Written by [user id=150641] on 25.03.2015 at 18:27

I think the Grossman penned tracks are better. I really liked the album. The Enslaved album is excellent but you prefer death metal. In the middle of checking out the A Forest of Stars album. The leviathan album dunno just didn't click. I am really liking the an autumn for crippled children album though.

Don't neglect Death Karma and Downfall of Nur. I'm interested to hear what you say about AFoS. That one was a grower, but now it's #2 of the year for me so far. Leviathan was a grower as well, but it's definitely a tougher sell on some levels.

In this thread: people telling people they are listening to music wrong.

Written by Wukk on 25.03.2015 at 18:58

In this thread: people telling people they are listening to music wrong.

Not at all. My argument is not that there's a right or a wrong way to listen to music. I'm literally just saying that impulsive reviews are worthless if you don't know what you're talking about.

Written by Zap on 25.03.2015 at 11:55

This album proves (once again) how irrelevant Hannes Grossmann and Christian Münzner are when they're not teaming up with Steffen Kummerer and Jeroen Paul Thesseling.

(Yes, I love Omnivium so much I fuck it.)

That's an interesting opinion, but one I expected. I actually enjoyed this better than Omnivium, I think. What exactly did you think was lacking?

Written by Diverge on 25.03.2015 at 21:21

That's an interesting opinion, but one I expected. I actually enjoyed this better than Omnivium, I think. What exactly did you think was lacking?

I can't really pinpoint one thing I feel is lacking; in fact, all the elements are there, but nothing grabs me. It sounds close to Grossmann's other work (although less tech-death-y and more proggy,) but--just like his latest solo output--it doesn't have that flow throughout the album that I thought Omnivium had (if we're gonna make comparisons anyway). However, I do prefer this one over The Radial Covenant, simply because there is more attention to detail and building something resembling an atmosphere. All that would still guarantee a pretty good album, if it wasn't for the length*... I like to think there's a good album in here somewhere but they could have easily cut out 20 minutes. Right now it just feels unremarkable; if it were shorter I bet it'd flow better and be quite a ride. It's a decent debut, but I just don't see myself returning to it any time soon.

*Just to be clear, I have no problem with long albums when they can hold my attention for the entirety of their running time. But when they can't, I have a huge problem with them. I prefer albums that leave me wanting more over albums that make me wanna stop listening halfway through. (I bet that last bit is a quote from some review on here, probably by Troy, not sure)

Written by flightoficarus on 25.03.2015 at 17:46

It amazes me how much people like you give me flack for what I do.

This

Written by Zap on 26.03.2015 at 12:14

Written by Diverge on 25.03.2015 at 21:21

That's an interesting opinion, but one I expected. I actually enjoyed this better than Omnivium, I think. What exactly did you think was lacking?

I can't really pinpoint one thing I feel is lacking; in fact, all the elements are there, but nothing grabs me. It sounds close to Grossmann's other work (although less tech-death-y and more proggy,) but--just like his latest solo output--it doesn't have that flow throughout the album that I thought Omnivium had (if we're gonna make comparisons anyway). However, I do prefer this one over The Radial Covenant, simply because there is more attention to detail and building something resembling an atmosphere. All that would still guarantee a pretty good album, if it wasn't for the length*... I like to think there's a good album in here somewhere but they could have easily cut out 20 minutes. Right now it just feels unremarkable; if it were shorter I bet it'd flow better and be quite a ride. It's a decent debut, but I just don't see myself returning to it any time soon.

*Just to be clear, I have no problem with long albums when they can hold my attention for the entirety of their running time. But when they can't, I have a huge problem with them. I prefer albums that leave me wanting more over albums that make me wanna stop listening halfway through. (I bet that last bit is a quote from some review on here, probably by Troy, not sure)

You've made some completely valid points here. In my opinion, Omnivium was a step down from Cosmogenesis and lacked the kind of flow I was looking for (despite some jaw-dropping instrumental moments). I thought Cosmogenesis was a little more direct and captivating. The additional focus on melody on this Alkaloid album pushed this one over the line for me, but the length is indeed an issue. Your justification here makes a lot of sense given how much you enjoy Omnivium, though.

Written by flightoficarus on 25.03.2015 at 18:41

If you don't understand the music a band is playing, acknowledge it openly or don't comment about it. Literally every person on this thread knows more about the music Alkaloid plays than you do.

Here's a good reason why you receive the flack you do: Reviews are more than trivial pieces of writing in which one spews an opinion. On the surface level, you might do it because it can help a band gain attention in a tangible way. But the people who actually read reviews, people like me, want different things. We want accurate characterizations of the band written in an eloquent and interesting manner, not descriptions filled with bands that are barely relevant. I would even classify some of the reviews on this websites as poetic (for example, the one for Kayo Dot's newest by Introspekrieg and the one for Blindead's Affliction XXIX II MXMVI album by tea[m]ster), and those capture my attention well while describing the nature of the music to a T. Why do we care about accurate characterizations and interesting reviews? Well, we ultimately want to know whether or not it's worth OUR time to check out. Because I literally don't care about the one hour you spend a day promoting little bands (which sounds ludicrous), and I don't care about your dream to generate enough ad revenue to support your family from your reviews (which sounds even more ludicrous). I care about the time I spend listening to music I find pleasurable, and I want to avoid albums that will disappoint me (unless they are so bad that they gain notoriety and become hot topics for a few months on this website). So reviews also act as pieces of convincing writing which help people allocate their time and resources so they can explore metal/other music in exactly the way they seek. These goals are primary- highlighting underground or lowkey bands is a more secondary objective. Your reviews accomplish few, if any, of these goals and because they're everywhere on this website now, users are going to be irked by them. You also don't take criticism well at all and you've shown little interest in improving your craft or learning from people who know more than you. Opinions don't matter in general (we all have them, so what makes any particular one important?), but convincing and eloquent opinions DO matter because they enable conversation and exploration and help people gain clarification on how THEY experience the world.

So how can you improve minireviews and reviews? Check out some of the styles on Metal Storm and focus on developing your own. Restrict yourself to topics of interest which you can write about convincingly (a good example would be the way Apothecary generally limits himself to certain styles he's interested in and knows more than the average person about). Take note of any conversations about the album you wish to review and carefully consider all points you feel are valid, especially if they are recurring thoughts. While the mass consensus isn't necessarily true, you should take it into account and take the time to dismantle it if you want your review to be convincing. "Given that many are singing this album's praises, you shouldn't take my word for it" is not a line people want to read- people want to know WHY people would be singing its praises and why there are problems even with the things people like about it. And if a band is a "supergroup", take the time to listen to the constituent acts and see if you can make any points of comparison. It's also relevant to say that the band sounds completely different from its constituent acts- that's informative.

I really dig this album; I find it pretty refreshing. Some tracks are just awesome but there are a couple I'm not too crazy about.

Written by Diverge on 29.03.2015 at 05:33

There are many styles of reviewing. While certain albums strike me with enough inspiration to develop on some sort of metaphor, I am more interested in delivering the basics. What does it remind me of? What styles do the instruments play? What strikes me as different? Personally, I find over-thinking the poetry of the review itself to be somewhat masturbatory. But like you say, some people are more drawn to that. Others like me are more interested in whether the sound described seems interesting enough to listen to. The world needs both since one size certainly does not fit all. Again, the brief comments on album pages and in my minireviews are really neither. They are just my passing opinions. If they weren't meant to be shared there wouldn't be forums or public ranking systems. This all seems to have started because I disliked a band that you seem quite invested in. If I had to argue with every person who didn't like a group I regard highly, I wouldn't have time to eat or sleep. Furthermore, I'm not going to comfort myself by saying these people simply "don't understand" the genre or what the group is trying to do. People either like things or they don't. It's as simple as that. I don't need to listen to 1000, or even 1, progressive metal album to decide whether I think something is enjoyable or not. That's part of the reason why I score the way that I do. Alkaloid does strike me as innovative and decently strong in musicianship, however those elements aren't sufficiently building something engaging for me in this case. I am glad that you are passionate enough about some of these groups to have such strong opinions, but I think channeling it into some reviews of your own to sway others is a better use of time than engaging in personal attacks and character defamation campaigns. It's a lesson I am still learning as well. I will make no further comment of this here and allow the comments to return to discussion of Alkaloid. If you want to talk further, let's PM.

Cool shit, i like it very much

Written by LeKiwi on 24.03.2015 at 16:50

He kinda looks like Jahon.

Once again, an album getting a ton of hype that is (mostly) undeserved.
*Yawns* Next.

Written by [user id=142921] on 31.03.2015 at 15:45

I finally understand what the people that don't dig Ne Obliviscaris feel like

It feels sometimes as though technicality in metal is what impresses a lot of people these days. I moved past that stage of music listening a long time ago, yeah there's some really good musicianship here, but it just feels cold and devoid of feeling to me. Same with Ne Obliviscaris.

Written by flightoficarus on 29.03.2015 at 07:21

There are many styles of reviewing. While certain albums strike me with enough inspiration to develop on some sort of metaphor, I am more interested in delivering the basics. What does it remind me of? What styles do the instruments play? What strikes me as different?

Really you should work on the basics, because you can't really answer any of those questions.

Written by flightoficarus on 29.03.2015 at 07:21

Again, the brief comments on album pages and in my minireviews are really neither. They are just my passing opinions. If they weren't meant to be shared there wouldn't be forums or public ranking systems.

Forums and public ranking systems are designed to facilitate conversation about the music. Your mini-reviews and comments about certain albums are so out to lunch that any rational conversation about the albums will be found elsewhere. Even saying BTBAM is a major component in this is completely off.

Written by flightoficarus on 29.03.2015 at 07:21

This all seems to have started because I disliked a band that you seem quite invested in. If I had to argue with every person who didn't like a group I regard highly, I wouldn't have time to eat or sleep. Furthermore, I'm not going to comfort myself by saying these people simply "don't understand" the genre or what the group is trying to do. People either like things or they don't. It's as simple as that. I don't need to listen to 1000, or even 1, progressive metal album to decide whether I think something is enjoyable or not. That's part of the reason why I score the way that I do.

I like the band, but it's nothing extraordinary. I don't have a great deal of investment with Alkaloid actually. I'm arguing with you because I see you around damn near everywhere on this forum and you irritate me. I'm saying that basing your scores relative to accomplishments within the genre of interest (in this case, relative to prog death/technical metal) will improve the calibre of your reviews and opinions and will help you understand exactly what Alkaloid is trying to accomplish.

Written by flightoficarus on 29.03.2015 at 07:21

I am glad that you are passionate enough about some of these groups to have such strong opinions, but I think channeling it into some reviews of your own to sway others is a better use of time than engaging in personal attacks and character defamation campaigns.

I can explore metal in whatever way I want, and that does not necessitate reviews. It's not obvious that review writing is a better use of my time, actually. I've tried to avoid attacking your character too much (really I've given you lots of relevant feedback that might help you become a better reviewer, or at least less annoying in the eyes of other MS users), but trust me that you haven't made it easy.

Written by Diverge on 31.03.2015 at 23:36

Quote:
If you want to talk further, let's PM.

Just saying...

That C-section song is pretty shit, computer-made or not. But might give the whole album a listen later. I've enjoyed some extreme/progressive metal lately

Written by LeKiwi on 03.04.2015 at 15:37

Written by Diverge on 31.03.2015 at 23:36

Quote:
If you want to talk further, let's PM.

Just saying...

I didn't mean to shift the topic so dramatically, and I can honestly say I went a little overboard. Sorry for the eyesore, everyone.
As for PMing the OP, I don't think I will. He'll probably just scold me for giving him extensive feedback instead of writing reviews of my own and contributing to the Metal Storm community. But then again, what was I expecting? The OP thinks Mastodon and goth metal are suitable comparisons for this kind of music, so it's not like I'm dealing with someone rational.

It's all right, you can't be a regular contributor to this community and not mix it up with someone at some point. Let bygones be bygones! Casual MS users like myself appreciate both styles of reviews and all manner of opinions in an effort to zero in on likeable new music as efficiently as possible.

I don't get that hype about it.. Listened through once only though, maybe I'll revisit the album when I got some time

It's okay but i'm another to not get the hype - I thought the new Enslaved and Moonspell albums were better. Guess I just couldn't get into this one.

I enjoy this single track I am using to illustrate my point much more than I enjoyed this entire album.

All style, not enough substance. The musical version of a Luc Besson film?

I really love this album, especially the first two songs are one of the best tracks I've heard, I would say. But I see, why quite a big number of people don't get the hype around the album. Long songs, that don't grab you are one of the worst things that can happen. At first I had my doubts as well, if I really like it as a whole, or just a few songs, but it turned out that some of them clicked after the third? (I don't know exactly) listen. The C-Value Song really annoys me a bit, it's not representative of the album at all, it just sounds like nothing to me (meaning too simple and random (in terms of composition) at the same time, if that makes any sense to someone else).

Written by M C Vice on 08.04.2015 at 10:34

All style, not enough substance. The musical version of a Luc Besson film?

Someone hasn't seen Léon it seems.

Listened to this album once and can't say I liked it. Might give it another chance soon.

Written by Erik M. on 27.04.2015 at 15:54

Written by M C Vice on 08.04.2015 at 10:34

All style, not enough substance. The musical version of a Luc Besson film?

Someone hasn't seen Léon it seems.

Years ago (about 15 or so, maybe more?) a review in the TV guide for The Fifth Element described Luc Besson as the master of style over substance. And I've always thought of him as such since then. I never said style over substance was a bad thing.
If Léon is the one with Jean Reno, Natalie Portman and Gary Oldman, then yes, I have seen it, years ago. It was called The Professional on TV here.

Written by Auntie Sahar on 31.03.2015 at 21:28

Written by [user id=142921] on 31.03.2015 at 15:45

I finally understand what the people that don't dig Ne Obliviscaris feel like

It feels sometimes as though technicality in metal is what impresses a lot of people these days. I moved past that stage of music listening a long time ago, yeah there's some really good musicianship here, but it just feels cold and devoid of feeling to me. Same with Ne Obliviscaris.

Oh god, so true. I mean I do like Tech Death... but when I'm searching for ''emotion-driven'' music, this is certainly not the type I'm going to enjoy the most, unless we're talking 'bout bands like ''Quo Vadis'', ''Anata'' or ''Arsis'', which are a lot more melodic and IMO share a lot more feelings than most TDM bands.

Written by Guib on 06.05.2015 at 20:37

Oh god, so true. I mean I do like Tech Death... but when I'm searching for ''emotion-driven'' music, this is certainly not the type I'm going to enjoy the most, unless we're talking 'bout bands like ''Quo Vadis'', ''Anata'' or ''Arsis'', which are a lot more melodic and IMO share a lot more feelings than most TDM bands.

Call me a traditionalist, but I really prefer older tech death to newer in that "feeling" aspect. Death and Atheist had a ton of emotion oozing off their stuff, modern tech death often feels a lot more showy and pretentious to me in its delivery. Exceptions though to Nile and The Faceless, who I both extremely enjoy.

Written by Auntie Sahar on 06.05.2015 at 21:32

Written by Guib on 06.05.2015 at 20:37

Oh god, so true. I mean I do like Tech Death... but when I'm searching for ''emotion-driven'' music, this is certainly not the type I'm going to enjoy the most, unless we're talking 'bout bands like ''Quo Vadis'', ''Anata'' or ''Arsis'', which are a lot more melodic and IMO share a lot more feelings than most TDM bands.

Call me a traditionalist, but I really prefer older tech death to newer in that "feeling" aspect. Death and Atheist had a ton of emotion oozing off their stuff, modern tech death often feels a lot more showy and pretentious to me in its delivery. Exceptions though to Nile and The Faceless, who I both extremely enjoy.

Don't get me wrong I love Atheist and Death It's just I never really use Tech-Death anymore when talking about them since I feel all the other Tech Death bands are so far from those two sounds now... But I guess you're right. Though I never felt ''Quo Vadis'' was pretentious in its delivery, especially on albums like ''Day Into Night'' and ''Defiant Imagination''. BTW I also love Nile and The Faceless