well it's all hawks listens to as well, so that's not saying much

lol. From what i've heard from this guy, its really hit or miss with me (mostly the latter). Eksistensens Jeger is a bad ass song though.

This review seems really fanboyish towards black metal in general. the only thing you said that was really engaging in the music's quality was how the songs flowed, and that was pretty brief. It also doesn't read like a 5 due to the lack of proof for the rating(in my opinion a 5 needs a lot of proof).

Album Rating: 3.5

Ildjarn is great, but this review is pointless.

Album Rating: 4.0

My comment up there was sort of meant to be insulting. I'm just put off by most people on this site not knowing any releases/bands from before the 2000s (as far as underground metal is concerned). People not having heard of famous bands like Emperor and Ildjarn seems outrageous to me.

well as far as emperor goes that was just Zippermouth. I'm pretty sure most of the people that listen to metal on here have a copy of In the Nightside Eclipse

The sputnik review site community isn't very up to date with underground metal, that much is true. But most of the idiots on MA are full of shit too.

I've heard of this band but never got around to them

Album Rating: 4.0

I give a 5 to anything I'd give 90%+ to on metal archives generally. I am an Ildjarn fanboy and I made that clear. I don't think the review is pointless, I did discuss the music at length by my own standards. I'm not gonna write much more than 5 paragraphs for any review.

Album Rating: 4.0

i'd rather read noisymugwump fellating a great black metal band than hawks fellating fucking dark funeral



besides, this review isn't bad at all. i think he justifies his love for ildjarn pretty well.

Album Rating: 3.5

I don't think the review is pointless, I did discuss the music at length by my own standards.

seems a bit excessive. 27 tracks?!?!?! thats crazy!

guys, hes from metal-archives. he must know his stuff

27 songs ftl.

Album Rating: 3.5

And all the ADHD asspies show up to whine.

Album Rating: 4.0

If you can't sit through an hour long album then buzz off. And about all this metal archives stuff, I'm not saying everyone on that site is a genius, but it has plenty of people who are knowledgeable on underground metal.

Album Rating: 3.5

The vast majority of people on M-A - easily over 90% of them - have an insane amount of knowledge on underground metal, but no understanding of it. The reviews there are incredibly stupid. The site's awesome as an archive, but as a way of finding out what is and isn't good, it's worthless.

Album Rating: 4.0

There are some good reviewers on there. In my opinion a review shouldn't be a 3000 word narrative description where you go on for 3 paragraphs comparing the sound to colours and imagery and abstract nonsense. Just running down what the album sounds like, some facts about it and why you like it in 3-5 paragraphs should do it.

Album Rating: 3.5

Nobody cares why YOU like it. Comparing the music to "colours and imagery and abstract nonsense," and using objective facts about the music's construction to support these comparisons, IS a description of what the album sounds like - incessant blather about blastbeats, grimness, and brutality (which is 90% of M-A reviews for death and black metal albums) is vapid noise that does nothing to tell a reader what the music conveys.

Album Rating: 4.0

Well blast beats and "brutality" are objective aspects of the music, I don't know about grimness. And if nobody cares why I like an album why am I rating it and giving my opinions of it? A review conveys nothing but the opinion of a reviewer. If you trust that reviewer as an authority you take their word for it.