Zodi, would you prefer real beer or the fake shit? No, you want the fuckin real deal. MA has always been a band that delivered the real deal. The A-H albums have had AT LEAST a few flashes of brilliance and great ideas throughout and always a fierce discipline of musical prowess. (Though Trey's sonic meddle sometimes takes him down roads that would be better off avoided) With a legacy that MA has carved out for themselves over the years, it's no surprise that when one approaches their latest offering a sense of maniacal retribution will no doubt be founded. I'm talking scorched fucking earth dear reader.

You just seem completely perplexed about all the flak the album is getting. I have to make sure one more time and ask... You did listen to the whole thing right?

Don't feel bad about the situation gentle reader, just pull out Gateways or FFF and fucking crank it.

Be well, live long and prosper. Amen.

Well, what is a real beer? Real ale, served from a cask by gravity? Beer made with only water, barley, hops and yeast? No adjuncts? Not "lite"? Not a commercial macrobrew? Canned, bottled, kegged?

I don't particularly like it; there are good parts that are enjoyable, but I'm more indifferent, I guess.

I wasn't insinuating that people were scoffing at it because it has industrial elements; I was more indicating my perceptions that people weren't allowing themselves to like it, that they were being closed to it before hearing it, sort of. It would be the same regardless of what sort of material it contained, in relation to the concept behind what I'm trying to convey.

ie: its not that people don't like it because of the industrial elements it has (many seem to indicate that if there were different industrial things, they would in fact enjoy it), but more that they won't allow it the opportunity to grow on them, period, because it DOES have industrial elements.

I just feel that the stigma of the pre-hyped non-metal elements has precluded many from allowing themselves to accept it or give it an honest listen, despite claiming to enjoy other examples of the non-metal elements the album does contain.


I know this is probably sounding like garbled non-sense; its hard to put into words, because I see this concept visually, in my head, as sort of like an algebraic equation.



By the way, I meant no keyboard-shouting in my post. Just simple psychological observational-hypothesizing.

The kind that get's you drunk. Non alcoholic beer is pointless. So is this album.

But why would you think that? Responses here have been on the whole fairly considered, although I admit to having not read all these threads and frankly my interest in talking about the album is about nil. I'm curious though why you think your fellows aren't as perceptive as you are, especially considering you don't seem to like the album much yourself.

I get what he's saying, in the sense that due to its bad press one may not allow themselves to like the album, even if they do find parts they enjoy. Personally, I like "Destructos" for its absolutely goofy presentation. It's so silly it's funny. I still do wonder though how much of the album is just being bad and/or boring (and at least some of it most certainly is) and how much is just me not wanting to find something to enjoy about it. Hell, I like shitty music, I can get into the crappy arena rock choruses of Radikult if I really wanted to.

The problem here really is just that its not remotely original, its musical ideas sound dated and fairly amateurish (especially considering the musicians present) and its not remotely Morbid Angel. And about half of it kinda fucking sucks (Too Extreme!, Profundis, Radikult is pretty ass even with its solo...).

But I could probably enjoy it if I made myself like it.

That's silly. I think we can make up our own minds to whether or not we like music without having to wonder if it's just because of bad press we heard beforehand. If you like some parts of this album, good, but personally I think every inch of this album is shit and none of it has the capacity to grow on me, because it is all substanceless, vapid and unintelligent music. Therefore, it will never grow on me. It will just get more irritating, and my time is best spent listening to music of more merit. I mean come on, "not allowing ourselves to like it"? Listen to it again. It really is just a bunch of shit.

Much better electronic-influenced death metal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWNW83kbkpQ

Or even this, since it's more like what MA added to their album: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=og8n8sFrIiI

What! Sir, that's all rather incomprehensible to me...why stand for shitty music, and why make yourself like something?

I guess I do understand the former mentality a bit, it just seems very alien to me now after spending a year or two in university tricking myself into thinking that bad things were so bad they were good. It's not something that I feel benefited me much though and I prefer to simply say that something is "good" if I like it, even if I am willing to consider it may have faults. New Morbid Angel is something I dislike, and that's that..I know it won't become more appealing over time (some things do, but I have to at least glean some enjoyment from them to begin with for that to happen). I don't think the majority of people are capable of expressing themselves too clearly about why something does or does not appeal, but I think that a couple of folks here are not giving people enough credit...we're not so easily swayed by "the press" as all that, we have perfectly functional ears and at least enough mentality to be properly judgmental even if the verbal expressions fall short for some.

Granted, my doubts are more of a constant thing I have with everything that I've learned to ignore. Whats more, if so much of the album is shitty it wont do any good to help my enjoyment of it, so its not worth the effort.

Though I have in the past made myself like things I initially thought were dumb. That was moreso due to my curiosity about the releases in question, such as Unexpect's IAFA. I went back to that time and time again and it just grew and grew on me. Im glad I didnt write it off immediately because I thought it was messy; I would have cheated myself out of one of my now favorite bands. I admit, my initial reaction was augmented somewhat by negative feedback on the release though. Even if we dont think we do, I think everyone subconsciously forms a bit of an opinion on something due to press.

This album, of course, is a shower and not a grower, and it's been misinformed on the average size.

Good for them they like it, it's still not a good album in my opinion.

Does this in turn mean that beers that contain more alcohol, thus get you drunker faster, are better than those with a lower alcohol content? What about beers that are smoother, more drinkable, and in turn can be consumed in greater quantity more quickly? What if you first drink a beer after a hearty meal and it doesn't get you drunk despite you having more alcohol than another? What if you drink beer for the taste rather than the alcohol content? If a brewery had a record of consistently putting out a high quality beer every few years for over two decades, would you dismiss a new beer after a sample or a single pint? Perhaps they made a stout when you prefer IPAs, if you bought a 12 pack and had no additional expense to try it again other than the time spent drinking it and the other beers that you could have consumed instead of it? What if you thought the malt character was an unusual and interesting change from that of a 20 year old recipe that was still readily available, but you didn't like the smoky character and lack of hops because you didn't normally like those in beer? After the first beer, would you go to your computer and post a scathing review on BeerAdvocate or RateBeer and join with others in hating the beer, or would you consider trying it again in a few days, perhaps not after a barleywine and expecting a hoppy IPA?

This beer hasn't even been out for a full week and I have been drinking other beers while having another one of the new beer at no expense other than what I could drink instead, and I notice different strengths and flaws with each one I drink. We were both expecting hops, it could have used some more Irish moss, but I am still undecided on the malt character. It isn't Pliny the Elder or Sierra Nevada Pale Ale, it isn't Guinness, I expected a 10%ABV 90IBU DIPA, but I am certainly surprised that everyone seems to definitively hate it after a bottle or two amidst an evening's tasting.

Wow. HAHA

If that's the case champ, MA need to go back to the brewery and fix up a new batch.