I've often heard people say that this is the album that started In Flames down the wrong path, despite the fact that I don't think their sound made an overwhelming change until Reroute to Remain. I read the first paragraph of the first review on metal archives where the reviewer states that a lot changed between Colony and this album, that Anders vocals decreased tremendously in quality and that In Flames guitarists quit using guitar melodies ( ). Now personally, I see very few major differences between Clayman and Colony, especially in comparison to the differences between Clayman and Reroute to Remain and find that Ander's vocals sound relatively the same. The accusation that In Flames doesn't have any guitar melodies on this album is just hilarious, obviously the reviewer never listened to the album or a song like 'Swim' at all. But from what I've seen, this is generally what people think about Clayman. I never see Colony getting any crap, despite the fact that it sounds basically the same as Clayman. Could anyone explain what it is about Clayman that makes it such a 'sell out' album? Can anyone also explain how someone can love Colony and despise Clayman? If you've always thought In Flames has sucked ass that's ok, but it seems that lately people would rather hate In Flames because its cool rather than because the music isn't to their liking.