Metal Reviews

Why do you need a hook to make it memorable? Especially when it sounds like crap that's been done a million times before?

Come to think of it the vocals remind me a little bit of the lead singer from Life of Agony's first release, "River Runs Red".

Jeff, I never thought of that before but I totally agree. River Runs Red was a great album by the way. Why do you need a hook to make a song memorable? I don't know, doesn't most music that's memorable have some kind of hook, whether it be a catchy chorus or a guitar riff? I have this same argument with people that bash Amaranthe. I like their songs because they're catchy and I find nothing wrong with that.

I listed a rather long list of great catchy, poppy metal that is fucking amazing. This is not one of them.

Ah hell nah, you did not just compare Caputo to this shit!?

Yes I do. I think it's a fantastic album, one of my favorites of 2012.

I'll admit to only having heard Guitar Gangsters & Cadillac Blood a long time back, so I put on the title song again and I'm hearing downtuned guitars, palm muting, catchy choruses, slick production et cetera. So it might just be my definition of nu metal, but what I'm hearing is the same kind of drivel I had to grow up with twelve years ago, but with a rockabilly kind of theme, because, you know, the fifties are in fashion at the moment.

In order to dispel my suspected deafness and stupidity, you can find a song of my band here. Since you're such a fun guy to communicate with, I'm expecting some great comments on this song. It might not be macho enough for you, it might not soothe your midlife crisis, but perhaps you might think twice about insulting me.

Well they do what they do very competently, I'll give them that. Thanks for responding through the sea of argumentation.

I actually just saw them live last Friday night, they opened for Opeth. Awesome show. I will say that I find their later work to be a bit more simplistic than their earlier stuff, but I still love it.

I'm really at a loss as to why people feel the need to trade insults over this stuff. I'm all for discussions, but at the end of the day it's art, and therefore subjective.

I hate this line. Having a subjective response in terms of enjoyment or emotion or attachment does not imply that there are not objective criterion with which to judge art. The criterion vary, but that doesn't mean the issue is entirely relative and whatever anyone says goes. If someone came on here and said Limp Bizkit was amazing, I shouldn't have to tip my hat and say 'well, that is your opinion, sir'. I should say "yeah, well, that's just your opinion, man" while knowing they are wrong. That doesn't mean I have to like it to respect it, just that there are certain characteristics demanding of respect. This album lacks those.

Well that's just like, your opinion, man.

You can say whatever you want about the "objective" qualities of music, it's not going to make me enjoy this album any less or make me think that I am "wrong" in the objective sense of the word. And I don't think that it should. If you want to tell me that I have bad taste in music because of that, go right ahead. And think about this: there are probably still a ton more albums we agree on than disagree on. If that's what bothers you, sorry, you're just going to have to live with it.

traptunderice wrote:
Baroness' Yellow or A Pale Horse Named Death or the norwegian Shining or Protest the Hero's Scurrilous or Devin's Addicted or new Kylesa.

I saw Protest the Hero years ago opening for Dragonforce. I thought they absolutely sucked, one of the worst bands I've ever seen. Nothing melodic or catchy, just sounded like typical screamo-core. I don't know about the other bands but if that's what you think is melodic or catchy, we have serious differences in taste in music.

Karmokosmonaut- One, no midlife crisis here. Two, I have no idea what you mean by "manly enough" regarding your song. I don't have Manowar testosterone poisoning. Three, if you think Volbeat sounds like nu-metal you have no idea what nu-metal is. Last time I checked nu-metal would be Korn, Disturbed, Il Nino, etc.

Anyone who uses the phrase screamo, not in relation to the original screamo label in hardcore (Orchid/pg99), should always be suspect. Yeah, PtH is crazy melodic and catchy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVpbrdj6GSU

@Khelek: It's not about tell you your wrong, but putting bullshit under public scrutiny.

boring music that's well done but insults your intelligence and kills your soul

like csi

I'm using this.

And yet you defended Amaranthe in one of your posts. Awesome.

Umm ok? What's the difference? You talk about using objectivity to review music, but at the same time you haven't made one objective observation yet. Your analysis of Pearl Hart had the exact same level of objectivity as my review does...and yet I'm not going to sit here and say it's complete "bullshit." It's your opinion, and I strongly disagree with it, that's all.

You said the track was melodic and memorable. I pointed out to how the track literally did nothing except pander to a chorus-focused mentality that opts not for complexity or even intricacy that works on the mind throughout its four minutes, but relies on simplistic and I will admit infectious hooks that you do remember, but to the point at which it becomes annoying. The objectivity in my critique is how the song literally dumbens the listener through catering to the lowest common denominator. The song doesn't do anything except for during the choruses which are so flagrantly boring, how the fuck do you make pop punk riffs even simpler, while masking the fact that the rest of the track does nothing.

I have no problem being that internet metal nerd who tells you that you're listening to music wrong, if not simply listening to the wrong music. If you're going to listen to mindless drivel, listen to the good shit like Usher or Katy Perry. Not this shit that tries to pass as a cultural form of art that metal, like Imperium Dekadenz for instance, aspires to.

When these guys are good, they are an amazing experience. Saw them in Wacken '09 and they had the crowd electrified.

My only knock is that they can get a bit repetitive .. if this new one has more variety I will probably check it out.

"Literally," dude? Come on. That is not objective. You say the song doesn't "do" anything. Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you're actually saying is that it's not enjoyable for you personally and you don't understand how it can for anyone else. You're using subjective terms like "boring" and "memorable" in the same way I do. If you can't see how that's not objective, I can't explain it any further.

Yes, this music is simplistic. Yes, it has limited complexity in both technicality and the emotional responses it attempts to evoke in the listener (I believe I covered that in my review). And yet, I still enjoy it, and so do many other people. If that bothers you, you can say whatever you want, but I don't believe it has anything to do with my lack of objectivity, intelligence, or integrity in writing reviews. As I said before, I would bet we agree on a hell of a lot more albums than we disagree on, even though I love this album and you despise it. For the record, I personally can't stand most mainstream rock (Hinder, Three Days Grace, Five Finger Death Punch, etc.). It makes me want to vomit out my eardrums. To me that's proof that this is not a matter of objectivity.

Whoa now let's not get carried away, here.