Oh Passenger is definitely better than In Flames.

People rarely seem to realize that the most powerful defense of an oft-maligned album or band is a totally objective assessment of the music itself with no mention of adjacent drama and popular opinion. As soon as I read the likes of "a slap in the face of those grown old nostalgics" (in the title no less) my opinion of the reviewer and desire to continue reading the review plummets completely. It's clear the writer is more interested in defending their subjective opinion or getting the last word in than they are in anything else.

I just realised he gave Vulgar Display of Power, St. Anger and Siren Charms higher than Scream Bloody Gore...

*Pulls out gun*

Why would that be wrong? None of those bands plays the same musical genre anyway...

So if you're a fan of death metal, do all of those nineties Florida albums must have higher scores than anything from the Bay Area? That's just dumb. And why are we even debating about Kluseba? The guy (or girl, I don't even know) that called Celtic Frost a niche band?! Seriously, this is approaching the level of "the one we don't name" (and was coded as Napero for a while).

I wouldn't give it higher than SBG but Vulgar Display is a kickass album.



Yup. It goes hand in hand with the kind of thinking that produce reviews that say things like "this album wasn't as good as people told me it was, so I'm giving it a 0%" or other such things...i.e. putting more stock in others' opinions than in the music or what YOU yourself think.

I second androdion respect to LeMiserable's statement.

^ Which aspect of his statement? I thought the first half was sarcastic.

"It suffers from Deafheaven Syndrome greatly, it actually gets irritating how long these songs are."

Deafheaven: the most archetypical and immediately recognizable symbol of an overly long song. wait what

The longest song on that album is also 8 minutes long. Excuse me while I start playing Coma II by Austere.

Well, in the dude's defense, eight minutes or so can be a loooooooooong time if there's little of interest going on.

Yeah I think the idea is that with music as vapid as that provided by Deafheaven and their ilk, 8 minutes is a long time, whereas with ya know, Ocean Chief, the fun is just getting started.

The reason why I threw that in my review was because Deafheaven's newest album is a little bit infamous for having songs way too long. I'm still a metal newbie (as my rank would imply), I've only been listening to metal for like two years, and no other bands that are known for having super long songs immediately pop into my mind. While yes, Suspiria Profundis' songs don't even hit nine minutes, they are boring enough that the song length is an issue.

I'm currently listening to Neurotech's "The Elysian Symphony", which is over 17 minutes long, and I'm loving every minute of it. Long songs =/= Deafheaven Syndrome, songs that are too long for their own good = Deafheaven Syndrome.

Edit: You didn't even bother to quote my next sentence, which explains everything.





That's one bad song on an otherwise largely praised album. I understand that twenty minutes of the same thing over and over again is super boring, but I don't think that Austere is really known for that.

I'm not intending to debate whether Deafheaven's songs are overly long and/or boring. That's an opinion I can agree with myself to an extent. I just thought it was funny that you chose to name this "syndrome" after a band who've been around for less than five years, and who haven't really had time yet to influence much of anything, and who don't even have songs that are that long (at least not long enough that it's become a typical object of mockery). The impact of the reference is somewhat lost on your audience, because when they see the phrase "Deafheaven Syndrome" the things that will probably most immediately come to their minds are adding post-rock influences to a black metal background, gaining popularity through Pitchfork, or toeing the lines of black metal's aesthetics in general. The length of their songs probably isn't the first thing on many listeners' minds, considering they hail from a scene where long songs are expected if not encouraged - just look at Wolves in the Throne Room, for example. The fact that you clarify what you meant helps, but it still feels rather awkward because nobody will be able to immediately relate to the idea you were going for.

Yeah I would never just go out and say "This band suffers from Deafheaven Syndrome" and leave it at that, with no further explanation. It was my understanding that the main reason why a lot of people hated Sunbather was because of the length of its songs, but I guess I'm wrong. I'll stop using the term now.

Also, I'm pretty sure that I mentioned it in only one other review (that being my Opus Majestic review), so hopefully I didn't confuse too many people. Whatever Mod approved them must have understood it enough.

Why not just change it to "Metallica Syndrome?" That makes way more sense and fits perfectly. Maybe just clarify that you mean later Metallica if you want to, but I like that comparison at lot more.

Just go all out and call it Sabazius Syndrome.

It isn't our job to accept or reject based on subjective opinions. Don't be silly! Also, your thin skin is showing.

I didn't find the problem outside of only a few tracks on Death Magnetic, the album was fairly solid for the most part.

Well, it is your review so you don't have to agree. It's just that a common criticism of later Metallica is that the songs often drone on too long without enough musical ideas to support them. I figured that comparison would make more sense to readers given how well-known Metallica is.

Opeth' first 2 albums anyone? There's a fucking 22 min track!

Hmm...it's not a terrible review, but I just think it's part of a trend where people use Deafheaven in a negative light as often as possible.

Read the rest of the conversation, where I explain myself.



I honestly wasn't aware that that was a trend. I actually quite like Deafheaven, I just dislike how much their songs drag on.

I never really elaborated but I agree that Deafheaven is a really strange band to use as the main point of comparison. That style of music, whether you think the band is shit or not, is well suited to long songs. Kveld's point of Opeth is not only more recognizable to the average metal layman, but also way more apt. Black Rose Immortal is like four songs in a row. It's not even well put together, I swear there's an audible clunk in between each one.

Yeah the issue is that I just never listened to Opeth, because of the occult influences in their lyrics.

I know you're a hardline Christian and all, but the resulting laughter brought on by that sentence probably deafened my neighbors. Like 98% of Opeth songs are weepy dirges.

"Occultism" is listed under their lyrical themes. I'm much stricter than most other Christians when it comes to the lyrics of the songs that I listen to. Some people just don't care, but I certainly do.

I have to ask about this. Why does a band having various songs with lyrics about the "occult" bother you? It's just an area that they find it's easier to write from in many cases. On your religion, I don't get this either. My family's Southern Baptist, and my tastes in metal are, at absolute worst, a source of fun humor to them. Short of Mormonism or old-school Pentecostalism, I can't think of a denomination that actually normally views "occult" themes as sinful.

Opeth are so evil, guys! Something tells you me you haven't checked a single sentence of their lyrics.




HERETICS!

You should stick to things like that.

He could listen to Trouble. That would be safe for him. And not half bad, either. Though .. a bit dark, I guess, so .. be careful.

...
Opeth aren't into occultism, DS33. As previously stated, most of their lyrics are focused on nature and personal issues, as well as some existential topics. Why don't you look up the lyrics for yourself and see if they match your moral standards?

I believe it's in Proverbs that occultism is mentioned several times as being sinful. I forget where exactly, I'd have to look it up.

By the way, I'm a non-denominational Protestant.



Yeah, as a black metal listener, I'm definitely afraid of music that's too "dark"...



Simply because I already have enough music worth listening to, and I haven't really heard the best things about their music anyways.

That and I usually go based off of the "lyrical themes" part on every band's page, as they tend to be accurate most of the time, at least from what I've seen. I guess this must be an exception.

I think you misunderstood what I was getting at. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a passage against engaging in witchcraft and the like. What I can't follow is that that leads you to avoid bands who touch on topics that may or may not be related to that,and who often are just writing what's easiest for them with no intention of seriousness.

So Opeth's a no-no, but black metal is fine?

Honestly, even though I do know that most bands don't really care what they write (seriously, what metal band is actually thinking about their lyrics...), but there's enough good bands for me to listen to that I know for sure are okay for me that I don't need to waste my time with one that might be iffy. I could just listen to In Grief, which is a phenomenal Christian progressive death band.

Also, when I'm talking about black metal, I'm really talking about "unblack metal", as some people prefer to call it. I see no reason in creating two separate subgenres with the only difference being in lyrical content. The sound defines the subgenre, not the words.

You're wrong. Especially metal bands mostly care about profound lyrics. Some genres may differ but in general lyrics by metal bands are much more intellectual, researched and personal than most of the lyrics in other genres such as pop music.



You're wrong again. If that was the case you wouldn't have discovered any interesting metal bands in the first place. Somebody who stops exploring and discovering new things stops developing artistically and intellectually as a human being.



You're wrong once more. For some metal bands and genres, the lyrics are at least as important as the music itself, no matter if it's white metal, viking metal or grindcore. Even more diversified genres such as heavy metal or power metal have reoccuring topics. It's the same thing with literature as well. Shi, odes, haiku, ghazals have very different lyrical topics for example, it's not just a question of following certain meters or rhyme schemes.

By the way, I'm a Protestant as well but I have been taught to have an open mind for any form of art. Man, even the pastor of our community listened to rock music with ambiguous lyrics, drank alcohol, was married to a divorced wife, had children, would let people with other confessions invite to discuss with him without judging them at all and so on and he still was the most religious person I have ever met. Being religious is way more than following rules imposed by a certain community or written in obsolete old books. I really don't get the point of radical Protestants who limit themselves in terms of art for example. I have a couple of friends who are Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses and each time I'm talking to them I get a little scared because I feel like talking to a closed-minded radical living in the 19th century. You may or may not agree but my advice would be: Don't keep yourself from discovering and enjoying as many things as you can in life as long as you as a person don't feel extremely bad and guilty about it.

Alright, just to get back to the topic... somebody seems to agree with me on the new In Flames record: http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/I ... tik/302958

Any opinions on this one?

First of all, I would like to thank you for arguing politely.

In hindsight, you're right about the first part. Several metal bands do truly care about their lyrics.

Everything else though...I really don't feel the need to listen to something that might be bad for me when I can listen to things that I know for sure are good. I don't want to support anti-Christian/Satanic/Pagan/Occult/etc. bands by giving them my money because I do not want to support their beliefs and practices.

And you seem to have an attitude towards life that a lot of people do these days, the kind of thing where they think that they can do whatever they want as long as they're having fun.

And if I were to start listening to bands whose beliefs I disagree with, I would feel horribly guilty.

And the thing about subgenres, come on, the quotes around black were removed for all Christian bands on the site for a reason. There is no difference in genre between a Satanic black metal band and a Christian black metal band. Sure, the majority of bands who play a subgenre may tend to have the same lyrical themes, but that doesn't make it a requirement to be considered a part of the subgenre.

I have no doubt that there are some metal bands who care about and put thoughts into their words, but I'd say just as many could care less, and I'd have serious reservations about a band in any form of music putting the lyrics above the music. That Priest frequently has songs about something from outer-space and metal itself doesn't merit a comparison to literature. Halford is quite a ways from Poe. In general, I don't say how lyrics are intellectual either. There's some that have a way with words or cool topics, but again I don't see how someone is listening to metal for the lyrics.

Implying that's a bad thing? Not really sure where you're going with this whole argument at all.

You realize over half of those bands don't take that stuff seriously, right? Money spent on Belphegor merch isn't going to support the band sacrificing a virgin and her pet kitten.

Not without controversy, and it would be a stretch to say that the decision was unanimous. A few of us, myself included, are of the persuasion who think that in certain cases (such as black metal), there's a certain extra-musical spirit that, while capable of manifesting itself in myriad ways, must be present for a thing to honestly be called black metal. "Unblack metal" is not black metal, and referring to what you listen to as "black metal" is intentionally misleading and dishonest.

Now let's get back to discussing reviews. Start a new thread for "what bands will my imaginary sky daddy be ok with me listening to?", please. Or, don't.

Shit, the atheist perspective has been brought in! *hides*

In all seriousness, it's just music. Black metal is no different from any other musical or art form in that it can be churned out with out any extra thought or "extra-musical spirit". In addition, on a purely musical basis, BM bands with Christian lyrics and themes are black metal.