Rating:
7.5
Vektor - Outer Isolation
22 November 2011


01. Cosmic Cortex
02. Echoless Chamber
03. Dying World
04. Tetrastructural Minds
05. Venus Project
06. Dark Creations, Dead Creators
07. Fast Paced Society
08. Outer Isolation


Oh shit, the Killjoy is reviewing a thrash metal album. Brace yourselves.

ADD-friendly review: This is not the worst album of the revivalist thrash movement I've come across.

In spite of my pseudo-crusade against anything revivalist, I admittedly found Vektor's Outer Isolation to be a clear step above the rest. Now, I compared these guys to Toxik when I first listened to the over-hyped debut, Black Future. They immediately built success off that sound, a highly technical form of thrash metal that even drew some appreciation from the prog crowd. Yet, people kept telling me how much more they had in common with Voivod, so I took a break and caught up with those old school thrashers.

Basically, if you listened to these guys before listening to Voivod and you didn't know Voivod is to thrash what Black Sabbath is to old folk's home, you'd think Vektor were being ripped off. Then you throw in Destruction, Coroner, Watchtower... all bands clearly miles ahead of Vektor, but all awesome bands. Which makes this awesome.

A proper review should focus more on the music than this, no? Well it's hard to focus on what's being presented here because it's all been done before and so much better. Ignoring the '80s and taking this for what it is (a contemporary thrash release), it's pretty cool shit. It's aggressive/progressive balls-to-the-wall-wrecking-your-neck-punishment-for-decadence. The problem is there is absolutely no identity. Like so many revivalist bands, it just makes you want to listen to the masters that did it better more than 20 years ago.

These are undoubtedly incredibly talented musicians capable of pulling off some of the most technical thrashing you've heard in the last decade. They write their songs with direction and magnitude (oh yeah!), the lengthier tracks refusing to wander around aimlessly; the shrieking vocals are pitched to perfection, almost spine-chillingly so; and the overall power keeps the album flowing without the stripped down heavy/power influence so many thrash metal outfits seem to be falling victim to.

If you're too lazy to check out thrash metal's golden years, then Vektor will help you re-live the past. If you're the "I read the book before it was a movie" kind of person, there isn't anything special going on here.

Performance: 9
Songwriting: 8
Originality: 4
Production: 7


Band profile: Vektor
Album: Outer Isolation


 



Written on 03.12.2011 by
Troy Killjoy
Just another opinionated guy telling you what to listen to.
More reviews by Troy Killjoy ››



Comments page 2 of 4

‹‹ Back to the Reviews Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
Comments: 188  
Users visited: 534  
Search this topic:  


Dark Blood - 04.12.2011 at 08:02  
Written by Troy Killjoy on 04.12.2011 at 07:40

First of all thanks for disagreeing in a way that makes me excited to offer a response.

(...) I wanted to create a sort of "boring" feel to the review, something completely unoriginal like name-dropping, to reflect the unoriginality of this album.



You're welcome.

Well, reading that particular sentence made me look at it in a different way. Now I understand what you did there. The unoriginality of the album shown through the review. Very clever.

1 more score from me. Keep it up!
Angelic Storm - 04.12.2011 at 08:41  
I did predict this (in general) reaction to an even slightly negative review of this album, and so it has been proved.

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 04.12.2011 at 03:33
You're absolutely right here. Cause if there ever was/is a genre which is called "revivalist" it's the death metal one. And to be honest I think it's the greatest happening at the moment the "revivalist death metal" thing.


For some reason, I'm not quite sure why, I find myself enjoying and being impressed by far more newer death metal bands, then newer thrash bands...
Troy Killjoy - 04.12.2011 at 08:56  
Written by Angelic Storm on 04.12.2011 at 08:41
I did predict this (in general) reaction to an even slightly negative review of this album, and so it has been proved.

Well you were right and wrong. The review is actually positive. For some reason people don't seem to understand that simply because I point out their lack of originality. I actually said a lot of good things about them though.

So you were right about the response, but you didn't predict they'd be unhappy with even a positive review. I guess I should have said it's a 10/10 masterpiece and the most original thrash metal album of all time. Then only sane people would disagree with me.
Angelic Storm - 04.12.2011 at 09:03  
Written by Troy Killjoy on 04.12.2011 at 08:56
Well you were right and wrong. The review is actually positive. For some reason people don't seem to understand that simply because I point out their lack of originality. I actually said a lot of good things about them though.

So you were right about the response, but you didn't predict they'd be unhappy with even a positive review. I guess I should have said it's a 10/10 masterpiece and the most original thrash metal album of all time. Then only sane people would disagree with me.


Nope, I was right. I said even a SLIGHTLY negative review. Your review wasn't 100% positive, and giving the album unwavering praise, so I was right as it did contain a small amount of negativity in it. So my point was proved.

It wasn't a wholly positive review, which I knew any review of this album would have to be in order to stop certain people being hostile towards it, so my prediction came true. I have long said that these types of reactions are not the sole realm of mainstream metal fanboys, and I see it proven time and time again... the world is just full of fools I guess.
Troy Killjoy - 04.12.2011 at 09:05  
Written by Angelic Storm on 04.12.2011 at 09:03
Nope, I was right.

Huh. Reading back, ya, you were actually 100% accurate. Good call. (Unfortunately.)
Angelic Storm - 04.12.2011 at 09:12  
If there's one thing threads like this prove, is whether it's a mainstream band or not, some people just can't handle even the slightest criticsm directed at an album/band they love. It's as if they see it as some sort of personal affront, which is quite sad really...
Troy Killjoy - 04.12.2011 at 09:16  
Written by Angelic Storm on 04.12.2011 at 09:12
If there's one thing threads like this prove, is whether it's a mainstream band or not, some people just can't handle even the slightest criticsm directed at an album/band they love. It's as if they see it as some sort of personal affront, which is quite sad really...

Ironically, I actually received more positive comments over the course of my negative review series (Norther, The Haunted, etc.) than on this album alone. And this scored like 3 points higher than all of those albums. And I said nice things. >>

Oh well, it's not like I'm gonna lose sleep over it. Not like the people who get their panties in a wad because I stated my opinion.
Angelic Storm - 04.12.2011 at 09:29  
Written by Troy Killjoy on 04.12.2011 at 09:16
Ironically, I actually received more positive comments over the course of my negative review series (Norther, The Haunted, etc.) than on this album alone. And this scored like 3 points higher than all of those albums. And I said nice things. >>

Oh well, it's not like I'm gonna lose sleep over it. Not like the people who get their panties in a wad because I stated my opinion.


I know you were expecting a torrent of criticsm before your "Unseen" review was published, and I think you likely weren't expecting the level of negativity directed at this review. Yet it proved to be the other way around, despite the fact you were way more critical on The Haunted's latest, than you were on this. In fact the positive things you did say about this album makes me want to check it out more than I did previously.

Yep, all you can do is state your honest opinion. If some people can't handle that... well that's their problem not yours.
Mikyz - 04.12.2011 at 09:41  
I'm surprised you gave it as much as you did, I just don't see why you claim that it doesn't have an identity. It's clear that it's much different from the rest of the thrash revivalist movement, their vocals is enough to distinct them from any other album, so I don't think you can deny them an identity they're not drowning into the "old" masters as much as you think they are. Anyway my personal rating isn't far off 8/10, so I agree with most of your review, good job.
Troy Killjoy - 04.12.2011 at 09:45  
Written by Mikyz on 04.12.2011 at 09:41
I'm surprised you gave it as much as you did, I just don't see why you claim that it doesn't have an identity. It's clear that it's much different from the rest of the thrash revivalist movement, their vocals is enough to distinct them from any other album, so I don't think you can deny them an identity they're not drowning into the "old" masters as much as you think they are. Anyway my personal rating isn't far off 8/10, so I agree with most of your review, good job.

If I'm comparing them to the rest of the revivalist scene, I'd give them a much higher mark for originality since the rest of the bands seem content with paying homage to Metallica and the likes, whereas Vektor are one of the few (only?) bands reviving the likes of Toxik/Voivod/Watchtower/etc.

I still don't think they have their own identity as too many of their songs can be traced back to a particular band on a particular album. I'm all for "this has some hints of band x here and there" but not "wow, are you sure this isn't a previously unreleased track from band y" kind of unoriginality. Apparently it's just me, because the lot of users who have told me otherwise seem to think Vektor have some kind of niche in the market. I just can't seem to figure out what about their sound is in any way individualistic. Maybe it's because they rip off several bands instead of just one?
Mikyz - 04.12.2011 at 09:58  
Written by Troy Killjoy on 04.12.2011 at 09:45

If I'm comparing them to the rest of the revivalist scene, I'd give them a much higher mark for originality since the rest of the bands seem content with paying homage to Metallica and the likes, whereas Vektor are one of the few (only?) bands reviving the likes of Toxik/Voivod/Watchtower/etc.

I still don't think they have their own identity as too many of their songs can be traced back to a particular band on a particular album. I'm all for "this has some hints of band x here and there" but not "wow, are you sure this isn't a previously unreleased track from band y" kind of unoriginality. Apparently it's just me, because the lot of users who have told me otherwise seem to think Vektor have some kind of niche in the market. I just can't seem to figure out what about their sound is in any way individualistic. Maybe it's because they rip off several bands instead of just one?


Yeah but I wouldn't go as far as saying they don't have an identity, because it's as if you're saying that if someone would make you listen to this album without telling you who the artist is you wouldn't be able to identify that it's Vektor which I think is just ridiculous. I disagree with people who say that they have their own niche, that's like saying Warning has its own niche because of Pat's vocals which isn't true. They're thrash and Warning is Epic Doom, but what I'm saying is that you can tell them apart from other bands, even if it's only the vocals for Vektor. (I'm saying in any way that they're on the same level )
Troy Killjoy - 04.12.2011 at 10:04  
Written by Mikyz on 04.12.2011 at 09:58
Yeah but I wouldn't go as far as saying they don't have an identity, because it's as if you're saying that if someone would make you listen to this album without telling you who the artist is you wouldn't be able to identify that it's Vektor which I think is just ridiculous. I disagree with people who say that they have their own niche, that's like saying Warning has its own niche because of Pat's vocals which isn't true. They're thrash and Warning is Epic Doom, but what I'm saying is that you can tell them apart from other bands, even if it's only the vocals for Vektor. (I'm saying in any way that they're on the same level )

I definitely understand what you're saying, and I actually pretty much agree. I mean, even some of my favorite bands are just more or less clones of bands from years prior. But I judge them the same as I judged this. I mean, the musicianship is stellar, the sound isn't stripped of its aggression like with most revivalist thrash, and the vocals are outstanding. That being said, like some of my favorite bands, the originality factor can't be ignored.

Maybe saying they don't have an identity was a bit extreme. I think they have an identity I suppose, in the sense that a clone has an identity.

Keep in mind this comes from someone who enjoys the "blackgaze" (still hate that term) movement where new bands rip each other off every day and it's growing increasingly difficult to tell bands apart, and I'm a huge old school black metal fan (meaning any contemporary black metal draws the same ire due to lack of originality). I can still be objective about those styles though, and here it's no different.
Mikyz - 04.12.2011 at 10:11  
Written by Troy Killjoy on 04.12.2011 at 10:04

Maybe saying they don't have an identity was a bit extreme. I think they have an identity I suppose, in the sense that a clone has an identity.


That's what I mean. I don't have anything add.
Deadmeat - 04.12.2011 at 11:48  
Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 04.12.2011 at 03:36

Written by Troy Killjoy on 04.12.2011 at 02:55

Written by SamuelSanchezAlvarez on 04.12.2011 at 02:54
Vektor's debut album is not Black Future, it is Demolition.

Fail on my part - will fix accordingly. Thanks!


Nope you were right he is wrong Demolition is a demo not a debut full length album.

And apparently there was a demo before it and after Demolition.

the band considers it as a demo but in time it has been released as a full length (6 songs, 48' duration is not a demo).
Deadmeat - 04.12.2011 at 11:56  
Written by Troy Killjoy on 04.12.2011 at 09:16

And I said nice things. >>

at least stop saying that you said nice things about the band when the general feeling that the review creates is negative.
Angelic Storm - 04.12.2011 at 12:56  
Written by Deadmeat on 04.12.2011 at 11:56
at least stop saying that you said nice things about the band when the general feeling that the review creates is negative.


I can see when viewed from a certain perspective, it does appear more negative than positive, but from my perspective, there's more positivity than negativity. The only real negative angle of the review, is that it's unoriginal. But lets' face it, if only original albums were of any worth and validity, 98% of what is released today would be classed as worthless rubbish. It could be argued I guess, that the review could seem a little harsh to some when it seems like the unoriginality aspect was focussed on so much, and perhaps it was a little, but it would also be a disservice if he failed to point it out. On the whole though, I personally found that the positive aspects he found about the album shone through the review more... but I guess it all depends on how you look at it. *shrugs*
Mr. Doctor - 04.12.2011 at 13:13  
Written by Deadmeat on 04.12.2011 at 11:48
the band considers it as a demo but in time it has been released as a full length (6 songs, 48' duration is not a demo).


Nope dude... by that logic most grindcore bands never released an album if you just looked at it that way. Or most EPs by doom bands would be full lenghts.
Deadmeat - 04.12.2011 at 13:30  
Written by Mr. Doctor on 04.12.2011 at 13:13

Written by Deadmeat on 04.12.2011 at 11:48
the band considers it as a demo but in time it has been released as a full length (6 songs, 48' duration is not a demo).


Nope dude... by that logic most grindcore bands never released an album if you just looked at it that way. Or most EPs by doom bands would be full lenghts.

i've contacted the band mate, what can you tell me about it?
they self-released it as a full length and when they changed line up and found a label they decided to call black future the first full length and rerecord the songs...
Deadmeat - 04.12.2011 at 13:33  
Written by Angelic Storm on 04.12.2011 at 12:56

Written by Deadmeat on 04.12.2011 at 11:56
at least stop saying that you said nice things about the band when the general feeling that the review creates is negative.


The only real negative angle of the review, is that it's unoriginal. But lets' face it, if only original albums were of any worth and validity, 98% of what is released today would be classed as worthless rubbish.

yeah but the rating of 4 in originality would fit to it? is almost everything of the 98% you've mentioned so much more original than this? i guess not...
pisymbol - 04.12.2011 at 13:51  
Nice review Troy. I have only one issue with it. If you can move the following paragraph:

"These are (Vektor is) undoubtedly incredibly talented musicians capable of pulling off some of the most technical thrashing you've heard in the last decade. They write their songs with direction and magnitude (oh yeah!), the lengthier tracks refusing to wander around aimlessly; the shrieking vocals are pitched to perfection, almost spine-chillingly so; and the overall power keeps the album flowing without the stripped down heavy/power influence so many thrash metal outfits seem to be falling victim to."

...to the front of the review, i.e. it would have been nice to hear the good first, then the bad. Not the other way around. As many people have pointed out, the review comes off negative and I agree.
Mr. Doctor - 04.12.2011 at 13:54  
Written by Deadmeat on 04.12.2011 at 13:30
they self-released it as a full length and when they changed line up and found a label they decided to call black future the first full length and rerecord the songs...


It would be a similar case of Morbid Angel with Abominations of Desolation and as we all know, no one sees it as their debut album, not even the band does. If the band doesn't consider a certain material a demo, a full-lenght, an ep ,etc there's nothing to discuss about it. Seems a little vague but that's the way it works. For the Clandestine Cuts sometimes we get stuff that is like 35+ minutes that are considered EPs despite their lenght. It all comes down to the band in the end to what they consider full lenght or not.

Written by Deadmeat on 04.12.2011 at 13:33
yeah but the rating of 4 in originality would fit to it? is almost everything of the 98% you've mentioned so much more original than this? i guess not...


MEH, the originality rating and the other three ratings below never describe the enjoyment the reviewer had with the album. Troy seemed to enjoy the album fairly well by the overall rating of 7,5 and the review itself. The album is just unoriginal and that's (thankfully) something that Troy wasn't blind enough to not see. Just because I love some albums doesn't mean I can't see how unoriginal, how sloppy the songwriting or performance can be at times.
Deadmeat - 04.12.2011 at 14:00  
Written by Mr. Doctor on 04.12.2011 at 13:54

Written by Deadmeat on 04.12.2011 at 13:30
they self-released it as a full length and when they changed line up and found a label they decided to call black future the first full length and rerecord the songs...


It would be a similar case of Morbid Angel with Abominations of Desolation and as we all know, no one sees it as their debut album, not even the band does. If the band doesn't consider a certain material a demo, a full-lenght, an ep ,etc there's nothing to discuss about it. Seems a little vague but that's the way it works. For the Clandestine Cuts sometimes we get stuff that is like 35+ minutes that are considered EPs despite their lenght. It all comes down to the band in the end to what they consider full lenght or not.

ok i know that if the band decides to call it "somewhat like a demo" (as they do) i have nothing more to add. i was just saying. about the morbid angel album i dont get it it was released in 1991 after blessed are the sick i think. where is the debut-ity on it?

edit: ok i accept that he thinks that it is sooooooo unoriginal. but i cannot accept that after giving to this album the rating of 4 to originality he says that in summary he said good words about the album.
Slayer666 - 04.12.2011 at 14:03  
Quote:

Oh shit, the Killjoy is reviewing a thrash metal album. Brace yourselves.


How in the... I don't even.....

Checked the album, and yeah, it's a whole league above most revivalist thrash nowadays. Still, unless you're an avid fan of the genre (which I'm not), it's nothing to get wet over.
Angelic Storm - 04.12.2011 at 14:04  
Written by Deadmeat on 04.12.2011 at 13:33
yeah but the rating of 4 in originality would fit to it? is almost everything of the 98% you've mentioned so much more original than this? i guess not...


Well, if we're taking it that in this day and age, probably only 2% of metal albums would deserve a 9 or 10 for originality, then 4 certainly could seem a little harsh. But then bringing objectivity into play, I guess it could easily be a 4 or a 6 depending on how you view it. I guess what I'm saying is, I don't really think to give it a 4 is "wrong", but I could see how some might think that's overly harsh.
Deadmeat - 04.12.2011 at 14:10  
Written by Angelic Storm on 04.12.2011 at 14:04

Written by Deadmeat on 04.12.2011 at 13:33
yeah but the rating of 4 in originality would fit to it? is almost everything of the 98% you've mentioned so much more original than this? i guess not...


Well, if we're taking it that in this day and age, probably only 2% of metal albums would deserve a 9 or 10 for originality, then 4 certainly could seem a little harsh. But then bringing objectivity into play, I guess it could easily be a 4 or a 6 depending on how you view it. I guess what I'm saying is, I don't really think to give it a 4 is "wrong", but I could see how some might think that's overly harsh.

well i think this band took many of their influences and created something on their own. i am a fan of them and i can "recognize" their music from miles (meaning that they have an identity). imo an "8" in originality is very low for this band and especially for their demolition stuff which is extremely amazing (imo the best thrash metal moments of the last 20 years).
Mr. Doctor - 04.12.2011 at 14:11  
Written by Deadmeat on 04.12.2011 at 14:00

about the morbid angel album i dont get it it was released in 1991 after blessed are the sick i think. where is the debut-ity on it?

edit: ok i accept that he thinks that it is sooooooo unoriginal. but i cannot accept that after giving to this album the rating of 4 to originality he says that in summary he said good words about the album.


Abominations of Desolation was recorded in 1986, 3 years before Altars of Madness.

About the second point... Why the hell not? You seem to have a problem with the fact that he gave it good words in the end and a 4 in originality as if those two things were related... THEY ARE NOT. Like I said before, you can perfctly enjoy an album and find their music pretty good and at the same time been realistic enough to admit the album is nothing original at all. I mean.. the latest death metala lbums are a perfect example. I enjoy most bands that make a Old school death metal album... Is it good? yeah, original? fuck no... But I enjoy it anyway.
With those albums I would not have a trouble of writing a review giving performance/songwriting/production a 8-9 and the originality a 5 becuse that's the way it is.
Marcel Hubregtse - 04.12.2011 at 14:18  
Written by Deadmeat on 04.12.2011 at 11:48

the band considers it as a demo but in time it has been released as a full length (6 songs, 48' duration is not a demo).


it is a demo if the band considers it a demo, no matter how many songs are on it or how long the duration is and it's self released. Simple then it's a demo. They released it by themselves to score a record deal and it was very limited as well. All that screams demo.
elseif - 04.12.2011 at 14:33  
This album is really good.
Deadmeat - 04.12.2011 at 14:46  
Written by Mr. Doctor on 04.12.2011 at 14:11

Written by Deadmeat on 04.12.2011 at 14:00

about the morbid angel album i dont get it it was released in 1991 after blessed are the sick i think. where is the debut-ity on it?

edit: ok i accept that he thinks that it is sooooooo unoriginal. but i cannot accept that after giving to this album the rating of 4 to originality he says that in summary he said good words about the album.


Abominations of Desolation was recorded in 1986, 3 years before Altars of Madness.

About the second point... Why the hell not? You seem to have a problem with the fact that he gave it good words in the end and a 4 in originality as if those two things were related... THEY ARE NOT. Like I said before, you can perfctly enjoy an album and find their music pretty good and at the same time been realistic enough to admit the album is nothing original at all. I mean.. the latest death metala lbums are a perfect example. I enjoy most bands that make a Old school death metal album... Is it good? yeah, original? fuck no... But I enjoy it anyway.
With those albums I would not have a trouble of writing a review giving performance/songwriting/production a 8-9 and the originality a 5 becuse that's the way it is.

yeah but abominations hasn't been released till 1991. demolition has.but ok then, since for the band it is a demo.

also, i said that my problem except the "4" in originality is, that he says that he said good words but for me and other people as i see the summary is negative. i mean, the conclusion of the review.
Mr. Doctor - 04.12.2011 at 15:04  
Written by Deadmeat on 04.12.2011 at 14:46
also, i said that my problem except the "4" in originality is, that he says that he said good words but for me and other people as i see the summary is negative. i mean, the conclusion of the review.


Quote:
These are undoubtedly incredibly talented musicians capable of pulling off some of the most technical thrashing you've heard in the last decade. They write their songs with direction and magnitude (oh yeah!), the lengthier tracks refusing to wander around aimlessly; the shrieking vocals are pitched to perfection, almost spine-chillingly so; and the overall power keeps the album flowing without the stripped down heavy/power influence so many thrash metal outfits seem to be falling victim to.

If you're too lazy to check out thrash metal's golden years, then Vektor will help you re-live the past. If you're the "I read the book before it was a movie" kind of person, there isn't anything special going on here.


The entire second-to-last paragraph that I quoted is 100% positive.
If you have a problem with the last paragraph. It's not even a harsh comment... It's just the way it is, reflecting the unoriginality of it but still saying that the album is good. You seem to overeact of the harsh-ness of it.
Also... I'm not seeing anyone whining about the review here except one person.
JD - 04.12.2011 at 15:14  
At first I was like "this is gonna suck review"



But then, I enjoyed reading it.
Deadmeat - 04.12.2011 at 15:30  
Written by Mr. Doctor on 04.12.2011 at 15:04

Written by Deadmeat on 04.12.2011 at 14:46
also, i said that my problem except the "4" in originality is, that he says that he said good words but for me and other people as i see the summary is negative. i mean, the conclusion of the review.


Quote:
These are undoubtedly incredibly talented musicians capable of pulling off some of the most technical thrashing you've heard in the last decade. They write their songs with direction and magnitude (oh yeah!), the lengthier tracks refusing to wander around aimlessly; the shrieking vocals are pitched to perfection, almost spine-chillingly so; and the overall power keeps the album flowing without the stripped down heavy/power influence so many thrash metal outfits seem to be falling victim to.

If you're too lazy to check out thrash metal's golden years, then Vektor will help you re-live the past. If you're the "I read the book before it was a movie" kind of person, there isn't anything special going on here.


The entire second-to-last paragraph that I quoted is 100% positive.
If you have a problem with the last paragraph. It's not even a harsh comment... It's just the way it is, reflecting the unoriginality of it but still saying that the album is good. You seem to overeact of the harsh-ness of it.
Also... I'm not seeing anyone whining about the review here except one person.

so 1/4 positive paragraphs and the review is positive? (not to mention the last non-positive phrase)
Mr. Doctor - 04.12.2011 at 15:37  
Written by Deadmeat on 04.12.2011 at 15:30
(not to mention the last non-positive phrase)


You really don't get it, do you?
It's not positive or negative... It's just a fact, get it through your head man... the album is unoriginal but still with a great songwritting and performance and Troy knows that and that's what he wrote.
You give so much focus on the originality part of the review that is just comes off as a fanboy remark... Which probably it is as you are the only one whining... Couldn't expect anything less from the same person that made an argument for that Kreator album.

You are free to interpret the review however you like and even make your own review. There's really nothing more to add here as you just don't get how originality doesn't reflect the overall opinion of the album.
Dear lord the album got a 7,5... I can't even imagine who you would react to a 5.
Deadmeat - 04.12.2011 at 15:45  
Written by Mr. Doctor on 04.12.2011 at 15:37

Written by Deadmeat on 04.12.2011 at 15:30
(not to mention the last non-positive phrase)


You really don't get it, do you?
It's not positive or negative... It's just a fact, get it through your head man... the album is unoriginal but still with a great songwritting and performance and Troy knows that and that's what he wrote.
You give so much focus on the originality part of the review that is just comes off as a fanboy remark... Which probably it is as you are the only one whining... Couldn't expect anything less from the same person that made an argument for that Kreator album.

You are free to interpret the review however you like and even make your own review. There's really nothing more to add here as you just don't get how originality doesn't reflect the overall opinion of the album.
Dear lord the album got a 7,5... I can't even imagine who you would react to a 5.

of course i am going to write review (unless someone does it first) at some time because this review isn't about the album but mainly about the band and i believe these guys deserve a criticism and some words about their new album.

on the other you've said i am not going to comment. i dont care about what you call original or not or your opinion on me. i have my opinion on you too, believe me. this review with 1/4 good paragraph is not positive. that's all i wanted to say.
BitterCOld - 04.12.2011 at 18:46  
Written by Mr. Doctor on 04.12.2011 at 15:37

Dear lord the album got a 7,5... I can't even imagine who you would react to a 5.


this is metalstorm, where everything ever is a 9 and calling something merely halfway between good and very good is flat out insulting.
Verdun_sc - 04.12.2011 at 19:57  
Written by Deadmeat on 04.12.2011 at 14:00
edit: ok i accept that he thinks that it is sooooooo unoriginal. but i cannot accept that after giving to this album the rating of 4 to originality he says that in summary he said good words about the album.

Something can still be a good album and not be the most original thing in the world.

For instance, there's a lot of black metal out there that doesnt exactly push the boundaries of the genre, and yet, is extremely solid material. And that, in essence is what Troy is saying with this review. Vektor's album is solid. Good material that's a cut above other revivalist stuff. But if you're a fan of the classics it's not something new in any way shape or form. He never says you can't like it or anything.

Edit: oh, and after re-reading the review again? There's really only one paragraph that could be construed as "negative" that I see. The rest is pretty much factually based on describing their sound.
Deadmeat - 04.12.2011 at 20:15  
Written by Verdun_sc on 04.12.2011 at 19:57

Written by Deadmeat on 04.12.2011 at 14:00
edit: ok i accept that he thinks that it is sooooooo unoriginal. but i cannot accept that after giving to this album the rating of 4 to originality he says that in summary he said good words about the album.

Something can still be a good album and not be the most original thing in the world.

For instance, there's a lot of black metal out there that doesnt exactly push the boundaries of the genre, and yet, is extremely solid material. And that, in essence is what Troy is saying with this review. Vektor's album is solid. Good material that's a cut above other revivalist stuff. But if you're a fan of the classics it's not something new in any way shape or form. He never says you can't like it or anything.

Edit: oh, and after re-reading the review again? There's really only one paragraph that could be construed as "negative" that I see. The rest is pretty much factually based on describing their sound.

if so, then let's take all the newer thrash metal bands and start to mention all their influences to see that every new band is a rip-off of older thrash metal bands. vektor has wrote some refreshing and generally great music the last years, they have their own sound they have great production and i cannot see why a review of 400-500 words should contain only 5 lines about the album.... also i wouldn't say so many things if troy said "i wrote a negative review, that's my opinion". but he stays on the rating (7,5 is supposed to be good, not average) and says "look i gave them a great rating and wrote good words" when the review has an ironic character and creates you MAINLY a bad opinion about the band (not only about the album).
Cryzpin - 04.12.2011 at 21:21  
Written by pisymbol on 04.12.2011 at 13:51

...to the front of the review, i.e. it would have been nice to hear the good first, then the bad. Not the other way around. As many people have pointed out, the review comes off negative and I agree.

Yeah, i am second to that. It is clearly felt that the reviewer goes against the album and not really into it. And another think, againg, there is SOOO little about the music itself, that it's a copied reshufled average of three other old bands? That's really not an information one would like to get from staff review.
Troy Killjoy - 04.12.2011 at 21:25  
Written by Deadmeat on 04.12.2011 at 20:15
...

Hey guy, remember when Kreator didn't get nominated in the MS Awards?
Troy Killjoy - 04.12.2011 at 21:32  
Written by Angelic Storm on 04.12.2011 at 12:56
I can see when viewed from a certain perspective, it does appear more negative than positive, but from my perspective, there's more positivity than negativity.

Exactly, the fact that I focused on the lack of originality reflected how I felt when listening to the album. I wrote this review as I heard the album - it was like, I've heard this all before, but it's still some pretty solid thrash. And then it ended with ya, it's still not original but oh well, if you don't care for originality this is a good thrash album.

I'd say that's pretty positive - if the only real downfall is the lack of originality.
Troy Killjoy - 04.12.2011 at 21:34  
Written by pisymbol on 04.12.2011 at 13:51
Nice review Troy. I have only one issue with it. If you can move the following paragraph:

I appreciate the criticism, but I don't feel the change necessary because that's not how I wanted the review to play out. As explained (just a minute ago), I listened to the album and wrote the review to reflect the listening process. The first thing I noticed about this (and last) was the lack of originality. Throughout the album I was able to notice the quality of the songs, so the beginning and the end of the review are reflective of my initial and conclusive thoughts on the album, with the positive aspects in the body to represent how I felt listening to the body of the album.
Troy Killjoy - 04.12.2011 at 21:36  
Written by Cryzpin on 04.12.2011 at 21:21
there is SOOO little about the music itself, that it's a copied reshufled average of three other old bands? That's really not an information one would like to get from staff review.

-_-

I've already responded to this.
Deadmeat - 04.12.2011 at 21:55  
Written by Troy Killjoy on 04.12.2011 at 21:36

Written by Cryzpin on 04.12.2011 at 21:21
there is SOOO little about the music itself, that it's a copied reshufled average of three other old bands? That's really not an information one would like to get from staff review.

-_-

I've already responded to this.

so you are a reviewer and staffer who says to whoever doesn't like his review "fuck you"... we appreciate that...

it seems that i am not the only one who finds this review negative (when you say it is positive).
Troy Killjoy - 04.12.2011 at 21:58  
Written by Deadmeat on 04.12.2011 at 21:55
so you are a reviewer and staffer who says to whoever doesn't like his review "fuck you"... we appreciate that...

Actually I've responded to all positive and negative comments I've received in a mature manner. It's unfortunate you can't muster up the ability to comment in the same fashion.

I answered that user's question in this thread already. I don't feel the need to do it again.

Just as I don't feel the need to explain to a cement-head like yourself that unoriginal does not always equal bad, especially since the ONLY negative thing about this album in my review is that unoriginality.

But keep frothing at your keyboard. I'm sure everyone looking at this thread is enjoying you as you make an idiot out of yourself.
RavenKing - 04.12.2011 at 21:59  
Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 04.12.2011 at 01:02

They are extremely in debt to Killing Technology and Dimension Hatross VoiVod not to the leater periods

Btw not only musically but also logowise and concept wise and title wise.


First time I saw the logo and cover of a Vektor album, old Voivod instantly came to my mind.
However, I don't know much about Voivod because I never liked it.
Deadmeat - 04.12.2011 at 22:02  
Written by Troy Killjoy on 04.12.2011 at 21:58

Written by Deadmeat on 04.12.2011 at 21:55
so you are a reviewer and staffer who says to whoever doesn't like his review "fuck you"... we appreciate that...

Actually I've responded to all positive and negative comments I've received in a mature manner. It's unfortunate you can't muster up the ability to comment in the same fashion.

I answered that user's question in this thread already. I don't feel the need to do it again.

Just as I don't feel the need to explain to a cement-head like yourself that unoriginal does not always equal bad, especially since the ONLY negative thing about this album in my review is that unoriginality.

But keep frothing at your keyboard. I'm sure everyone looking at this thread is enjoying you as you make an idiot out of yourself.

you've spent then 2-3 paragraphs talking about originality and said almost nothing about the album. this was my 2nd complaint after originality. it's like you don't want to understand...
Troy Killjoy - 04.12.2011 at 22:05  
Written by Deadmeat on 04.12.2011 at 22:02
you've spent then 2-3 paragraphs talking about originality and said almost nothing about the album. this was my 2nd complaint after originality. it's like you don't want to understand...

I don't want to understand? I've already addressed that "issue". I did it for effect. The review reads as I felt about the album. I was constantly reminded how unoriginal this was, so my review reflects that. I wanted to beat it into the heads of everyone as the album beat it into my head. And don't go all "you don't even talk about the music", because - as pointed out in the review itself - I'm well aware of that. I didn't need to talk about the music; name-dropping cleared that up and simultaneously proved my point on the lack of originality.
Angelic Storm - 04.12.2011 at 22:11  
Written by Troy Killjoy on 04.12.2011 at 21:32
Exactly, the fact that I focused on the lack of originality reflected how I felt when listening to the album. I wrote this review as I heard the album - it was like, I've heard this all before, but it's still some pretty solid thrash. And then it ended with ya, it's still not original but oh well, if you don't care for originality this is a good thrash album.

I'd say that's pretty positive - if the only real downfall is the lack of originality.


Yep, I think it's because most of the review seemed to focus on the unoriginality, that it could be misinterpreted by some as a negative review. But then when you realise the unoriginality was really the only criticsm levelled at the album, it does place the music in a much more positive light by the review. If I cared a lot about unoriginality, then I would see it as a very negative review. But in this day and age, when to be truly original in metal is undoubtedly a far harder task than it was in the 70's/80's/90's, then it's almost not living in the real world to expect originiality from new bands. For me, originality is always seen as a bonus, rather than a requirement from me to like a new band's music. The quality of the music itself is always the most important factor for me, and even if you are original, that certainly is not on it's own, necessarily going to result in a great album. In fact, it can sometimes result in terrible music.

For me, what makes so many bands in the revivalist thrash seen so dull, isn't that they are unoriginal, it's that they by and large, have no real memorable songs. Much like many of the 2nd/3rd tier thrash bands that were around in the 80's. And vocals on their own certainly can give a band their own identity, take Forbidden. What really made them stand out from the pack wasn't so much their music (although it is great thrash), but the vocals of Russ Anderson. So I think even in this day and age, it is possible for a new thrash band to stand out from the crowd. I mentioned The Haunted in another thread, and for them, it was the hardcore vocals of Peter Dolving and an infusion of the Gothenburg sound that made their thrash so fresh, and identifiably "them". Okies, Im going on a bit now, so, I'll stop now...
Deadmeat - 04.12.2011 at 22:16  
Written by Troy Killjoy on 04.12.2011 at 22:05

Written by Deadmeat on 04.12.2011 at 22:02
you've spent then 2-3 paragraphs talking about originality and said almost nothing about the album. this was my 2nd complaint after originality. it's like you don't want to understand...

I don't want to understand? I've already addressed that "issue". I did it for effect. The review reads as I felt about the album. I was constantly reminded how unoriginal this was, so my review reflects that. I wanted to beat it into the heads of everyone as the album beat it into my head. And don't go all "you don't even talk about the music", because - as pointed out in the review itself - I'm well aware of that. I didn't need to talk about the music; name-dropping cleared that up and simultaneously proved my point on the lack of originality.

ok. but just don't say that your review is positive. you take a flaw (in your opinion) of the band/album and keep on repeating it. there is no positivity.
Troy Killjoy - 04.12.2011 at 22:18  
Written by Angelic Storm on 04.12.2011 at 22:11
Okies, Im going on a bit now, so, I'll stop now...

I thought that was actually all relevant and you brought up good points - especially about the vocals. I mean, I didn't give the originality a 1, because there is still enough about Vektor that makes you think, oh this is Vektor. It's just that "this is Vektor" is like saying "oh this is a combination of everything I've already heard".

Not that it means the music is bad. Like you said, originality seems like more of a bonus than a requirement. I listen to black and death metal up the yang. Out of the 200+ albums I've listened to this year, maybe a dozen or so could be considered original. As in, worthy of more than a 6 in the originality department. Avant-garde bands command higher originality ratings, but sometimes at the expense of good music.

In this case, the originality didn't kill the enjoyment for me, as suggested by my overall rating and the positive remarks in my review. That being said, it's a lack of originality based on thrash metal - something that was already waning in the '90s.

Advertise on Metal Storm
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4


Login or register to post here.



Similar topics

Forum Topic Similarity Started
Reviews Sorgeldom - ...From Outer Intelligences 6 07.03.2012 by Mr. Doctor
Reviews Gothmog - Aeons Of Deception 4.5 15.04.2012 by AngelofDeth
Reviews Wodensthrone - Curse 4.5 31.05.2012 by Sync
Reviews Centimani - Aegaeon 4.5 24.06.2012 by Mr. Doctor
Reviews Satyricon - Dark Medieval Times 4.5 14.01.2012 by Unhealer



Hits total: 11078 | This month: 112