Quote:
I think we can talk about objectiveness to stuff that can be measured. Feelings isn't one of them imho.
Unless we take music as a product.
Apologies for the "intrusion".

a bit offtopic, anyway. basically I agree, but... what if I say St. Anger is the best album Metallica has ever released? will you accept my argument there is at least 1 person who likes it (me) so it can't be bad? is there any line between objectiveness and subjectiveness? I would rely on the majority first.

Written by IcePickLodger on 21.04.2020 at 16:10

what if I say St. Anger is the best album Metallica has ever released? will you accept my argument there is at least 1 person who likes it (me) so it can't be bad?

Yes

Quote:

Written by IcePickLodger on 21.04.2020 at 16:10

I think we can talk about objectiveness to stuff that can be measured. Feelings isn't one of them imho.
Unless we take music as a product.
Apologies for the "intrusion".

a bit offtopic, anyway. basically I agree, but... what if I say St. Anger is the best album Metallica has ever released? will you accept my argument there is at least 1 person who likes it (me) so it can't be bad? is there any line between objectiveness and subjectiveness? I would rely on the majority first.

Although I agree with you, that St. Anger is a bad album, yes I can't tell it's objectively bad. Of course, you'll read critics before buying an album to read how they describe it so you may decide ifyou like it or not. Or You can check a member here that likes other albums you like too and take his/her opinion as "advice" for example. Majorities have done some terrible mistakes in the past, not by any means they're always correct... Actually I think correct or false is what we're talking about here, not objective and subjective. So I'd put it this way: A 10 minute track can be objectively long (depending on the fact that an average metal song is around 5 minutes) but it might not feel long to me, subjectively but I can understand that objectively it's considered long (based on maths simply). But an album isn't bad just because the majority says it is. Majorities aren't always correct. And that's objective
Can't organize my thoughts at the moment, but that's how I think of it more or less!

Try to answer this: What takes an album (any album) to be good? What makes it good for you?

Boring album. This is my review.

I won't buy it for sure.

Quote:
Majorities have done some terrible mistakes in the past, not by any means they're always correct... Actually I think correct or false is what we're talking about here, not objective and subjective.

Of course I didn't want to say the majority is always right nor we should follow the crowd. I know we all have different tastes and many things that are pushed away by me can be welcome by others. However I think it is always possible to say whether a record is good or not or at least to compare it with another record of the same band with clear statement which one is better. And if it can also be supported by the majority opinion...

You can tell if an album is commercially successful or not based on the public opinion for sure. But that's another thing than good. For example heavy metal doesn't sell as much as pop music. So more people dislikes h.m. but this doesn't make it bad objectively I think the comparison is a better thing. You can tell that album A is more modern than album B, slower or faster, more aggressive or calmer, more straightforward or more complex, explores new paths for the band or is based in old formulas. All these can be defined easier and more objectively because they're more measurable stuff, more comparable. Because straightforward can be good for you but bad for me etc. Anyway, we've made our points clear here. I feel like I've overstretched mine to be honest. We can agree that no matter what's objective or not, everyone has his/her own opinion which is respected and it doesn't have to agree with the majority (whether it's to like or to dislike the album). Cheers!

Written by justsaying on 18.04.2020 at 12:40

Written by IcePickLodger on 18.04.2020 at 11:05

Written by IBlackened on 18.04.2020 at 07:41

Written by IcePickLodger on 17.04.2020 at 22:23

so you think 180 metalheads rating here this record do not have their own opinions and these opinions (in average) are biased and have no real value?

An opinion, by definition, is subjective. It's just someone's view about something. No opinion has real, objective value.

yes, no single opinion has a real value...but all opinions together (on average), especially when there is a sufficient quantity (now we can discuss if 180 is enough or we will wait until 500), certainly have. if you don't agree then tell me how any objectivity is created

Does opinion, ad populum, make things true or false? According to polls, around 70% of people believe in some kind of supernatural being one could call God - does this make God objectively an existing thing?
So for me, I'd like to know more about the reasoning behind the opinion and a number.

Objectivity can be made e.g. with proper music analysis, going beyond personal taste and liking. Dwelling more into transmissions, keys used, the rhythm patterns, variety in sound, chords and their variations etc and then even put it all in respect of the typical features of a music genre and see whether a piece follows them or diverts from them etc.

Let's take an example. many say that Floor is underused on the album and wasted in Nightwish. However, if we check the actual singing styles, this is probably the most diversed album she has ever made.
There is growlier sound of ReVamp era in Tribal. There is high operatic e.g. in Noise, Shoemaker and even more pronounced than in many After Forever albums. There is strong belting of ReVamp, EFMB etc. There is alike low operatic I think I haven't heard from her, not in a more rock/heavy album at the end of Pan, with the choir.
On top, there is melismatic style in Music highly demanding singing style - especially with those interval jumps she commits with complete precision - she has never recorded before. There is poppish style, lots of mixing e.g. in How's the Heart that also has rhytmically demanding syncope pattern to sing. There is descending chromatic scale in Pan, alike not easy - try to repeat it.
So, please, tell me how are her skills wasted in the most complex album she has ever sung, singing-wise? Because it's not just belting, with parts of operatic and fry growling in between? And remember, Tarja used only classical style which is not even pure operatic to be precise. She did it well, not contradicting that one and still think some of the earlier songs sound better with her, written for her tone and singing style.

This is metal forum and checking some other reviews etc it seems many here prefer a harder sound, black metal, trash metal etc (something I've never found appealing because despite good riffs, musicianship etc the melody is lost under too much growling and fry sound which I don't mind if it's there to make a point, but if all is that same sound, it gets boring and a change in riffs and drumming (not always even a change in key for 3-4 songs in a row) doesn't change that for me and besides too much of that will make just angry, frustrated, annoyed, feeling at the edge and wanting to hit something - not because I necessarily even think the music is bad but the sound itself just brings in those emotions in me). LIke the Kvaen album, that got rated higher, is, in overall, boring for me. It's the same sound the whole way through, for me. Same singing style, almost identical riffs etc, very little bigger variation between songs.

And sorry, if it seems like spamming, but I still haven't gotten answers to some of the questions I keep on asking.

Your argument is a bit dense. Just because a lot of heavier styles are voted higher and considered more popular doesn't mean people hate this album because it is "soft". Iron Maiden, Rainbow, Led Zeppelin, Dream Theater, Dio, King Crimson, Queensryche and Rush all have albums in the top 25 albums on this site, so heaviness isn't a metric to measure bias around here. Yes people like heavier styles and you don't, so what. Most people are judging the album based on both their tastes and expectations given the bands legacy. When the Anette albums, the low watermark for the band, are better than the current one, then there is a problem.

For Floor being underused. Her best vocal work has been and will always be the stuff she's done with Arjen Luccassen in Ayreon, Star One, etc. Yes she singing is diverse, but it doesn't stick with you. Arjen always knows how to get the best out of his singers and it seems like either Toumas doesn't know how to write in a way that elevates Floor or he doesn't like writing like that anymore.

Your deity remark makes it seem like you are just ranting because you like something that happens to be considered mediocre or outright bad by most. Don't take it personally, we all like music that can be considered objectively bad or unpopular.

Wait...Iron Maiden is not heavy?

Written by Cynic Metalhead on 22.04.2020 at 09:18

Wait...Iron Maiden is not heavy?

They are but sonically you can argue that Nightwish can be heavier than Maiden.

I got this album out of loyalty to the band more than anything else. I have all their albums and in my 20s , they were in my top 5 bands (along side Iron Maiden, Saxon and Blind Guardian). I prefer the melodic side of metal to the more hardcore stuff.

This album by Nightwish is bad . It is bad , since it commits the musical cardinal sin of being boring and not for being metal enough.

Weird strong structures that go nowhere, uninspired melodies , not a single riff that sticks in my mind ( noise is an exception - courtesy- the Game of Thrones homage) , the new guy's voice just annoys me and pretentiousness that started with DPP is taken to a whole new level.

This album is not worth my time and IMO it is their worst.Every time I play it, I find myself changing to any other NW album. The only songs list-enable on this album for me are Noise, Howz the Heart and Tribal ( a flashback to what the band can do (listen to the riff starting at 1:41)

As for the second disc ..LOL

I guess its time for me to bid goodbye to NW just like I had to with post 2007 Sonata Arctica.

So I listened to it for the first time today. Disc I is surprisingly good contrary to some reviews and comments. Some songs I really enjoyed, but of course compared to older albums (even those with Anette) it is quite weak and dull, so I understand what people don't like.

And Disc II is total garbage. Maybe the last song has something memorable in it, the rest are boring and pointless. Tuomas should have released another soundtrack like "Life And Times Of Scrooge McDuck" instead of this and it would probably be fine. But as a Nightwish recording it feels more like a bad joke by an overconfident fool who had lost his spirit long time ago and is desperately trying to regain it by creating something "new", while he is actually repeating himself over and over again and the outcome is just bad...

Next time, can we just get an hour of disc 2 instead?

Absolutely stunning album! First impression was that there are pieces here and there i like. After several listening rounds album opened

Boring absolutely terrible, I've gone through twice and still my only part I enjoy is the second disc, I enjoyed the singles but Nightwish has hit the down slope of there career finally this is just half assed burnt out Nightwish at this point

Listened through it for the first time all the way through today. Underwhelming is the best word for it. Flor has good vocal variance. Guitars on almost non existent, and Marco only sings on one song. Also, if you have Kai on drums, I would be expecting a lot more. Disappointing, but with potential?

It's even bigger disappointment because we know what potential they have...
Having Marco and Floor and Kai and Jukka.... and this is the best you can produce? It's not. But I think that mastermind of band is tired of playing metal and composing the same over and over again. Honestly, I don't expect some great comeback of NW in the future.

And I thought Endless Forms was bad.

My most beloved Nightwish album for the last decade. More esoteric, less cheesy, less eurovision-esque . Everything is just to the point. Excellent the second part of the album with the soundtrack songs.

The sad thing about Tuomas is not that he has artistic aspirations beyond metal. It's that his idea of ambitious, groundbreaking music that squeezes metal and a symphonic orchestra to its absolute limits is... trite blockbuster soundtrack music. His artistic sensibility is entirely seeped in sentimental blandness. I mean, Hans Zimmer is to classical music what Nickelback are to metal. His all-time favorite song is Walking in the Air, ffs. Everything about Nightwish these days betrays a lack of good taste (and perhaps it was always like that, it just worked at first because the power metal reference points were so cool). I know it's a bit vague and hard to articulate, but if you have good taste, you just know what's bad.

I think songs like How's the Heart would actually be much better if they dropped all metal pretensions and played straight-up show tunes. It clearly yearns to be on Broadway or a Disney film, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Yet another uninteresting album in a long line indifferent and tasteless bleh.

(I do think Floor has a nice voice, I never missed Tarja even in Anette's time, and Marco is always pretty good. But personally, I think Century Child is the last really great Nightwish album. Once and DPP have their moments but overall the magic touch isn't there.)

Lots of negativity in here but personally I think this is their best album since Dark Passion Play. I didn't like any album they released after that.
I'm not sure why I like it so much, maybe because the songs are more progressive with less symphonic parts.

The new album is much more musically and vocally complex and there is shift in topics it addresses in lyrics (although hints in this direction were already present on previous album). I think it is not surprising that many people do not like it that much and I think it is completely ok - it is not "old" Nightwish although I, personally, am glad that they chose not to stagnate. For me, it is one of their best albums and it is even hard to select the best song(s) from it as there are many which are simply great. I would rather say that Harvest, How's the heart and Tribal are good "only"

The epic wall of sound they create in almost every song gets me really tired and is boring. Still this has very strong moments. And as with Metallica's albums in last 30 years, the songs sounds so much better live. I mean these are still not available in live versions but I guess they will be killers live as the songs from they previous albums are.

This is not an album, it's a freakin' MASTERPIECE! No doubt it's among the band's best, and walking straight to be number 1.
Nevertheless, as a long-time convicted metalhead (but open-minded now), it's not the album I would first present to an outsider, EXACTLY because it's extremely rich, full of elements, nuances, variations, layers, culture, musical quality and well refined taste. It demands previous knowledge. Not for beginners, not for radicals, not easygoing, not made-to-sell, not ready to digest. It's a band in their absolute peak, showing their absolute musical ripeness. Fantastic.
This album has in it ALL previous Nightwish albums and phases (including AFF) except, luckily, for Oceanborn/Wishmaster? I mean, I love when Floor sings some of those songs in the setlist (like Decades), but seriously, is there an adult metalhead who can still listen to those originals, front-to-rear?
Moreover, all of the band's signature elements blend with a lot of brand new stuff, constructed in a brand new way. It has prog, symphonic, folk, heavy, doom, gothic, even small glimpses of modern groove metal and jazz! It has heaviness indeed (back after EFMB), softness, contemplation, melancholy, rawness, beauty, complexity, magnificent vocals, kinematics-storytelling-soundtrack feelings, melodies, solfeggio, choirs, lyrical, orchestral parts, great guitar-and-drums parts, acoustic parts, exotic sounds, traditional also. It has from troubadour to Andrew Lloyd Webber. From Wagnerian arrangements to pure-metal-punch with pinches of celtic flavor. It just has it all, a lot to show for, and not one single second of the album is wasted - by the way, it does not have "THE song", it works perfectly in its entirety.
Warning: if you want too much of only one kind of sound, forget about it, nothing there is "too much". All these elements I've said are perfectly balanced. Didn't like it? OK, no problem, that's optional. Didn't see any of these things? Sorry, then you just didn't listen.
Myself, well? I simply don't listen to other stuff since the album came out, and don't record this ever happening before. That's a 10. But only 'cause I can't give it 11.

This was really boring and bad with very few good moments, and those very few good moments have been all heard before in an even better way. I actually enjoyed disc 2 more than disc 1. At least it's nice music even if not metal.

OK I checked out this album again after 5 months and it's not as bad as I initially considered it, however it is far from a masterpiece that some of the comments on this thread suggest it is and still rate it their worst album.

Written by IronAngel on 26.05.2020 at 17:49

His artistic sensibility is entirely seeped in sentimental blandness. I mean, Hans Zimmer is to classical music what Nickelback are to metal. His all-time favorite song is Walking in the Air, ffs. Everything about Nightwish these days betrays a lack of good taste (and perhaps it was always like that, it just worked at first because the power metal reference points were so cool).

You really scorched him, but at the same time, that's kind of why I like his music. I just ignore the big symphonic moments and the 25 minute nature docu tracks and go straight for Swanheart. That's the good Nightwish shit for me. It's too bad the label wanted to finance their symphonic ambitions after CC, but at the same time, I'm glad we still have them kicking around in a form I can appreciate: a really good live band.

Rated this highly because one disc features nothing but the band and I never thought I'd see the day when Tuomas finally sequesters the sympho stuff outside of the main body of Nightwish albums. Sure, it's called Nightwish, but the Act II: Metropolis the Zimmer Boogalloo is a step in the right direction.

It is always the same story, a band of thousands of fans evolves and divides its former fans. History always weighs.

I always prefer evolution to death, so congratulations Nightwish, great album, great talent and hard work as always. I will need some time to evaluate it fairly, but already today I am grateful for wanting to go further.

I am not saying this album is super bad (e.g. I like "Harvest" a lot), but today a song from Two Steps From Hell ("Star Sky") appeared in my YouTube random playlist and before checking the author I was like "oh, this must be some new Nightwish song"...

I must confess "Human. :II: Nature." wasn't what I was expecting from a new Nightwish album when I first listened to it. Definitely, it is not an album you fall in love at first sight (or at first "sound"). Having said this, I don't think it is as bad/average as most people seem to think. In fact, it has become one of my favorites of the band. It is a very complex album, and maybe that's the reason why most people stay on the surface and move on to the next release without taking a moment to enjoy the many beautiful soundscapes it is offering. For my part, "Human. :II: Nature." is a ride I will take again and again...