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?

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 )

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.

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 04.12.2011 at 03:36

Written by Troy Killjoy on 04.12.2011 at 02:55

Written by truenoacero 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.

Written by Troy Killjoy on 04.12.2011 at 09:16

And I said nice things. >>

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.

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).

Written by X-Ray Rod 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.

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.

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...

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...

Written by X-Ray Rod 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.

Quote:

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

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...

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.

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.

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).

Written by X-Ray Rod 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.

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.

Written by X-Ray Rod 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.

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

Written by X-Ray Rod 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.

Written by X-Ray Rod 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.

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.

Written by scaesura 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.

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.

Written by Deadmeat on 04.12.2011 at 20:15
...

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.