Written by Troy Killjoy on 13.03.2011 at 03:53

Written by MetalManic on 13.03.2011 at 03:48

Interesting. Metal Underground staff voted this the best metal album of 2010.

Do you have a link? Because I don't believe you.

Written by MetalManic on 14.03.2011 at 01:22

MetalUnderground Best of 2010 http://www.metalunderground.com/news/details.cfm?newsid=65557

Written by MétalNoir on 13.03.2011 at 22:56

Kat isn't brutal death. They've been playing melodeath for a couple years now, so quit comparing them with "true DM". As a melodeath band, they're catchy yet heavy, and that's what you're looking for when listening to this subgenre. Not the most original album of the year, but it features some of the band's best riffs ever, imo (ex. Suicide River).

Written by Troy Killjoy on 14.03.2011 at 02:10

Written by MetalManic on 14.03.2011 at 01:22

MetalUnderground Best of 2010 http://www.metalunderground.com/news/details.cfm?newsid=65557

Just... Wow.

Written by Troy Killjoy on 14.03.2011 at 02:10

Written by MetalManic on 14.03.2011 at 01:22

MetalUnderground Best of 2010 http://www.metalunderground.com/news/details.cfm?newsid=65557

Just... Wow.

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 14.03.2011 at 08:18

Damn what a shit list. Als Dark Tranquillity and Iron Maiden in there. Must have stone deaf staff members.

Written by Troy Killjoy on 14.03.2011 at 13:28

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 14.03.2011 at 08:18

Damn what a shit list. Als Dark Tranquillity and Iron Maiden in there. Must have stone deaf staff members.

I was thinking the same thing. I feel like our users - let alone our Staff - have more taste.

Written by Guest on 14.03.2011 at 22:40

I don't think Heaven's Venom is necessarily any better or worse than other kataklysm albums. The thing about Kataklysm is that the music doesn't really come alive on CD/MP3 whatever. These guys are a fucking beast live and I'm sure the HV stuff will sound pretty damn good in concert.

Written by RavenKing on 12.03.2011 at 06:48

Imo, DM has no future (in terms of creativity), in the sense that it will never get better than it is now and will only repeat itself over and over, ad vitam eternam and ad nauseam.

Written by Horus on 16.03.2011 at 13:38

Written by RavenKing on 12.03.2011 at 06:48

Imo, DM has no future (in terms of creativity), in the sense that it will never get better than it is now and will only repeat itself over and over, ad vitam eternam and ad nauseam.

Thats probably true, but bands like Obscura WILL invent something new IMO. Oh, and new Kataklysm is really really bad

Written by Hellhound on 11.04.2011 at 09:03
While I didn't enjoy Heaven's Venom as much as previous Kataklysm albums, I can't help but feel the reviewer was a bit harsh in his judgement. However, I do agree that Kataklysm took a rather "boring" approach to Heaven's Venom that turned me off the album almost instantly. While it is entirely possible that I misunderstood the reviewer saying, "Despite their foray into contemporary waters, Kataklysm's style is outdated and dull. The predictable song structures make for a rather boring listen, especially given the lack of overall innovation," seems like a direct jab fraught with opinion and not fact. I can understand if the reviewer doesn't personally like the artist, but part of a journalist's integrity is remaining objective.

Written by Hellhound on 11.04.2011 at 09:03

While it is entirely possible that I misunderstood the reviewer saying, "Despite their foray into contemporary waters, Kataklysm's style is outdated and dull. The predictable song structures make for a rather boring listen, especially given the lack of overall innovation," seems like a direct jab fraught with opinion and not fact. I can understand if the reviewer doesn't personally like the artist, but part of a journalist's integrity is remaining objective.

Written by Troy Killjoy on 15.04.2011 at 02:21

Written by Hellhound on 11.04.2011 at 09:03

While it is entirely possible that I misunderstood the reviewer saying, "Despite their foray into contemporary waters, Kataklysm's style is outdated and dull. The predictable song structures make for a rather boring listen, especially given the lack of overall innovation," seems like a direct jab fraught with opinion and not fact. I can understand if the reviewer doesn't personally like the artist, but part of a journalist's integrity is remaining objective.

You didn't misunderstand anything. Almost all of my reviews contain statements that are my opinion and therefore not fact. I don't have "journalistic integrity" in this regard; if you want a review solely describing an album based on facts, don't bother reading my reviews. I incorporate fact and opinion, and that's the way I will continue to do it.

Written by Hellhound on 15.04.2011 at 02:29

My apologies. I clearly did misunderstand. I was thinking these were fact based reviews rather than editorials. I didn't mean to get so preachy. My apologies.

Written by Syk on 14.04.2011 at 18:01

Written by Hellhound on 11.04.2011 at 09:03
While I didn't enjoy Heaven's Venom as much as previous Kataklysm albums, I can't help but feel the reviewer was a bit harsh in his judgement. However, I do agree that Kataklysm took a rather "boring" approach to Heaven's Venom that turned me off the album almost instantly. While it is entirely possible that I misunderstood the reviewer saying, "Despite their foray into contemporary waters, Kataklysm's style is outdated and dull. The predictable song structures make for a rather boring listen, especially given the lack of overall innovation," seems like a direct jab fraught with opinion and not fact. I can understand if the reviewer doesn't personally like the artist, but part of a journalist's integrity is remaining objective.

I can't tell if you've heard all their albums from 2000-2004 (+ 98)... but my guess is that you haven't. Right? Kata are now probably even more predictable than Cannibal Corpse

Written by Hellhound on 15.04.2011 at 02:29

My apologies. I clearly did misunderstand. I was thinking these were fact based reviews rather than editorials. I didn't mean to get so preachy. My apologies.

Written by Hellhound on 15.04.2011 at 02:29

fact based reviews

Written by Guest on 15.04.2011 at 03:38

Written by Hellhound on 15.04.2011 at 02:29

fact based reviews

You've piqued my curiosity. Please cite some examples of "fact-based" music reviews because I can't fathom how that would ever work.

Written by BitterCOld on 15.04.2011 at 03:38

Written by Hellhound on 15.04.2011 at 02:29

My apologies. I clearly did misunderstand. I was thinking these were fact based reviews rather than editorials. I didn't mean to get so preachy. My apologies.

i have a nice big long article on how strictly "objective" reviews are fucking useless that needs clean-up before i post it. this is yet another push to get me motivated to completing it.

limiting a review to what is "fact" destroys the entire purpose of the review. a good review should mix both some degree of "facts" coupled with great bits of opinion... sharing the experience the reviewer had listening to the album to others who might be interested in checking it out.

stripping it down to just "album contains X songs and lasts YY minutes. The guitars use distortion. The vocalist uses a clean voice. blah blah blah (QUANTIFIABLE FACTS DEVOID OF OPINION) words words words" renders it useless.

I really need to do an objective review. any time someone complains about opinions in reviews, just direct them to it.

Written by Hellhound on 15.04.2011 at 07:47

You really are an idiot. Id hold off on finishing that review as posting such tripe will only direct people's attention to your obvious ignorance. Now to your reply: I am in no way implying that the reviewer should just state facts from the album. Rather the reviewer should try and use examples from the music to provide evidence for his claims. He can still share the experience of listening to the album, but stating opinion without any evidence is lazy child's play. Now, piss off.

Written by Hellhound on 15.04.2011 at 07:43

Ah, a smartass. Great. Unfortunately I am not about to scour the internet in an attempt to find a "fact-based" music review. If you gave a second thought about what I said and pulled your head out of your ass to think you may have realized that I was objecting to the reviewers use of his own opinion as fact. "Despite their foray into contemporary waters, Kataklysm's style is outdated and dull. The predictable song structures make for a rather boring listen, especially given the lack of overall innovation," is not fact it is opinion. In conclusion using fact and opinion to review something is only effective if the reviewer actually gives examples from the music and doesn't just expect his opinion to be taken as fact.

Written by BitterCOld on 15.04.2011 at 09:01

Written by Hellhound on 15.04.2011 at 07:47

You really are an idiot. Id hold off on finishing that review as posting such tripe will only direct people's attention to your obvious ignorance. Now to your reply: I am in no way implying that the reviewer should just state facts from the album. Rather the reviewer should try and use examples from the music to provide evidence for his claims. He can still share the experience of listening to the album, but stating opinion without any evidence is lazy child's play. Now, piss off.

ooh. the journalism student has attitude.

i just still find it hilarious you bitch about "fact based reviews" and "editorials". reviews have always been closer to the later... but maybe that's in the 201 course.

when dealing with music, it's open to vast degrees of interpretation with precious little by way of fact. clunking up his review with multiple citations of "riff a from the x:xx to y:za time of track 5 is a direct rip off of earlier release Q, song O's primary riff..." most bands recycle ideas. i think for the purpose of a 250-500 word review, simply stating an act is growing stale is good enough. it doesn't matter what 'fact' he cites. people who agree will agree. people who disagree, even in presence of 'fact' will still disagree.

you're the one who dropped "journalistic integrity" in your first post. the blend of objectivity and subjectivity in reviews was brought up by my post that you are referring to. it was previously untouched be you. so break out the thesaurus and toss personal attacks all you'd like. it's just tap dancing to me.

and still lmfao at 'journalistic integrity'.

Written by Guest on 15.04.2011 at 13:05

Written by Hellhound on 15.04.2011 at 07:43

Ah, a smartass. Great. Unfortunately I am not about to scour the internet in an attempt to find a "fact-based" music review. If you gave a second thought about what I said and pulled your head out of your ass to think you may have realized that I was objecting to the reviewers use of his own opinion as fact. "Despite their foray into contemporary waters, Kataklysm's style is outdated and dull. The predictable song structures make for a rather boring listen, especially given the lack of overall innovation," is not fact it is opinion. In conclusion using fact and opinion to review something is only effective if the reviewer actually gives examples from the music and doesn't just expect his opinion to be taken as fact.

For a journalism student you clearly don't read many reviews do you. Generally speaking (and by generally I of course mean always) reviewers and the readers tend to have an understanding that a review is not something based on fact or the reviews would end up reading: ""In my opinion, despite their foray into contemporary waters, Kataklysm's style is outdated and dull. The predictable song structures make for a rather boring listen, in my opinion, especially given the lack of overall innovation. In my opinion of course"

There's nothing in this review that is any different to the format used in every other review on this site, and probably every other review ever written so why you suddenly became so confused is a bit baffling, but I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact it didn't correspond to your opinion of the record. No of course not, these questions of journalistic integrity quite often pop up even when the complainer is in total agreement with the opinion of the reviewer... Reviews are as much about entertaining as they are informing so this factual analysis you speak of would no doubt render most reviews boring forays into technical analysis, and seeing as there's a word limit to the reviews on this site it wouldn't work out very well I don't think.

Maybe they'll cover music reviews in class at some point eh?





I really think this site should offer a free cushion with every review to care for the butthurt people that pass by.

Written by Hellhound on 17.04.2011 at 04:53

I do happen to agree with the reviewer. He is a talented, entertaining writer with obvious talent. What I didn't appreciate was the obvious bias shown without so much as an attempt to explain why he felt the music was "dull" or "outdated." For that matter he didn't explain exactly what made it "dull" either. That is what I took issue with. Stating an opinion without fact to back it up is just self-important drivel.

Written by Troy Killjoy on 17.04.2011 at 05:25

Written by Hellhound on 17.04.2011 at 04:53

I do happen to agree with the reviewer. He is a talented, entertaining writer with obvious talent. What I didn't appreciate was the obvious bias shown without so much as an attempt to explain why he felt the music was "dull" or "outdated." For that matter he didn't explain exactly what made it "dull" either. That is what I took issue with. Stating an opinion without fact to back it up is just self-important drivel.

First of all, thanks for the compliments.

Second of all, my overall review should be enough of a "fact" for you to understand why I think this album is boring (if that doesn't sound like too much of a contradiction). I mentioned the songs flowing together only because they all sound the same, the melodic riffs (despite one or two enjoyable moments) are almost power metal-esque (hence, generic contemporary death metal), the album sounds like a stripped-down version of everything they've been doing for the past decade.

Of course, a lot of that is more or less opinionated. Sometimes what I think sounds the same, others find variety. When I hear power metal-type riffing, others hear amazing death metal musicianship, when I say the album's a stripped down version of its predecessors, others think it's the most innovative album the band has produced.

I just want to point out that, even with "facts", there will always be those who argue against a reviewer. The only indisputable information I can provide is track length (unless a digital copy is altered), band name, album title, instruments used during the recording process (if they're listed, otherwise everything could be programmed, which would also be included in the liner notes hopefully), etc.

There isn't much in terms of facts that I can provide in a review that reviewers will unanimously agree with aside from information that doesn't evoke a response in the first place. Nobody is going to read this and say "this wasn't released by Kataklysm", because it was, that's a fact. Some people might read this review and say "this isn't death metal", and they're right, because that's an opinion.

I'm not even sure I really answered your question. Hopefully it's enough for you to understand that I don't try to force-feed my audience with opinions I try to pass off as fact.

Written by Hellhound on 18.04.2011 at 01:52

To wrap this debacle up once and for all I just want to close saying that I apologize if I ruffled any feathers on this forum. I was merely trying to present another point of view. I think that covers everything.