In Flames -Sounds of A Playground Fading (Upcoming 10th album)
- Thread starter krofius
- Start date
I think anyone who believes Jesper was somehow fighting for the guys to record another Gothenburg styled record is kidding themselves. Now he's moved into the Resistance, he has the licence to write in whatever style he chooses, hell he's even teamed up with Glenn and they're not planning on writing anything resembling old In Flames (certainly not from anything I've heard). Sounds of a Playground Fading sounds way more Gothenburg than anything I've heard from The Resistance, it's not like Jesper was some tragic hero fighting for the sound that most old IF die hards like ourselves know and love... If anyone's doing that, it would appear to be Bjorn on listening to SOAPF.
- Mar 16, 2009
- 2,390
- 248
- 63
I disagree, if we're talking what is ''more metal'' CC is way heavier than STYE.Just because Jesper wrote most of the newer stuff, it doesnt mean that he wanted it to sound the way it sounds. When you are in a band like In Flames, and when you have families/children, you kinda have to think of how will your record sell. They can say that they make the music they like, and that they are evolving and how they dont give a shit about fans, but thats just bullshit. How come that their evolution is awfully one-way and predictable? You know that every album is going to be softer and softer, going further away from metal. Thats not evolution. Like someone said, I wish they would openly admit that they are doing this because it sells better. I would respect them much more. Sure, when you reach a certain age, you kinda drift apart from metal and you want to write/play something slightly more "mature", but IMHO its not happening.
But back to the point. When you are the main songwriter in a band, you have to take other people into accout. You try to make music that your bandmates will like, first and foremost. Even if he didnt want to go with this direction the band took (as I believe he didnt), the other guys were obviously into it, and he simply did it for them. At least it makes sense to me.
Dont get the wrong idea, this is not a rant. I like IF, but there are some things that just piss me off. Oh and I apologize if I dont make much sense, I just got home and I had a beer or five tonight
And I disagree about the other part as well. They have lived on their music since '98 if I recall right, and why would they not make music they sincerely want too? How is it not evolution btw, if they started as melodeath and are going to try something new within the frame of metal, they can't really do much else. How would it be an evolution if they went death metal all of a sudden? As they've themselves, the change has never been sudden.
Anyways, this is leading into an Old vs New discussion so I won't really bother, if you have the opinion that IF sold out there's nothing I can do about it else than disagreeing heavily.
I dont think that they sold out. I just think that they are intentionaly approaching the wider audiances and that they do care about the money. After all, why arent they playing the old songs live, since they dont give a fuck what do the fans like? Riiight
And I disagree about the CC being more "metal" or whatever. STYE had growls and much rawer vocals and far less clean singing than CC. CC was also way more melodic.
I like IF and their music as much as any of you do, but lets not kid ourselves.
And I disagree about the CC being more "metal" or whatever. STYE had growls and much rawer vocals and far less clean singing than CC. CC was also way more melodic.
I like IF and their music as much as any of you do, but lets not kid ourselves.
People who do not think In Flames at least partially purposefully engineered their music towards a mainstream audience are not giving the band enough credit it was a smart business decision, music aside. Their star has been rising in the mainstream metal sphere since R2R, they've obviously made a very wise business choice to structure their music in the way they have.
It works for Anders and Bjorn especially because they like that type of music anyway. Not sure about Peter or Daniel. It isn't really Jesper's style but he would have been aware of the success the newer songs were bringing and was smart enough to keep the music going in that direction.
it was a smart business decision, music aside. Their star has been rising in the mainstream metal sphere since R2R, they've obviously made a very wise business choice to structure their music in the way they have.It works for Anders and Bjorn especially because they like that type of music anyway. Not sure about Peter or Daniel. It isn't really Jesper's style but he would have been aware of the success the newer songs were bringing and was smart enough to keep the music going in that direction.
They've said before that when they play the old songs, the crowd doesn't react. If you don't believe that, think about this: they started their career playing those songs, and as they create more music, they are going to play that newer music more often since they haven't played it as much. I'm not saying all bands do this, but it is reasonable. Now, did they indirectly create a fanbase that only "moves" to the new material? Maybe. I do find it a little strange that with how much they love to change and evolve their sound with each record, they generally play the same songs live. You would think they would change most of the setlist every month or so. I'm pretty sure Metallica went through a static, no-old-songs setlist phase for a while, but ever since Death Magnetic, they have been playing different songs from their entire catalog (minus St. Anger and most of (Re)Load) every night. So, yes, it would be awesome for In Flames to do the same. But I really don't mind because I would pay to see them no matter what IF songs they played.
And I wouldn't say CC was heavier or not heavier than Soundtrack. They are different. Yes, CC had clean vocals, but so did the glorious Clayman. Would you say Clayman was heavier than CC? Or heavier even than R2R? So, clean vocals doesn't mean it can't be heavier. I think everything after Clayman save for ASOP was heavier than Clayman. So, they clearly aren't going in a less-heavy direction with each album. Don't get me wrong, on another thread I couldn't pick a top three from Clayman because I love the entire album.
And the whole "Old vs. New IF" thing is hilarious because it's all based on time. Everyone compares each new album to Clayman. And most people will never think a new IF album will be better than it. That's mainly due to the factor of time. Clayman has been out for longer, and always will be. Therefore, it has more time to grow on you and attach to you. No new album will have the same opportunity, because even when a new one has been out for 8 years, Clayman will have been out for 16 (this will vary depending on which album you pick). And an album like Clayman will always get better with time, so of course it's no competition. Now, it will be interesting to see if IF puts out another 5 albums, will "The Dividing Line" still be between Clayman and Reroute? Will there be another one? I think that's all and I hope this makes sense.
And I wouldn't say CC was heavier or not heavier than Soundtrack. They are different. Yes, CC had clean vocals, but so did the glorious Clayman. Would you say Clayman was heavier than CC? Or heavier even than R2R? So, clean vocals doesn't mean it can't be heavier. I think everything after Clayman save for ASOP was heavier than Clayman. So, they clearly aren't going in a less-heavy direction with each album. Don't get me wrong, on another thread I couldn't pick a top three from Clayman because I love the entire album.
And the whole "Old vs. New IF" thing is hilarious because it's all based on time. Everyone compares each new album to Clayman. And most people will never think a new IF album will be better than it. That's mainly due to the factor of time. Clayman has been out for longer, and always will be. Therefore, it has more time to grow on you and attach to you. No new album will have the same opportunity, because even when a new one has been out for 8 years, Clayman will have been out for 16 (this will vary depending on which album you pick). And an album like Clayman will always get better with time, so of course it's no competition. Now, it will be interesting to see if IF puts out another 5 albums, will "The Dividing Line" still be between Clayman and Reroute? Will there be another one? I think that's all and I hope this makes sense.
No, it's because Clayman is an amazing album... time is irrelevant
otherwise everybody would be comparing the new albums to Lunar Strain, wouldn't they? It's the quality of an album that decides whether it is remembered or not, and Clayman of all In Flames albums probably mixes the best of the commercial and non-commercial elements of their original sound.Going by that logic, Colony-Whoracle-TJR should be more popular than Clayman because they are out longer.
And there are different types of "heavy"... Most people observe Death as heavier music than Slipknot, Korn, Drowning pool (is that the name) etc... For me, it is much easier to listen Death then any of those bands. STYE is heavier than Claymen sound wise. Less melody, guitar sound is uglier, even Anders screams are more aggressive sometimes... BUT (and that's a big but) STYE is not heavier ideology wise. It is written in very pop-ish, easy to consume way compared to Clayman (not to mention earlier albums). "In the US it is popular to scream about suicide and hate and do chugging riffs, so let's do it."
In Flames started to write songs that are just "speeding things up to get to the first catchy chorus", and because of that their music has became shallow and one dimensional. From all these albums RTR-ASOP there are no epic riffs that will became legendary, there is no real aggression and purpose, there are no new, progressive ideas, no dream-like passages...there are just catchy choruses and a few memorable melodies. Songs started to revolve around choruses like satellites around planets.
And I hate that. I hate nu metal, metalcore, glam rock, pop...and a I love prog rock, death metal, thrash metal, NWOBHM, even some avantgarde black metal, classical, folk/etno music, trance etc... TJR-Clayman belongs into music I like, R2R-ASOP is in the group I dislike.
It is the same band, but music is not the same. And I don't care, they can write Lady Gaga-like songs if they want to attract wider audience, but I don't have to like it.
And there are different types of "heavy"... Most people observe Death as heavier music than Slipknot, Korn, Drowning pool (is that the name) etc... For me, it is much easier to listen Death then any of those bands. STYE is heavier than Claymen sound wise. Less melody, guitar sound is uglier, even Anders screams are more aggressive sometimes... BUT (and that's a big but) STYE is not heavier ideology wise. It is written in very pop-ish, easy to consume way compared to Clayman (not to mention earlier albums). "In the US it is popular to scream about suicide and hate and do chugging riffs, so let's do it."
In Flames started to write songs that are just "speeding things up to get to the first catchy chorus", and because of that their music has became shallow and one dimensional. From all these albums RTR-ASOP there are no epic riffs that will became legendary, there is no real aggression and purpose, there are no new, progressive ideas, no dream-like passages...there are just catchy choruses and a few memorable melodies. Songs started to revolve around choruses like satellites around planets.
And I hate that. I hate nu metal, metalcore, glam rock, pop...and a I love prog rock, death metal, thrash metal, NWOBHM, even some avantgarde black metal, classical, folk/etno music, trance etc... TJR-Clayman belongs into music I like, R2R-ASOP is in the group I dislike.
It is the same band, but music is not the same. And I don't care, they can write Lady Gaga-like songs if they want to attract wider audience, but I don't have to like it.
I believe that. But its been 10 years since Clayman, even more since TJR/Whoracle. A lot of bands play older stuff as the time goes. I was just trying to show flaw in the popular logic that they dont care about what do the fans want.
I agree with the rest you said
I agree with the rest you said
In Flames care about which songs will draw the most fans to their shows, that's it.
Metallica can afford to switch their setlist around because they're an iconic band whose concerts will sell-out no matter what. In Flames aren't on their level, they still have to select their setlist on the basis of which songs people will want to come and see.
Metallica can afford to switch their setlist around because they're an iconic band whose concerts will sell-out no matter what. In Flames aren't on their level, they still have to select their setlist on the basis of which songs people will want to come and see.
No, it's because Clayman is an amazing album... time is irrelevant
No, you must have missed what I said. I said that time was the main factor, which means that of course there are other ones. Clearly, quality is a factor, and that is why Clayman is above Colony, Whoracle, and TJR. Time is not irrelevant. You're going to tell me that when Clayman came out, no one was furious with the change in sound and that it was instantly their classic album? Same thing goes for when each of their earlier albums came out. Don't lie to yourself, you know time is one of the biggest factors in this. They wrote a great album that, at the time, was not known as great by most. As time passes, you realize that it is great. Look at Reroute. I'm sure most hated it at first, and now, you like it a lot. Time passes, our ears change; things get better with time. I just had to take a phone call and now I lost my train of thought, but I think I was finished. I'm really just trying to say that time is a huge factor here and that it will be interesting to see if opinions about the "new era" of albums change 5-10 years from now.
True. I really hate old vs. new arguments, so I'm going to stop here. I'll only continue if one of my opinions needs clarification.
I understand what you're saying but it's not correct... time isn't the "main" factor, it's a small factor. The quality of the music is the main factor. The other thing about the time argument is you're suggesting it only ever gives positive status to albums as it passes, but it can go the complete opposite way and lower opinion depending on what is released afterwards. I liked ASOP when it came out and hate it now, time has made me realise how poor it was.
There was a small band of discontent when Clayman came out (I was around, so I know
) but general opinion was that it was a fantastic album. People knew that. It was self-evident in the quality of the music, and the naysayers were completely in the minority at that time.I agree that time has helped R2R, but it isn't the "main" factor people view it as a better album now. The main reason is because the albums after it - especially STYE and ASOP - were infinitely worse, and make R2R look great in comparison. If their career had finished with R2R it would be viewed generally as the album where In Flames took a dip in form, regardless of how much time passed.
Last edited:
PlainVanilla
Dickhead Jester
Man I wasn't even aware of Clayman when it came out. First thing I've heard from IF was STYE, and I was like: WTF, this is shit! Then I heard CC, and I was like: Oh, OK, nice stuff, nothing special. Just then I heard Clayman: And from the moment first riff in OFTW kicked in...I couldn't believe something good as that existed.
We're back to that Krofius story about people being nostalgic. It is just not true.
If a new bend released something in the vein of Colony, I would buy that. If a new bend released three album in the vein of STYE, I wouldn't even bother to check their stuff out. The only reason why I even bother listening ASOP or STYE is because it's In Flames, and they have some serious credit in my book.
Man I wasn't even aware of Clayman when it came out. First thing I've heard from IF was STYE, and I was like: WTF, this is shit! Then I heard CC, and I was like: Oh, OK, nice stuff, nothing special. Just then I heard Clayman: And from the moment first riff in OFTW kicked in...I couldn't believe something good as that existed.
We're back to that Krofius story about people being nostalgic. It is just not true.
If a new bend released something in the vein of Colony, I would buy that. If a new bend released three album in the vein of STYE, I wouldn't even bother to check their stuff out. The only reason why I even bother listening ASOP or STYE is because it's In Flames, and they have some serious credit in my book.
I don't mean the first time anyone hears Clayman. I mean people that have heard the previous four albums first, then hear Clayman.
I'm not completely sure I remember what his nostalgia story is, so I won't say anything.
I'm not really sure what to say to the last paragraph, but I will agree that IF has serious credit. They're probably the only band that, with as much album-to-album change, I can trust that I will enjoy each new album of theirs. And that's because they have made their own genre; the genre of In Flames.
Man, didn't you say that people dislike new stuff because they are comparing it with Clayman? And Clayman is always better because it was released earlier, and we will learn to love STYE in 10 or so years? (I'm simplifying things)
I was trying to show you, on my example, that even though I didn't know about In Flames or their older faze (and I approached to STYE with enthusiasm) I still found that album shallow a nu-metal-ish from the beginning.
Why is it so hard to accept that many of us so called "old fans" aren't close minded idiots believing world should never change? We just don't like pop-ish low quality, badly produced music with whiny vocals. That's it.
I was trying to show you, on my example, that even though I didn't know about In Flames or their older faze (and I approached to STYE with enthusiasm) I still found that album shallow a nu-metal-ish from the beginning.
Why is it so hard to accept that many of us so called "old fans" aren't close minded idiots believing world should never change? We just don't like pop-ish low quality, badly produced music with whiny vocals. That's it.
Man, didn't you say that people dislike new stuff because they are comparing it with Clayman? And Clayman is always better because it was released earlier, and we will learn to love STYE in 10 or so years? (I'm simplifying things)
I was trying to show you, on my example, that even though I didn't know about In Flames or their older faze (and I approached to STYE with enthusiasm) I still found that album shallow a nu-metal-ish from the beginning.
Why is it so hard to accept that many of us so called "old fans" aren't close minded idiots believing world should never change? We just don't like pop-ish low quality, badly produced music with whiny vocals. That's it.
You forgot to factor time into the equation, asshole
Similar threads
