Okay. Joe, you were wondering how the other ones sounded. This one is not technical, the song structures are traditional, the vocals are much less angry, and you could just call it sludge. The overall sound is muddier, the pace is slower. It doesn't mean it's bad, it's juts less interesting than Challenger. It could have gotten a higher vote from me if the second half of the album were as heavy as the last track.

Written by Ilham on 08.08.2014 at 16:31

Okay. Joe, you were wondering how the other ones sounded. This one is not technical, the song structures are traditional, the vocals are much less angry, and you could just call it sludge. The overall sound is muddier, the pace is slower. It doesn't mean it's bad, it's juts less interesting than Challenger. It could have gotten a higher vote from me if the second half of the album were as heavy as the last track.

So I guess there is a reason people call them a sludge band then haha.

Written by [user id=4365] on 08.08.2014 at 16:36
So I guess there is a reason people call them a sludge band then haha.

Yeah Challenger just sounds so... not sludge to me. But then again, for me, sludge is the hardest genre to define. I know there's been an evolution to the style, from Acid Bath etc, to this modern definition of it, but I can miss it easily when a band plays a hybrid version of it - just like in Challenger. Anyway. This is definitely sludge.