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.