Dark Legions Archive comments and critique

[meganerd]

I'd just like to point out that the DLA review of Majesty and Decay is obviously from a different voice than the previous Immolation reviews.  This discrepancy is blatant and jarring and should not exist.  If the current reviewer(s) cannot bring themselves to accept and adopt the viewpoint established by previous DLA reviews, then the site should be left alone, as a coherent memorial to underground metal and its culture. 

I have not heard the album, but that is irrelevent to the point I'm making.

[Thamuz]

I agree, we should all sound and act exactly like Prozak. Having your own personality is dangerous and ruins the world.

[kontinual]

I'd just like to point out that the DLA review of Majesty and Decay is obviously from a different voice than the previous Immolation reviews.

They were all written by the same person.

This discrepancy is blatant and jarring and should not exist.

Please cite what is blatant and jarring, and for what reasons it should not exist.

If the current reviewer(s) cannot bring themselves to accept and adopt the viewpoint established by previous DLA reviews, then the site should be left alone, as a coherent memorial to underground metal and its culture.

What is this viewpoint, and how has it been violated?

I have not heard the album, but that is irrelevent to the point I'm making.

I think it is.  The tone of the album will help define the tone of a review of it.

[Eleison]

Read the Dimmu Borgir reviews.

[meganerd]

This discrepancy is blatant and jarring and should not exist.

Please cite what is blatant and jarring, and for what reasons it should not exist.

If the current reviewer(s) cannot bring themselves to accept and adopt the viewpoint established by previous DLA reviews, then the site should be left alone, as a coherent memorial to underground metal and its culture.

What is this viewpoint, and how has it been violated?

No. 

If reading the Immolation album reviews in succession does not immediately lead to agreement with my critique, then no amount of arguing on my part will persuade anyone.  When asked for specifics, I tend to reply with further generalizations: I observe the DLA going downhill, and I think it's unfortunate. 

Taking my post out of its intended context is not appreciated.

[kontinual]

We split posts for off-topic comments as we always have.  This wasn't a special case.  Your comments have context independent of the original thread.

Your generalizations are not helpful.  Explain why you see the DLA going downhill.  You have an open thread to do so.

If you find it sad, there is plenty of room to volunteer.  If you are making a defeatist plea, then there's nothing that can be done anyway.

Taking my post out of its intended context is not appreciated.

In the future we'll be sure to better accommodate people who openly criticize but refuse to give us simple answers when asked politely.

[Dylar]

Meganerd, are you referring, perhaps, to the implied criticism of earlier Immolation albums found in the review abstract?

[meganerd]

Meganerd, are you referring, perhaps, to the implied criticism of earlier Immolation albums found in the review abstract?

...and subjecting them to criteria other than that used in the original reviews, yes.

[kontinual]

Meganerd, are you referring, perhaps, to the implied criticism of earlier Immolation albums found in the review abstract?

...and subjecting them to criteria other than that used in the original reviews, yes.

Why didn't you just say that the first time?

How does that extrapolate to a general critique?

[Dylar]

Meganerd, are you referring, perhaps, to the implied criticism of earlier Immolation albums found in the review abstract?

...and subjecting them to criteria other than that used in the original reviews, yes.

No one is subjecting them to new criteria, the review just points out how inherent weaknesses in the band's process eventually ended up being reflected in the results.

[Sepulchral Voice]

I've got a complaint. DLA needs to pump out more reviews. I'd enjoy reading reviews of albums that most of us hold sacred - more classic Kraftwerk, Fripp Eno Evening Star, every Beethoven symphony, Schubert, Bruckner, TANGERINE DREAM. I know that these are non-metal, and this site is death metal and black metal focused, but just a thought. Maybe more undernoticed metal bands that are decent, even though most of the classics are already covered.

[E]

I'd just like to point out that the DLA review of Majesty and Decay is obviously from a different voice than the previous Immolation reviews.

I initially read this as: 'This review lacks poetic quality.', which is true. Maybe you should start a blog reviewing DLA reviews.
"It does sound more like mainstream reviews. Dumbed down, that is." Etcetera.

[Umbrage]

I've got a complaint. DLA needs to pump out more reviews. I'd enjoy reading reviews of albums that most of us hold sacred - more classic Kraftwerk, Fripp Eno Evening Star, every Beethoven symphony, Schubert, Bruckner, TANGERINE DREAM. I know that these are non-metal, and this site is death metal and black metal focused, but just a thought. Maybe more undernoticed metal bands that are decent, even though most of the classics are already covered.

For this reason I'd like to see the Neoclassical Reviews return. Also to get "alt. reviews" that approach albums from a different perspective than the DLA does. I wouldn't like seeing more non-metal being reviewed in the DLA, I think DLA should keep its attention on extreme metal.

[Conservationist]

I'd just like to point out that the DLA review of Majesty and Decay is obviously from a different voice than the previous Immolation reviews.

Contrary to the page of discussion following, I think this is pretty clear: he is criticizing the voice of that one review only because it's a continuity error with the rest of the page.

[Gregorian Watcher]

My biggest complaint with the DLA is that it is becoming far too - shall I say - idiosyncratic towards slandering, bashing and negatively criticizing every new metal album that is released, even ones by legendary artists still active today, listed in the DLA, that are remaining (or at least trying to remain) consistent and honest with their composed new releases.  It almost gives the feeling like no other new releases by existing bands or no other releases by ANY newer bands - good or bad, honest or disingenuous, sincere or fake, etc. - are ever good enough anymore to the standards of the DLA.  Is the DLA trying to give the impression that metal is dead or that they pretend or dwell on wishing it was 1980-something to 1990-something?  Sure, not everything being punched out today is all "good," but that shouldn't mean ignoring, let alone berating, what newer efforts by newcomers might still be worth a listen to either.

For example, I found it rather dubious as well as rather arbitrarily biased that the review on the latest Burzum album, 'Belus' - which is about to be released this month - was rather very negative.  How many people have had a chance to listen to it yet?  I thought that reviews were to be more "objective" rather than "subjective."

It all reeks of overpowering narrow-mindedness.  I totally understand and acknowledge the premium of quality control, but I don't appreciate the overt inflexibility.