Children Of Bodom - Hatebreeder (#36)

Anonymous · **Posted:** Sun Sep 19, 2004 10:55 pm

You're welcome to comment on:

Quote:

Children Of Bodom - Hatebreeder
Melodic Death Metal
Quoted: 100 / 100

Click here to see the review.

Clayman · **Joined:** Sat Jan 22, 2005 4:13 pm **Posts:** 113

I haven't heard this album yet except for one song but I really have to say that the fact that 4/5 of the reviews gave this album 100% made me curious... How can ANYTHING get that many 100s! If this album truly is as you guys say it is then it will definatly become a classic...

Anonymous · **Posted:** Thu Jan 27, 2005 12:27 pm

I agree it's a great album, probably CoB's best but it's way too early to consider this a classic...

I think there should be a new policy that an album has to be at least 10 years of age before having a "classics" review... imo, it will make more sense... but great album indeed !

deathkvlt · **Posted:** Thu Jan 27, 2005 5:14 pm

The Immortal Emokid wrote:

I agree it's a great album, probably CoB's best but it's way too early to consider this a classic...

I think there should be a new policy that an album has to be at least 10 years of age before having a "classics" review... imo, it will make more sense... but great album indeed !

I totally agree with you Subcomandante, at least 10 years are required to know if an album is or will become a classic.

Lord Jotun · **Posted:** Thu Jan 27, 2005 7:00 pm

True, and I believe this one definitely will.

Anonymous · **Posted:** Thu Jan 27, 2005 7:22 pm

Lord Jotun wrote:

True, and I believe this one definitely will.

yeah, maybe... but the fact remains it has been reviewed too early for my classic's standard !

Desolate · **Posted:** Thu Jan 27, 2005 8:11 pm

The Immortal Emokid wrote:

I think there should be a new policy that an album has to be at least 10 years of age before having a "classics" review... imo, it will make more sense... but great album indeed !

Immortal - Battles in the North.

In '00 everyone already knew it's a fucking classic. 4 years have passed. Something changed? NO.

Conclusion: Not always it requires 10 years for an album to become a classic...

Anonymous · **Posted:** Thu Jan 27, 2005 9:07 pm

Desolate wrote:

The Immortal Emokid wrote:

I think there should be a new policy that an album has to be at least 10 years of age before having a "classics" review... imo, it will make more sense... but great album indeed !

Immortal - Battles in the North.

In '00 everyone already knew it's a fucking classic. 4 years have passed. Something changed? NO.

Conclusion: Not always it requires 10 years for an album to become a classic...

well, give it 5 more years & we'll talk about it ! :twisted:

Desolate · **Posted:** Thu Jan 27, 2005 9:46 pm

The Immortal Emokid wrote:

Desolate wrote:

The Immortal Emokid wrote:

I think there should be a new policy that an album has to be at least 10 years of age before having a "classics" review... imo, it will make more sense... but great album indeed !

Immortal - Battles in the North.

In '00 everyone already knew it's a fucking classic. 4 years have passed. Something changed? NO.

Conclusion: Not always it requires 10 years for an album to become a classic...

well, give it 5 more years & we'll talk about it ! :twisted:

It will be 15 year old then :roll:

I meant that in '00 only 5 years have passed since it's release (in '95) and it was already a classic of the genre

Anonymous · **Posted:** Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:33 pm

Desolate wrote:

The Immortal Emokid wrote:

Desolate wrote:

The Immortal Emokid wrote:

I think there should be a new policy that an album has to be at least 10 years of age before having a "classics" review... imo, it will make more sense... but great album indeed !

Immortal - Battles in the North.

In '00 everyone already knew it's a fucking classic. 4 years have passed. Something changed? NO.

Conclusion: Not always it requires 10 years for an album to become a classic...

well, give it 5 more years & we'll talk about it ! :twisted:

It will be 15 year old then :roll:

I meant that in '00 only 5 years have passed since it's release (in '95) and it was already a classic of the genre

you say it's a classic, I say we have to wait 5 more years to see if it's gonna make it... maybe in five years you'll dislike it... so many things can happen

Orion · **Posted:** Fri Jan 28, 2005 4:20 am

This is a great album. But i agree it is probably too early for it to be a classic.

Anonymous · **Posted:** Fri Jan 28, 2005 5:11 am

It hasn't been 10 years for Anthems to be a classic, it was out 2 years before this. :|

It's a classic, all Bodom albums will be.

Desolate · **Posted:** Fri Jan 28, 2005 5:03 pm

The Immortal Emokid wrote:

Desolate wrote:

The Immortal Emokid wrote:

Desolate wrote:

The Immortal Emokid wrote:

I think there should be a new policy that an album has to be at least 10 years of age before having a "classics" review... imo, it will make more sense... but great album indeed !

Immortal - Battles in the North.

In '00 everyone already knew it's a fucking classic. 4 years have passed. Something changed? NO.

Conclusion: Not always it requires 10 years for an album to become a classic...

well, give it 5 more years & we'll talk about it ! :twisted:

It will be 15 year old then :roll:

I meant that in '00 only 5 years have passed since it's release (in '95) and it was already a classic of the genre

you say it's a classic, I say we have to wait 5 more years to see if it's gonna make it... maybe in five years you'll dislike it... so many things can happen

I think we're misunderstanding each other...

You're speaking about Battles (10 years) or Hatebreeder (5 years)? :? :?

I remembered Battles just to show you how an album became a classic in 5 years (and it isn't the only exclusion in the rule)

Anonymous · **Posted:** Fri Jan 28, 2005 5:15 pm

ok... all I'm saying is it needs 10 years (at least) to decide if an album can be considered as classic or not...
Immortal's Battles in the North is 10 years old in 2005, so maybe it's the year we can decide but maybe not... sometimes it takes longer for exemple when the kind of music played is "new" as it is with Black Metal (talking modern standards, not early BM like Venom)... and most important of all, what is a classic ? imo, it's a record that the majority agrees to consider either as a landmark or at least influencial music... the quality of the music itself may be a secondary matter as in Hellhammer, Venom or Bathory's firsts albums...

do we understand each other now ? :roll:

Desolate · **Posted:** Fri Jan 28, 2005 5:25 pm

The Immortal Emokid wrote:

ok... all I'm saying is it needs 10 years (at least) to decide if an album can be considered as classic or not...
Immortal's Battles in the North is 10 years old in 2005, so maybe it's the year we can decide but maybe not... sometimes it takes longer for exemple when the kind of music played is "new" as it is with Black Metal (talking modern standards, not early BM like Venom)... and most important of all, what is a classic ? imo, it's a record that the majority agrees to consider either as a landmark or at least influencial music... the quality of the music itself may be a secondary matter as in Hellhammer, Venom or Bathory's firsts albums...

do we understand each other now ? :roll:

Yep...

Still I don't actually agree about this 10-year-thing (k, maybe I'm wrong :wink:

), but I do agree with everything else you stated 8)

P.S. and we'll see about Battles at the end of this year :twisted:

Anonymous · **Posted:** Fri Jan 28, 2005 5:29 pm

Desolate wrote:

The Immortal Emokid wrote:

ok... all I'm saying is it needs 10 years (at least) to decide if an album can be considered as classic or not...
Immortal's Battles in the North is 10 years old in 2005, so maybe it's the year we can decide but maybe not... sometimes it takes longer for exemple when the kind of music played is "new" as it is with Black Metal (talking modern standards, not early BM like Venom)... and most important of all, what is a classic ? imo, it's a record that the majority agrees to consider either as a landmark or at least influencial music... the quality of the music itself may be a secondary matter as in Hellhammer, Venom or Bathory's firsts albums...

do we understand each other now ? :roll:

Yep...

Still I don't actually agree about this 10-year-thing (k, maybe I'm wrong :wink:

), but I do agree with everything else you stated 8)

P.S. and we'll see about Battles at the end of this year :twisted:

sure... but don't be so confident about it or at least write your own classic review just to see if it convinces us....

as for me, I hava a whole bunch of older classics that never have been reviewed yet here... so, imo, Immortal can wait til the end of times which cannot be a problem with a name like that... :wink:

Dago · **Posted:** Sun Feb 13, 2005 3:08 pm

I like everything from Children of Bodom, except the cover art...
I mean it's always the same guy with the schyte colored differently... Wtf!?!?

Ruthless_Killer · **Posted:** Sun Feb 27, 2005 10:13 pm

This is the best Children of bodom album.. Still cant get enough of it.. But i agree that is still too early to consider it a classic..

Clayman · **Joined:** Sat Jan 22, 2005 4:13 pm **Posts:** 113

Well it's now listed in the classics so I guess the Fors have it over the Againsts

Holy_Terror · **Posted:** Mon Jun 20, 2005 4:40 pm

The Immortal Emokid wrote:

I agree it's a great album, probably CoB's best but it's way too early to consider this a classic...

I think there should be a new policy that an album has to be at least 10 years of age before having a "classics" review... imo, it will make more sense... but great album indeed !

This was said a long time ago. but I still think he's right. This album is way to young to be a classic.

Metal Reviews

Children Of Bodom - Hatebreeder (#36)

Who is online