The production, the sound, and the themes are all great as they are, and the music probably wouldn't be so annoying for those who never listened to Death, but if individuality and genuineness does have any importance for the listener, the charisma of "Savage Land" would probably vanish in the moment when "Spiritual Healing" would get introduced. How does it make sense to basically recreate a classic album by the same themes only to put them together in different order and into different songs? Probably an ordinary tribute album with cover songs would make it better. Even if it's clear for everyone that they intended to tribute to the legacy of Death in their own way, or that it's just a fun made thing, where the only sign of creativity comes in the form of riffs and themes taken from other Death albums. This is something that nowadays AI could do as well, and probably in 2015 it wasn't the case, but still, it was basically a useless effort to create something valueless. But the most entertaining paradox was the positive welcome by many music critics, who used to pull down most extreme bands by marking them as nothing new, cause their stimulus-threshold could be crossed mostly by hipster music. But when they hear something that could serve as the most accurate definition of a rip-off, the antithesis of vision or imagination, they actually digging it. Or maybe was it the importance of the concept again? If it's announced and stated at the very beginning, that the concept is copying a classic band, it makes the performance more enjoyable for some than whole genre or style based influences could be?
However, Gruesome's music is mainly recommended for hipster metal journalists/music critics and their followers, for everyone else: just keep listening to Death instead.
No comments:
Post a Comment