Written by [user id=4365] on 24.12.2010 at 21:14

*rant response*

Written by Troy Killjoy on 24.12.2010 at 23:40

Written by [user id=4365] on 24.12.2010 at 21:14

*rant response*

I believe a +1 is in order here.

Written by [user id=4365] on 24.12.2010 at 23:44

Written by Troy Killjoy on 24.12.2010 at 23:40

Written by [user id=4365] on 24.12.2010 at 21:14

*rant response*

I believe a +1 is in order here.

Ooh that gives me about 2 in total. I wonder if that's enough for that lump of coal I was gonna give to my family for xmas.

Written by Troy Killjoy on 24.12.2010 at 23:46

No need to give them coal - just give them this album. (Oh snap!)?

Written by [user id=4365] on 24.12.2010 at 23:49

Written by Troy Killjoy on 24.12.2010 at 23:46

No need to give them coal - just give them this album. (Oh snap!)?

But after burning it all would be left would be ashes... against the grain.

There's a joke in there if you dig deep enough and have seldom experienced humour.

Written by [user id=4365] on 24.12.2010 at 21:14

Well that's clearly nonsense. The most relevant and logical comparison of a band's work is with its previous records which serve as a benchmark of their quality. If you're disappointed by a record because it's not as good as the one that came before it then there's usually a reason for that. It's all well and good saying that Agalloch put out quality records but if you aren't willing to measure it up with what they can do at their best then you're being a bit blind and completely devoid of sense as you'd put it.

Written by [user id=4365] on 24.12.2010 at 21:14

Well that's clearly nonsense. The most relevant and logical comparison of a band's work is with its previous records which serve as a benchmark of their quality.

Written by gattz on 25.12.2010 at 21:59


I was merely stating that art isn't made to be compared to previous works, but to be enjoyed for what it is. I'm of the opinion that months of thought and hard work on Agalloch's part solely for the purpose of delivering something unique and great for us fans deserves more than blunt depreciation because you liked what they did before better.

Written by [user id=4365] on 25.12.2010 at 23:52

Written by gattz on 25.12.2010 at 21:59


I was merely stating that art isn't made to be compared to previous works, but to be enjoyed for what it is. I'm of the opinion that months of thought and hard work on Agalloch's part solely for the purpose of delivering something unique and great for us fans deserves more than blunt depreciation because you liked what they did before better.

Forgive me but that strikes me as just an eloquent fanboy's way of saying "Agalloch are so amazing that they need not be compared with anything else because they're Agalloch and therefore amazing because they exist etc."

You already spoke of subjectiveness. I can think of nothing more subjective than "art". I understand your sentiments but not everyone sees them the way you do.

Written by Evil Chip on 04.01.2011 at 03:53


But music is art and everyone knows that. And reviewing art according to litterature extending to theater and music, post twentieth century has become subjective. So if you want to review music to good or bad objectively you are wasting time, sorry. Though you can always analyse the album objectively about in terms of the lyrics or the production, but analysing is not putting a score. Sorry my English kinda sucks.

Written by [user id=4365] on 25.12.2010 at 23:52

Written by gattz on 25.12.2010 at 21:59


I was merely stating that art isn't made to be compared to previous works, but to be enjoyed for what it is. I'm of the opinion that months of thought and hard work on Agalloch's part solely for the purpose of delivering something unique and great for us fans deserves more than blunt depreciation because you liked what they did before better.

Forgive me but that strikes me as just an eloquent fanboy's way of saying "Agalloch are so amazing that they need not be compared with anything else because they're Agalloch and therefore amazing because they exist etc."

You already spoke of subjectiveness. I can think of nothing more subjective than "art". I understand your sentiments but not everyone sees them the way you do.

Written by Culty on 04.01.2011 at 05:40


But he never said that they aren't to be compared to anything. What I read was that he said that one shouldn't compare this release to their other releases.

Also, just in case you try to call me a fanboy as well, I too was more or less rather disappointed with this release. AND I agree that it is fine to compare a band's new release to their previous releases. <3

Written by [user id=4365] on 04.01.2011 at 13:58

Written by Culty on 04.01.2011 at 05:40


But he never said that they aren't to be compared to anything. What I read was that he said that one shouldn't compare this release to their other releases.

Also, just in case you try to call me a fanboy as well, I too was more or less rather disappointed with this release. AND I agree that it is fine to compare a band's new release to their previous releases. <3

I was using hyperbole to highlight my point; if someone is going to kick up a fuss about having an album compared to previous works it's pretty likely that that person is going to kick up a fuss if it's compared with anything, in my opinion. If someone is so hell bent on having a hissy when someone compares albums within a band (a band they hold oh-so-dearly) why on earth would they be ok having it compared to a totally different (and probably lesser) band? When something gets tarred as high art then reason gets thrown out the window. And if you look his initial point it is that comparing records within a band is "completely devoid of sense" - the words of someone who isn't thinking with a single ounce of reason or logic.

I have no issue with fanboyism, only when the bands are made out to be better and beyond the opinions of those listening to them.

Written by [user id=4365] on 04.01.2011 at 04:21

Written by Evil Chip on 04.01.2011 at 03:53


But music is art and everyone knows that. And reviewing art according to litterature extending to theater and music, post twentieth century has become subjective. So if you want to review music to good or bad objectively you are wasting time, sorry. Though you can always analyse the album objectively about in terms of the lyrics or the production, but analysing is not putting a score. Sorry my English kinda sucks.

Then what's the point of reviewing anything ever?

And I don't agree, experience and understanding gives a person the necessary ability and skills to able to empirically review something to as close to "objectivity" as possible. No one is asking for mathematical accuracy (though a limited scoring system can often be accurately implemented) but "art" as it were can indeed be reviewed, at least in the sense of music.

And why do you think you can objectively analyse the production and lyrics? Production can alter the atmosphere and tone of a record by making it clearer or muddier or more raw - when does that suit a record and when doesn't it? Surely that's up to the listener, and not something that can be analysed objectively (to the degree you're talking about). Lyrics are the same; highly interpretive.

Written by Evil Chip on 05.01.2011 at 22:44


Talking empirecally or based on your experience doesn't make a review objective. I don't mean reviewing is bad, that would be a stupid nazi thing to say (things that are abundant with people over Intertnet and of course metalstorm), I just say that reviewing is subjective and that's not a bad thing to say. Many people have tried to put art at the leves of empirist sciences but that is just crap, I won't explain why because that's another subject. You can analyse the production like you said seeing if it's more raw or more clean. The matter if the production fits the theme of the album is reviewing of the album and you are confusing that. You can analyse lyrics about the perspective of the narrator of the song based on basic knowledge of litterature theory. Reviewing should be taken more seriously. I haven't seen good reviews of an album in a while. And about comparing an album to another shouldn't be the major thing about doing a review. I think that art in general is interpreted and constantly renovating itself. For example hearing Sgt. Peppers in 1970 was totally different from the perspective of the listener and the historical context than hearing it nowadays. So I agree with the guy saying that art stands for itself. Making comparisons is the easy way to make a review. I think I made myself clear. See ya

Written by [user id=4365] on 05.01.2011 at 23:06

Written by Evil Chip on 05.01.2011 at 22:44


Talking empirecally or based on your experience doesn't make a review objective. I don't mean reviewing is bad, that would be a stupid nazi thing to say (things that are abundant with people over Intertnet and of course metalstorm), I just say that reviewing is subjective and that's not a bad thing to say. Many people have tried to put art at the leves of empirist sciences but that is just crap, I won't explain why because that's another subject. You can analyse the production like you said seeing if it's more raw or more clean. The matter if the production fits the theme of the album is reviewing of the album and you are confusing that. You can analyse lyrics about the perspective of the narrator of the song based on basic knowledge of litterature theory. Reviewing should be taken more seriously. I haven't seen good reviews of an album in a while. And about comparing an album to another shouldn't be the major thing about doing a review. I think that art in general is interpreted and constantly renovating itself. For example hearing Sgt. Peppers in 1970 was totally different from the perspective of the listener and the historical context than hearing it nowadays. So I agree with the guy saying that art stands for itself. Making comparisons is the easy way to make a review. I think I made myself clear. See ya

Err nope. This is a bunch of contradictory nonsense, unless I'm just not understanding your english very well. You're saying reviewing is subjective yet you're basically instigating a set of rules upon it: no comparing it to previous albums; only analyse lyrics and production (as if they're a separate part of the music itself - this is another example of selective reasoning that's rife on here and something that's tantamount to hypocrisy). "Making comparisons is the easy way to make a rewiew" - yes, to existing past releases and similar artists which is what I said, unless you're being sarcastic and suggesting that the "easy" way of reviewing is the wrong way.

The Sgt. Pepper analogy is nonsensical; you're suggesting that all records shouldn't be reviewed until 40 years later or something? No, reviews serve as functional piece of information (as well as entertaining) to inform readers and should be looked at in the here and now. Sgt. Pepper may be considered as a piece of art but that's only because of history and the argument serves no function in what I'm talking about (whatever the fuck that was). Stop calling everything "art" - just because a piece of crap band makes a shitty record doesn't elevate it to "art"

If you're simply arguing that all reviews are subjective (a word and argument I'm utterly tired of because it's been so flagrantly obvious since the dawn of humanity) then "duh" - of course it is. No one is suggesting otherwise, but experience and understanding leads to better reviews and allow them to approach something closer resembling a consensus i.e. objectivness.

Written by Evil Chip on 06.01.2011 at 00:01


You didn't find so obvious that reviews were subjective at the beginning. I didn't suggest that reviews are pointless. Where did I put that? Where did I put that albums should be reviewed after 40 years? Where is the set of rules that I posted to make a good review? Inflexible? That's the point when the argue turns into shrink talk about feelings and bla bla bla... Sorry you didn't get my point and even in various parts I agree with what you were saying. You want to discuss or show who has the bigger dick? Pointless response coming now

Written by eximius on 26.01.2011 at 05:19

Woderful review.
This album is a good one but it definitely lacks something. I guess it should be a bit more "marrowy" /undiluted and should definitely have more catchy sounds like the ones in the first seconds of Into The Painted Grey.
It surely feels like an Agalloch album but I'll stick to the old material..

Written by Dragzad on 23.02.2011 at 10:10

This is not their worst album.Well, it doesn't live up to the standards of Pale Folklore and The Mantle but it is much better than Ashes Against The Grain.

Written by omjaimes on 17.12.2010 at 22:02

12:30 - 14:37 in Black Lake Nidstang is epic