In Flames New Album being released in Q2 of 2014 thread

Believe me, if I thought you were worth the time I'd happily debate with you. Seeing as I don't, I'm content just winding you up :D as you seem to be on the verge of a breakdown, though, time to stop. Stay frosty, kid.
It's not about debate, it's about actually making any argument at all. Debate is when someone finds your argument weak. If you claim something, you either have anything to back it up, or you are just talking out of your arse.

Example 1:
- SC is the worst IF album ever.
- Why?
- I don't know, I just said that. Is that not enough?

This is where you are at, 0. Nowhere.

Example 2:
- SC is the worst IF album ever.
- Why?
- I think the way they structured the song is very lazy, the vocals are bleeding and there's just not enough diversity.

This is when you actually explain something, that you don't just throw empty words into the air, because you hate SC or whatever.

Example 3:
- SC is the worst IF album ever.
- Why?
- I think the way they structured the song is very lazy, the vocals are bleeding and there's just not enough diversity.
- I'm sorry, but I think you are wrong, because...

And this is something you can only achieve when you actually proved you are not just talking out of your ass. Whether you participate in the debate at that point or dismiss the counterarguments as "not worthy to reply to" is up to you, but you can not reach this conclusion when you are at example one, because otherwise it looks like example 4.

Example 4:
- SC is the worst IF album ever.
- Why?
- I refuse to debate with you, your points are stupid and shallow.

I see your posts are reeking of three major things. One is the way you try to make it all look "funny" and make it look like it's a conversation built upon non-serious ground, like if the question was "why 1+1 is not 3?". This makes you feel better avoiding the question, like you are not supposed to answer in the first place. The other part is you projecting your pity and hate on me, like it (or the reason you have these feelings/opinions) have anything to do with you being called out on what you proudly claimed. The third part is trying to make me mad or overzealous by not only verbal abuse, but actually stating I'm already in that state, which you know I am not, but when people are accused falsely, they usually tend to be upset, so it's almost like a failproof way of making someone frustrated, though it's somewhat ironic that you use terms which imply I am but merely a child, when these techniques are actually what young folks use when they feel threatened.

Forcing everything into a personal fight is a safe way to protect yourself from admitting you were wrong, though the (lazy) way you are doing it is not much better int he public's eye, than admitting that you got caught in the heat of the argument and said something that is not exactly true.
 
It's not about debate, it's about actually making any argument at all. Debate is when someone finds your argument weak. If you claim something, you either have anything to back it up, or you are just talking out of your arse.

Example 1:
- SC is the worst IF album ever.
- Why?
- I don't know, I just said that. Is that not enough?

This is where you are at, 0. Nowhere.

Example 2:
- SC is the worst IF album ever.
- Why?
- I think the way they structured the song is very lazy, the vocals are bleeding and there's just not enough diversity.

This is when you actually explain something, that you don't just throw empty words into the air, because you hate SC or whatever.

Example 3:
- SC is the worst IF album ever.
- Why?
- I think the way they structured the song is very lazy, the vocals are bleeding and there's just not enough diversity.
- I'm sorry, but I think you are wrong, because...

And this is something you can only achieve when you actually proved you are not just talking out of your ass. Whether you participate in the debate at that point or dismiss the counterarguments as "not worthy to reply to" is up to you, but you can not reach this conclusion when you are at example one, because otherwise it looks like example 4.

Example 4:
- SC is the worst IF album ever.
- Why?
- I refuse to debate with you, your points are stupid and shallow.

I see your posts are reeking of three major things. One is the way you try to make it all look "funny" and make it look like it's a conversation built upon non-serious ground, like if the question was "why 1+1 is not 3?". This makes you feel better avoiding the question, like you are not supposed to answer in the first place. The other part is you projecting your pity and hate on me, like it (or the reason you have these feelings/opinions) have anything to do with you being called out on what you proudly claimed. The third part is trying to make me mad or overzealous by not only verbal abuse, but actually stating I'm already in that state, which you know I am not, but when people are accused falsely, they usually tend to be upset, so it's almost like a failproof way of making someone frustrated, though it's somewhat ironic that you use terms which imply I am but merely a child, when these techniques are actually what young folks use when they feel threatened.

Forcing everything into a personal fight is a safe way to protect yourself from admitting you were wrong, though the (lazy) way you are doing it is not much better int he public's eye, than admitting that you got caught in the heat of the argument and said something that is not exactly true.

Did you really take the time to write and explain all this? What the fuck do you think we've been doing for, I don't know, the previous 20+ pages of this thread?
 
Should've kept tracking best of moments from the start, then they could've been edited into the op. What a missed opportunity.
 
Did you really take the time to write and explain all this? What the fuck do you think we've been doing for, I don't know, the previous 20+ pages of this thread?
If my memory serves right, not talking about the quality - or the lack of it - of the vocals on TJR. But here you are, so explain me how Anders is less generic and emotionless on TJR than the Kalmah guy. I'm popping in that Kalmah song, then any (well, almost any) TJR song, then a Whoracle one, and holy shit Whoracle's vox is so much more advanced. It makes you feel like the guy who's giving his best takes at the growls actually cares about what he sings about. I wish Moonshield was done for Whoracle...

But I'm afraid you are someone who rates both the TJR and the Kalmah vox highly, because if I remember correctly you even digged the vox on Lunar Strain.
 
I think it's obvious that you are the one that "makes feel". I don't know how emotions can be evaluated when talking about singers (except for Anders pain face in the video of DU, there I can clearly see how he just lost his anal virginity), since it's all about studio work. I don't know how you can feel like he cares more or less about what he is singing. I only see inprovement between albums.

If, after so many discussion, you don't know why some people hates the album then you've got an understanding problem. If you know, then you've got another problem, because you wasted your time in something irrelevant.
 
How does fucking SC is even in this discussion? I was talking about TJR, Whoracle and the Kalmah song, I never said anything about SC.

As for DU, his emotions might be fake, but don't tell me it induces less "feels" in you than a monotone growling on TJR. Pretty much if someone actually sings, he's already projecting more feelings than even a quality growl. The best example for a good Anders vocal might be Come Clarity. I love how his voice is so fragile, it really matches the lyrics. You don't even have to understand what he's saying, you could already pinpoint the mood of the song.

If someone says that a growl makes a song much more enjoyable for him than if it was singed, I could understand him. But when the guy who says that Kalmah song lacks emotion in the vocals rates TJR so highly, something is really off. Or is there good emotionless growl and bad emotionless growl? And once again, don't give me SC examples when I say Whoracle vox >>>>>>>>>>> TJR vox. Unless you were shitting on Whoracle, then my bad, I misunderstood.
 
It's ok. You don't suck, but you need to try and write with more clarity. It seems like you're so intense and erect about In Flames that you lose control of some cognitive function when furiously typing a defense of the band.
 
Apparently IF played When the World Explodes with Emilia yesterday in Denmark. No video on the tube yet though =/
 
All growling is "emotionless growling and blabbering".

Hahaha, I really don't understand why you're on ultimatemetal.com

Calling any person who tries to explain to you why you should like both the old and the new "mindless" is just laughable.


This kind of person is what the post-2008 In Flames has attracted.
And another guy pretending to know the difference between growls without any explanation. Yeah, this kind of narrow-minded idiots are who stuck in the 90s <3 It's nice that we have a board where we can have such discussions, old and new IF fans alike!
 
And another guy pretending to know the difference between growls without any explanation. Yeah, this kind of narrow-minded idiots are who stuck in the 90s <3 It's nice that we have a board where we can have such discussions, old and new IF fans alike!

Oh, we all know the differences. If you don't then it's your own problem.
 
Oh, we all know the differences. If you don't then it's your own problem.
I do know, that's why I said Whoracle growls >>>> TJR growls. Wasn't 100% sure what only4theweak meant. Either he meant I think all growls are the same (I said the exact opposite, lel), or he meant that it's a fact that all growls are the same, which would cofuse me.

So yeah. 2 pages, and a total of 4 people butting in in the "why TJR growls are better than the Kalmah one and why do they not lack emotions" question, but everyone failed to give an actual answer. I guess saying something negative to old IF is like talking about the Bible with a christian.
- Ya know, I don't think you can actually resurrect from the dead.
- WELL FUCK YOU THEN, FUCKING NEW AGE GUY. IT'S TOTALLY POSSIBLE BUT I'M NOT GONNA WASTE MY BREATH ON YOU!

Hmm, a new IF album with three chapters would be awesome. Like 4-4-4 tracks, and each chapter is different. There would be one duo voxed by a female singer (and since these songs couldn't be performed live anyway, they should include another guest musicians, return of Jesper, whatnot), one that's like the next gen of the ASOP-SOAPF-SC (for you folks, de-)evolution and one with a more raw material and more emphasis on the instrumental parts. Actually, it should be 4-5-5.

Or at the very least, do the casual two disc treatment with 6-6 or 7-7 tracks. It's not like they need to come up with arena hits every time they release a new material, they have a shitton of music to choose from already.