Metal Reviews

And my point, like I mentioned numerous time, is that you're presenting facts, not opinions. Saying the sky is green, whether you believe it or not, is not an opinion.

As for my opinion that acoustic pop doesn't equate to commercialism, I don't need to back that up. There are a million examples of this out there. It's common knowledge, and you know it just as well as anyone else.

I also never used petty insults.

I'm not giving facts. All of my reasons were what I perceived to be occuring. I never held them out to be facts. I always said "this is what I think." I can't believe I have to say this.

Also, pop music is commercial by definition. I can't fuckin believe I have to give an explanation for this. Pop music is short for "popular" music. Pop music gets heavy radio and tv play. It's on VH1, MTv, and is geared towards what is commercially viable at the current point in time. This is just stupid now. Acoustic pop is commercial music. Always was, always will be. Listen to what you're saying. How counterintuitive is it to say popular music isnt commercial? Pop music for the most part is industry generated dribble that is aimed at casting the widest net imagineable and making the most amount of money.

You're a blockhead. So let's get this straight. If it's not popular, it can't be pop music. Right? Do you realize how stupid that is, especially coming from one who argued that we're arguing semantics?

The near century-old term "pop" does not strictly mean "popular." It's not so cut and dried. The term describes a very distinct style—a genre, to be more precise—that is often geared toward radio play and commercial outlets, but that is surely not the constant motivation for musicians to write this kind of music; it's simply a softer form of music that is often more palatable to the general public, thus being more radio-and TV-friendly.

You're failing to grasp—although I doubt this is true; you're likely just being a argumentative forum troll—that writing in a "pop" style does not instantly turn something commercial, or make a band "sell out." As a genre, it is far more than just mainstream pap, which you seem to think goes hand in hand.

So you listened to the samples and didnt feel that it was a more commercialized sound for the band? I don't care what your last post said, I read half of it and then became bored. Just answer my one question. Because if your answer is no then there are larger issues with you that can't be resolved in this thread.

You read half and then became bored? Or did you read half and realize that was the moment you'd lost the argument?

As for the sound of the samples, they were surely of a lighter fare. Commercialized, of course, is a term that only applies in your one-sided world. If you know for a fact that Helloween forewent quality to maximize profit, then I'd call it a "commercialized sound." Of course, without making assumptions on what the band's true intent was, there is no way one can call this commercialized—if they have integrity, anyway.

But I will concede that it does sound much more subdued and mellow compared to their standard power metal, or as you call it, "Euro pop."

These are the funny parts to me. Again, nothing like proclaiming yourself the winner eh? And wow, what a concession. Proclaiming yourself the winner and then making the weakest concession possible. It does sound more commercial. It sounds like the Backstreet boys did the arrangement. More mellow and subdued my ass, it's watered down pop bullshit. It's soft as hell and not worth any metal head's time. More mellow and subdued, ha, I have to laugh at that.

Again, way to proclaim yourself the winner and then make a concession.

Once again, you're too stupid to realize that in order for this album to be "commercial"—and "pop," by your very convenient definition—you'd have to know that Helloween chose profit and mainstream success over quality.

First off, you don't know anyone in Helloween; you're just a jaded elitist that still whines about a band that apparently hasn't released a good album in nearly 20 years. Secondly, the album hasn't even come out yet, so there is no way to gauge whether this will be a commercial success or flop. And of course, by your definitions, if this album does flop, it is not pop or commercial. Therefore, you'd be wrong. Of course, the good news is that, you're already wrong so we don't need to wait; we can giggle and point fingers at you now.

But back to your favorite parts above. My concession, of course, is taken out of context solely because, in that light, it fits your one-sided argument.


Funny how you left this part out, huh? Funny how I never denied these re-recordings were acoustic-based. And hell, they may even be pop renditions—doesn't make it an album recorded for the sole purpose of commercial success, as you'd like us all to be believe.

I win...ad infinitum.

I don't have to know people in Helloween to be able to have an opinion about their music. My opinion is that it "sounds" commercial. Knowing the members of the band is irrelevant for our purposes. THe music sounds very commercial. I can only presume that they made the music sound the way they intended to. Ergo, the music sounds commercial because they intended it to.

Out of context eh? You told me that I was wrong....and then negated some of your winning argument. Point your finger all you want, I'll stick with my jaded elitists and continue having opinions about once legendary bands that have gone the shit route. At least I can rest easy knowing I"m not the only one who shares this belief.

Once again, you seem unwilling to admit not knowing the difference between fact and opinion. You sure are capable of stating each, but understanding the difference is lost on you.


You are wrong, in that your "opinion" has been stated as fact this entire time, despite being interspersed with a few I thinks and in my opinions.

I negated nothing.


That's from my first reply here. Note that I compared this to an acoustic album by Bon Jovi.

And Bon Jovi is not a commercial pop sensation? Fuck off man. If the new Helloween sounds like Bon Jovi, then I fucking win. Now go eat shit.

If that wasn't a desperate reply, then I must Whoopi Goldberg.

rape, or rape rape?

Then I must BE Whoopi Goldberg.

I just came home from work. I'm tired and I smell of dirty, ugly people.

where do you work?

Commercial definitions are not an indication of musical style. I.e, anything that sells well could be considered "commercial music". But that says nothing about the style.

I think we should declare this thread to be the Prypiat of the forum and set up an exclusion zone, forcibly removing those who refuse to go.

If the new Helloween sounds like Bon Jovi? A sound does NOT make something commercial or pop! Why can't you grasp that? If this next Helloween album tears up the charts and sells millions of copies, you'll be right. Otherwise, you'll just think you're right. That can be your lesson in fact and opinion.

So the only time something is commercial is if it sells a lot? Explain then all the pop groups and commercial selling bands that don't sel millions or records. How do you explain the myriad of one-hit wonders out there? Helloween's new recording has a decidely pop-flavored sound to it. That's the way it sounds to me. Right or wrong, that's how it sounds to me. That is the essence of an opinion. Why can't you understand that? I think it sounds like pop. You're right that its a fact. It's a fact that I think it sounds like pop. Other than that you're wrong. You're Bon Jovi comparison made things worse for you. Now nothing you can say will change my mind. Hence, no more arguing is needed. You can't win, and I don't particularly care anymore about the topic. I know what you think, you know what I think. Move on.

Ha ha, god, I just made the mistake of listening to it again. I correct myself, it sounds like a mixture of pop and circus music.

We've never disagreed that it has an acoustic "pop" sound—on the clips, at least. But you've been contending that "pop" means "popular" and popular makes something "commercial," thus this album is a commercialized pop album, the band sold out to the mainstream masses, yadda yadda.

I completely disagree with that assessment. "Pop" does not equate to "popular"; it is a sound, a style, and that has nothing to do with being popular.

You can't seem to grasp that you're saying one thing, then contradicting yourself later. Before, "pop" meant popular, but now "pop" is a sound, and you think it sounds like pop. Of course, going by your previous comments, something can't be pop unless it's popular. So make up your mind.

Does this album have a pop sound? Possibly. Probably. Who cares! That was never the argument. The argument was about whether or not that style of music equates to selling out, or the embracing of profit and fame at the expense of quality. Your opinion has been of the latter, and frankly, that is pure speculation on your part—when it comes to Helloween's next album, of course.

Shouting about your opinion won't change that there are countless examples to the opposite. And in the case of this new Helloween album, you're trying to pass off psychic vision of the future and mind-reading as opinion. Most of us in the world call that sort of thing bullshit.