Al@metalreviews wrote:
Radical Cut wrote:
They brought to mind My Chemical Romance...
Now, now, they had a bad album but there's no need to beat them repeatedly over the head with the pain stick by comparing them to that lot.
Ken, why do you see metalcore as a derogatory term? It may be in the states I suppose but over here in the UK I'm not aware of it having a stigma attached...It's just a genre! 'Mallcore' is derogatory, metalcore isn't. And calling people ignorant and accusing them of not listening to the album (I presume I'm included in that) for using the term is going a bit far wouldn't you say? Believe me, I listened to it over five times, it's imprinted on my memory...similar to the last time I received an enema against my will. If you don't think they're metalcore, then fair enough, that's your opinion, you're not gonna win me over but I respect it anyways. you made your point, why start calling people who don't agree with you ignorant?
OK, the important thing here is that I was not trying to be insulting. I said:
Metalcore is NOT a broad term. It's used by people who're ignorant, just like the people who label a million different bands "nu-metal."
The first sentence is who that was directed at, it was more of a general statement about the people that just slap a label on something with ill-regard. You wrote the review, it's obvious that you listened to the album. I disagree that it's metalcore, I feel metalcore is a clearly defined genre, enough so that Eyes Of Fire shouldn't be labelled that.
And I don't feel metalcore is derogatory at all, just a term that's used too freely by people who don't know the genre. For instance, Zad saying Refused and Killswitch are the same style, to me that says Zad doesn't know what metalcore is. That's not meant to be insulting.
)