Metal Reviews

You're welcome to comment on:


Click here to see the review.

ROTFL!!!!

So I guess the album title is quite fitting then.

I pity the fools who say this is the heaviest, most brutal band ever.

Even Godspeed You! Black Emperor is heavier than these fags.

It's true, you should check out the comments people leave on Slipknot news in www.ultimate-guitar.com, fucking horrific.

Now, one thing about the review:

"Volume 3 was a surprisingly good album"

Good one.

Also I heard Psychosocial at a bar last weekend, just your average metalcore song, so surprising that since nu metal is no longer popular, who would have expected Slipknot to go with the new trend?

Isn't this a number 1 album?!

Also, I like PSYCHOSOCIAL. sO SHOOT ME. Woope, wrong way with the caps locl, I cba to change it.

A lot of new Slipknot songs get played on the metal station on my satellite radio. I heard one song, can't remember which one, and was surprised thinking it was alright. Then they started playing other songs from the album, and well I still don't like Slipknot.

Meh. None of the songs I've heard from this album are too terribly impressive. All Hope Is Gone is alright, but Psychosocial sounds kinda silly. I'm not surprised. Cory can't scream anymore, and all their charming aggression just went away after Iowa. Vol. 3 was alright... Judging from what I've heard, this isn't that great.

Meh.

Spot on.

Jordison's going to drum for Gorgoroth, by the way.

Source?

Personal. The same that informed me of what happened backstage at Wacken with Gaahl's bum boy.

I lol'ed.

I guess I listen to a lot of black metal, and GWAR... But does anyone else think it's weird they still wear the costumes?

Considering that their main fanbase is still sixteen-year olds, not really. Maybe on the next album there'll be a dramatic unveiling, although it'll fall flat on its face considering that the members don't mind being photographed, they didn't once appear in the usual masks on the bonus DVD that came with AHIG, just those big head things.

I think their masks have gotten worse, by the by. Corey's leatherface one from Vol 3 was much superior to his current one, if Jordison's zombie jesus thing is an improvement. I think they should switch to all having the same one, making them seem more of a faceless entity than the current freakshow thang.

I thought this was a great album, especially after the debacle that was Vol. 3.

This album won't rate or rank anywhere near as high as Iowa I suspect due to the kind of music I listen to now as opposed to 7 years ago, but even so, I was pleasently surprised.

On another note, I wonder why people keep making crass generalizations about bands like this. I remember when people said Static-X was nu-metal, though they had more in common with Strapping Young Lad than anything. This is the same story. Groove oriented metal that is somewhat popular will always end being the enemy or those that want to be so elitist about metal. People still make comments about Pantera sucking. I don't get it really. I guess people can't really be objective. In other words, I am tired of reading bad reviews for great albums because it isn't on some european indie label.

I never cared if people disagreed with my opinion, that's why I'll be the first to admit that this album has a lot of potential to become A Favorite over time. Or, I won't listen to it again after a couple weeks, who knows. But the vibe from Iowa, one of my favorite albums ever, is back and I am very excited about it.

I do have a question for everyone reading this: Why would you let the often moronic fanbase of any band ruin the music for you? What do you care if 4 million people that don't know who exodus is this something is a good album. Do you really think enjoying a mainstream release hurts your credibility?

That is not the issue, this is a question of psychology more than anything. Most metal fans associate Slipknot with a lot ofg negative things. They could pull Master of Puppets out of thier asses every six months and certain people would think its crap because of who they are. It isn't really a decision, its conditional. If you have been told so many times how much you are supposed to hate something, invariably, you'll hate it. Unless of course you are conditioned to rebel against what people tell you to hate.

Anyway, I think its about time people gave this band some credit for being one of the few mainstream acts that are making great stuff for people that generally don't know what "great" is.

Hell, If it weren't for Iowa, I probably wouldn't have seeked other great metal bands that sounded so much like that album.

I also have one issue with the review (having just read it) how is it exactly that they are being tendy doing a more metal album? I haven't noticed too much of a significant change in their signature sound since mate.feed.kill.repeat. Guitar solos were unfashionable for awile, so what. Metallica and Rush didn't even have solos during this period, few did on any label that expected to sell more than 25k copies. Ignoring history doesn't help your argument.

1. They're being trendy because Metal has become more trendy.
2. What, you can't heard the differences between the s/t, Iowa, 3 and this? I can. There's a definate progression, but 3 was the pinnacle.
3. Rush had keyboard solos.
4. Whatever. I gave this a 56/100 because the songs are mostly poor. An album full of great songs like Psychosocial would've given it a higher score.

1. I don't see it, it would be one thing if they were a punk band or a pop band or something other than a metal band to begin with. I don't get the argument that a metal band is being tendy by being "more metal" than before, whatever that means. Personally if we wanna talk in terms of metalness, Iowa was the most metal. Honestly even if they tried to become a serious metal band on that album and now have gone back to that somewhat, how does that mean they are being trendy?

2. Every album by any band generally retains the previous sounds they used on other albums. This isn't news, If you wanna really split hairs about it. the first album had a death metal, some weird funk style, ect. The second had a more aggressive and fast style. Jim root joins the band in between the reocrding of the s/t and Iowa. They release a metal album that sounds like most thrash groove hybrids, such as slayer, testament, ect. Their next album Vol. 3 would have some of that metal sound, but rick rubin ruins this record with a horrible sound and uninspired, tired songs that don't reflect hate, anger or the energy of the previous two. This album comes out and rehashes a lot of that Iowa sound with a good measuyre of stone sour thrown in. Again, I don't see how the changes that invariably happen between albums is slipknot being trendy. No one would dare to say the same thing about anyone else that changed a modicrum in between albums.

3. rush never had a single keyboard solo from 1997-present. I was refering to vapor trails, which had no conventional suitar solos. If you wanna consider that 5 notes in earthshine a solo, I can name the times slipknot used similar techniques.

4. It is fine to say the album sucked. I'm not of the opinion that there is such thing as an infalible album, sound, band, whatever. But you used a whole lot of metal buzzwords that would lead people to believe that they are a bunch of trend-happy hacks who because they are on roadrunner and are not in their early twenties are suspect of being completely fony. My issue with the review and I think this is the main beef I have with their detractors is that they want to discuss everything but the music in a music review. Say the album sucks all you want, maybe i am not objective and it does suck to the majority of people, but can't people just leave this kind of bullshit aside and focus on what it sounds like.

Maybe you are like a real journalist that will take good copy over integrity and objectivity. I don't mean to be rude, but when people can't get specific about what they didn't like about the music and inisist on giving significant space to everything but the way it sounds, I can't take it seriously.

But it's Slipknot, for goodness' sake, if not for the masks and costumes and nine members they'd have faded into nothing years ago. Therefore, that stuff is relevant.

1 + 2. I think that the new, more riffy style they're playing is trendy because that's what's popular now, not groove or nu-metal riffs like were trendy back in the day. I disagree that the s/t was more Death Metal than later albums, I disagree that Iowa was more Metal, I disagree that 3 had poorer songs. This is all my opinion you're attacking me on!

3. Fine.

4. The hype was that this was their most Metal album. I answered that hype. And there was plenty of musical discussion in the review, thankyouverymuch, and I was very specific.

Zad's review is fine, he covers why he doesn't like it pretty thoroughly and gives song examples and explanations. I don't see why you're saying you're not seeing that, Adveser. A review is an opinion, and I think Zad did fine.



I don't really care for MoP myself but if they were to have high caliber releases and albums that actually were well done, I'd be a fan. Of course you're going to have your kvlt underground I listen to one man in a basement band guys who will hate on a particular band regardless, but I think you're being unfair mentioning that here with Slipknot.

Slipknot never caught on with me, but a good friend of mine plays Guitar Hero when we hang out sometimes and that Before I Forget song is really good, and I was a bit surprised to find out it was a Slipknot song. If they'd release an album full of tracks like that I'd be a fan.

They're just so inconsistent in my opinion... It just seems like they can't settle with a defining sound. I like bands that develop their sound and change it up, but I just never felt like Slipknot ever did anything truly defining. I realize I'm no fan of what they play metal wise anyway and that may be a bit of a bias, but I can see this album rating so low unless Slipknot has done a total 180.

Oh yeah, and I think Pantera sucks. /ducks