IN FLAMES new album being released on 1st March, 2019

Talking about cliches, omce Jesper said something like "Linkin Park is better than U2 because at least they're metal". That's quite stupid to say. And Linkin Park do not even considere themselves as a metal act, and to this I agree.
Maybe this is the ultimate test for who is a metal head. Even an elitist. U2 or Linkin Park?

We know Anders would choose U2. Because they are “a great band” or something. Musicians should like U2. And Apple users. It’s what big boys do. Agree totally that it is generic rock. Over celebrated.

Linkin Park any day.
 
So, Our House is metal, Truth is metal but A New Dawn is plain ol' rock?
 
You can have SOAPF on your "good alt. metal shelf", but I will gladly pass, and wait for ITM, where they actually play what they are best known for and what they are best in.
Bullshit.

All these retards saying it's a "return to form" probably only like 1 post 2000 album.

Last time I checked, In Flames wasn't about low tuning riffs, which ironically was most emphasized on STYE, an album you say is bad.

In Flames was always extremely melodic, with heavy metal rhythm section. Sometimes the rhythm was more the driving riff, thrashy sounding but not in the vein of new in flames, but it was still melodic and over the place. The Hive, The Graveland, shit like that.

If the rhythm wasn't carrying the melody then it was usually chord progressions with an extremely melodic lead. moonshield, artifacts, jotun, embody the invisible, scorn, shit like that.

Sounds nothing like I The Mask. ITM sounds like a dumbed down version of come clarity + stye.
 
Ironically enough, the beginning of The End before the pre chorus hits sounds closer to a colony song
 
Would take Liberation over most of the SC, B and ITM.
baINLAUH.jpg
 
@Clay-Man I like STYE. And ITM sucks if you compare it to the older one's quality. My joy is for their return to a sound where they have actual fast-paced, interesting metal elements (which has always been there until SOAPF). I don't mind them incorporating the SOAPF sound as well, because it has its place, but when a whole fuckin record is based off of that, it's boring. Something cool like the Stand Ablaze solo (or breakdown, you know what I mean) could never have happened on a record like SOAPF with its fat, puffy sounds. The only exception is Ropes.
ASOP - metal, but weak production
SOAPF - modern metal
SC - alternative rock
Battles - pop rock
ITM - pop metal
I can get behind this. Just give "puffy shit" next to SOAPF as well, and I'm all for this description.
 
What a stupid selection. . These albums have metal songs and rock it's a mix thats how it works
Siren Charms is not metal. One shitty metal song (Everything’s Gone) DOES NOT make it a metal album. It’s a rock album with a metal song included.

Battles is a pop rock album. Not even a true rock album because it lacks real aggression except for Wallflower. Yes, it was obviously made by some guys with some metal background, but that doesn’t make it a metal album.

Anyone familiar with Creed? The band in the 90s with the song “Higher”? After they broke up most of the members formed a band called Alter Bridge around 15 years ago. That shit hits harder than any song on SC or Battles yet it is 100% considered rock. No one ever calls them metal and the metal community would never claim them. But they are harder and more aggressive than Battles and SC hands down.

Rock:

Rock:


I’m sorry, my threshold for calling something metal is “harder than rock”. Battles and SC don’t meet that definition. Conclusion: not metal! And to be clear, I’m not saying I need music to be metal to like it. Even if it’s rock I might like it. But I will not call it metal just because I’m embarrassed to be a metalhead that likes rock songs. This is what Slave said a long time ago that he hates metalheads. I interpret that to mean that he hates defining himself by a rigid definition that limits his listening. So with that I agree.

Anyway, Battles and Siren Charms ARE NOT METAL. Why are they called Alternative Metal? That’s just some shit that Nuclear Blast came up with so people will still buy their music. It’s not a real classification.
 
I can get behind this. Just give "puffy shit" next to SOAPF as well, and I'm all for this description.
You say “puffy” I say “chunky”. Pretty much the same. I actually don’t have a major problem with the sound in limited amounts. Where The Dead Ships Dwell sounds awesome. Thick, chunky, heavy.

But I don’t need 3-4 songs with the same chunky/puffy riffs that sound exactly the fucking same with little personality.

The best songs on SOAPF are the ones with interesting parts that are not chunky/puffy riffs.

Ropes - cool melodic guitar work and solo

Fear is the Weakness - amazing, epic and MASSIVE introduction. makes me feel like I’m flying into some dark futuristic city on an FZero vehicle to kick some ass.

Where The Dead Ships Dwell - Awesome in all ways. Swagger, heavy riffs with an edge, amazing solo. Great use of electronic elements. Anders’ singing sounds good. Great to headbang to.

A New Dawn - what can I say? Epic.

But I disagree that the chunky/puffy style is what hurts some of the other songs. It’s more like the absence of cool and varied guitar work.

Occasionally we talk about how Niclas should write more. But I have a sneaking suspicion Bjorn was heavily influenced by Niclas or at least that variety of metal (like Engelin) on SOAPF.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Jester Slave
sorry, my threshold for calling something metal is “harder than rock”.

I agree, but this threshold is totally subjective. I believe that the majority of the songs in SC ( In Plain View, EG, Paralyzed, WTWE, Rusted Nail, Monsters In The Ballroom, Filtered Truth + bonus tracks ) and Battles ( Drained, The End, Before I Fall Through My Eyes, Underneath My Skin, Wallflower, Save Me +bonus tracks ) are crossing the line of rock ( fully or partly ) and so I consider these albums metal...good or bad metal it's another topic.
 
You say “puffy” I say “chunky”. Pretty much the same. I actually don’t have a major problem with the sound in limited amounts. Where The Dead Ships Dwell sounds awesome. Thick, chunky, heavy.

But I don’t need 3-4 songs with the same chunky/puffy riffs that sound exactly the fucking same with little personality.
Yeah, that's how I meant it.

1. SOAPF in itself is just too much. Imagine if CC had 10 Leeches on it. 1 Leeches is fucking awesome, as weird as that song is, but when it's 10 of the same, you get Battles or SOAPF.

2. You can label SC rock instead of metal, but it doesn't change the fact that it operates with the fucking "chunky" sound as SOAPF, just through different production.

3. Battles is very similar as well, except it's not chunky, and it sounds even worse thanks to that. You can really hear how fucking uninspired the guitar playing on SOAPF and SC is, when you take away that puffy/chunky sound. It's pathetic. And before any of you get a brain tumor, the melodies on SOAPF are great, I'm not bashing those.

So all in all, it has been 3 albums too many from this shit. I don't even care if ITM will end up average, as all signs suggest it will. At least I can listen to some proper metal sound after ASOP.
 
See the thing is, to me the problem you have with these albums is not a new IF problem. They did that since after Clayman. In my eyes, STYE is exactly the same as what you are complaining about. Power chord riffing, lack of up-front melody. Where does STYE rank on your scale?

I will say that at least STYE did have energy. I can hear that. But the guitars are not interesting to me at all.
 
Maybe this is the ultimate test for who is a metal head. Even an elitist. U2 or Linkin Park?

We know Anders would choose U2. Because they are “a great band” or something. Musicians should like U2. And Apple users. It’s what big boys do. Agree totally that it is generic rock. Over celebrated.

Linkin Park any day.
Overrated as many other bands. I also dislike LP.
 
See the thing is, to me the problem you have with these albums is not a new IF problem. They did that since after Clayman. In my eyes, STYE is exactly the same as what you are complaining about. Power chord riffing, lack of up-front melody. Where does STYE rank on your scale?

I will say that at least STYE did have energy. I can hear that. But the guitars are not interesting to me at all.
STYE is definitely among the best of the bunch. The energy is so explosive throughout the entire record, even Evil in a Closet. Every guitar sound chops into your bone, and I love that. The intro to Touch of Red pretty much sums the whole record up. Like some feral beast sinking its tooth into you. Fun, fun, fun!!

R2R-STYE-CC era is simply the best, although STYE is definitely the weakest of the trio, but at least it's unique, and not just simply a worse version of CC or R2R. Maybe it's just me, but the whole record has this cold vibe. Very unfriendly.

Anyway, I don't see the similarities in sound with SOAPF. Both are heavy, but speed matters so much, that it's just not compareable.

edit: ahh, just listening to that guitar in the verses of Sober and Irrelevant.... man, this is what I'm missing :(
 
I don't know what happened to you guys but it looks like all of you lost your fucking minds. :D HOW THE HELL IS ITM IS POP METAL?? The songs came out (except House) are heaviest since CC. POP METAL??