Metal Reviews

You're welcome to comment on:


Click here to see the review.

Owned.

I've heard a few songs off this CD, I really like. They have a big Dead Can Dance sound. I'll be picking this up soon. I heard their earlier work isn't as good, anyone know if this is true?

Ouch.

Seriously, though, I believe I was making a good point when I complained about the lack of metal. You (the team) reviewed lots of metalcore crap that no-one cared about and even did a NIN review! Could we have an official statement on what counts as 'metal', and why some things get reviewed (NIN) when others aren't (Mortiis).

I have no problem with reviews such as this one and the Ulver, which I like far better than the deluge of unorigional metalcore. At least this opens people's mind a little.

I kind of like how MR has a wide variety of reviews. I like how they "go beyond the borders" of metal.

I like the wide variety as well, I just think the problem is too much mainstream non-metal...

Maybe I can offer a little perspective here. First off, if a label sends you a CD, you're sort of obligated to review it. That way the label continues to send you CDs. If they send power metal one week and metalcore the next, you review it. Also, Mortiis might not get reviewed because either they didn't get a CD from a label, or if a reviewer does own it, they may not have the time to review it because of all the other CDs that they have to review for labels.

I do reviews and they're not easy, I can tell you guys about a CD I think kicks ass and sort of bullshit about it here informally, but with a review you actually have to put some serious thought into, which makes it much more time consuming.

Personally, I'd rather see more reviews spanning the whole metal spectrum here. In 2005 the word "Metal" means nothing. Metal is like the top of the metal family tree, under it are tons and tons of metal offspring, all with differing qualities. I think some people here have their own opinion of what "metal" is, but the fact remains that straight up metal is pretty much extinct now. If they review a Ludacris CD, then you have grounds to complain, otherwise I don't think it's that big of a deal.

Another thing you can do is review CDs yourself and just post your review in a forum! That'll get people talking...

Agree with you on many fronts here, especially the definition of "metal".

Yeah, I don't know what the big deal is about people wanting a focus on Metal reviews here. It's not like the fucking site is named Metal Reviews or something. I mean, if the site had both a genre and a purpose spelled out right in the name then you might have an argument.

Err...anyway, It's not like you can actually define Metal. Metal is an elusive beast, one that is completely impossible to decipher or to pin down with words. For example, look at the following list of genres for this week's reviews, can you pick out the one that is NOT Metal? I think not!

Brutal Thrash Metal
Modern Aggressive Metal
Epic Folk / Viking Metal
Progressive Metal with Psychedelic Influences
Power Metal
Technical Death Metal
...Dark Ambient

It's not like there is some recurring theme, either in the names or for any of those cds that might differentiate them from one other. It's as if all of you naysayers thought they shared something in common that only one cd out of the lot didn't also have.

And on topic, I listened to the website sample.
HIM + late Limp Bizkit + acoustic Nickleback = this rubbish. Surely there's better stuff out there?

It's a relaxing cd. I like it.

I'd like to see the odd energetic movie score reviewed.. Gladiator or Lord of the Rings for example is a hell of a lot more 'metal' than Billy Idol (not that there's anything wrong with Billy Idol). So much metal draws influence from classical music, and bands like Rhapsody have one foot in movie score land as it is.

What the hell are you talking about? HIM and Limp Bizkit??? Did you even bother to listen to the music before saying something that stupid? If yes, do it again, it's clear the first time you didn't get it. Maybe the samples suck or something... get the real thing. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to sound agressive, but your comparisons are incredibly out of line.

This is really a very good album, thanks Alex for making me notice these guys. This is how Anathema would have sounded if they went all acoustic, back when they were in form (minus the great vocals of Vincent Cavannaugh). It's probably no surprise, since D. Patterson is the mastermind behind some of Anathema's greatest songs in their Eternity/Alternative 4 periode. I was wondering what this guy was doing lately, I'm sure glad I found out, this is a great album.

The only Limp Bizkit song I have ever suffered through was called 'Behind Blue Eyes'. This sounded like it. girly pop-rock Him sounds like this. I don't like this.

:evil: Behind Blue Eyes was a great song and they just killed it... try listening to the original version (Who's Next 1971, The Who) and you'll see how lame those guys are ! :evil:

The Who did the origional? Respect. My lack of musical knowledge shows me up again! *slits wrists in warm bath*

Metal? There is so much metal in this amazing record, its ridiculous. I think one thing all "metal" bands hold in common in this 21st century is a dedication and seriousness towards the music. This is what seperates it from other genres, especially ones that get "critically respect", i.e. indie rock. It is certainly not about image, at least not as blatantly pathetic and sad as, say, the Strokes or the White Stripes; its all about being a good musician and taking care in writing songs. Planetary Confinement has this in spades. I don't even like Anathema, personally, but this stuff is beautiful. Is it metal, in a traditional, sense? Of course not. Should it be reviewed on a website as thorough as Metal Reviews? Absolutely.

Thanks to Mamfeman for bringing this thread back to the top so I could have a good chuckle.