ISIS:

Live imo:

Iron Maiden > Behemoth .......... (somewhere down the list) Isis.

Unless they show some personality in their live shows, I will remain as disappointed as I was the last time (thats not to say that musically they werent tight etc, as in that aspect they kicked ass).

PS - when I saw them, they DID jump about etc.
 
MasterOLightning said:
Isis is the best live band I've seen. I don't care that Aaron doesn't say a word between songs during the show. I like that. I like that they don't move around, or jump up and down like morons. They play for the duration of their set, and don't waste 20 minutes like Opeth does. They do nothing that detracts from the music.

It should be one of the few memorable releases of the year.

:erk:

If you don't want any 'detracts from the music' at Opeth gigs, sit at home and listen to a goddamn CD... sheesh
 
The Hubster said:
So far, I have to agree, but I'm still hammering the album out though - I can't say I feel 100% conclusive yet.

In the Absence of Truth sounds like Panopticon with better production, with less atmospherics and a lighter feel. As a positive though, Aaron sounds like he's finally learning to do grim vocals properly. He sounds much more controlled on this record, the results are positive and less painful.

PS re: my earlier post: its not that Isis suck, its that there's too many bands seemingly doing the same thing. It seems on the threshold of becoming the new Gothenburg in some ways. And when I saw Isis live, I was disappointed in a number of ways... but they do not suck.

I think there is a difference between the bands doing the same thing in this style than the bands doing the Gothenburg thing. Whilst majority of the melodic death bands sound exactly alike, these post bands, whilst being the same in style, have developed their own atmosphere which is what makes them sound apart.

Sure, Neurosis , Cult of Luna and Isis may be at the top of the pile, but that should be no reason to back away from the likes of bands such as Solstafir, Ocean, Giant Squid, Rosetta, etc. Sure , they might play the same style, but for me at least, they all have their own distinct way of doing it (mainly due to the atmosphere), which sets them apart from each other.
 
I see little difference between Isis, Neurosis and Cult of Luna (in their present forms). Going back in time, yes, differences were more obvious, but now I don't feel this is the case.

The music itself *is* good, it just seems that the style is somewhat acute. However, if the style evolves more, and something even more creative comes out of it, well, I'll be the first person to retract any negatives I've said about it... for me personally, I need proof of artistic honesty as opposed to sheepism.

Yeah, I sound like a damn snob, but I can't pretend I expect any less from art, and were I a musician, I'd be even more harsh on myself.
 
Well mate, I can certainly tell the difference between Isis, Neurosis and Cult Of Luna. And if we are gonna criticise these bands, well lets leave Neurosis out of this as they are the ultimate kings of this genre and the band that Cult of Luna and Isis take influence from most.

With these 3 bands in particular, for me, all their albums have their own sound and feel and whilst at times , yes I do feel Cult of Luna has similarities in feel and sound to Isis (Salvation tends to be more Isis like for example), Neurosis has certainly kept to their own.

Sometimes I think it is unfair to place Neurosis on the same line as those 2 as they have been doing this for much longer and have released double the albums the other 2 have. Neurosis are still doing amazing things and the other 2 are still behind following on. If these bands are still releasing amazing work by their 8th albums, then I'll put them on the same wave length as Neurosis, but for now, Neurosis is still a few steps above Isis and Cult Of Luna for me.
 
My previous post was more about the characteristics and style of the music itself, thus encompassing all three bands as a whole. I guess as far as your observations on Neurosis go, I'd have to agree with you on that (and plus, I know you dig these bands more than I do).

The style itself is minimalistic, and to add "details" and more aspects to it would conflict with the minimalism and abstraction that the music is both comprised of and achieves its beauty via.

It's akin to say (a kind of a adverse example here) painting an abstract artwork, and then going to one section of it and doing a detailed self-portait over the top. It completely ruins the work's trajectory and so destroys it.

With this idea in tow, in correlation to the music of the above bands, I guess I feel the evolution of this style is limited, perhaps even more so than Black Metal is (I mention it because it's a somewhat acute and limited genre of music too), so the ability to differentiate from one band to another, structurally and characteristically speaking, is limited.

I feel these aspects lend to a a lack of ability to deviate from the core style too much without leaving it altogether.... but like I said, I could be wrong, we have yet to see where the style goes, as so far, its relatively young.

Because of these possible limitations, I find I can't take this style too seriously, as my hopes for it's evolution are dim, especially in light of how much attention it's recieving. To me, it seems like a really temporary movement in music.
 
Hmm, I think the genre can certainly progress into something more. Just look at post rock and Mogwai's more electronic influences these days for example. And the various elements Godspeed You Black Emperor uses as well. Even Sigur Ros.

There is no question that these more heavier post bands can be as experimental as the above mentioned bands in the future.