Blood - Impulse To Destroy review



Reviewer:
6.0

5 users:
7.80
Band: Blood
Album: Impulse To Destroy
Release date: 1989


01. Intro
02. Wings Of Declaration
03. Foulmouthed Politicians
04. Dogmatize
05. Spasmo Paralytic Dreams
06. Linear Logical Intelligence
07. Why?
08. The Greed
09. Blood
10. Retrogression
11. Technical Abortion
12. Beyond Time And Space
13. Celtic Compost
14. Jesus Never Lived
15. Economic Cancer
16. Ventilator Integrator
17. A Big Cake
18. Tumor
19. Unsophisticated Sorehead
20. Compulsion
21. Bloodyseason
22. Necromancer
23. Skate Is Great
24. No Regret


Blood have been around since the beginning of two extreme metal genres, death metal and grindcore. However, they have remained virtually unknown. They released their debut album, Impulse To Destroy, back in 1989 when both genres were very young. Are they unknown because they were not signed to a major label? Maybe they were too extreme for the average metalhead at the time? I think the real reason that this band and album are unknown is because of how average they are.

Impulse To Destroy is a typical grindcore/death metal record. It has fast parts, blast beats are plentiful, and harsh guitar-playing cuts through your eardrums. This album has all the parts to make an awesome record, but the band just did not succeed in doing so. All of the songs sound pretty much the same. The guitar riffs are hard to distinguish due to the poor production. The drumming gets very boring and generic after the first couple of minutes due to the lack of creative fills and variation.

The death metal elements on Impulse To Destroy stand out a lot. The vocalist uses deep growls that you would find in death metal. The album also slows down to mid-paced death metal parts with fewer blast beats and heavier guitar parts. When bands slow the tempo down in grindcore and death metal, it usually sounds very heavy and aggressive. On Impulse To Destroy, however, these slowed-down parts are very boring because they don't have any intensity to back them up. These parts just sound like very average death metal.

These are the reasons why Impulse To Destroy and Blood are very average. There were already many bands such as Morbid Angel and Obituary that released very good death metal albums in 1989, the same year as Impulse To Destroy. Terrorizer and Carcass also released very good grindcore records the same year as this album. Overall I believe that Impulse To Destroy is an average record that gets overshadowed by many other albums that do the same thing but much better.


Rating breakdown
Performance: 6
Songwriting: 6
Originality: 6
Production: 6

Written by StephenT29 | 15.02.2019


 


Guest review disclaimer:
This is a guest review, which means it does not necessarily represent the point of view of the MS Staff.


Comments

Comments: 4   Visited by: 6 users
23.02.2019 - 06:42
RaduP
CertifiedHipster
I find it quite odd to write a review for an album from way back that is overlooked just to state that its boring and worth being overlooked. That's very chaotic neutral of you.
----
Take off those stupid glasses and kiss me
Loading...
23.02.2019 - 13:32
Starvynth
i c deaf people
Can you tell the very first german band ever to be signed by an US lable?
Kraftwerk? Scorpions? Sodom? Helloween? Accept? Blind Guardian?
Nope. It was Blood.

Can you tell the three oldest but still active Grindcore bands?
Napalm Death, Extreme Noise Terror and - guess who - Blood.

I guess nobody can deny the 'historical value' of the band. But it is legitime to question why they failed to attract the attention one would expect considering the sheer persistance of their being, lasting for 33 years now. In my opinion, that's what the reviewer tried to achieve and I just can't see he did any wrong in any way.

I assume his review is nothing but his honest opinion and he underlined his point of view with some comprehensible arguments. What's wrong with it? Do we really want to read synchronized, exchangeable and flat reviews only that won't do any harm? Reviews, where all approaches of negative critics are extinguished so one day, it will be impossible to spot the good albums in a giant cluster of reviews with no ratings, but - according to the well-disposed, friendly reviewer - all of them are worth being purchased?

If you are willing to publish well-intentioned reviews only, you are definitely killing a huge part of the diversity this site is offering and in the long run, you are supporting nothing but a considerable loss of Metalstorm's credibility.
----
signatures = SPAM
Loading...
23.02.2019 - 13:45
RaduP
CertifiedHipster
Written by Starvynth on 23.02.2019 at 13:32

Can you tell the very first german band ever to be signed by an US lable?
Kraftwerk? Scorpions? Sodom? Helloween? Accept? Blind Guardian?
Nope. It was Blood.

Can you tell the three oldest but still active Grindcore bands?
Napalm Death, Extreme Noise Terror and - guess who - Blood.

I guess nobody can deny the 'historical value' of the band. But it is legitime to question why they failed to attract the attention one would expect considering the sheer persistance of their being, lasting for 33 years now. In my opinion, that's what the reviewer tried to achieve and I just can't see he did any wrong in any way.

I assume his review is nothing but his honest opinion and he underlined his point of view with some comprehensible arguments. What's wrong with it? Do we really want to read synchronized, echangeable and flat reviews only that won't do any harm? Reviews, where all approaches of negative critics are extinguished so one day, it will be impossible to spot the good albums in a giant cluster of reviews with no ratings, but - according to the well-disposed, friendly reviewer - all of them are worth being purchased?

If you are willing to publish well-intentioned reviews only, you are definitely killing a huge part of the diversity this site is offering and in the long run, you are supporting nothing but a considerable loss of Metalstorm's credibility.

I didnt say that it was wrong to publish this, i just found it slightly odd. Usually I don't really see the point of bothering with an old release if it's average. Usually 5-6 albums are more forgotten than both 2-4 and 7-10 ones.

Blood being as significant as they seem to be, I see why their failure would be discussed. I was just genuinely curious about why OP bothered. Perhaps I should have phrased my comment better.

Of course not every album is great and not only great albums should be reviewed. But I don't usually see the point in bringing attention in a "Hey, check out this boring and average album I found!" way, unless it's a new release from an established band, you're reviewing each one of a band's releases or the band requests a review. Or this.
----
Take off those stupid glasses and kiss me
Loading...
23.02.2019 - 17:29
StephenT29
Written by RaduP on 23.02.2019 at 13:45

I didnt say that it was wrong to publish this, i just found it slightly odd. Usually I don't really see the point of bothering with an old release if it's average. Usually 5-6 albums are more forgotten than both 2-4 and 7-10 ones.

Blood being as significant as they seem to be, I see why their failure would be discussed. I was just genuinely curious about why OP bothered. Perhaps I should have phrased my comment better.

Of course not every album is great and not only great albums should be reviewed. But I don't usually see the point in bringing attention in a "Hey, check out this boring and average album I found!" way, unless it's a new release from an established band, you're reviewing each one of a band's releases or the band requests a review. Or this.


I have never written a review before and I figured for my first review I would review an album that I know well, so I reviewed Blood. I just wrote my honest opinion on the album like Starvynth said. Also Blood didn't have any reviews and I wanted to write one for them since on the Metalstorm they seem to be lesser known than other bands. That was pretty much my rationale for reviewing this album.
Loading...

Hits total: 403 | This month: 107