|
|
Like everyone else I had my hopes up way too high for this release. Don't get me wrong its a good album but obviously one has to compare it to their previous work and MotS is unfortunately much worse.
Written by Daniell on 09.12.2010 at 10:08
I was about to review this album. I listened to it 15 times (I always count, and my absolute minimum for reviewing is 10 times). I sat in front of my keyboard and then I felt I wasn't ready. I spent several days listening to the album 10 more times. I wrote the damn review and didn't submit it. I may, but in a few months, when I'm sure about what I wrote.
Why so much commotion? Because this album disappointed me like no other album for the last few years. Because I still can't believe that one of my favourite bands could release such a barren, lifeless album, full of ideas that go nowhere and don't mean much.
If I hadn't listened to this album before reading the review, I would have expected a lot. The review is excellent, 10 times better than the album 
So what, review it anyway. It'll be nice to have a review with a vastly different perspective. |
|
|
|
| I find this album to be better than some previous releases like Pale Folklore(don't get me wrong, I like it a lot, but honestly I enjoy MotS better), and probably at the same level of The Mantle and Ashes Against the Grain. Though, I still consider The Mantle to be their total masterpiece, this one stands out pretty well. |
|
 Susan - 12.12.2010 at 02:53
|
|
|
Written by Marcus on 12.12.2010 at 02:23
Like everyone else I had my hopes up way too high for this release. Don't get me wrong its a good album but obviously one has to compare it to their previous work and MotS is unfortunately much worse.
Written by Daniell on 09.12.2010 at 10:08
I was about to review this album. I listened to it 15 times (I always count, and my absolute minimum for reviewing is 10 times). I sat in front of my keyboard and then I felt I wasn't ready. I spent several days listening to the album 10 more times. I wrote the damn review and didn't submit it. I may, but in a few months, when I'm sure about what I wrote.
Why so much commotion? Because this album disappointed me like no other album for the last few years. Because I still can't believe that one of my favourite bands could release such a barren, lifeless album, full of ideas that go nowhere and don't mean much.
If I hadn't listened to this album before reading the review, I would have expected a lot. The review is excellent, 10 times better than the album
So what, review it anyway. It'll be nice to have a review with a vastly different perspective.
Agreed! Bring it on Daniell  |
|
|
Susan - 12.12.2010 at 05:11
|
|
|
I'll admit, I can sort of understand why some of you are disappointed. It's not The Mantle, and not as good as some other releases as well. Yet, take it on its own merit (instead of comparing) and it's everything wonderful I said it was. Just don't listen to The Mantle immediately before listening to this .....  |
|
|
|
Written by Daniell on 11.12.2010 at 11:30
Written by Merchant of Doom on 10.12.2010 at 15:53
and to the people who moan about Agalloch, I'd like to ask: how many bands have given you such consistency?
Oh, do you mean with 3 consecutive albums? Or 4? MANY:
Enslaved, Moonsorrow, Satyricon, Drudkh, Slayer, Opeth, Candlemass, Behemoth, Morbid Angel, Death. I'll stop at 10, off the top of my head, but I can name 50.
I don't "moan" about this album, I simply find it much weaker than their previous 3 releases. And believe me, Agalloch is among 10 bands that I would never want to have to say this about.
apart from Enslaved and Opeth, I don't like any of the band you quoted... maybe there lies the problem... |
|
|
|
Yeah, it looks like it  |
|
|
Daydream Nation - 14.12.2010 at 17:55
|
|
|
| But the issue is: I love all the bands you quoted and I don't see this record as being much more inconsistent compared to other ones. Surely everyone should generally agree that it is the worst Agalloch album so far...but it's far from a disappointment (or a major success, for that matter). Finish your review and post it! |
|
|
|
I Love this band. Having recently just found out about them, I immediately rounded up their albums. Haven't gotten through them all, but The Mantle, and Ashes of the Grain have taken me to another level. Seriously deep music, with an atmospheric sound that draws you in no matter where your mind is.
I am sorry to say, not only did I think the recording itself sounded to be of poorer quality than Ashes of the Grain, I found the album a little boring. It's good, but it doesn't blow me away. This album takes you places, and it does pull you in, but I personally do not feel as if they drew me in the whole journey. I wish the sound quality were better.
I was hoping for more. That is about all I can say in conclusion. I know they have released quite a few albums, many with lengthy songs, but this will not be as memorable to me as others. Next time they travel to the Romanian Carpathian Mountains, I hope we get something different. |
|
|
|
| 12:30 - 14:37 in Black Lake Nidstang is epic |
|
|
|
| Probably my least favorite Agalloch release. It's good, don't get me wrong. But it lacks the complexity of their earlier works and seems a little more...blunt, which for me doesn't work with the atmosphere of the album. |
|
 gattz - 24.12.2010 at 20:21
|
|
|
What does it matter if the album isn't "as good" (this is completely subjective and mood sensitive) as it's predecessors?
The fact is, Agalloch puts out music of the highest quality and originality, and using the fact that you enjoy their earlier work more, to propose distaste in their latest release, is completely devoid of sense.
Some really sad responses on here. |
|
|
|
| Well that's clearly nonsense. The most relevant and logical comparison of a band's work is with its previous records which serve as a benchmark of their quality. If you're disappointed by a record because it's not as good as the one that came before it then there's usually a reason for that. It's all well and good saying that Agalloch put out quality records but if you aren't willing to measure it up with what they can do at their best then you're being a bit blind and completely devoid of sense as you'd put it. |
|
|
|
Written by !J.O.O.E.! on 24.12.2010 at 21:14
*rant response*
I believe a +1 is in order here. |
|
|
|
Written by Troy Killjoy on 24.12.2010 at 23:40
Written by !J.O.O.E.! on 24.12.2010 at 21:14
*rant response*
I believe a +1 is in order here.
Ooh that gives me about 2 in total. I wonder if that's enough for that lump of coal I was gonna give to my family for xmas. |
|
|
|
Written by !J.O.O.E.! on 24.12.2010 at 23:44
Written by Troy Killjoy on 24.12.2010 at 23:40
Written by !J.O.O.E.! on 24.12.2010 at 21:14
*rant response*
I believe a +1 is in order here.
Ooh that gives me about 2 in total. I wonder if that's enough for that lump of coal I was gonna give to my family for xmas.
No need to give them coal - just give them this album. (Oh snap!)? |
|
|
|
Written by Troy Killjoy on 24.12.2010 at 23:46
No need to give them coal - just give them this album. (Oh snap!)?
But after burning it all would be left would be ashes... against the grain.
There's a joke in there if you dig deep enough and have seldom experienced humour. |
|
|
|
Written by !J.O.O.E.! on 24.12.2010 at 23:49
Written by Troy Killjoy on 24.12.2010 at 23:46
No need to give them coal - just give them this album. (Oh snap!)?
But after burning it all would be left would be ashes... against the grain.
There's a joke in there if you dig deep enough and have seldom experienced humour.
The effort to dig that deep turned out to be too much for my extraordinary level of incompetence. One day I vow to experience this phenomenon you refer to as "humor". |
|
|
Susan - 25.12.2010 at 02:17
|
|
|
Written by !J.O.O.E.! on 24.12.2010 at 21:14
Well that's clearly nonsense. The most relevant and logical comparison of a band's work is with its previous records which serve as a benchmark of their quality. If you're disappointed by a record because it's not as good as the one that came before it then there's usually a reason for that. It's all well and good saying that Agalloch put out quality records but if you aren't willing to measure it up with what they can do at their best then you're being a bit blind and completely devoid of sense as you'd put it.
Ok, I get that, and it's a totally valid point. Even if an album is good, but you know the band can do better, then how good is it really? I don't usually like comparing albums very often but this is a reason I'll remember.
It works both ways, though. It's just as blind to not be able to hear the beauty in a lesser album simply because it's lesser. What if it's almost as good, but comes up just short... or if it's miles away from a previous effort? Think of some of your favourite bands who have released multiple albums, maybe 8 or 10 album. If you put those albums in order of preference then is the 6th or 7th album not worth listening to simply because the others are better? No. If they're good then they're good and the others are just better.
Conundrum. |
|
|
|
I don't think Troy (and certainly not myself) was suggesting that there's only certain configurations of quality within a band's discography, as in the least competent album has to be considered totally unworthy and unlistenable, even if it's decent. Of course a band could have a back catalogue of exceptional releases but you'd still be able to find one that's slightly weaker than the rest.
So I'm not saying disregard a record because it's not a band's best, I just mean it can still be used to identify what makes it inferior to another record and what it is about the other record that makes it shine  it's just a handy reference point and of course albums can be appreciated fully if there are better ones out there by the same outfit! In Troy's case he was simply stating that he didn't enjoy this as much as the other ones, I was just nagging at that other guy who moaned at Troy for daring to compare albums within a band's history. Waffle waffle etc. =] |
|
|
|
| Absolutely brilliant album,neat review. Black Lake Nidstung is one of the most epic tracks of theirs ever,this album though black metal than the previous ones,is one hell of a trip. They've done it again and will continue to do it. |
|
|
gattz - 25.12.2010 at 21:59
|
|
|
Written by !J.O.O.E.! on 24.12.2010 at 21:14
Well that's clearly nonsense. The most relevant and logical comparison of a band's work is with its previous records which serve as a benchmark of their quality.
I was merely stating that art isn't made to be compared to previous works, but to be enjoyed for what it is. I'm of the opinion that months of thought and hard work on Agalloch's part solely for the purpose of delivering something unique and great for us fans deserves more than blunt depreciation because you liked what they did before better. |
|
|
|
Written by gattz on 25.12.2010 at 21:59
I was merely stating that art isn't made to be compared to previous works, but to be enjoyed for what it is. I'm of the opinion that months of thought and hard work on Agalloch's part solely for the purpose of delivering something unique and great for us fans deserves more than blunt depreciation because you liked what they did before better.
Forgive me but that strikes me as just an eloquent fanboy's way of saying "Agalloch are so amazing that they need not be compared with anything else because they're Agalloch and therefore amazing because they exist etc."
You already spoke of subjectiveness. I can think of nothing more subjective than "art". I understand your sentiments but not everyone sees them the way you do. |
|
|
|
| A beautiful review that befits a beautiful album. Personally, I feel this album is more complex than Ashes Against the Grain. I think it is the hype before the release of the album that has left many disappointed. No matter how good the music is we invariably tend to think that it does not justify the hype. |
|
|
|
Ghosts of the Midwinter Fires rocks, but otherwise I feel that this album is very bland, especially for an Agalloch release. It is nice that they explore new territory, it's just a shame that this time they went into the swamps.  |
|
|
|
| IMO, Agalloch's very best. The Mantle was awesome but too samey, Ashes too... distorted, but this one is right on the spot. Kinda sounds like a more blackened and experimental "The Mantle", which is quite awesome. "Black Lake Nidstang" is an album within an album. |
|
|
|
Written by !J.O.O.E.! on 25.12.2010 at 23:52
Written by gattz on 25.12.2010 at 21:59
I was merely stating that art isn't made to be compared to previous works, but to be enjoyed for what it is. I'm of the opinion that months of thought and hard work on Agalloch's part solely for the purpose of delivering something unique and great for us fans deserves more than blunt depreciation because you liked what they did before better.
Forgive me but that strikes me as just an eloquent fanboy's way of saying "Agalloch are so amazing that they need not be compared with anything else because they're Agalloch and therefore amazing because they exist etc."
You already spoke of subjectiveness. I can think of nothing more subjective than "art". I understand your sentiments but not everyone sees them the way you do.
But music is art and everyone knows that. And reviewing art according to litterature extending to theater and music, post twentieth century has become subjective. So if you want to review music to good or bad objectively you are wasting time, sorry. Though you can always analyse the album objectively about in terms of the lyrics or the production, but analysing is not putting a score. Sorry my English kinda sucks. |
|
|
|
Written by Evil Chip on 04.01.2011 at 03:53
But music is art and everyone knows that. And reviewing art according to litterature extending to theater and music, post twentieth century has become subjective. So if you want to review music to good or bad objectively you are wasting time, sorry. Though you can always analyse the album objectively about in terms of the lyrics or the production, but analysing is not putting a score. Sorry my English kinda sucks.
Then what's the point of reviewing anything ever?
And I don't agree, experience and understanding gives a person the necessary ability and skills to able to empirically review something to as close to "objectivity" as possible. No one is asking for mathematical accuracy (though a limited scoring system can often be accurately implemented) but "art" as it were can indeed be reviewed, at least in the sense of music.
And why do you think you can objectively analyse the production and lyrics? Production can alter the atmosphere and tone of a record by making it clearer or muddier or more raw - when does that suit a record and when doesn't it? Surely that's up to the listener, and not something that can be analysed objectively (to the degree you're talking about). Lyrics are the same; highly interpretive. |
|
|
Culty - 04.01.2011 at 05:40
|
|
|
Written by !J.O.O.E.! on 25.12.2010 at 23:52
Written by gattz on 25.12.2010 at 21:59
I was merely stating that art isn't made to be compared to previous works, but to be enjoyed for what it is. I'm of the opinion that months of thought and hard work on Agalloch's part solely for the purpose of delivering something unique and great for us fans deserves more than blunt depreciation because you liked what they did before better.
Forgive me but that strikes me as just an eloquent fanboy's way of saying "Agalloch are so amazing that they need not be compared with anything else because they're Agalloch and therefore amazing because they exist etc."
You already spoke of subjectiveness. I can think of nothing more subjective than "art". I understand your sentiments but not everyone sees them the way you do.
But he never said that they aren't to be compared to anything. What I read was that he said that one shouldn't compare this release to their other releases.
Also, just in case you try to call me a fanboy as well, I too was more or less rather disappointed with this release. AND I agree that it is fine to compare a band's new release to their previous releases.  <3 |
|
|
|
Written by Culty on 04.01.2011 at 05:40
But he never said that they aren't to be compared to anything. What I read was that he said that one shouldn't compare this release to their other releases.
Also, just in case you try to call me a fanboy as well, I too was more or less rather disappointed with this release. AND I agree that it is fine to compare a band's new release to their previous releases. <3
I was using hyperbole to highlight my point; if someone is going to kick up a fuss about having an album compared to previous works it's pretty likely that that person is going to kick up a fuss if it's compared with anything, in my opinion. If someone is so hell bent on having a hissy when someone compares albums within a band (a band they hold oh-so-dearly) why on earth would they be ok having it compared to a totally different (and probably lesser) band? When something gets tarred as high art then reason gets thrown out the window. And if you look his initial point it is that comparing records within a band is "completely devoid of sense" - the words of someone who isn't thinking with a single ounce of reason or logic.
I have no issue with fanboyism, only when the bands are made out to be better and beyond the opinions of those listening to them. |
|
|
Culty - 04.01.2011 at 22:25
|
|
|
Written by !J.O.O.E.! on 04.01.2011 at 13:58
Written by Culty on 04.01.2011 at 05:40
But he never said that they aren't to be compared to anything. What I read was that he said that one shouldn't compare this release to their other releases.
Also, just in case you try to call me a fanboy as well, I too was more or less rather disappointed with this release. AND I agree that it is fine to compare a band's new release to their previous releases. <3
I was using hyperbole to highlight my point; if someone is going to kick up a fuss about having an album compared to previous works it's pretty likely that that person is going to kick up a fuss if it's compared with anything, in my opinion. If someone is so hell bent on having a hissy when someone compares albums within a band (a band they hold oh-so-dearly) why on earth would they be ok having it compared to a totally different (and probably lesser) band? When something gets tarred as high art then reason gets thrown out the window. And if you look his initial point it is that comparing records within a band is "completely devoid of sense" - the words of someone who isn't thinking with a single ounce of reason or logic.
I have no issue with fanboyism, only when the bands are made out to be better and beyond the opinions of those listening to them.
Ah yeah I see what you mean. Point taken, sir! |
|
|
|
Written by !J.O.O.E.! on 04.01.2011 at 04:21
Written by Evil Chip on 04.01.2011 at 03:53
But music is art and everyone knows that. And reviewing art according to litterature extending to theater and music, post twentieth century has become subjective. So if you want to review music to good or bad objectively you are wasting time, sorry. Though you can always analyse the album objectively about in terms of the lyrics or the production, but analysing is not putting a score. Sorry my English kinda sucks.
Then what's the point of reviewing anything ever?
And I don't agree, experience and understanding gives a person the necessary ability and skills to able to empirically review something to as close to "objectivity" as possible. No one is asking for mathematical accuracy (though a limited scoring system can often be accurately implemented) but "art" as it were can indeed be reviewed, at least in the sense of music.
And why do you think you can objectively analyse the production and lyrics? Production can alter the atmosphere and tone of a record by making it clearer or muddier or more raw - when does that suit a record and when doesn't it? Surely that's up to the listener, and not something that can be analysed objectively (to the degree you're talking about). Lyrics are the same; highly interpretive.
Talking empirecally or based on your experience doesn't make a review objective. I don't mean reviewing is bad, that would be a stupid nazi thing to say (things that are abundant with people over Intertnet and of course metalstorm), I just say that reviewing is subjective and that's not a bad thing to say. Many people have tried to put art at the leves of empirist sciences but that is just crap, I won't explain why because that's another subject. You can analyse the production like you said seeing if it's more raw or more clean. The matter if the production fits the theme of the album is reviewing of the album and you are confusing that. You can analyse lyrics about the perspective of the narrator of the song based on basic knowledge of litterature theory. Reviewing should be taken more seriously. I haven't seen good reviews of an album in a while. And about comparing an album to another shouldn't be the major thing about doing a review. I think that art in general is interpreted and constantly renovating itself. For example hearing Sgt. Peppers in 1970 was totally different from the perspective of the listener and the historical context than hearing it nowadays. So I agree with the guy saying that art stands for itself. Making comparisons is the easy way to make a review. I think I made myself clear. See ya |
|
|
|
Written by Evil Chip on 05.01.2011 at 22:44
Talking empirecally or based on your experience doesn't make a review objective. I don't mean reviewing is bad, that would be a stupid nazi thing to say (things that are abundant with people over Intertnet and of course metalstorm), I just say that reviewing is subjective and that's not a bad thing to say. Many people have tried to put art at the leves of empirist sciences but that is just crap, I won't explain why because that's another subject. You can analyse the production like you said seeing if it's more raw or more clean. The matter if the production fits the theme of the album is reviewing of the album and you are confusing that. You can analyse lyrics about the perspective of the narrator of the song based on basic knowledge of litterature theory. Reviewing should be taken more seriously. I haven't seen good reviews of an album in a while. And about comparing an album to another shouldn't be the major thing about doing a review. I think that art in general is interpreted and constantly renovating itself. For example hearing Sgt. Peppers in 1970 was totally different from the perspective of the listener and the historical context than hearing it nowadays. So I agree with the guy saying that art stands for itself. Making comparisons is the easy way to make a review. I think I made myself clear. See ya
Err nope. This is a bunch of contradictory nonsense, unless I'm just not understanding your english very well. You're saying reviewing is subjective yet you're basically instigating a set of rules upon it: no comparing it to previous albums; only analyse lyrics and production (as if they're a separate part of the music itself - this is another example of selective reasoning that's rife on here and something that's tantamount to hypocrisy). "Making comparisons is the easy way to make a rewiew" - yes, to existing past releases and similar artists which is what I said, unless you're being sarcastic and suggesting that the "easy" way of reviewing is the wrong way.
The Sgt. Pepper analogy is nonsensical; you're suggesting that all records shouldn't be reviewed until 40 years later or something? No, reviews serve as functional piece of information (as well as entertaining) to inform readers and should be looked at in the here and now. Sgt. Pepper may be considered as a piece of art but that's only because of history and the argument serves no function in what I'm talking about (whatever the fuck that was). Stop calling everything "art" - just because a piece of crap band makes a shitty record doesn't elevate it to "art"
If you're simply arguing that all reviews are subjective (a word and argument I'm utterly tired of because it's been so flagrantly obvious since the dawn of humanity) then "duh" - of course it is. No one is suggesting otherwise, but experience and understanding leads to better reviews and allow them to approach something closer resembling a consensus i.e. objectivness.
Anyway, the fact you haven't seen a review that you would consider any good for a while just shows how inflexible you are so I'd say this is more of a problem with you than anything else. |
|
|
|
Written by !J.O.O.E.! on 05.01.2011 at 23:06
Written by Evil Chip on 05.01.2011 at 22:44
Talking empirecally or based on your experience doesn't make a review objective. I don't mean reviewing is bad, that would be a stupid nazi thing to say (things that are abundant with people over Intertnet and of course metalstorm), I just say that reviewing is subjective and that's not a bad thing to say. Many people have tried to put art at the leves of empirist sciences but that is just crap, I won't explain why because that's another subject. You can analyse the production like you said seeing if it's more raw or more clean. The matter if the production fits the theme of the album is reviewing of the album and you are confusing that. You can analyse lyrics about the perspective of the narrator of the song based on basic knowledge of litterature theory. Reviewing should be taken more seriously. I haven't seen good reviews of an album in a while. And about comparing an album to another shouldn't be the major thing about doing a review. I think that art in general is interpreted and constantly renovating itself. For example hearing Sgt. Peppers in 1970 was totally different from the perspective of the listener and the historical context than hearing it nowadays. So I agree with the guy saying that art stands for itself. Making comparisons is the easy way to make a review. I think I made myself clear. See ya
Err nope. This is a bunch of contradictory nonsense, unless I'm just not understanding your english very well. You're saying reviewing is subjective yet you're basically instigating a set of rules upon it: no comparing it to previous albums; only analyse lyrics and production (as if they're a separate part of the music itself - this is another example of selective reasoning that's rife on here and something that's tantamount to hypocrisy). "Making comparisons is the easy way to make a rewiew" - yes, to existing past releases and similar artists which is what I said, unless you're being sarcastic and suggesting that the "easy" way of reviewing is the wrong way.
The Sgt. Pepper analogy is nonsensical; you're suggesting that all records shouldn't be reviewed until 40 years later or something? No, reviews serve as functional piece of information (as well as entertaining) to inform readers and should be looked at in the here and now. Sgt. Pepper may be considered as a piece of art but that's only because of history and the argument serves no function in what I'm talking about (whatever the fuck that was). Stop calling everything "art" - just because a piece of crap band makes a shitty record doesn't elevate it to "art"
If you're simply arguing that all reviews are subjective (a word and argument I'm utterly tired of because it's been so flagrantly obvious since the dawn of humanity) then "duh" - of course it is. No one is suggesting otherwise, but experience and understanding leads to better reviews and allow them to approach something closer resembling a consensus i.e. objectivness.
You didn't find so obvious that reviews were subjective at the beginning. I didn't suggest that reviews are pointless. Where did I put that? Where did I put that albums should be reviewed after 40 years? Where is the set of rules that I posted to make a good review? Inflexible? That's the point when the argue turns into shrink talk about feelings and bla bla bla... Sorry you didn't get my point and even in various parts I agree with what you were saying. You want to discuss or show who has the bigger dick? Pointless response coming now |
|
|
|
Written by Evil Chip on 06.01.2011 at 00:01
You didn't find so obvious that reviews were subjective at the beginning. I didn't suggest that reviews are pointless. Where did I put that? Where did I put that albums should be reviewed after 40 years? Where is the set of rules that I posted to make a good review? Inflexible? That's the point when the argue turns into shrink talk about feelings and bla bla bla... Sorry you didn't get my point and even in various parts I agree with what you were saying. You want to discuss or show who has the bigger dick? Pointless response coming now
Actually I never said that reviews weren't subjective, I said that how subjective a review is can be minimised with understanding and knowledge, to which you seem to disagree with, or at least do not think is a very worthwhile endeavor, that's my issue with you. You make out that reviews have no worth beyond the individual and can have no educational or intelligent relevance. You implied that reviews are virtually pointless by the fact you seem to disregard defacto techniques such as comparing records to one another, the fact that reviews in general don't conform to the treatment of art of whatever and the fact you don't seem to find reviews in general to be very good, all of which suggest to me you aren't coming from the most balanced perspective as far as I can see it.
Anyway you seem to be asking me to repeat a number of things and it's obvious this has degenerated to the point where you seem to think penis waving has been brought into play (not to mention Godwin's law has already been breached) so I'll make this the last pointless response. |
|
|
|
Woderful review.
This album is a good one but it definitely lacks something. I guess it should be a bit more "marrowy" /undiluted and should definitely have more catchy sounds like the ones in the first seconds of Into The Painted Grey.
It surely feels like an Agalloch album but I'll stick to the old material.. |
|
|
|
Written by eximius on 26.01.2011 at 05:19
Woderful review.
This album is a good one but it definitely lacks something. I guess it should be a bit more "marrowy" /undiluted and should definitely have more catchy sounds like the ones in the first seconds of Into The Painted Grey.
It surely feels like an Agalloch album but I'll stick to the old material..
That something is power, I think. It pains me, as a native Portlander, to say that, although the atmosphere is there, the whole album sounds neuter to me. |
|
|
|
| This is not their worst album.Well, it doesn't live up to the standards of Pale Folklore and The Mantle but it is much better than Ashes Against The Grain. |
|
|
|
Written by Dragzad on 23.02.2011 at 10:10
This is not their worst album.Well, it doesn't live up to the standards of Pale Folklore and The Mantle but it is much better than Ashes Against The Grain.
After a gazillion spins I have come to enjoy Marrow more and it is definitely a step up from Ashes Against The Grain, but noweher near The Mantle and Pale Folklore. |
|
|
|
I can't get into this album. I love Mantle an Ashes, both of the are fucking EPIC, but this... I really tried to like it, listened very carefully for more than 5 times. Seems unoriginal and plain boring. Hopefully it will grow on me, but the Agalloch effect should have kicked in by now with this album.
Huge step down from Ashes. Its MS rating is way way to big for its true value. But hey, Ghost Reveries has a 9...
PS: does anyone think the first song and the end of To Drown have parts that resemble the music from Requiem for a Dream? Just asking... |
|
|
|
Written by omjaimes on 17.12.2010 at 22:02
12:30 - 14:37 in Black Lake Nidstang is epic
You should listen to german band called Ash Ra Tempel or any simmilar krautrock band, almost all of their songs are atmospheric like this part! (they just last waaay longer) |
|
|
|
| This is their best album, this is the album, if you dont get it you just dont get it, i am sorry. Only bergtatt comes close to it and it took me 8 months to realize and find its sheer beauty, 20-30 listens are not enough for this album |
|
|
|
Written by Tetravirulence on 07.06.2011 at 22:16
This is their best album, this is the album, if you dont get it you just dont get it, i am sorry. Only bergtatt comes close to it and it took me 8 months to realize and find its sheer beauty, 20-30 listens are not enough for this album
That's pretty arrogant of you to assume the rest of us don't have the intellectual capacity to understand such a grandiose album such as this.  |
|
|
|
Written by Troy Killjoy on 08.06.2011 at 14:26
Written by Tetravirulence on 07.06.2011 at 22:16
This is their best album, this is the album, if you dont get it you just dont get it, i am sorry. Only bergtatt comes close to it and it took me 8 months to realize and find its sheer beauty, 20-30 listens are not enough for this album
That's pretty arrogant of you to assume the rest of us don't have the intellectual capacity to understand such a grandiose album such as this.
hmm Agalloch issues makes me sensitive, sorry |
|
|
|
| After initially being disappointed that this was not a Mantle or Ashes, I have to say Marrow is growing on me fast |
|
|
|
I actually believe that Marrow is maybe their most mature album. Not that the rest have a lack of maturity, and not necessarily my favourite album.
Highlight? .. Hm difficult indeed but i would say Black Lake Nidstang followed by Into the Painted Grey |
|
Advertise on Metal Storm
|
