DBM000
New Metal Member
I've been a big fan of In Flames ever since I heard "Colony" a few years back. Is R2R their best album? No. Does that make it nu-metal? No.
The only things that really keep R2R from being a great album, as far as I'm concerned, are two things:
1) The chorus sections are jarring. Take the title track, for example -- it's tearing along at a good clip, and then it ABRUPTLY slows down and the clean section starts. It really throws off the pace of the song and detracts from it. Most of the songs on the album have that problem, except for Drifter and Egonomic. That doesn't make the songs bad, it just doesn't make them stellar.
2) Anders' clean vocals could use some work. I've never had a problem with clean vocals, which may make me a minority. The problem is, Anders doesn't execute them well. He does a fine job live, so it's either the production on the album or just how he was singing in the studio those days. I can't really pinpoint what bothers me about the vocals, it just seems like they don't compliment the song.
Nu-metal itself is hard to define, but my basic definition is:
-Lots of whining
-Sub-standard musicianship
-Rapping/turntables (this isn't a REQUIREMENT for nu-metal, but having these things automatically lumps it in with nu-metal)
In Flames certainly doesn't have whining, there's no rapping or turntables, and even if you don't particularly LIKE the musicianship on the latest album, you can't say it's sub-standard.
How do YOU guys define nu-metal, anyway?
Success doesn't make a band nu-metal, and it doesn't mean a band's sold out.
In the words of Manowar, "Death to false metal!"
The only things that really keep R2R from being a great album, as far as I'm concerned, are two things:
1) The chorus sections are jarring. Take the title track, for example -- it's tearing along at a good clip, and then it ABRUPTLY slows down and the clean section starts. It really throws off the pace of the song and detracts from it. Most of the songs on the album have that problem, except for Drifter and Egonomic. That doesn't make the songs bad, it just doesn't make them stellar.
2) Anders' clean vocals could use some work. I've never had a problem with clean vocals, which may make me a minority. The problem is, Anders doesn't execute them well. He does a fine job live, so it's either the production on the album or just how he was singing in the studio those days. I can't really pinpoint what bothers me about the vocals, it just seems like they don't compliment the song.
Nu-metal itself is hard to define, but my basic definition is:
-Lots of whining
-Sub-standard musicianship
-Rapping/turntables (this isn't a REQUIREMENT for nu-metal, but having these things automatically lumps it in with nu-metal)
In Flames certainly doesn't have whining, there's no rapping or turntables, and even if you don't particularly LIKE the musicianship on the latest album, you can't say it's sub-standard.
How do YOU guys define nu-metal, anyway?
Success doesn't make a band nu-metal, and it doesn't mean a band's sold out.
In the words of Manowar, "Death to false metal!"