You get my hopes up, then in the end it will be just Clayman....I bet it will be 3 re-recorded tracks, then 2 oddities. Acoustic, chip, demo, electronic, something like that. Or maybe 2 live tracks.
5 song EP, called it here.
maybe new;found it while trying to search for the song
When @DE4life says something bad about new IF tracks, I'm always interested cause in the end, they sound good.
I'm gonna find that track!
I don't disagree, It doesn't sound good here and I'm not trying to justify it by saying it'll be good live, more just passing comment that I think it will, and that there was the mentality behind the changeHonestly I think the production sounds really amateurish, to the point where it really shouldn't have been released. The way the solo is inserted into the song is just awful, and also those chugga chugga riffs come out of nowhere and engulf the vocals in a really awkward way - plus they just sound terrible. Honestly it would have been better to have just left that verse without guitars and go straight to the chorus.
If they wanted to show how it plays live they could have just released a live version of the song (which would have 100% sounded better) so I don't buy that as a legit excuse for the way this has been arranged. It's just not very good. I don't understand how it can sound this much worse than the stuff from ITM - unless it was mixed at home by Anders or something? It doesn't sound professional to me at all. There are YouTube covers with better production than this.
I don't disagree, It doesn't sound good here and I'm not trying to justify it by saying it'll be good live, more just passing comment that I think it will, and that there was the mentality behind the change
Hard agree, the production is so weak it hurts. Re-recording the greatest metal guitar tone ever recorded is a dangerous task at the best of times, but this is just hard proof that they need to stop working with Howard.
Agree, if Howard had anything to do with this he should be fired instantly. This song should not have been released sounding like this. The original version is so much better that it's a bit embarrassing for this new version to even be out there. I knew the original version would be better, I think we all did, but I didn't expect the new version to be quite this bad in terms of production. I was expecting something similar to ITM production, but like you said this is more like a sharp regression to Battles which I can't understand. It's not like the ITM production was great or anything, but it was still an improvement on Battles. I'm not sure how they've managed to regress like this for a song that clearly isn't designed for Battles type production.
On the plus side I listened to the original version of Clayman a half dozen times afterwards to clense my mind and it reminded me why In Flames were the absolute kings back in 2000. Amazing track, and it isn't even in my top five on the album.
Anders' vocal performance on the whole isn't that bad, for once he isn't really the problem. It's not his best work but it's nowhere near as bad as his ASOP performance so I can give him a pass here for the most part. With that said I don't understand why he has to try and change the rhythm of the chorus - from "how come it's possible" to "how come it is possible" for example - a small but noticeable and weird sounding alteration. Overall the production of the guitars is the biggest problem as they sound weak, disjointed and really fuzzy. The common problems of modern IF production unfortunately, but it really shows how even awesome songs like Clayman would get fucking nuked using IF current day production. Nordstrom was such a huge part of what made Clayman great, and this "new" version proves that 1000000%.