Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Summary: Metal/Neoclassical 2007

Summary: Metal/Neoclassical 2007
November 07, 2007, 06:17:46 AM
Let's assess the year. Were there any worthwhile releases?

Re: Summary: Metal/Neoclassical 2007
November 07, 2007, 10:51:14 AM
Sadly, not that I can think of..

Re: Summary: Metal/Neoclassical 2007
November 07, 2007, 05:14:57 PM
Immolation's Shadows in the Light and Wold's Screech Owl come to mind.

Re: Summary: Metal/Neoclassical 2007
November 07, 2007, 05:23:18 PM
Peste Noire's Folkfuck Folie was a magnificient take on eclectic, highly neoclassical, metal.
Mütiilation's Sorrow Galaxies took the best song writing ideas of their past three albums and made it a working totality.

chrstphrbnntt

Re: Summary: Metal/Neoclassical 2007
November 07, 2007, 05:49:54 PM
January 2008 edit: Outre is the only one that I can see myself listening to a decade from now.

Re: Summary: Metal/Neoclassical 2007
November 07, 2007, 06:07:47 PM
Quote
Reverend Bizarre

How's the new release? I have listened to their past material which, despite being instrumentally excellent, has very little to say: it's like a collection of doom metal cliches.

chrstphrbnntt

Re: Summary: Metal/Neoclassical 2007
November 07, 2007, 06:26:51 PM
Quote
How's the new release? I have listened to their past material which, despite being instrumentally excellent, has very little to say: it's like a collection of doom metal cliches.


It's basically the same as their earlier releases. Sabbath riffs, [size=10]sloooooooooooooooooooooooooooow[/size] tempos, very well-crafted -- enjoyable, but lacking in real artistic content.

Re: Summary: Metal/Neoclassical 2007
November 09, 2007, 01:15:39 AM
Aside from Immolation, I haven't heard any of those mentioned.

There are probably only three I would add: Nest, Primordial and Graveland - although none of these are fantastic by any means.

Re: Summary: Metal/Neoclassical 2007
November 09, 2007, 04:36:55 AM
was the new master any good?

Re: Summary: Metal/Neoclassical 2007
November 09, 2007, 06:18:17 AM
I think a lot of those additions are pretty questionable. And didn't we already canvas this subject with the various "Is there anything that wasn't total shit after 2000" debates?

To me, this all has a vaguely desperate tone of having to scrape the bottom of the barrel you know to be empty.

We are struggling here, with something which is essentially finite.

Some of you should be asking yourself, "Why do I NEED there to be more good releases? What happens if, one day, there are no more good releases?"

At this point, it doesn't really matter to me very much. That doesn't mean I don't investigate music; just that I don't fixate on it much.

What I'm interested in, is the 'Essence' of the music. It seems to me that we should be talking about the spirit of metal, and even more importantly (because in truth, what metal "is" has already been long established, here and elsewhere), we should be relating it to other fields of art that achieve and communicate something similar, and to figure out what it all implies for us as individuals and a 'group' (if we can be called such).

shadowmystic

Re: Summary: Metal/Neoclassical 2007
November 09, 2007, 08:03:28 AM
I for one think that the majority of people on this forum, in their effort to not over-praise albums for being new, have actually become overly critical of everything post-96.  It is hard to be objective, it would be easier if one simply didn't know the release date.

As for good albums in 2007 none that I know of, but I only bothered listening to one or two, haven't really had cash to burn, and when I do it goes on classics that I don't have, or personal favourites.

Re: Summary: Metal/Neoclassical 2007
November 10, 2007, 11:31:58 AM
Quote
It is hard to be objective, it would be easier if one simply didn't know the release date.


I understand your meaning here, but the release date becomes important eventually.  Context matters.

Re: Summary: Metal/Neoclassical 2007
November 10, 2007, 03:22:00 PM
Quote

I understand your meaning here, but the release date becomes important eventually.  Context matters.


Indeed, flaws and unsteadiness acceptable in release from 1983 would be inexcusable coming from a current artist.

Re: Summary: Metal/Neoclassical 2007
November 10, 2007, 08:18:06 PM
That's because metal is a genre that evolved (one of the few times I will use that word when talking about art) in a very quick amount of time.  I also always thought it was odd that something that was called metal in the 80s might not neccessarily still be called metal today.

But as far as context goes, in all art the events surrounding it are just as important as the message put across.  The art should stand alone by itself, but it's also human nature to relate everything to the time it came out.

And finally there is the whole idea of originality.  If someone released an album today like the ones from 83, it would surely not be acceptable as metal is a genre with a direction.  This is also why I think expecting a new black or death metal album to revive the whole genre is not a realistic idea.  It'd have to be something completely different.

Re: Summary: Metal/Neoclassical 2007
November 10, 2007, 10:13:19 PM
Quote
But as far as context goes, in all art the events surrounding it are just as important as the message put across.  The art should stand alone by itself, but it's also human nature to relate everything to the time it came out.


It isn't so much human nature as the fact that art doesn't exist in a vacuum no matter what its message.

That's why we use terms like "timeless" to praise great art - time only ceases to be important when something can be recognized as having transcended it.  Insufficient art/music fails by being derivative or unaware of earlier and/or timeless ideas.