i know u are being ironic but this just might still apply, why is it so important in metal to stay "metal"???! in every singel WATV review is a sidenote about inflames and how they arent metal anymore blablabla. metalheads must be the most narrowminded people ever ( i know im shitting where i sleep haha) Isnt the important part to compose and play good (subjetcitve ofcourse) music? To me, metal is just another form or shape that it comes out through. Take projector for example, what a terrefic piece of music. And yes, i think soundtrack to your escape, for example, is a great album. They still compose genious melodies for example. Sorry for being off-topic but this really f-ng bothers me.
I listen to all forms of music, and I like to think of them as different voices. WATV is pretty soft at points, and even if that causes it to diverge from 'metal', it's still art, and that's all that matters. Metal, or any genre, turns into a tiny box for some of the bigger souls in music, and that's why they break out. So, at least that far, I absolutely agree: mix elements of every genre that you need to express yourself. DT certainly has, and In Flames either advanced in a direction that satisfied them artistically (and coincided with the mainstream) or sold out; it's impossible to know having not been in the writing room with them. Either way, bashing In Flames for the hell of it
is pointless, and I just hope they're happy with their work.
As to my comment, it was a
shibboleth. I was feigning ignorance of the topic at hand because the original poster irritated me and I wanted to get in before anyone wasted energy responding to him.
I dunno man, I still think Skydancer holds that honour. A lot of people seem to think they just wrote a load of pseudo-poetic bullshit but a lot of it makes sense and is very deep.
All of the bands in the cliche "Gothenburg set" have had meaningful lyrics since the beginning, this is true. As to WATV, my interpretation points to a very well thought-out investigation of man's individual relationship with death, along with a surprisingly positive "What are you going to do about it?" prompt. Then, just to be metal as fuck, they magnify it by setting those questions of death against an enormous catastrophe, the specifics of which are cleverly hidden in the lyrics. Seriously, death metal is all about extreme lyrics, but when you realize the scale on which Mikael has approached death this time around you'll give up on sissy bands like Cannibal Corpse.
As a younger man, Mikael's beautiful words about alienation and misanthrope became a part of me because they put a name to nebulous feelings. I'm a decade younger than him, with all that entails, so I'm not really intimately feeling the subject of WATV. Even so, these words will be food for thought as I continue on from here. More on this at a later date.
In the simplest way possible, its not that the new In Flames is not "metal" enough, its that it sucks, regardless of genre. Not to step on any toes of those who like the post-Clayman In Flames, but I'm of the opinion that every bit of it is self-derived drivel, like they're intentionally mocking their older sound in order to market to the newer generation of metal fans. Its totally cool if you enjoy it and more power to ya, but I'm fairly certain that the general critical (and fan) response is that they quite simply suck the big one and have for a while.
I generally agree with you. I would only point out that """critical""" (I can't scare-quote that word often enough) and fan response shouldn't be used as gauges of merit. I don't like the new In Flames, so I don't have much to say about it. That people do only really indicates that people are either a) huge fans of the glory of old In Flames, justifiably upset and feeling left behind for the big crowds, or b) typical music critics. Everyone has opinions, and they're welcome to them, but some people either spew crap to start fights, or they just want to rise to the vaunted level of "Professional Music Critic", a messiah-like figure who has better taste and knows more about music than you ever could. These people are generally happy to guide you away from whatever musical filth you're wasting your time with in order to direct you to something you'll enjoy less. Or just flame everyone because they get bored.
So, I've got nothing much to say about new In Flames; I just don't care. If that's what some people enjoy, I'm just glad that they enjoy
something. Whether droves of others do means nothing to art; whether "critics" do means even less.
As far as composition goes, 2000's In Flames can't hold a candle to 2000's DT. Ask Stizzle.
I'm not your plaything! You can't just bait me for an opinion any time you want! But I can't shut up, so:
In Flames should have just been named "The Jesper Stromblad Show" from the beginning. The band was never much more than awesome leads, and some other stuff going on to support the unrivaled glory of those leads. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. I mean, I have a complex, multi-tiered relationship with Dark Tranquillity, but I fuck In Flames on the side sometimes. Great melody, little depth. Easy to get into, but no reason to stay. In terms of sonic depth, interplay between instruments, technical complexity, and musical sophistication, I know who I'm coming home to.
An example of what's wrong with new In Flames:
Interesting intro. Unusually bright for death metal, but sexy anyway. 0:35 is absolutely blowing me away; I think I'm in love. It's even better the second time, with vocals. Then 1:21 hits. I'm not really sure how this follows the section before. I don't understand the transition here; the tension is all wrong, and the emotional shift feels backwards. I don't even know why someone wrote this riff. But my biggest point of confusion is why the hell Sweden doesn't have a law against allowing Anders Friden, once a great voice in metal, to make this noise. What the hell is wrong with this band?
Thread = "jacked";
.
