoriginal or not, the point is that the album is bad. I see no problem in saying "raw black metal, how original" because it's NOT original. If it ends up being good that it's an entirely different thing man. So no... I don't think it's worth a -_- at all because I think you missunderstood the point.

The last fuck I don't count either because it's jsut for the alliteration's sake.

Written by X-Ray Rod on 31.05.2012 at 02:15
I seriously believe you are overreacting. I don't see how this is a bashing to the entire genre. Let's face it. It doesn't matter if it's unoriginal or not, the point is that the album is bad. I see no problem in saying "raw black metal, how original" because it's NOT original. If it ends up being good that it's an entirely different thing man. So no... I don't think it's worth a -_- at all because I think you missunderstood the point. The last fuck I don't count either because it's jsut for the alliteration's sake.

I don't think I'm overreacting to be honest - I'm not even worked up. I'm just peeved, because once again I come across someone (a reviewer) calling out an album as being a piece of crap because it's something he doesn't usually listen to. The last quip where his "buddy" leaves and says "fuck brutal death metal" is a summation of the reviewer's thoughts.

While Herz isn't the most technical or verbose reviewer, he should have been given this to write about since he's at least comfortable with the genre and has the ability to make a distinction between brutal death metal he enjoys and brutal death metal he despises. It appears as though this reviewer would give any brutal death metal album a low score by virtue of him not liking the genre.

Written by Troy Killjoy on 31.05.2012 at 02:22
It appears as though this reviewer would give any brutal death metal album a low score by virtue of him not liking the genre.

Well yeah, that's where I would disagree, not because I picture him listening to that... but just because I don't have any proofs of both scenarios.
I would bet my horse Herz wouldn't like it either. I don't see Jupi doing regular reviews about brutal death/grindcore stuff yet he has done one or two. It's not a complicated genre to write about or to see if what youa re listening is good or bad.

Also, people don't have to be worked up. They can be 100% zen-master calm and still overreact

PS: Thank you for adding the picture... My OCD as ticking a hell of a lot.

Written by X-Ray Rod on 31.05.2012 at 02:28
I would bet my horse Herz wouldn't like it either. I don't see Jupi doing regular reviews about brutal death/grindcore stuff yet he has done one or two. It's not a complicated genre to write about or to see if what youa re listening is good or bad.

That's what I'm arguing - Herz might have given this a 3/10 himself, but at least he would have been able to describe why the album deserved a 3 beyond a single sentence. This entire review is only about two sentences. The part where he picks on the vocals (mumbling or grunting), and this: "Yeah man, is totally repetitive, you can't tell the difference between one track and another, the production is fuzzy and the mix is all messed up, all the solos are buried in the back and not even the cover art is worth what I paid for it..."

So it's repetitive and he thinks the fuzzy production detracts from the overall sound. That would usually signify a 6 or maybe even a 5. But because he doesn't like the genre, it gets a 3. That's what bugs me, personally - and that's coming from someone who's published about a dozen reviews with scores less than 5.

Written by Troy Killjoy on 31.05.2012 at 02:40
post

You raise a valid point, ice cream*.

I guess I just like it because it was one of the first things I saw in this site so it's fluffy sentimental shit right there... and I actually listened to that album right after reading the review and found myself thinking the album sucked too.




*= (I can't bother to post the picture).