I've been reading reviews and opinions on various releases for a while, and it seems that every band will always run into what I like to call "The dead end". It's just a point where the new album you release will either stick to the old formula you've been using in all your previous releases and will be called repetitive, or you try to make changes to the formula and suffer backlash from fans. A great example for the latter is Sonata Arctica's latest releases, from Unia onwards. So I'm bringing it up for discussion. How does a band make it out of the dead end? And maybe it's irrelevant and they should just ignore various opinions.

Fear Factory did it by breaking up (after Digimortal and Transgression)
Testament did it through another stylistic change on Low
for Meshuggah i"d say they just got to the dead end with Koloss, let"s see if they"ll see it that way too and in that case how they"ll deal with it
Arch Enemy seems to be completely stuck in it with everything after Rise of the Tyrant, but the trend was noticeable on the albums before already
Kataklysm simply keps releasing every 2 years (if they skip this year"s album and only add the iron will single they might sound fresh again in 2 years)

no point in posting about most Brutal Death or raw Black though, as those genres seem to mostly live from bands doing slightly better what"s already there (with exceptions of course)

Good question. It might have to do with financial and organization issues. Imagine one of the bands above, let's say Arch Enemy, decided to change their name or quit & start a new band. It makes sense if they are at a dead end, right?

But think about it.. That would be a huge risk for them! Everyone knows them by their band name and singer. Abandoning all that could easily end their career. It takes a lot of guts, lots of effort, mentally and financially to make such a change, and people just don't want to take that risk, so they stick to what they know....just a guess.....

I don't really see the use of such a discuscion. It's been talked about for decades and I guess their is already countless topics like that already opened.

Dont know about arch enemy or sonata arctica but this "famous" heavy metal bands like metallica, iron maiden etc. should've break things up when they were on the top...i mean they are old and nobody likes their new albums so they should just play for themselves and not reccord anything anymore, just ruining their reputation...as for the younger bands in my opinion they shouldn't try to mix things up when they're damn good already...like CoB with Are You Dead Yet and all that followed...

I never reda a rewiews only if friend aks kme, because non of MS writed write about bands what I like and if do its negative so I hardly read it I judge my self after listening, look how good reviews Virgine Steele has in 90's when band sucks big time, how many and not so good reviews has band in 80's when band was GOOD

I respect bands who dare to evolve, although I don't always like the direction, than bands who only repeat themselves.

Written by J:oKeR on 25.06.2012 at 01:12

Dont know about arch enemy or sonata arctica but this "famous" heavy metal bands like metallica, iron maiden etc. should've break things up when they were on the top...i mean they are old and nobody likes their new albums so they should just play for themselves and not reccord anything anymore, just ruining their reputation...as for the younger bands in my opinion they shouldn't try to mix things up when they're damn good already...like CoB with Are You Dead Yet and all that followed...

The Final Frontier isn't that great, but A Matter Of Life And Death is a masterpiece. A lot of people like their new stuff, and why should a band break up? As long as they think it's fun themselves there is no reason to break up?

And CoB did the right thing to evolve. In Flames too, even though I prefer their old material. Every band has to do what they want to do and not hold on to a style just for the fans.

Written by Aristarchos on 28.06.2012 at 10:10

Written by J:oKeR on 25.06.2012 at 01:12

Dont know about arch enemy or sonata arctica but this "famous" heavy metal bands like metallica, iron maiden etc. should've break things up when they were on the top...i mean they are old and nobody likes their new albums so they should just play for themselves and not reccord anything anymore, just ruining their reputation...as for the younger bands in my opinion they shouldn't try to mix things up when they're damn good already...like CoB with Are You Dead Yet and all that followed...

The Final Frontier isn't that great, but A Matter Of Life And Death is a masterpiece. A lot of people like their new stuff, and why should a band break up? As long as they think it's fun themselves there is no reason to break up?

And CoB did the right thing to evolve. In Flames too, even though I prefer their old material. Every band has to do what they want to do and not hold on to a style just for the fans.

I liked CoB until blooddrunk, but that and all albums after is a piece of crap(i can still listen to some songs from their newest album but it's more like when i get tired of listening to heavy stuff and want to relaxe), i personally think when money gets into music it's not the same anymore maybe one or two next albums but still not the same...ok i was wrong about bands breaking up but they should just go to gigs and concerts playing their old songs and maybe record some few compilation albums....i mean thats just my oppinion...:) when money gets into music and musician intersts songs that will be hits can not be made...

Did someone honestly just refer to A Matter of Life and Death as a masterpiece? I understand subjectivity and all, and I can even understand someone calling it great (in their opinion)... but a masterpiece? People throw that word around far too often.

Written by Troy Killjoy on 28.06.2012 at 16:26

Did someone honestly just refer to A Matter of Life and Death as a masterpiece? I understand subjectivity and all, and I can even understand someone calling it great (in their opinion)... but a masterpiece? People throw that word around far too often.

IMHO, nothing Maiden ever released can be called a "masterpiece", simply because every album of theirs, even the "classics", have a lot of filler.

Written by Troy Killjoy on 28.06.2012 at 16:26

masterpiece? People throw that word around far too often.

I don't know the exact term in english, but it's a figure of speech. Exagerate the value of something to show that you like it. If I read something like "Drowns the listener in despair" in a review, I'm not gonna think "Humm, thanks for the heads up I'll be sure to listen to it with my bathing suit." Words are meant to played with and create images in the readers mind. But I guess you already know that

Written by Troy Killjoy on 28.06.2012 at 16:26

Did someone honestly just refer to A Matter of Life and Death as a masterpiece? I understand subjectivity and all, and I can even understand someone calling it great (in their opinion)... but a masterpiece? People throw that word around far too often.

To me it is one of the ten best metal albums of all time and the best one released last ten years, so I think I have the right to call it a masterpiece.

Written by Aristarchos on 29.06.2012 at 11:17

To me it is one of the ten best metal albums of all time and the best one released last ten years, so I think I have the right to call it a masterpiece.

You're entitled to your opinion, but remember that it is worthless if you can't back it up. So for the sake of a healthy musical debate, i'd like to know why you think A Matter of Life and Death tops every album on this thread http://www.metalstorm.net/forum/topic.php?topic_id=34550 (wich is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of metal releases in a year).

You know, a masterpiece is something an apprentice makes to be regarded as a master of his craft. That's the medievalist in me talking, anyway. Even if it's used more loosely these days, I would probably reserve it for milestone albums that mark a band's step onto a new level or the crystallization of their previous development. But on the other hand, I'm also willing to let most prolific bands have their own masterpieces, because it's a term that marks progress in one career - not in comparison to the music scene at large. Looking at some of my favorite albums, I don't think they're the masterpieces of their respective artists. Kate Bush's masterpiece is Hounds of Love, not The Dreaming. Victorialand is more of an outsider in Cocteau Twins' discography (which already reached its peak in the previous album), but I think it's the best one. With Talk Talk, Laughing Stock clearly brought the band to its logical conclusion and thus stands as a masterpiece, but I've always enjoyed listening to Spirit of Eden more. For Enslaved, Axioma Ethica Odini is just another album in their sleek proggy direction, but it's the one I like the best. And so on.

tl;dr: I think the term "masterpiece" shouldn't primarily refer to how good an album is on its own, but what its role is in the artist's development.

I consider a masterpiece album as the one that shows the peak of some bands music...an album witch shows best of all bands qualities....

Written by Edmund Fogg on 29.06.2012 at 14:44

You're entitled to your opinion, but remember that it is worthless if you can't back it up. So for the sake of a healthy musical debate, i'd like to know why you think A Matter of Life and Death tops every album on this thread http://www.metalstorm.net/forum/topic.php?topic_id=34550 (wich is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of metal releases in a year).

I think it has better melodies than any other album released last ten years. It is the darkest, heaviest and most progressive album Iron Maiden released, and my favorite music is when bands succeed to combine dark, heavy and progressive metal with great melodies, and no other metal band is better to compose great melodies than Maiden. It sounds exactly like I want music to sound. Although it's only my fourth favourite by Iron Maiden, after Seventh Son, Brave New World and Number Of The Beast, I prefer it over the second best album by any other band.

Dark , heavy and progressive... A lot of bands are combining those styles without the candy coating that Maiden puts on almost all their albums. Example of dark heavy and progressive bands that I consider miles ahead of Maiden: OSI, Tool, Haken, Amorphis (to some extent)... plus many others. Do not make such blind statemernts and explore the musical realm of metal a bit deeper... after all that'Ls why we're all here right?

Written by Edmund Fogg on 29.06.2012 at 17:30

Dark , heavy and progressive... A lot of bands are combining those styles without the candy coating that Maiden puts on almost all their albums. Example of dark heavy and progressive bands that I consider miles ahead of Maiden: OSI, Tool, Haken, Amorphis (to some extent)... plus many others. Do not make such blind statemernts and explore the musical realm of metal a bit deeper... after all that'Ls why we're all here right?

I haven't heard OSI or Haken (I will check them out), and Tool is too alternative for my taste. A lot of bands play dark, heavy and progressive metal, but for most prog metal bands they lack interesting melodies which Iron Maiden has, and concentrate too much on playing (often unnecessary) complicated. I know that Maiden isn't that dark, heavy and progressive compared to other bands, I compared it most to other Maiden albums, but I think it's important to not overdo these elements too, and the most important thing in all music is that there is some sort of interesting melody.

Overall I can not say I have found that many albums from the last ten years that I really like. Most of my favourite albums from last ten years are in the atmospheric black metal (Drudkh, Wolves In The Throne Room etc) genre or in traditional doom metal (Pagan Altar, Jex Thoth etc). I also think it's often very boring with bands just playing fast and aggresive without adding an interesting atmosphere. I think most metal bands play too fast.

So, what do you have against Iron Maiden, and especially A matter... ? Are they too melodic for you?

Written by Aristarchos on 30.06.2012 at 10:06

So, what do you have against Iron Maiden, and especially A matter... ? Are they too melodic for you?

I dont have anything against Maiden per say, I just think they stopped caring about songwritting around Piece of Mind. The melodies that they put afterwards is the complete opposite of complicated. They're dumbed down and they concentrate on forcings hooks in the listeners ears rather then creating an organic flow. If you like atmospheric music then I suggest you this thread: http://www.metalstorm.net/forum/topic.php?topic_id=28080

Written by Edmund Fogg on 30.06.2012 at 15:05

I dont have anything against Maiden per say, I just think they stopped caring about songwritting around Piece of Mind. The melodies that they put afterwards is the complete opposite of complicated. They're dumbed down and they concentrate on forcings hooks in the listeners ears rather then creating an organic flow. If you like atmospheric music then I suggest you this thread: http://www.metalstorm.net/forum/topic.php?topic_id=28080

I never got in to sludge, too much hardcore for me, I prefer atmospheric death/black. I know there's a thread for all that too, but I still think Maiden has better melodies than any other band. I do respect you to have your opinion.