MABB v6.6.6

Another nice one



<!-- m -->http://www.leavethehall.co.uk/reviews/a ... m-insanus/<!-- m -->

This, however, is like Iron Maiden releasing a Reggae album, Nile dabbling in R&B or Chuck Schuldiner returning from the grave and faithfully covering Chico Time.

haha poo extreme



im annoyed with myself for not having thought of that WICKEDLY COMPLICATED pun before now



seriously though it does make me laugh

also he uses the phrase "shitmus test"



this is angry reviewing of the finest caliber

is it? then i shall read it again

reread the last line of the review and cry when you realize how true it is

Treyvid Vincenthoth

This review is everything that's wrong with death metal "fans". MA tries something new. If you hate it, don't listen to it. Review within the flipping context, not out of it. Moron.

[quote name="Victor Frankenstein"]This review is everything that's wrong with death metal "fans". MA tries something new. If you hate it, don't listen to it. Review within the flipping context, not out of it. Moron.[/quote]

Amazing that there seems to be no middle ground amongst any of the reviews. I think I have read one slightly positive review, but everyone is just ripping. Even the Facebook and other places, they're being ripped and just tossed aside. The few who do like it are definitely a very very small minority. I forgot to post the Decibel review the other day, I will go post it now. Bet you all know what it says though . . . .

[quote name="Victor Frankenstein"]This review is everything that's wrong with death metal "fans". MA tries something new. If you hate it, don't listen to it. Review within the flipping context, not out of it. Moron.[/quote]



exactly what is the context, then? because the whole purpose of a review is to tell people whether something is worth listening to. if you boil his review down it says: "don't listen to this"



seriously, what's the flipping context you're referring to? this is the second time i've seen someone in this forum say something about looking at this album in context and i am not sure what you mean by that.

<!-- m -->http://tyrannyoftradition.com/2011/06/0 ... ew-record/<!-- m -->[*]

This review is everything that's wrong with death metal "fans". MA tries something new. If you hate it, don't listen to it. Review within the flipping context, not out of it. Moron.

There is nothing wrong about trying something new. The problem is the serious lack of identity, complete turn in the opposite direction; there is no sense of building upon their previous experiences (albums), but rather shattering everything they were about. Which is not wrong per se, but it should be done under different moniker. MA are/were an entity, like any other band. Every band build as they go, like when you build a house. MA are not Trey Azaghtoth Band or David Vincent Orchestra, and as such they are 'not allowed' to throw just a bunch of stuff together. There should be a sense of cohesion present at any given time.



Honestly, I don't get how some of you guys don't understand that. At this point, this has been discuses several times by now on the board.

[quote name="slimegod"]http://tyrannyoftradition.com/2011/06/0 ... ew-record/[*][/quote]



ginsburg



that would be hilarious were it not for the fact that the supreme court can't order the national guard to do shit. learn checks and balances young man

[quote name="evil poop"]

exactly what is the context, then? because the whole purpose of a review is to tell people whether something is worth listening to. if you boil his review down it says: "don't listen to this"

[/quote]



People write these bad rewievs out of malice, not objective stance. Finally, they get the chance to mock the giants. I hate that attitude.



The context is that Morbid Angel radically changed into something that's not Formulas, nor standard death metal. That's enough to say in the review, and then try to analyze what's the music actually composed of. This review is just puns you tend to write when you're drunk.

[quote name="Uros"]The problem is the serious lack of identity, complete turn in opposite direction; there is no sense of building upon their previous experiences (albums), but rather shattering everything they were about. Which is not wrong per se, but it should be done under different moniker. MA are/were an entity, like any other band. Every band build as they go, like when you build a house. MA are not Trey Azaghtoth Band or David Vincent Orchestra.

[/quote]



And that's what should be in a review. Not some stupid puns, how morbid angel is stupid, haha, and they're lame.

I like funny reviews that talk about how much something sucks

[quote name="Victor Frankenstein"]
[quote name="evil poop"]

exactly what is the context, then? because the whole purpose of a review is to tell people whether something is worth listening to. if you boil his review down it says: "don't listen to this"

[/quote]



People write these bad rewievs out of malice, not objective stance. Finally, they get the chance to mock the giants. I hate that attitude.



The context is that Morbid Angel radically changed into something that's not Formulas, nor standard death metal. That's enough to say in the review, and then try to analyze what's the music actually composed of. This review is just puns you tend to write when you're drunk.[/quote]



do you really think that's what's at work here? because i havent read a lot of words like "oh FINALLY the mighty morbid angel have fallen from the toilet of grace and i can make fun of them now." these reviews seem mostly to be by people who are really disappointed. but even so i'm also not reading a whole lot of "oh man what a betrayal"-type stuff, either. most of the reviewers are going out of their way to say "i'm not against change, bands have the right to try new things" etc., and then call the music what it is: really really dull and uninspired and a half-step behind. one of the reasons i like the poo extreme review so much is all the references that hard-on bearer makes to late gloryhole era /early 00s tough hard-on bearer-type music are spot on. that's exactly what david sounds like, spouting those lyrics! those lyrics have nothing to do with the morbid angel we've all been led to believe existed on A-C and again on F-H. it sounds to me like people are really pissed off that



a) trey chose to release this under the name Morbid Angel, and

b) that he has apparently ceded a lot of artistic control to david, whose talents and tastes are marginal and questionable, respectively



anyway, this is turning into two different discussions: one about my own feelings on idi, and the other on what the reviewers of idi are actually saying about it. let me ask you this, though, then: what's an objective place from which to consider the album? it isn't a morbid angel album in the vein of any of the older stuff; i think we can agree on that. OK: but it also isn't a techno album; it is kind of but not really a death metal album; it's only a metal album, really, in the sense of muscle-flexing and "we're livin hardcore radikult"-ing. in other words it's to do with the very lamest and stupidest things about metal.



i, at least, think idi is *trying* to do about five or six different kinds of music/forms of expression at the same time, succeeding at none of them, and getting called on its shit by people who dont know what to make of it.

[quote name="Victor Frankenstein"]



People write these bad rewievs out of malice, not objective stance. [/quote]





Since when is being objective a requirement for writing reviews? Seems to be than an objective review would essentially give a description of what is contained in the music, nothing more. If reviews are intended to convey the writer's OPINION of the content...isn't that subjective by definition?



[quote name="Victor Frankenstein"]Finally, they get the chance to mock the giants. I hate that attitude.

[/quote]



How did they come by this chance to mock the giants? Maybe...oh, I don't know...because of the giants putting out a really bad album?



Doesn't a writer have a chance, every time he writes, to mock the giants? It's not like reviewers were rubbing their hands going "one day, Morbid Angel will make a really shit album and then, FINALLY, I will have my chance to MOCK THEM!" Look:

"The new Hate Eternal album is unnecessarily fruital and boring. The drummer can't stop himself from blasting. This album is a turd, and Erik Rutan looks like the bad hard-on bearer from Cobra."



See? They didn't even put out a shitty album (it's great!) and I mocked them. I didn't have to wait for a chance to mock them, I just did it.



The fact that they're giants means that they've put themselves out there for both praise and mocking. It's just that when you make a really dumb record, you'll get more of the latter.

Well, I like the album. Let the the fun begin.



But I cannot say I'm dissapointed. Yeah, I expected ubermensch of satanic glory but there's actually tons of bands doing just that and with more passion and more agression. I don't know answers to your questions evil poop (lol on the nick) but people are taking this for something that it isn't. Who's to say Morbid Angel isn't Morbid Angel after this album? Or true to their philosophy? Only trey knows what he's thinking. And he's pretty much misterious about that. People change, bands don't. This band's changed.

Here is the decibel review. Just finished typing it up.

Didn't bother with a scan of this one.



forum/viewtopic.php?p=178397#p178397

the first line of the decibel review and the last line of the leave the hall review are nice little bookends