Album Rating: 3.0

"cas you have dedicated your entire sput persona to ragging on popular metal albums for elite cred and ignoring anything contemporary in favour of obscure 3.5core from outside a two decade radius"



I'm about 50/50 for rating popular metal albums positively so that's pure exaggeration.

thread was better with sach in it

lol i bet, any memorable gems?

Album Rating: 4.5 | Sound Off

--"cas you have dedicated your entire sput persona to ragging on popular metal albums for elite cred and ignoring anything contemporary in favour of obscure 3.5core from outside a two decade radius"--



I'm scared and intrigued. Do me next : ] (this has some major "roast my selfie" vibes)

3ing the new album by the band who wrote "curl of the burl" doesnt really strike me as elitist. elitist would be not even listening to mastodon

i honestly wouldnt mind doing the opeth/mastodon show later this month but im not motivated enough for either band, still havent seen opeth though

yea i want to see the one in dc but i probably won't

Album Rating: 5.0

But you should though.

a compelling point

Album Rating: 4.0

Opeth are hit and miss nowadays live. That big hair guitarist is just meh.

another compelling point. i will skip

Album Rating: 2.5

'I think you're comparing apples to oranges, in the sense that you compare different compositional approaches.'



From where I'm sitting that is what Assemblage is doing, but that's also fine, aren't they just saying they prefer the approach on some of their earlier works? Explaining why you like a specific method/song-writing style is perfectly valid, otherwise all discussion of this ilk would simply descend into redundancy when you can counter with 'but was this the band's intention?' or whatever. I'm sure Mastodon intended to write whatever they have written, they're an experienced group of musicians with an established sound that focus on modest variations or 'refinement' if you will, rather than experimentalism. However this absolutely does not give them immunity from prosecution.



For the record I can completely understand what Assemblage was saying and the specific examples they picked out. Mastodon have indeed taken a more streamlined approach to their 'progressive' compositions in recent years.

Album Rating: 4.5

>aren't they just saying they prefer the approach on some of their earlier works?



Well yes, but then having a single song or album as an axis of comparison and analysis is the opposite of ''creative dialogue and commentary''. It's redundant.

Album Rating: 4.0 | Sound Off

This is such a good/fun listen, I think I am going to toss it on again right about.....now

Album Rating: 4.0

I've pretty much been listening to nothing else.

Album Rating: 3.0

I don't quite see how a "single song or album as an axis of comparison" also equates to being redundant? That seems like a bit of conflicting opinion don't you think?



And in fairness, my responses were long enough that it would overdo what I need to say if I brought every example in the book. I was just offering one for the grounds of discussion, and all it is is just an elaboration on why a 3 can be a valid score.



What I haven't seen much of, is why a 4.5 is more of an accurate depiction of this work other than just not liking any of my reasons for my score, since that's pretty much the basis of your replies about my stance. You can pick apart my "argument" all you like, but at least I'm offering one.

Album Rating: 4.5

>I don't quite see how a "single song or album as an axis of comparison" also equates to being redundant? That seems like a bit of conflicting opinion don't you think?



Ιt's redundant because it offers nothing to the table, it's just a 0-1 logic, a song either is similar to something or it isn't. That's all there is to do with comparing HaG to Blood Mountain.



>What I haven't seen much of, is why a 4.5 is more of an accurate depiction of this work



Never argued that my ratings here are ''an accurate depiction of this work'', I just rate them what I feel like. Even my reviews are *suggestions* with arguments, not claims of accurate depiction. I disagree with your logic, not with your rating

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with their logic; they’re clearly saying Mastodon’s earlier releases contained a lot more compelling sections per track. They even gave examples. Not exactly rocket science but sure, they’re ‘wrong’.

Album Rating: 4.5

sigh.... Still, never said that those tracks weren't thicker, I just said that the compositional approaches are different and comparisons may be moot.



Let me give an example if that's helping: saying Dream Theater are a better band than Placebo _because_ they have denser songs makes no sense, no matter how many examples of songs you give

Album Rating: 3.0

Comparing Mastodon to Mastodon apparently is apples to oranges by your logic though, so whatever.



Anything else off limits before we can proceed?