Adam's Blog #3: On Reviewing

I was being semi-sarcastic. I know full well how so called 'trve' and 'kvlt' black metal fans can be (bad spellers for a start) and I know its them who give her such grief as a person. They do the same sort of thing with any black metal act that they deem too trendy (like Deafheaven). Which is why its kinda of ironic that the Myrkur image I posted has 'no trends' written on it. So what are they actually saying? That's she's not trendy enough?

My point was more about how those who at least try to bring her music into it don't actually offer up any decent argument to support why it's supposedly such garbage. Calling it amateur when an album like Filosofem is so well regarded rubs me up the wrong way. Filosofem is so minimalist every song sounds like you're listening to the same few bars of music over and over for each track's duration. Yet on RYM it's the top rated black metal album. How is that okay by them and Myrkur isn't? Because what it looks like to me is for church burning murdering racists like Varg Vikernes and for a woman who if you think about it did the exact opposite of selling out by moving from pop to black metal (if you want to play it without considering the music, as these elitists seem to).

And saying she's not true is bollocks as well. I reckon that they'd criticise her just the same even if she followed the early Mayhem/Darkthrone template by the book. In fact I've seen some calling her a copycat artist as it is, which is even more stupid as anyone whose heard her music can surely tell it's pretty far removed from Mayhem, Darkthrone and even well know atmospheric black metal like Burzum. Ulver's first is probably what M is closest to but I still don't see it as any kind of a rip off. No more than every B grade black metal act out there has ripped off Mayhem and Darkthrone or whoever in some way.

Fortunately the people here are not like this.

I happen to like Filosofem but I do get your point. 

^ 

That image makes me angry. It's good to see that she takes it in her stride though.

adg211288 wrote: I think a general reference to no one person/review in particular is okay. Used the right way it can give context to why you wrote something, though I'd personally only do that if I felt it was absolutely necessary. Generally I try to write with the assumption that my review is going to be read by someone who has never heard of the artist but is at least somewhat familiar with the genre of music (I can'r explain exactly what power metal or black metal sounds like in its base form in every review after all).

This is all about writing to your audience. The reviews I submitted to the paper were very different to those I post here. In a newspaper, you never know who will read your review, so you need to cater to people who know very little about music. My Grandmother used to read mine, just because I'd written them! (As a godfearing Christian, I often wonder what she made of my Deicide review in the paper...) I have since rewritten some of them and posted them here, where there is definitely more scope for description, and no annoying fucking word count limit!

Yeah, counter reviews can definitely be helpful if handled right. The problem is, in the situation I described, both reviews were poorly written, so that's not going to help anyone. It was clear I wrote that review only because I thought the other review was outright wrong and wanted to prove it, which was obviously an immature thing for a reivewer to do. Ideally, you would have a well written negative review and an equally well written positive review, so that way readers unfamilar with the band can get an idea of what the release is like and decide if they' like to check it out or not. 

^ Great contribution Travis. 

siLLy puPPy wrote: Have you ever had anyone go ape sit over a negative review?

adg211288 wrote: I'd forgotten about these cases as the reviews were not for music but I have had someone get mad at what I wrote for a both a TV boxset review posted to Amazon and one for a video game review posted to Steam.  The boxset review was for the first season of the show Legend of the Seeker. It was based on the fantasy book series The Sword of Truth by Terry Goodkind. Goodkind's books are mature fantasy in the vein of Game of Thrones but where that show (which didn't exist then) is faithful to the tone of the books the producers of Seeker decided to take something that was written strictly for adults and make a family friendly show out of it. And this wasn't even its worst offence. The bigger offence was that they made a 22 episode season out of the first book and only four of that number had anything at all to do with the book's plot. The rest either did their own thing with pointless side stories or went out of their way to do the exact opposite to the book's established canon. It short they completely butchered it and I gave the series a negative review (2/5). Enter the rapid fans who promptly informed me about how wrong I was and that my criticism were basically invalid because the series was only meant to be 'based on' the books (which ironically they think are shit) and not an actual 'adaptation'. I was unaware there was a difference. Apparently there was 'no point' in comparing how faithful the series was to its source in 'ridiculous detail'. I expect these are the same sort of people who complain about Game of Thrones being too full of sex and violence. Anyone's who's extensively read fantasy should know the majority of it is not for the kids. The game review was for Slender: The Arrival which I thought was a pretty good horror experience but a bad video game experience. I can't remember exactly what the comments said now as this review doesn't exist any more as I decided to pull everything I wrote from Steam due to the mentality of the user base but I felt that I gave it a fair write-up based on my experience of the title. Again, enter the rabid fan who was quick to tell me I wasn't qualified to give the game a negative write-up. He seemed most pissed that my review had actually been voted up as the most helpful review as well. Another one was genuinely upset that I had given the game a negative review saying something like 'I don't care if you didn't like it but don't rag on the game and hurt its reputation for the rest of us'.  I eventually deleted all my Steam reviews as I couldn't stand the user base any longer. I've since put a new review up to test the waters but found it hasn't changed much. It's a place where throwaway reviews that don't really tell you much get voted up and thought out ones that actually evaluate the game get voted down as unhelpful. My testing the waters review was for a simple point and click game that I found a game breaking bug in that required a complete restart to get by so I based my negative largely on that (while praising the game in general and pointing out that it would be a positive otherwise). Apparently pointing out this serious problem in the game meant the review was 'unhelpful' though.  Here's the Slender review. You guys tell me if it describes a game you want to play (the game has actually been updated since this was written but I never played the new version): I've been a fan of horror video games, particularly survival horror, ever since buying the Penumbra and Amnesia titles. Following them I'm always on the lookout for further horror titles for my collection, the latest of which to find its way there being the 2013 game Slender: The Arrival. I've seen the game called before a sequel and extended version of the previous game Slender: The Eight Pages. I haven't played the original, so I'm not sure which is correct. Perhaps it's both. In any case Slender: The Arrival does what every other horror game I've played since Amnesia: The Dark Descent has failed to do, and that is give such an experience to prompt a panicky sort of gameplay as you desperately try to keep the player character alive. Ironically this is what makes Slender: The Arrival such a poor survival horror experience. The game starts off more positively, featuring exploration and very little danger, but enough creepiness to keep you wary of your surroundings, and jumping at every little noise and cautiously poking into dark rooms of the house that marks up part of the early setting. You're following clues in regard to the disappearance of your friend Kate and any moment you're expecting something to happen and have to run, like in any good survival horror game where you can't defend yourself. Well that happens, but when it does happen it simply does not relent. The titular Slender Man attacks relentlessly after the first area of the game is completed, resulting in that panicky gameplay I previously mentioned. You'll spend a lot of time running. As a horror experience I can't fault it, but the trouble is the attacks from the Slender Man are so frequent it begins to kill the atmosphere and become simply tedious. And the game only has autosave, and only at the start of each level, so if you fail you potentially lose a lot of progress. But hey, now you know what you did wrong right? Wrong. The second chapter randomises itself , placing the items you need in different locations. Good replay value if you were going to start the game from scratch, but utterly frustrating when you're only reloading after a death. The next chapter seemed more thought out, with a different enemy known as the Chaser with the Slender Man markedly less troublesome than previously. This does of course change again in the later stages of the game as you try to escape a forest fire, with no real clue about where you're meant to be running too, and it is only by sheer dumb luck I eventually got out of that area. But then, I suppose that is good for a horror game is it not? Well, I can't deny that developer Blue Isle Studios make a good horror experience in Slender: The Arrival. What I do deny is that they made a good game out of it. The story is rather vague, perhaps intentionally but even so, fleshing out a proper plot is essential for any game, and Slender: The Arrival seems to really scrimp on the details and in my opinion it suffers for it. The ending is especially deflating and sudden when it comes. I actually groaned thinking I'd just got killed again before the achievement popped for beating the game. The gameplay is further more rather repetitive even for such a short game, which can be beaten in under 45 minutes, going by the requirements for one of its speed runner achievements. It's basically a lot of running, collecting items, and shining your torch at things. Said torch went dead towards the end of the game, leaving me in pitch darkness and literally unable to progress due to not being able to see a single thing beyond the outline of the video camera the character holds throughout, a item which serves no particularly use, by the way. I want to like Slender: The Arrival, I really do. But it's difficult. The game is good horror, yes, but it is not fun. Surviving is down to luck and running, leaving no room for really thinking problems through and trying to find a solution. Disappointing because it has the potential to be so much more.

adg211288 wrote: One other thing semi-related, I don't usually bring up this review as it should be let lie now (which means do not post shouts on it - I'll just delete them) but this is a great example of how not to write a review. http://www.metalmusicarchives.com/review/aquarius/270812

I would have been proud of that rant myself if it had been more coherent and actually understood the point it was trying to make. Not very well written at all. It's a perfect demonstration as to why you should keep the words "I", "me" and "my" out of a review. The discussion about it got quite heated too.