Metal Reviews

Well, whether it's good or not is completely subjective. Case in point: I think this album kicks ass. What I'm trying to say is that just because a band changes doesn't mean they've done so to sell out, or because they've "run out of gas" or any number of other things. They quite possibly might WANT to write this stuff because they LIKE it. Every sign pointed in this direction from Whoracle onward.

I'm not saying this band didn't consciously sell out in order to make money. They very well may have done so, but when you have two choices, doesn't it make more sense to simply assume that this is In Flames now, an honest and genuine group of musicians? You've got to give them the benefit of the doubt, especially when people have ABSOLUTEL NO PROOF to the contrary. Fine, you don't like it, why not just leave it at that? (And I say "you" in a general way, not directly speaking at you.) To argue points of "sell out" and all that other nonsense lends zero credibility to the argument of whether the music is good or not and it simply sounds whiny.

I can understand people not liking a band evolving into something a little different. There are a ton of bands who have changed to my displeasure. In Flames just aren't one of them.

Well you're wrong on one thing: new In Flames is heavier than old In Flames. While all that lead guitar-work of the old In Flames was interesting it certainly didn't make the band heavier. New In Flames is more based on chords with a thicker distortion (= heavier in this case).

Faster? Dunno. Been too long since i heard them.

I worded it badly. Here's an example of what I meant:

"Hey dude, what's up? I don't like Israel's new expansion policies."
"NAZI!"




Alright, here's the idea: None of it sounds honest to me. It's like they're forcing themselves to write this lame mainstream crap. Admittedly, that's nothing to base an assumption off of, but to assume that it IS honest is pretty naive as well.

They've incorporated nu-metal into their repetoire, not metalcore. Starting with Clayman. More start-stop riffing, then they threw on the synths, and Anders's terrible clean vocals that they now use all over the damn place.



It IS simple, it's ludicrously simple. Fine, if that's what he likes, he can go for it, but the fact remains that it's not nearly as complex or interesting as his past work. Face it, his new stuff is majorly dumbed-down from that of the past.

It's still all subjective opinion, though. You don't like it, I do. As for me assuming they're being honest is not naive in any way. Why am I going to assume they're intentionally writing this sort of music for monetary gains, or MTV exposure, or whatever? That seems a bit too extreme. I'm assuming that since they're artists, they simply following their artistic desires. They have given me no reason to think anything differently. And their change did not start with Clayman, it began with Whoracle.

As for the nu-metal claim, that is wholly incorrect. Nu-metal is such an extremely bland and vague term to say stop/start riffing is nu-metal is dumb.

The nazi comment still makes no sense in the context of what I said. Metallica's St. Anger was a forced album. A band that tried to force themselves to write something that didn't naturally come from artistic desire. It's well documented on the Some Kind Of Monster documentary. My point was to say that when bands force their creativity you generally get something that is subpar, something that is not very good as we got with St. Anger.

With In Flames we're not getting bad music, just something a little different. You don't like it. That's fine, but it doesn't mean it's bad music. And to almost demand the band go back to their roots is asking the band to try and create a good album the same way Metallica created St. Anger. 99% of the time the band will fail.

Bringing that album up was far from stupid. Sorry.

And I completely agree with that statement.


And this is where our opinions differ. I like what they've been doing these last few albums. You don't. 'Tis the curse of being music fans!

To me it was never the music where they went wrong in their last 2 albums (maybe it did I can't really tell), it was that fuzzy production that sounded like a retarded Ministry and gave me a headache after 2 minutes... is that still around?

If it began with Whoracle... you must mean the once-in-a-while usage of clean vocals. The way he did it then, it was classy, it made sense in terms of the songs. Now he just throws his clean vocals everywhere and they sound like shit because there's nothing to compare them favorably to, and it doesn't count as a breath of fresh air because of the lack of harsh vocals (comparitively speaking).



Jesus christ, have you read their lyrics? General angst and non-specific malaise. They drop the guitars during the verses and write simple start-stop riffs of the Linkin Park variety. It's fucking nu-metal.

There are songs on Soundtrack and Come Clarity where they don't drop the guitars during the verses, but they're in the minority.

And Anders's clean vocals sound like he's trying to imitate Johnathan Davis. Nu-metal all around.



Alright, I'll concede that point.

However, merely because In Flames has 'evolved' does not make it necessary to accept the evolution, or fuck, even listen to them.

Since you like them so much, I recommend some Drowning Pool.

I like Drowning Pool! And Linkin Park aren't nu-metal. :o

I would beg to differ. They are, in fact, quite Nu-Metal. Teenage angst, rapping, stop-start riffs, yes, they are Nu-Metal.

No, they have more in common with bands like Stuck Mojo, Downset, Rage Against The Machine, Bionic Jive, Shootyz Groove, etc...that is rapcore, raprock, whatever you want to call it, but not nu-metal.

Their riffs are indisputably nu-metalish, and In Flames doesn't have rapping vocals, just the nu-metalish riffs.

Linkin Park are rapcore? Okay, I can live with that.

But In Flames are nu-metal.

i've been classifying Linkin Park and their ilk as Pop for quite some time; overproduced, sub three minute songs about teenage life performed by pretty boys don't really leave me a lot of choice.

I would call In Flames's last 3 albums numetal, althought my only really criteria for that is catchy screamed parts and ridiculous loud, simple guitar parts. Overall it's a term that is as misused as metalcore (which could/should include bands like Converge but has evolved into pretty much any popular american metal band even if they have no connections to hardcore).

I just started hearing Come Clarity... It's OK, around Clayman goodness. I really dislike his clean vocals, but some of the awesome guitar parts are back which is nice. And the song Come Clarity makes me want to kill someone (it's like a crappy versin of Soilwork's "Departure Plan" with a singer who can't sing)

If In Flames are considered Nu-Metal they are pretty good. If they are considered Melodic Death Metal they suck plain balls.

Ugh...name one nu-metal band that sounds like In Flames?

Korn.

They're on the outskirts of heavier nu-metal, admittedly, and some of the Iron Maiden influence lingers, but they're pretty much nu-metal by now.

The Jester Race is my favorite, Whoracle is good, but JR is the only one that I consider to be absolutely awesome.

I don't care what they are, I like this album. I disliked "Soundtrack to Your Escape", but so far I'm really enjoying this. Take This Life was awesome. Of course, I'm only on song three. I'll post my final thoughts later, when I'm done the album.

Bahahahahaha! Korn? Haha. Why? Because Anders' clean vocals can occassionally be reminscient of Jonathan Davis? Not good enough. Anders can't be blamed because he happens to resemble another singer.

Musically this band is still a band rooted on the "outskirts" of melodic death metal. They've abandoned the solos, or limited them, and the speedier riffing, but the foundation for that is still there. Musically they're not very different from Dark Tranquillity now.

Nu-metal is such an abused term it's not even funny. There is NOT ONE genuine nu-metal band that sounds like In Flames. In fact, there isn't any band that sounds like Korn, so there goes that theory.

75 or 80. The first song is still the best in my opinion, but then again, I've just had the one listen through.