Print Page | Close Window

Adam's Blog #3: On Reviewing

Printed From: MetalMusicArchives.com
Category: Metal Music Lounges
Forum Name: Blogs
Forum Description: Blogs, Editorials, Original articles posted by members
URL: http://www.MetalMusicArchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10887
Printed Date: 08 Aug 2022 at 5:26pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 10.16 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Adam's Blog #3: On Reviewing
Posted By: adg211288
Subject: Adam's Blog #3: On Reviewing
Date Posted: 05 Apr 2016 at 12:43pm
Introduction

This latest blog entry is about the reviewing game. I'm not talking about the casual reviewing that many of us partake in of releases we like (or not as the case may be), but the act of receiving promotional materials from record labels, promotion companies and even the artists themselves (herein known as senders). This is something I've been doing for several years now and I think that there are quite a lot of misconceptions about it on both sides of the field; the reviewers and the senders. I've decided to dedicate my latest blog post to clearing up some of these things, as well as explaining why I got burned out on reviewing promos for well over a year there and am really only just starting to get back into the game. I'm hoping that this entry proves insightful for both the reviewers (especially ones who may be interested in taking their craft up to the level of getting promos) and for those sending out the material.

Getting Promos and Reviewing Them

It may be an easy misconception to make that you won't get on anyone's promo mail list if you're an individual, A.K.A. not someone employed by a print magazine or a well known zine or have a radio show. Someone who gets paid to write the reviews, in other words. This simply is not true. It's actually the case that most senders will accept you on their promo mail list. I'm not saying that everyone I applied for in the past ever got back to me, but most did and were very happy to have me receive their stuff.

Now as a bit of advice if this is route you're thinking of taking at any point, it's a good idea to have some examples of your best work to send whoever you're contacting. It shows them that you know what you are doing and take reviewing seriously.

Some senders may require some sort of additional reference for you, usually from the owner or manager of the site you are going to be reviewing for. As an MMA admin I will be available to vouch for anyone in the future who needs it, though of course my word will carry more weight with contacts I also have. I can be PM'ed for suggestions on who to speak to if you're serious about promo reviewing. And as a side note, it would be good to see more reviewers handling promos for upcoming releases. They are a good gateway for newcomers to visit the site and also provide a good source for new bands to add to our database. My recent additions were all from my current promo pool.

You need to remember though that getting promos is not a way to receive free stuff. You are expected to actually write reviews. This is where your relationship with the senders begins. There are issues on both sides of this relationship though, which I will now explain, all from personal experience.

Sender Mistakes

Solo reviewers tend to get the promos build up very quickly and it then becomes impossible to review or even listen to them all. This is the point where a reviewer starts getting picky about what they actually write about. The common problem that has often emerged for me in this situation is that every sender expects their releases reviewed. More to the point, they often expect them by a certain point. This becomes humanly impossible for the reviewer, especially if the they are trying to give every release they do review a fair go, which may require several listens, often more.

Therefore promo senders should not be translating an album download as a promise to review it. If I downloaded a promo it's because it looked interesting to me. If I didn't provide feedback it either means it ended up not making any impression on me at all or more likely I simply haven't managed to get around to it because of other promos. We are not reviewing from just one source. We have many and while I consider it good form to try to be balanced and fair when dealing with multiple sources, sometimes the promos themselves aren't accommodating for that. It's all very well saying you expect a review by a certain date, but we are trying to be a neutral source here. We do not play favourites and we do not drop everything to prioritise a single sender.

Hassling us for a review is probably the worst thing a sender can do at this point, because it makes us rush which may mean that we do not end up giving your release as fair a go as we may otherwise have done. It's also extremely antagonising, especially if there is a veiled threat of being cut off from your releases. And yes, that has happened to me in the past, though I will not be naming any names in this blog.

It's a misconception as well that the reviewer is getting paid to write your reviews. That may be the case for larger companies like print magazines, but not for most of us who do this for the simple reason that we enjoy it. It is not our day job. It is something we balance around our everyday lives. If we aren't turning out reviews all the time this is the reason: we are simply too busy. We are sorry about that, but the chances are is that there's nothing we can do about it.

One thing that often irks me when I receive a promo is this: the sender did not bother to properly tag the mp3's. mp3's that aren't tagged properly may not show up where I expect them to in my media player, which can lead to me genuinely forgetting about your release. It's also incredibly lazy to send out mp3's without correct tagging and it annoys me to have to fix them before I can even get on with listening to it. If I'm in the mood that says I can't be bothered I'll end up moving onto a different promo. It's not a big task, but it is one that the sender should be doing, not the reviewers.

And now for what I consider the absolute deal breaker which will automatically prevent me from reviewing your promo: watermarking the music. I'm not talking about hidden trackers that are there to protect your assets against those who leak albums, those are fair game, I'm talking about harming the listening experience by sticking a voice over in the songs (which often repeats several times in a single song) saying what you are listening to and reminding us that piracy is a crime. I will not under any circumstances review a promo that has something like this. I expect to be trusted with the full release as you intend to sell it. No unfinished production jobs, and definitely no watermarks. It really does hurt the experience of the music. It's also insulting to the reviewer. Fortunately most senders I deal with don't do this but I have encountered such promos before and they are not fun.

Finally, there is the complete failure to ackowledge that you did get the review you asked for. Sure, in the event that we felt that a negative write-up was in order we don't expect you to want to share the review around, but there is no excuse for not sharing the review when it is positive. Sharing the review you got puts the reviewer and the site they are writing for out there. People hear of the site that way. People visit the site that way. It is a fair trade off for the review (which you want people to read anyway don't you?). Without this support websites can fold. It isn't all about what we can do for you.

Reviewer Mistakes

Yes, mistakes do swing both ways. There is of course the big one, which should be obvious: breaking your senders trust. That promo you received is for your ears only. Not your mates, real or online. There is no point in hiding the fact that yes, albums are leaked early all the time, but seriously, don't be that person. Digital promos are watermarked in any case, so you will be tracked if you do decide you're going to upload that awesome new album for everyone to hear. Just...don't. Please. It's not worth it and you're risking ruin to the whole reviewing game for the rest of us legitimate reviewers. We are at a point where as I stated that senders are prepared to trust even casuals who are not being paid for their work with their promos. That's a situation that could easily end if the sender gets burned too often. I suspect this is why some senders put the dreaded voice overs in the music in the first place.

The next biggest mistake is plagiarism. It's another area that you shouldn't even go to. Reviewers belong the person who wrote them. They aren't there for you to cross-post to other sites without permission or otherwise rip-off. Getting caught at this will effectively end your reviewing career, as site owners will not touch your work. Remember that if you steal and get caught you are not owning harming your own reputation, but also that of the site(s) you posted to. I have been the victim of plagiarism a couple of times, twice for having my writing copied and once on my old site Heavy Metal Haven when someone starting posting ripped off reviews as their own. It's not a fun thing to have to deal with in either situation, so if you can't write for yourself, don't write at all. 

A lesser mistake is to expect a physical promo. They do still exist but are so rare that they may as well be a thing of the past. Sorry reviewers, promos are nearly always digital. I guess print magazine may be lucky enough to get a physical but solo's like us? Forget it.

About My Burn Out

Yes, it happened. I reached a point where I was so literally burned out on reviewing, especially promos, that for some of 2014 and all of 2015 I actually ended up ignoring most of them, just posting the odd review here and there. This is the risk that you will run if you want to get into the reviewing game – it will become a chore and cease to be fun. That isn't good for you or those sending you promos. I feel that it is important for a reviewer to find the right sort of pace for themselves, regardless of whether they are receiving promotional material or not. I've found it isn't easy to get back into doing promo reviews in earnest until very recently, but I do feel that I am in the right frame of mind to absorb new releases once again. That could of course change again, but it helps of course that 2016 seems to be shaping up to be an excellent year: I already have two 5 star albums reviewed in the first three months of the year compared to two for the entirety of 2015, with a third very likely.

My advice regarding burn outs? If you feel like reviewing is turning into work, stop. Take a break. Don't push yourself on to satisfy your senders. They either will or will not understand your situation. Even after over a year of being rather slack most of my senders are still sending me stuff. There's a couple that may have struck me off, but that's fine. I understand their situation and honestly it's a little bit of pressure off if they have. There will always be a label out there who has a release you really want to hear and review, but you really cannot be on everyone's list as a solo reviewer. So think hard before you contact too many people for potential promos.

Conclusion

Well, I have that this has been helpful in some way. Please feel free to comment and share your own feelings on reviewing. 



-------------
Earn Money Online (NOT scams):
https://premium.gg2u.org?referrer=adg211288" rel="nofollow - GG2U
https://qm.ee/QPWOCX6YV7ZCC" rel="nofollow - Qmee



Replies:
Posted By: UMUR
Date Posted: 05 Apr 2016 at 2:44pm
Nice points Adam. Both from the reviewer´s and the sender´s point of view. Doing promo reviews can indeed be stressful and feel like a chore, but on the other hand you can also get your hands on yet unreleased material way before others, and if that´s important to you, then this is a good legal way to get it.
 
I´ve found that I personally don´t have any issues waiting until an album is officially released, and to me the negatives unfortunately far outweighs the positives. Too many generic releases, and my own expectations not to disappoint the senders made it both an often unappealing experience and a stressful one. Therefore I now only review exactly what I feel like, when I feel like doing it. Some of the "new year" releases I write about are free Bandcamp downloads, so I still feel like I contribute with info on new releases, even though I seldom accept regular promos anymore.


-------------
http://www.lyngby-boldklub.dk/" rel="nofollow - Forever TRUE - Forever BLUE!
https://rateyourmusic.com/~UMUR" rel="nofollow - UMUR on RYM


Posted By: Vim Fuego
Date Posted: 06 Apr 2016 at 12:46am
I used to get promos when I worked for the paper and for a now defunct website. I got a few goodies, but I generally found it was hardly worth the effort. Yes, I reviewed everything, but a lot of it wasn't worth keeping. And I always felt bad about writing a really scathing review of something if I had been given a promo, especially one a band had sent me directly, and not via a label.

I suppose I got the tail end of the physical releases. Most came in cardboard slipcases, or had the full artwork, often with the barcode punched, and no case at all. As a result, I have hundreds of slipcases, both cardboard and plastic, full of all sorts of random music! CD-rs were a godsend for bands too, because they were cheap and easy to produce and post. The only time I came across something like watermarking was with Earache Records. They needn't have bothered- it was an Adema album... Each song was cut into about 10 files. It basically wrecked what wasn't much of a listening experience in the first place, because some CD players (mine!) have a minute pause before each track, which chopped the songs to bits. It made for a weird random play experience too...

I love reviewing music, as long as it's not wretched pop music, but had a long time offline where it was a bit pointless. That's why I love this site. I know my reviews are going to be read by at least a few other people who are knowledgeable about metal, and isn't going to get lost in an avalanche of ignorance (as used to happen on Metal Archives), or get completely ignored because no one looks at them (as on Amazon.com). I suppose it's a bit vain, and a bit of an ego booster, but it's my own vanity, and as one of the paper's sub-editors used to say to me when I submitted reviews of stuff like Deicide and Nile, "If you listen to it, there's bound to be other people who do too, and will want to read about it".


Posted By: adg211288
Date Posted: 06 Apr 2016 at 1:21am
Originally posted by UMUR UMUR wrote:

Nice points Adam. Both from the reviewer´s and the sender´s point of view. Doing promo reviews can indeed be stressful and feel like a chore, but on the other hand you can also get your hands on yet unreleased material way before others, and if that´s important to you, then this is a good legal way to get it.
 
I´ve found that I personally don´t have any issues waiting until an album is officially released, and to me the negatives unfortunately far outweighs the positives. Too many generic releases, and my own expectations not to disappoint the senders made it both an often unappealing experience and a stressful one. Therefore I now only review exactly what I feel like, when I feel like doing it. Some of the "new year" releases I write about are free Bandcamp downloads, so I still feel like I contribute with info on new releases, even though I seldom accept regular promos anymore.

Thanks Jonas. 

I'm finding that its getting more common with some labels to not get a promo until about a week before the actual release, so it's often not a long wait. I do have a few right now in rotation that are still a way off being released officially though. The Enthean album I recently reviewed is not out until May 20th for example. 


-------------
Earn Money Online (NOT scams):
https://premium.gg2u.org?referrer=adg211288" rel="nofollow - GG2U
https://qm.ee/QPWOCX6YV7ZCC" rel="nofollow - Qmee


Posted By: Unitron
Date Posted: 06 Apr 2016 at 1:29am
Very interesting read, I've never gotten promos, and I'm not sure if I would want to. A reason why I love this site is due to how casual it is. I can review what I feel like and whenever I feel like it, and I would probably get overwhelmed if I got a lot of promo copies. Also, sometimes there's albums that I really don't have a whole lot to say about, even some that I really enjoy.

I would also probably feel bad if I didn't like a promo that I received and wrote a negative review, because while negative reviews are good for constructive criticism, I know I'd probably feel down if I got a negative review for something I worked hard on. 


-------------
If I say fuck two more times that's forty-six fucks in this fucked up rhyme


Posted By: adg211288
Date Posted: 06 Apr 2016 at 1:39am
Originally posted by Vim Fuego Vim Fuego wrote:

I used to get promos when I worked for the paper and for a now defunct website. I got a few goodies, but I generally found it was hardly worth the effort. Yes, I reviewed everything, but a lot of it wasn't worth keeping. And I always felt bad about writing a really scathing review of something if I had been given a promo, especially one a band had sent me directly, and not via a label.

You know I think this may be the sort of thing as to why my review always veered towards a higher mark (I'm more critical now, though). I didn't want to upset anyone if I didn't like a release. Usually I just wouldn't review it if I didn't like it that much but sometimes I felt obligated to do some negative reviews to balance out what I was putting out. 

Originally posted by Vim Fuego Vim Fuego wrote:

I suppose I got the tail end of the physical releases. Most came in cardboard slipcases, or had the full artwork, often with the barcode punched, and no case at all. As a result, I have hundreds of slipcases, both cardboard and plastic, full of all sorts of random music! CD-rs were a godsend for bands too, because they were cheap and easy to produce and post. The only time I came across something like watermarking was with Earache Records. They needn't have bothered- it was an Adema album... Each song was cut into about 10 files. It basically wrecked what wasn't much of a listening experience in the first place, because some CD players (mine!) have a minute pause before each track, which chopped the songs to bits. It made for a weird random play experience too...

That Adema promo sounds horrible.

I've only ever received one physical promo which came direct from the artist. They were a death metal band called Unbreakable Hatred. It was just a CD-R disc but it did include the full CD inserts and a proper case. I haven't ever revisited the album since the review even though I did quite like it, but it does sit on my shelf with my main collection. 

I also got a physical from Haiduk for his first album but he actually sent me a retail CD for the review, which was a pleasant surprise. 

Originally posted by Vim Fuego Vim Fuego wrote:

I love reviewing music, as long as it's not wretched pop music, but had a long time offline where it was a bit pointless. That's why I love this site. I know my reviews are going to be read by at least a few other people who are knowledgeable about metal, and isn't going to get lost in an avalanche of ignorance (as used to happen on Metal Archives), or get completely ignored because no one looks at them (as on Amazon.com). I suppose it's a bit vain, and a bit of an ego booster, but it's my own vanity, and as one of the paper's sub-editors used to say to me when I submitted reviews of stuff like Deicide and Nile, "If you listen to it, there's bound to be other people who do too, and will want to read about it".

I got my start writing for EM. They were tough on me regarding their acceptance rules but it did help me become a better reviewer. I left them though due to disagreeing with their band acceptance rules. I started my own site Heavy Metal Haven shortly afterwards which is the point where I first realised that I could get promos if I just asked, though it was actually the keyboardist of black metal act Saille who got me on his label's promo list (my first), as he was a member of the site who came to us to promote his band. I started cross-posting to MMA eventually. When Haven got too much of a chore to manage I made the shift to MMA full-time. The system here is so much easier than trying to do everything based off a forum platform. LOL

It's always nice when you see someone acknowledge your review. Whether that is through a comment here on the site or by the artist or label sharing the link to it. I did manage to get the MMA name on someone's banner ad once:




-------------
Earn Money Online (NOT scams):
https://premium.gg2u.org?referrer=adg211288" rel="nofollow - GG2U
https://qm.ee/QPWOCX6YV7ZCC" rel="nofollow - Qmee


Posted By: Vim Fuego
Date Posted: 06 Apr 2016 at 11:32pm
Yes, being acknowledged is nice. For me, I liked a thank you or a mention from a band more than I liked seeing my name in print, which in itself can give you a buzz which soon wears off... 8 Foot Sativa thanked me in the liner notes for Season For Assault (and spelled my name wrong...) after a couple of reviews and an interview. Also got a mention from Ligature. Erm, and some... person... put a heap of my reviews on Pirate Bay. I don't think they are there any more, but it wasn't me!


Posted By: Vim Fuego
Date Posted: 06 Apr 2016 at 11:33pm
Oh yeah, and I also got accused of plagiarism for stealing a line from a Metal Hammer review, when it was the other way around!


Posted By: adg211288
Date Posted: 07 Apr 2016 at 12:50am
Originally posted by Vim Fuego Vim Fuego wrote:

Yes, being acknowledged is nice. For me, I liked a thank you or a mention from a band more than I liked seeing my name in print, which in itself can give you a buzz which soon wears off... 8 Foot Sativa thanked me in the liner notes for Season For Assault (and spelled my name wrong...) after a couple of reviews and an interview. Also got a mention from Ligature. Erm, and some... person... put a heap of my reviews on Pirate Bay. I don't think they are there any more, but it wasn't me!

I could easily add acknowledgements into sender mistakes actually, because they don't always do their research about you. I had one label that would always credit my old site under its original name instead of the name we changed it to despite multiple times telling them that we'd changed and could they please credit correctly (they wouldn't). When I had my own site as well that was my primary site (with reviews even having an exclusivity period) so as much as I wanted to support MMA too my reviews really should have been linked to Heavy Metal Haven and not MMA back then, yet senders would often credit to MMA instead even if I didn't give them the MMA link and despite the original copy being up a week in advance. 


-------------
Earn Money Online (NOT scams):
https://premium.gg2u.org?referrer=adg211288" rel="nofollow - GG2U
https://qm.ee/QPWOCX6YV7ZCC" rel="nofollow - Qmee


Posted By: adg211288
Date Posted: 07 Apr 2016 at 12:57am
Originally posted by Vim Fuego Vim Fuego wrote:

Oh yeah, and I also got accused of plagiarism for stealing a line from a Metal Hammer review, when it was the other way around!

I should add plagiarism to reviewer mistakes. I've been victim of it before and I also had one of the other reviewers on Heavy Metal Haven ripping off someone else's reviews (he got banned for that). 

I have something similar to what happened to you happen way back in school though. The person sitting next to me copied my work and I got done for it because his was marked first! 


-------------
Earn Money Online (NOT scams):
https://premium.gg2u.org?referrer=adg211288" rel="nofollow - GG2U
https://qm.ee/QPWOCX6YV7ZCC" rel="nofollow - Qmee


Posted By: UMUR
Date Posted: 07 Apr 2016 at 2:05am
^Plagiarism ugh Dead.

-------------
http://www.lyngby-boldklub.dk/" rel="nofollow - Forever TRUE - Forever BLUE!
https://rateyourmusic.com/~UMUR" rel="nofollow - UMUR on RYM


Posted By: Nightfly
Date Posted: 07 Apr 2016 at 9:02am
Interesting read Adam. I tend to prefer to listen to my music on my hi-fi for reviewing purposes as for one I'm more comfortable and the sound quality is 100 times better than on my PC, therefore the music is likely to get a fairer hearing. For that reason if I don't have the CD or vinyl version I'm unlikely to review it in most cases. When I was more active on Prog Archives I did get sent a number of CD's for review and if the band took the trouble and expense of sending me it I always did a review. For the most part I have tended to decline any offers of free downloads as I don't want to listen to music this way. I appreciate that this is the way most promos are sent these days and it doesn't cost the band/label anything so they can send out a lot more but I'm unlikely to review it though I do make exceptions if i particularly like something. If that's the case though I'm probably going to buy it anyway.


Posted By: adg211288
Date Posted: 07 Apr 2016 at 9:16am
Yeah I prefer to actually play my CD's whenever possible. I only have a little radio to play them on, but it's a pretty good unit. 

-------------
Earn Money Online (NOT scams):
https://premium.gg2u.org?referrer=adg211288" rel="nofollow - GG2U
https://qm.ee/QPWOCX6YV7ZCC" rel="nofollow - Qmee


Posted By: adg211288
Date Posted: 14 Apr 2016 at 1:15am
Just a note that I extended the article slightly to touch on some extra points. 

-------------
Earn Money Online (NOT scams):
https://premium.gg2u.org?referrer=adg211288" rel="nofollow - GG2U
https://qm.ee/QPWOCX6YV7ZCC" rel="nofollow - Qmee


Posted By: Vic
Date Posted: 14 Apr 2016 at 8:33am
Very interesting read!

I can relate to many of those points. Including the comment about feeling bad about criticizing work that has been handed to you - and I will add ...with eagerness and high hopes by people who say publicly they are fans of your writing. That's a wonderful compliment but a real awkward situation when they hand you something that sounds completely bland and uninteresting.

I remember when I got my first physical promo, back in 1997. I don't know who remembers The Great Kat, that crazy, CRAZY woman but in 1996 she made a comeback and a year later her sister (I think) contacted me about reviewing her new EP, Guitar Goddess. I was quite flattered because I had a website with some reviews but nothing major. Although back then there weren't many sites anyway. I got the full package too, large folder with professional pictures, bios and other notes, the cd, I felt like a real pro. 

A shame it was fucking awful. I never wrote a review for it. Hahaha.

As for plagiarism, I've seen people in major outlets in Greece copying specific arguments from my reviews, sometimes even verbatim. I am not sure they even realized it. I took that as flattery and as succeeding in getting the point across. The more, the merrier!


-------------
42


Posted By: UMUR
Date Posted: 14 Apr 2016 at 8:55am
He he The Great Kat...yeah that is pretty awful music LOL

-------------
http://www.lyngby-boldklub.dk/" rel="nofollow - Forever TRUE - Forever BLUE!
https://rateyourmusic.com/~UMUR" rel="nofollow - UMUR on RYM


Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: 14 Apr 2016 at 9:22am
Very cool blog, Adam. It hasn't happened in the metal world so much but I have gotten quite a number of contacts on prog archives where I have written many reviews upon request. I basically demand a physical copy in exchange for a review. I'm also of the mindset that reviewing is first and foremost a hobby that I do not want to ruin by feeling obligated to channel my interests into a commercial arena. I have noticed that if I'm just not into the album at hand my review doesn't come out very good. Luckily I've been somewhat successful in weeding out albums I find interesting when a band contacts me

-------------


Posted By: adg211288
Date Posted: 14 Apr 2016 at 9:46am
I actually find that most labels are cool if you do give their artist a negative. They're more used to them every now and then I guess. It's definitely different to have to give one directly to the artist. I only rarely hate something enough to give really lower end ratings though. Normally I just won't bother to review it in that case.

-------------
Earn Money Online (NOT scams):
https://premium.gg2u.org?referrer=adg211288" rel="nofollow - GG2U
https://qm.ee/QPWOCX6YV7ZCC" rel="nofollow - Qmee


Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: 14 Apr 2016 at 11:15am
Have you ever had anyone go ape sit over a negative review?

-------------


Posted By: adg211288
Date Posted: 14 Apr 2016 at 11:44am
No. The closest I've seen was a general snide remark by I think it was Aural Music or one of their sub-labels over one of their releases that was getting a largely negative to lukewarm reception when they said something along the lines of 'ignore the reviews'. 

If someone ever did get hostile over getting a negative I would just politely apologise that they're unhappy with my verdict and then make it clear that I won't be dealing with them again. 


-------------
Earn Money Online (NOT scams):
https://premium.gg2u.org?referrer=adg211288" rel="nofollow - GG2U
https://qm.ee/QPWOCX6YV7ZCC" rel="nofollow - Qmee


Posted By: Vic
Date Posted: 14 Apr 2016 at 11:56am
Not over a review but I had a few cases of readers going apeshit over something I wrote. Usually about a sacred cow, like Iron Maiden or Megadeth, there are people who will not tolerate any negative comment, let alone someone who says Maiden hasn't released a masterpiece since 1988 or that Megadeth's true greatness ends roughly with Cryptic Writings. "Congratulations to management in letting that asshole write such filth!"

-------------
42


Posted By: adg211288
Date Posted: 14 Apr 2016 at 12:54pm
Rabid fans. Dead An absolute pain the arse. 

Here's an example (not mine) of a fan attacking a review and a band member actually stepping in and being cool about the less than stellar write-up:  http://www.metalmusicarchives.com/review/the-lotus-effect/260618#comments" rel="nofollow - http://www.metalmusicarchives.com/review/the-lotus-effect/260618#comments

Worst I ever had I guess was the Mayhem fan sent me a death threat once for daring to give De Mysteriis Dom Sathanas an average rating. 

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" rel="nofollow - http://www.metalmusicarchives.com/review/aquarius/270812


-------------
Earn Money Online (NOT scams):
https://premium.gg2u.org?referrer=adg211288" rel="nofollow - GG2U
https://qm.ee/QPWOCX6YV7ZCC" rel="nofollow - Qmee


Posted By: UMUR
Date Posted: 14 Apr 2016 at 2:02pm
^LOL those cute Little Mayhem fans

-------------
http://www.lyngby-boldklub.dk/" rel="nofollow - Forever TRUE - Forever BLUE!
https://rateyourmusic.com/~UMUR" rel="nofollow - UMUR on RYM


Posted By: Bosh66
Date Posted: 14 Apr 2016 at 3:41pm
Originally posted by adg211288 adg211288 wrote:

Rabid fans. Dead An absolute pain the arse. 


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" rel="nofollow - http://www.metalmusicarchives.com/review/aquarius/270812

Just read this on the train coming home from work. Sorry, had it in my head that you'd written it, which was confusing as it's not your style of writing. Then realised it was our old mate Liam.

Did he not like the album? 

Actually his analogy of Aquarius being like watching ice melt made me chuckle. Quite like the album myself. 


Posted By: Vim Fuego
Date Posted: 15 Apr 2016 at 2:30am
Originally posted by UMUR UMUR wrote:

He he The Great Kat...yeah that is pretty awful music LOL


She has other...talents though.














She's also a violinist.Tongue


Posted By: Vim Fuego
Date Posted: 15 Apr 2016 at 2:35am
Originally posted by siLLy puPPy siLLy puPPy wrote:

Have you ever had anyone go ape sit over a negative review?


Several times on Amazon. Suffocation fans seem to be particularly venomous.LOL


Posted By: UMUR
Date Posted: 15 Apr 2016 at 2:37am
Originally posted by Vim Fuego Vim Fuego wrote:

Originally posted by UMUR UMUR wrote:

He he The Great Kat...yeah that is pretty awful music LOL


She has other...talents though.














She's also a violinist.Tongue
Yeah if you´re into a violin playing domina LOL

-------------
http://www.lyngby-boldklub.dk/" rel="nofollow - Forever TRUE - Forever BLUE!
https://rateyourmusic.com/~UMUR" rel="nofollow - UMUR on RYM


Posted By: UMUR
Date Posted: 15 Apr 2016 at 2:39am
Originally posted by Vim Fuego Vim Fuego wrote:

Originally posted by siLLy puPPy siLLy puPPy wrote:

Have you ever had anyone go ape sit over a negative review?


Several times on Amazon. Suffocation fans seem to be particularly venomous.LOL
 
Grrrrr....yes we are AngryBig smileLOL


-------------
http://www.lyngby-boldklub.dk/" rel="nofollow - Forever TRUE - Forever BLUE!
https://rateyourmusic.com/~UMUR" rel="nofollow - UMUR on RYM


Posted By: adg211288
Date Posted: 15 Apr 2016 at 3:31am
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):

Quote 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.




-------------
Earn Money Online (NOT scams):
https://premium.gg2u.org?referrer=adg211288" rel="nofollow - GG2U
https://qm.ee/QPWOCX6YV7ZCC" rel="nofollow - Qmee


Posted By: Vim Fuego
Date Posted: 15 Apr 2016 at 4:25am
Originally posted by adg211288 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" rel="nofollow - 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.LOL 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.


Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: 15 Apr 2016 at 7:00am
Originally posted by Vim Fuego Vim Fuego wrote:

Originally posted by siLLy puPPy siLLy puPPy wrote:

Have you ever had anyone go ape sit over a negative review?


Several times on Amazon. Suffocation fans seem to be particularly venomous.LOL


Those charming Suffocation fans need to sit back take a deep breath and visualize exactly what those other talents of the Great Kat are :)

-------------


Posted By: Unitron
Date Posted: 15 Apr 2016 at 12:32pm
Originally posted by adg211288 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):

Quote 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.



Really good review, it certainly doesn't make me want to play the game.

I could go on and on about how many issues I have with the Steam user base, but I'll keep it on topic. I really hate that the "reviews" voted most helpful are just people trying to be funny instead of the real reviews as you said. I wrote a negative review of Star Wars Dark Forces II a few years ago, and while to be fair I've since replaced it as it was pretty badly written review being one of my first reviews, it got many down votes. Although the review I replaced it also needs to be replaced as I didn't go into as much detail as I wanted, and that's one of the unfinished reviews I have saved to my computer. I think the main thing keeping me from reviewing it is that I'm not wanting to go through playing it again. LOL


-------------
If I say fuck two more times that's forty-six fucks in this fucked up rhyme


Posted By: adg211288
Date Posted: 15 Apr 2016 at 12:39pm
Originally posted by Unitron Unitron wrote:

I really hate that the "reviews" voted most helpful are just people trying to be funny instead of the real reviews as you said. 

I think it speaks volumes that Valve felt the need to add a funny option on the review feedback.


-------------
Earn Money Online (NOT scams):
https://premium.gg2u.org?referrer=adg211288" rel="nofollow - GG2U
https://qm.ee/QPWOCX6YV7ZCC" rel="nofollow - Qmee


Posted By: adg211288
Date Posted: 21 Aug 2016 at 4:00am
Originally posted by siLLy puPPy siLLy puPPy wrote:

Have you ever had anyone go ape sit over a negative review?

Digging up an old post here, but I realised something else that you could say was someone going ape shit over a review:

Quite some time ago I gave a negative review to someone and at the time nothing was said about it. I'd forgotten about it until recently when I was expecting a promo for a release I was expecting to review from them. It didn't arrive, which is when I realised I haven't received a damn thing from that label since I gave one of theirs a bad write-up.

If being struck off someone's promo list for giving a negative review isn't going age shit, I don't know what is. 

This was the review in question (rating was lowered from original 2.5 to 2 due to revising my rating system):  http://www.metalmusicarchives.com/review/omniscient/297439" rel="nofollow - http://www.metalmusicarchives.com/review/omniscient/297439


-------------
Earn Money Online (NOT scams):
https://premium.gg2u.org?referrer=adg211288" rel="nofollow - GG2U
https://qm.ee/QPWOCX6YV7ZCC" rel="nofollow - Qmee


Posted By: DippoMagoo
Date Posted: 21 Aug 2016 at 1:00pm
I never saw this topic until today, probably because it happened while I was in the hospital and before I had access to my laptop. One thing I can add: I've personally never had negative feedback on my reviews (even in one case where I wrote a terrible 0.5 star review on RYM the band seemed more interested to know why I hated the album than actually offended by it,) but I was involved with a bit of a siutation. 

Basically, back at the first site I was doing promos for, one of the reviewers made a forum post explaining he was working on a promo but hated the album so much he couldn't get through a single listen, and asked if people thought he should go through with the review anyway. He did, despite me and another person saying it wasn't a good idea, and long story short, I discovered one of my best friends on RYM loved the band in question, so I pointed him to the review and shortly after I heard from the person who ran the site that he had recieved an email blasting that review, and I knew it was my friend who did it, because he told me he had. I too thought the review was terribly written, so I did what I thought was the best thing to do at the time: I checked the album for myself and got to work on my own review. Well, surprise surprise, I loved the album but because I was a bit immature as a reviewer back then, my review looked like a blatant counter to the other review, and so I recieved a bit of negative feedback from the site before it got posted (we had a place where we worked on reviews and the admins of the site could see what the staff was working on before it was submitted,) leading to a heavily edited version being posted. 

A slightly revised version of the original review still exists on RYM, though I won't directly link it because even though I made some good points in it, I also made some of the most obvious mistakes a reviewer shouldn't make, the most obvious being that you should never write a review specifically to counter someone and make them look bad, which is essentially what I did. Yes, writing a detailed positive review can help when the only other review on the site for that album is negative, but directly mentioning other reviews in any way is an obvious no-no and back then I didn't know better. So basically, that whole situation was handled quite terribly by just about everyone involved. (For those curious, the album in question was  http://www.metalmusicarchives.com/album/andromeda/manifest-tyranny" rel="nofollow - http://www.metalmusicarchives.com/album/andromeda/manifest-tyranny , though I'd never post that review here for the reasons I already mentioned.)

Thankfully, since then I haven't had any similar situations. I have gotten a decent amount of positive feedback for my reviews over the years, though. In fact, I've gotten shout outs from the makers of my two favorite albums of all time (one of them was even for a review I specifically wrote for MMA recently) so that's pretty awesome.

My experiences are different from Adam's though, because I'm part of a team so I don't have to worry about encountering some of the challenges he faces. I pretty much get to pick and choose what I cover and know new albums from the labels will always show up for me. I do occasionally experience burnouts, but even then it's usually more struggling to come up with opening paragraphs for a review than it is not being motivated to listen to my promos. I did enjoy reading Adam's write up though, and can agree that a lot of the things he brought up on both sides would be problems.


Posted By: adg211288
Date Posted: 21 Aug 2016 at 1:11pm
^ Great contribution Travis. 

The act of a counter review is tricky ground. On one hand if a review you disagree with motivates you to write your own that much you should go for it, but you've got to be subtle about it and make sure that your review can stand on its own without your reader having to go read the other review first. I'm sure many reviewers have fallen into that trap and really this also goes for referencing any other review even if you are agreeing with it: that review may not always be there after all. The reviewer may change it or pull it completely at any time. 


-------------
Earn Money Online (NOT scams):
https://premium.gg2u.org?referrer=adg211288" rel="nofollow - GG2U
https://qm.ee/QPWOCX6YV7ZCC" rel="nofollow - Qmee


Posted By: UMUR
Date Posted: 21 Aug 2016 at 1:24pm
^Yeah definitely never mention other reviews or reviewers in your own reviews. It´s also pretty annoying to people who don´t know the original reviewer.

-------------
http://www.lyngby-boldklub.dk/" rel="nofollow - Forever TRUE - Forever BLUE!
https://rateyourmusic.com/~UMUR" rel="nofollow - UMUR on RYM


Posted By: DippoMagoo
Date Posted: 21 Aug 2016 at 1:26pm
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. 

I generally don't reference other reviews at this point, because that usually leads to trouble and is generally lazy to do (in fact a friend of mine got someone's review on RYM taken down recently for blatantly calling me out and criticizing my tastes,) but I will occasionally throw in small references. For example, my Timeless Miracle review had a couple, but I used them a lot more carefully than I did in the past, so they seemed like general observations.


Posted By: adg211288
Date Posted: 21 Aug 2016 at 1:36pm
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). 

-------------
Earn Money Online (NOT scams):
https://premium.gg2u.org?referrer=adg211288" rel="nofollow - GG2U
https://qm.ee/QPWOCX6YV7ZCC" rel="nofollow - Qmee


Posted By: Vim Fuego
Date Posted: 22 Aug 2016 at 1:12am
Originally posted by adg211288 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!


Posted By: 666sharon666
Date Posted: 22 Aug 2016 at 1:26pm
Counter reviews are the very reason I've never posted the longest review I ever wrote. I could never get it to read the way I intended it to, and it was a general counter to something rather than a direct response to one review/person.

I'm talking about Myrkur by the way. Ultimately I just gave up on my review. Adam and Khaliq both also touched on what I was trying to respond to anyway in their reviews - I think that's enough to show that there is a genuine problem with the backlash Myrkur got, especially when you get idiots making things like this:

https://www.facebook.com/myrkurmyrkur/photos/a.272794102908301.1073741827.197207977133581/570824123105296/?type=3&theater


Posted By: TheHeavyMetalCat
Date Posted: 23 Aug 2016 at 8:43am
That image makes me angry. It's good to see that she takes it in her stride though.


Posted By: UMUR
Date Posted: 23 Aug 2016 at 1:34pm
Originally posted by 666sharon666 666sharon666 wrote:

Counter reviews are the very reason I've never posted the longest review I ever wrote. I could never get it to read the way I intended it to, and it was a general counter to something rather than a direct response to one review/person.

I'm talking about Myrkur by the way. Ultimately I just gave up on my review. Adam and Khaliq both also touched on what I was trying to respond to anyway in their reviews - I think that's enough to show that there is a genuine problem with the backlash Myrkur got, especially when you get idiots making things like this:

https://www.facebook.com/myrkurmyrkur/photos/a.272794102908301.1073741827.197207977133581/570824123105296/?type=3&theater
Check out this comment by the lady herself...now that´s great humour Clap
 
https://www.facebook.com/myrkurmyrkur/?rc=p" rel="nofollow - Myrkur "Also they are not right about the "no ass", ask anyone who's stood behind me"


-------------
http://www.lyngby-boldklub.dk/" rel="nofollow - Forever TRUE - Forever BLUE!
https://rateyourmusic.com/~UMUR" rel="nofollow - UMUR on RYM


Posted By: Nightfly
Date Posted: 26 Aug 2016 at 12:01pm
LOLClap


Posted By: 666sharon666
Date Posted: 27 Aug 2016 at 3:51am
Yes she takes it well, but I still find it sickening the way some people have launched personal attacks against her. Some people have apparently sent her death threats as well. Metalheads often make a big thing about how metal is for everyone, but there's a portion here that are really letting the side down. And she's not the only female I've noticed getting this sort of harassment.

Most of the criticisms she receives don't seem to have anything to do with her actual music. Those that do make little sense given that she plays black metal which isn't exactly known for its virtuosic values. And I personally find her album to be a lot more interesting and unusual in the genre than most black metal is. I sometimes wonder if the people who criticise her even listen to much black metal. Calling her music amateurish seems rather ironic considering some of those early black metal releases. And meanwhile Filosofem is still ranked as the best black metal album of all time on RYM...which if anything has all the same 'flaws' people say Myrkur has, if not more so.



Posted By: adg211288
Date Posted: 27 Aug 2016 at 5:00am
I happen to like Filosofem but I do get your point. 

-------------
Earn Money Online (NOT scams):
https://premium.gg2u.org?referrer=adg211288" rel="nofollow - GG2U
https://qm.ee/QPWOCX6YV7ZCC" rel="nofollow - Qmee


Posted By: Unitron
Date Posted: 27 Aug 2016 at 10:35am
Originally posted by 666sharon666 666sharon666 wrote:

Yes she takes it well, but I still find it sickening the way some people have launched personal attacks against her. Some people have apparently sent her death threats as well. Metalheads often make a big thing about how metal is for everyone, but there's a portion here that are really letting the side down. And she's not the only female I've noticed getting this sort of harassment.

Most of the criticisms she receives don't seem to have anything to do with her actual music. Those that do make little sense given that she plays black metal which isn't exactly known for its virtuosic values. And I personally find her album to be a lot more interesting and unusual in the genre than most black metal is. I sometimes wonder if the people who criticise her even listen to much black metal. Calling her music amateurish seems rather ironic considering some of those early black metal releases. And meanwhile Filosofem is still ranked as the best black metal album of all time on RYM...which if anything has all the same 'flaws' people say Myrkur has, if not more so.


I think a lot of the people insulting her are actually black metal fans, as most black metal fans I've seen on other sites are among the most elitist of fans. I've seen some particularly disgusting Youtube comments on some of her videos, including one person who literally was saying she wasn't "Trve" (Actually said this, and not ironically) because she used to be a model and in a pop group.


-------------
If I say fuck two more times that's forty-six fucks in this fucked up rhyme


Posted By: 666sharon666
Date Posted: 27 Aug 2016 at 12:33pm
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.


Posted By: Unitron
Date Posted: 27 Aug 2016 at 12:47pm
Yeah, the only argument about the music I've seen other than the "trve" and "kvlt" comments are about it being a rip-off as well. I just don't get it, not only is she one of the best black metal musicians I've heard, but it's also among the most unique black metal I've heard. I try to ignore it, assholes will be assholes, although it can be hard to ignore when it becomes so wide-spread (I'm looking at you elitists who say Metallica didn't do anything and are sell-outs).

-------------
If I say fuck two more times that's forty-six fucks in this fucked up rhyme



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.16 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2013 Web Wiz Ltd. - http://www.webwiz.co.uk