Supermachiner

illidurit said:
yawn more boring assumptions from a typical shit taste noob trying to validate his crappy taste

I've heard jane doe, their music still consists of derivative metal riffs, horrid scream/yell core vocals, and breakdowns, which is the fucking definition of metalcore

kill yourself

Funny that there's way worse "breakdown" riffs on GR than anything on that whole album.
 
Scourge of Malice said:
melodeath? im really beginning to think you listenened to the wrong band.

uhh...moonsorrow is not melodeath? are you absolutely daft? what would YOU call them? jazz death fusion? get a clue, and buy some taste.


AND STOP LISTENING TO CONVERGE. fucking horrid band.
 
Scourge of Malice said:
What, the have long songs, melody, folky acoustic parts, some fast, some slow, screaming and clean vocals... starting to sound more like a certain UM band than at the gates...
main3.jpg
main3.jpg
main3.jpg

main3.jpg
main3.jpg
main3.jpg
What is a UM band?
 
Scourge of Malice said:
What, the have long songs, melody, folky acoustic parts, some fast, some slow, screaming and clean vocals... starting to sound more like a certain UM band than at the gates...

and opeth wasnt a melodic death metal band just because they had some acoustic guitars and "folky" parts? at the gates had acoustic parts too you might recall.

but you still didnt answer my question...what genre would moonsorrow be if it werent melodeath? hmmmmm?
 
NineFeetUnderground said:
and opeth wasnt a melodic death metal band just because they had some acoustic guitars and "folky" parts? at the gates had acoustic parts too you might recall.

but you still didnt answer my question...what genre would moonsorrow be if it werent melodeath? hmmmmm?

But I'm sure you don't think lumping Opeth into the melo-death category does them justice do you?

Moonsorrow has elements that are reminiscent of melo-death of course, as do a lot of bands, but when I hear the term melodic death metal, that just makes me think of a very narrow sound that moonsorrow shouldn't be thrown in to. I don't know what I'd call them, they have elements of various genres, not that they're super experiemental and defy all categories, but I just don't like trying too hard to classify bands... that doesn't answer your question but I don't know how to answer it. Call them whatever you want, I'll just say they're good :)
 
of course i would think Opeth would not be getting justice if they were to be lumped into the melodeath category now. but in 1996? it made perfect sense, even though they were doing something a bit different. Opeth NOW deserves the progressive death metal tag in my opinion...moonsorrow is HARDLY breaking any new ground whatsoever...so melodeath is what they are. period. just because youre new to metal and moonsorrow offers some catchy melodies you find to be pleasing to your fresh ears doesnt mean the band is as good or groundbreaking as you make them out to be.
 
NineFeetUnderground said:
of course i would think Opeth would not be getting justice if they were to be lumped into the melodeath category now. but in 1996? it made perfect sense, even though they were doing something a bit different. Opeth NOW deserves the progressive death metal tag in my opinion...moonsorrow is HARDLY breaking any new ground whatsoever...so melodeath is what they are. period. just because youre new to metal and moonsorrow offers some catchy melodies you find to be pleasing to your fresh ears doesnt mean the band is as good or groundbreaking as you make them out to be.

When did I ever say they were groundbreaking? I basically said the exact opposite. I've been listening to metal for about 6 or 7 years now, I'm relatively new but I'm way past the point of jerking off over "catchy melodies"... believe me I look for much more in most music I listen to, and although you don't see anything more in Moonsorrow, I DO, and that's all that matters. You tell people not to assume anything about you, so don't be a hypocrite and assume I'm fresh to metal just cause I like some bands you don't like.