Quit being a n00b, man.

 

It is common knowledge that every death metal band steals the vocals from Decapitated Walrus's myspace and alters them with correction software.

 

When we do our vocals, for example, we use Antares - but the main thing is to get the performance as accurate as possible, because if a note is too far away, ie a quarter of a tone or more, from the intended note, Antares can get confused and attempt to retune.

 

There are other, far more subtle artefacts it leaves behind, and I believe I can detect them in the track I mentioned - if I hadn't noticed it, I wouldn't have mentioned it.

 

It's like when I reviewed Greg Lake's rendition of "Jerusalem", and noted that his intonation went flat.

 

I have perfect pitch, and it's easy for me to hear when pitches are not as they should be.

 

 

The point about "comparing to Gentle Giant" is that this is an open ballpark - I believe that every album on this site can (and should) be compared to others so that a fair and relative marking system is used.

 

Gentle Giant are demonstrably at the pinnacle of what is achievable in Prog Rock, in terms of compositional techniques - the foundation of the genre, and Genesis are indisputably one of the bands that define what Prog Rock is.

 

Hence, the comparision is completely fair.

 

 

*Next time you have a discussion about my reviews, please extend an invitation to me - I'm flattered that you should wish to discuss my creations, but I'd like to know what you're saying about me so I can defend myself!

 

Yes, I listened to the album.

 

I'm familiar with "growling", and, compared to other growling I've heard, it is comic book sounding. Maybe that's not a technical term - but growling is not a documented technique, so forgive me for making up my own language to describe it.

 

The lyrics are not exactly Gabriel, Hammill or Fish standard by any stretch of the imagination - and, on the whole, seem shallow to me compared to those luminaries.

 

I'm afraid you're right, I don't know what Progressive metal is yet - but I am discovering as I listen to more and more of it.

 

Note: No-one "gets" me to review albums - I do so because I enjoy it and was invited by the site's owners to do so.

 

I happen to like vocals that sound natural, even if they do tend to sing flat (like ALL singers without exception) - I'm not that keen on over-processed sounds.

 

Just wanted to make that point - otherwise, I agree with what you're saying!

 

I don't mind discussing my reviews - there seems to be an undercurrent of misunderstanding about some of them at the moment, which I'd be VERY happy to clear up in as many threads as it takes - so this is a good first step.

 

Intelligiblity isn't the issue - growling doesn't have to be particularly intelligible.

 

At the points I mentioned, I used the phrase "comic-book", because it made me want to laugh - but also cringe a little, as I found it rather cheesey, and when I looked up the lyrics, completely inappropriate.

 

It's the tone that seems to be wrong - note I said that he later uses it in a way that I would consider more appropriate.

 

coleio wrote: And no they probably are'nt like Fish or Hammill, yet as prog is all about originality and progressing, churning out the same lyrics and using the same lyrical themes and techniques like others would be a contradiction surely?

 

Indeed - but I meant that they're obviously not as good in terms of lyric writing technique, or depth - they're all surface and require no imagination or intellectual activity to understand.

 

Hardly progressive.

 

coleio wrote: I myself find them quite poetic and effective at creating mental imagery, but then again that's just me and as opinion is subjective I won't say anymore on the matter.

 

You're welcome to your opinions, but I don't find them particulary poetic - apart from the fact that they rhyme in regular places. They're too obvious and "in your face" - like pop lyrics.

 

coleio wrote: I just feel that the comparison between differing styles of prog to be quite illogical, that's all.

 

I just compare prog music to other prog music - that's all. The logic appears to be sound - what's illogical about it?

 

If one group is demonstrably better or more progressive in some ways than another, then it's a worthwhile excercise for anyone keen on exploring truly progressive music to keep things relative.

 

The logic is in the yardsticks used to measure that progressiveness.

 

It is those you should examine, not the end result - which will always be opinion.

 

 

Anyway, while I feel flattered at the attention that my reviews are getting (any publicity is GOOD publicity), this thread is NOT about discussing my reviews in any depth - just one particular comment.

 

There was another thread in which my reviews were discussed, and that discussion has now been ended by the site Admins.

 

Feel free to start another, if you want to continue this topic, however.

 

 

In the meantime, back to vocal correction software and its use - did Akerfeldt use it? Does anyone actually care that much? What are its merits or disadvantages?

 

 

Reviews are opinions. Pure and simple.

 

 If I were to take Cert's reviews with this review's standard and compare it to yours I'd say you're not completely out of sin. I personally though there were much worse and biased reviews than his (which in fact, I found explicit and rich information-wise).

 

 BTW: It's more probable to say they used pitch correction software. Peter Gabriel has been around the music industry for more than 30 years and VCS were introduced in the mid-90's by Antares (which didn't affect other aspects of the sound), so what you're saying doesn't make sense. You're accusing someone for the same sin you commit