relentless

The worst part of that, I feel, is that the person actively trying to get videos removed are supporting the band's label more than the band, right? We live in this era of brand loyalty I don't think we've ever seen to this degree where people are defending their favorite products, and by extension the companies that make them. If anything, it's the record labels that are laughing all the way to the bank with fans like these. And on the topic of ignoring requests to share releases: I've enjoyed reading everyone's take on the topic with great contributions to both sides of the argument. I'm far more laid-back with my approach than I would say most are. If someone is requesting me to upload an album I'll do it if I can, especially if that person is a new fan to the respective band / genre they are inquiring about. There is nothing better than opening the doors to a new fan to show them what a group has to offer. It seems like some get far more requests than others, and I'm one of the people that don't get asked often so perhaps that's why I'm willing to engage these people. If I don't have the recording available, I won't ignore them though, because then that just makes everything awkward for everyone. A quick response telling them you are unable to share the album in question should suffice, and if they complain or insult? Who cares? It's just a damn CD and both parties can live past not downloading / not sharing that release.

Is this single really that bad? I haven't listened to the whole thing and from opinions up to this point, it doesn't sound too promising.

Very fitting, and oddly cute.

After reading through the reviews, it looks like no one has based their review score off of the poor song titles. I believe I was the only one to make a humorous jab at them; but people getting worked up over a joke doesn't seem likely. Perhaps I missed something.

Where has has this occurred?

I'm also curious about this "bang bang" and "pew pew" analogy.

In this instance "progress" is used only to signify a progression in the understanding of traditional forms of Classical and the development of harmony within that movement. It's not progress as in "Schoenberg's Twelve-tone technique is an improvement over Bach's horizontal method of harmony"; but in the sense of "Schoenberg's Twelve-tone technique develops new concepts in harmony that yields to greater understanding of tonality and its uses". It's a new understanding of traditional forms and how to present them. It's not that any more value is placed on the twelve-tone technique (if anything, my personal preferences lie with Bach, not Schoenberg), it's that there is a development from the traditional forms to present something new that can be explored and studied as well as offering a different perspective on music not available in the 17th and 18th centuries. That's the only "progress" that is evident: greater understanding of music with new theories to inform studying and composing music. One is not better than the other, as both of them are important in the development of harmony and tonality, It's not necessarily "progress over __________" kind of music, it is simply a progression in study, understanding, and writing of music thereafter. Classical is rooted in traditional forms and over the hundreds of years those forms have been developed. Music went from horizontal to vertical (chord based) in the late 17th to 18th century with Rameau and various scholars and composers before him. This yielded a greater understanding as to the relation of notes to each other. Then we get atonality in the 20th century and the twelve-tone technique that acted as a similar development (though admittedly far less popular) as before with a further understanding of what's possible in music, and a new form that can be gauged by a movement (Classical) that is based in those forms. I don't like using "progress" in the sense that something progresses OVER something else, especially in Classical when there is constant development of forms. Instead I look at it as another means of development in how we look at and understand music: a natural progression. This becomes problematic because many bands that "progress" in sound in Popular Music don't change at all. People talk of "progress" in Popular Music to signify a change to a style or genre that was different from before: this says nothing about their compositions, and in most cases there's not even any development in the music. A band could play a chord progression in a certain genre or style, add distortion to that progression, change the tempo, change the instruments, and that would be seen as "progress" by people which i wholeheartedly agree is dubious. It's just that in the case of theory and our understanding of music, new ideas and forms only show a progression for the sake of study and understanding. There's no value assigned to them other than preference, which doesn't really have a place in a discussion on harmony.

Who decides? Scholars in their respective fields, mainly. "Progress" in the context you are using it may imply change that is "good" or "bad"; but when discussing evolving forms of art, it is seen as progress on the grounds that it is developing a new concept that yields greater understanding to the medium, yes, even in aesthetics. A better example would have been Schoenberg over Bach. Can we objectively say that Schoenberg is better than Bach or vice versa? No. That is an extra-musical value judgement that has no place in the discussion of "progression"; but what of Schoenberg's Twelve-tone technique? With the avoidance of traditional harmony we were introduced to atonality, and "free atonality" by Schoenberg. Is what he developed objectively good? No. That's another value judgement; but is it progress? Yes. It is a development of harmony and a development of old forms to yield a fresh take on music. One does not have to like Schoenberg's twelve-tone technique; but by yielding a greater understanding of music and the relation of notes, we see the very progression in our modern understanding of music. Whether this "progression" is good or bad is entirely dependent on the listener; but that does not mean it is non existent. EDIT: Though, here we are trying to take Art Music standards of musical development and apply it to Popular Music, which a lot of the time can be dubious as you said.

12012's supposed last release (before this "indefinite hiatus" that seems more like a marketing gimmick than anything) is here. How is it? How does it compare to their recent efforts of THE SWAN and other ventures into metal that can only be described as "Whatever Dir en grey's doing, let's attempt the same"? Well, for one thing, this sure as hell isn't Sadie. Good thing? Bad thing? Let's go through the tracklist and find out: 1. Vicious of Absolution - First, let me say that if this album were to be judged on its song titles, it would have gotten a 0/10 from the start. "Vicious of Absolution"? "Story of a Different Dimension?" and the cringe-worthy, yet aptly titled "Alone"? Really? Well...now that's out of my system: The mini-album starts with "Vicious of Absolution" which is mostly a ballad that, even in the face of variation of some of the music and instruments displayed, acts in true generic ballad form. The bridge and chorus are the selling points of this song, and they aren't ashamed to show this. Well, they should have been as that hinders anything else that the song had going for it in the first place. A poor opener; but a good way to lay the groundwork for what else is in store. 2. Story of a Different Dimension - Another terrible title with one of the best intros 12012 has ever done. Holy shit, wait...this might be one of the better things they've ever done in this truly spotty "heavy" phase they've been going in and out of for the past few years. This isn't just some shitty and stereotypical diminished scale run (though that comes later), and in that moment I was able to let out a deep breath -- this may start getting better than expected. Just when I thought I couldn't be more surprised, there's a measure that features a descending chromatic line to bridge sections -- did they really just do that? Ok, this is starting to turn out pre-- I started praising this a bit too quickly. After the formulaic catchy chorus, there is a variation in the guitar line of the verse (this song is actually going somewhere!); but suddenly the song ends exactly how it started. How did they fuck that up? How did 12012 take one of the best things they have ever done (better than that riff in Deadly Circus which was legit) and go NOWHERE with it? At the end the track feels like it went nowhere even with the amount of effort clearly put into the rest of the song. Well...things are starting to look like true 12012 form now. 3. The Red - Wow! Dimished scales! Chugging from the guitars! Ok, I'm being sarcastic. This, just like every poor attempt by Dir en grey, is 12012 trying really hard to sound as heavy as possible; but only drawing on things done 100x over by Dir en grey alone (and done throughout extreme metal conventions) to set themselves apart. There's even some half-step trills in the beginning that sound like they want to be badass SOOOO BADLY when it just comes off as a musical joke. Drawing on metal conventions and doing nothing with it has been the curse of Sadie, and even when 12012 are at their strongest there are hints of that inability to truly distinguish themselves in a given genre / style that has made Sadie the joke they are today. In the bridge there is a developmental section of the opening riff but it doesn't do a whole lot with it. Just slides down the scale a few steps and back up with tremolo picking as if that is some revelatory moment in the song that is supposed to surprise us. At this point, with tiny changes being shaped in the verses, I'm tired of these shitty choruses. I used to long for 12012 choruses; but in this song I am interested in everything BUT it -- why? One needs to go through their entire discography and listen to every chorus to find out why. Again, even when it's not a ballad, the Chorus is emphasized so much when that is the last musically interesting aspect of the song. Suddenly, the Verse stops changing and results in just being another throwaway section to close the song out. 4. Alone - Another ballad. There's not much to say aside from summing up my thoughts on the first track. Everything is there in the ballad that you'd expect. 5. Aqua -- Here it is, the big finish to (possibly) 12012's last release. And what a surprise that it's just over 9 minutes long....this, for everyone, should have been the first red flag. 12012 doing a song longer than 5 minutes? No thanks; but I kept my hopes up because for the most part, though largely mediocre, the leaps 12012 have made since The Swan have been pretty significant. Well...this will go down as one of the worst attempts by 12012 at a long track, one of the worst closers by 12012, and one of the worst songs on an album in recent memory. "Isn't that a little harsh, though? One of the worst songs on an album in recent memory. Surely you can't be--" No, it's as bad as I make it out to be. With a piano intro and a slow build, we are assaulted with not only a painfully formulaic ballad; but one that -- get this -- DOESN'T CHANGE KEYS FOR THE ENTIRE 9 MINUTES AND 17 SECONDS. WHAT. THE. HELL. In B major with only glimpses at the beginning of a change (in the first 10 seconds), this song goes literally nowhere for over 9 minutes. Repeated chorus over and over again, piano sections, and a painfully slow fade-out that reduces this mini-album to a whimper which is the essence of what's wrong with this release. Truly, this is the only track that is genuinely BAD. You have your typical moments where the band hits the iii and vi chords for that SUPER EMOTIONAL moment, the solo that sounds like it's ripped from a poor tablature of November Rain (not the good solo at the end, I would never expect 12012 to do anything like that), and a progression that sputters over and over worse than one of the worst performances of a Grateful Dead song (when Garcia was nodding off on Heroin stage left), this song is the epitome of what not to do when given the opportunity to write a 10 minute song. Where's the development? The recapitulation? Coda...? Where is ANYTHING that would make this an interesting composition? It's absent, and something that left such a bad taste in my mouth that I had to reassess my experience of the mini-album because of it. Overall: The first few tracks though largely straight forward and typical 12012 (great ideas, poor execution), there are many moments where I was amazed. I was stunned at what 12012 was able to do given this is their last shot; but this was all for nothing when "Aqua" shows up at the end in all of its 9 minutes and 17 seconds of glory. Aqua is bad, it's horrendous, and sadly ruins the albums finish. This mini-album had SO MUCH going for it; but all hope was lost. At least this isn't Sadie who, given this material, probably would have said "hey, that chromatic line is a bit too harsh on my tender ears. Can we change that to a I-IV-V progression? What's that? We've already done that? Well...can we do it again? OK, let's do it". Moments of genius and a level of growth they have been missing their entire careers; but ultimately bogged down with lazy writing at times, and one of the worst songs I've heard in a long time. At least this isn't Sadie. At least this isn't "GANGSTA" 5/10

Recommended slasher films? I've seen the staples such as the Halloween, Nightmare on Elm St., and Friday the 13th Franchises along with Black Christmas, My Bloody Valentine (remake and original), The Burning, and Sleepaway Camp. Any lesser known that are also worth checking out?

Don't we all?

1. Do you feel like you are entitled to free music? If you do, why? If you don't, why not? - No because at the end of the day I recognize that composers and musicians are in music to not only express their art; but to make a living as well. Whatever bit I can do to help to the groups / Composers / musicians I like, I will do. Groups I have no interest in though, I will generally sample before purchasing and if I don't like what I hear, I won't buy. 2. How do you feel about people refusing to share their music because they want to support the band? - It's their right to do so. No complaints here. If I had a problem with that, then it would be a direct contradiction to what I have written above. 3. In relation to the second question, what do you think of people who tell others not to share something they themselves paid money for as they think its content is exclusively for those who paid for it? - That they are too entitled to the business aspect of music with not enough emphasis put on the music itself. You'd think a genuine fan of a group would encourage as many people as possible to listen to their favorite bands; but in many cases with VK fans they wall off their musical tastes, "protecting" their favorite bands by trying to make everyone else conform to how they want you to consume music. 4. Do you think entitlement to free music is worse in visual kei than in other communities? - Maybe. I have never come across this sense of entitlement outside of VK to this degree. Even in Classical, where there is a greater importance of album sales and performance than in VK, the sharing is widespread and not necessarily frowned upon. At the same time though, it's generally looked down upon if you don't at least contribute something whether it's buying an album or attending a performance when you can. 5. How do you feel about people who deliberately share releases in low bitrates to encourage you to buy the CD? Do you think that if someone does decide to share, you're entitled to the highest rip? - They're a waste of time. If something is a low bitrate making instruments inaudible then I wasted time and need to move onto the next rip to judge whether I want to make a purchase or not. And it's not that I'm entitled to a high quality rip; but for the sake of assessing a product accurately I prefer it. 6. Have you ever been approached by people, either on Monochrome Heaven or last.fm, who wanted you to share something? If you didn't want to share, how did they react? What did you think of their reaction? - Maybe once or twice. In the event that I had the release in question, I was willing to help out. There have been other times when I have volunteered to rip DVDs for people. To my knowledge, my rip of the 2008 Rose Trims Again show by Dir en grey is still floating around.

At the end of the day, I guess Sadie has potential to write great music; but so does any group in Pop, Rock, or Metal. If the Beatles could go from an average Pop group to songwriting gods in the span of 3 years, then I'm sure Sadie could do the same. The question is: Do they want to? With their music, there is no inherent need to go out and try anything new and to challenge themselves as artists. The only thing that truly seems to factor into how a piece of music will sound, is the level of distortion on their guitars. Other than that, the forms and ideas they are constantly drawing from have all been the same. Sadie could write something like this: but I'm willing to put money down on the fact they never will. They will never sit there and go "hey, let's throw in some dense harmonies", or "hey let's not play in 4/4 for once". Instead they will keep doing what they are doing, in hope that their fans in Japan keep buying it.

When I first read the title of this album, I couldn't believe my eyes. Looking at the tracklisting, I was optimistic to hear some bizarre metal, pop, and rap fusion with titles such as "MODE OF GANGSTA", "WELCOME TO THE UNDERGROUND", "SHOOT THE TARGETS HIDDEN IN YOUR MIND", and "RIZE A FLAG". What we get, is far more disappointing in many ways that make this one of the worst VK releases of recent memory. In the past I have been critical of girugamesh, GazettE, Dir en grey, and 12012; but in each of their cases they do things I find to be interesting and a reason to bring me back to try out another release -- Sadie is a completely different story. With GANGSTA, they have shown that even at their worst there is nothing redeemable about the music they are (currently) making. My issues are broken down into 5 main points: 1. Songs are too long (your average track clocks in over 4 minutes) 2. The length of these tracks are, across the entire album, unwarranted 3. Uninspiring repetition with no sign of variation or development 4. Songs that even in their length, go nowhere 5. Awkward track placement, flow, and a general lack of cohesion as an album Song length and repetition - In many cases the length of a song doesn't factor into my like/dislike for an album; but Sadie makes an exception. Whether it's a song based off the same chord progression played over and over again for 6+ minutes (MESSAGE FROM HERE), or a song that continuously bounces from a Slipknot/GazettE copy-cat section to a pop punk chorus with no change (HATE ME OR LOVE ME), the album would have benefited from sections cut from each song without any detriment to the presentation. I'm not kidding: if each song was condensed to 2.5 minutes, no content would be missing aside from repeated sections that show up nearly 5 times already. This is perhaps the biggest problem with this album: the length of it and its tracks are unwarranted. There's no reason for it other than to fill space. Uninspired repetition and songs that go nowhere - Tied into what was said above, none of these songs ever break from their conventional mold to try anything different. You get the same choruses and verses as featured in every Sadie album before this, and tracks that will abandon ideas and hop to a new one in hope of finding something good. A song is based off of the most generic riff (and sticks with it) throughout the song (RIZE A FLAG), a song throws in spoken word sections that destroys momentum (THE NEVER), and another includes a screeching synth that goes from drowning out the band to being an afterthought in the background (HOWLING). The worst of this problem would be the track SHOOT THE TARGETS IN YOUR MIND that stops on multiple occasions, goes nowhere with each presented progression, and relies on one of the first sections to close the song after disposing of useless riff after useless riff that do nothing but bring you to the next chorus, verse, bridge, or...breakdown.... Awkward track placement and flow - Can someone tell me what the hell a track like Gesshoku is doing between SHOOT THE TARGETS IN YOUR MIND and TOKYO GYPSY? Those songs have more business being on their own release than on this album as those are the only two tracks that sound alike and everything else sounds completely different from them. One minute you get something that sounds like it's from a Slipknot demo, then a soft ballad or rock song with a clap track and synth. This album doesn't have the focus that their older releases did: there's no direction. At this point it feels like Saide are throwing ideas at the wall and seeing what interests them the most. Everything is wrong with this album. Poorly titled, poorly structured, poorly written, and just plain too long. 0/10

I didn't think you were coming off as rude. I was speaking generally as well.

Even though the classification of bands can be largely arbitrary as you said, that does not mean the discussion of those things are as well. It offers insight into people's tastes, their understandings of music, and their views of music. There is a general fear to engage in such talk as it can often degrade into a shit storm; but that doesn't mean any conversation on the topic shouldn't happen....just, not in a girugamesh review thread. edit: dont know why I put Sadie..

"Genre"'s in popular music are flimsy. Today, there is hardly a basis for taking Metal and breaking it into nearly 100 subgenres where as something so small as tempo or the level of distortion on a guitar can determine what "Genre" or "subgenre" a group falls into. If Djent is categorized by a sound modeled after Meshuggah, then it can be considered at the very least, a subgenre. Not considering it a genre, or a subgenre, is generally negative reaction at the recent influence Meshuggah has had on up-and-coming bands.

More formulaic than the Quadratic Formula. The only good thing I can is is: "Well, at least it's not 12012 or Sadie" What are they doing?/10

No. They pulled the same thing with Uroboros with constantly talking about how it blended the old with the new. How it was representatitive of their entire career of music, etc. Sure enough, anyone that wanted pre-Vulgar material were disappointed because if there were any influences to their older work, it was only there in passing and insignificant to the direction they were going. It is possible that they are going about this differently than Uroboros and will draw more heavily from their older material to inform the new album; but whenever the band makes promises like that they turn out underwhelming because it's not quite what they are leading it on to be. Hell, this could even be a lazy attempt at a cash grab for the band if they feel enough fans of their older material don't follow them anymore. That's not out of the realm of possibility; but I'm not so pessimistic as to believe something like that.

I'm willing to bet on the tracks largely being 3.5 minutes long. With 16 tracks that's nearly an hour of material -- huge for your average rock record. If there are multiple tracks over that length, this could be stretched out into an hour and ten minutes or more. Dum Spiro Spero didn't fair too well with me partly because of its length (a track here or there could have been removed), and that only had 14 songs @ 67 minutes.

Yeah you're right. Just too drunk to pick that shit out and because of their tuning I assumed it was 7 strings. It's very rare to get that chunky of a sound off a 6 string. I must have been seeing shit because in one video I thought Nii was playing a 7 string; but then again I've also thought a handful of other guitarists were using 7 strings and weren't...sooo...... XII or The Swan? The Swan had one track that I thought was cool from the main riff: DEADLY CIRCUS. But they do NOTHING with that badass riff. They get it to fit one measure and play it over, and over, and over, and over, and over again with no variation. At least modulate and do something with it. 12012 can't even be bothered to do that. Instead they take this badass riff with incredible potential if it was in the hands of a prog metal band, and go nowhere with it.

I finally listened to the previews. In some ways I really like what they're doing; but in others I'm underwhelmed. Just like their previous album everything is dressed up as sounding "new" when they're sticking to the same conventions that they've done throughout their career and adding a bit of flair to it. This is good and bad for me (upon initial listen of the previews), and where I feel like this release will end up going. There's some really awesome guitar work in there that is largely absent from Dir en grey, 12012, GazettE, Sadie, etc. Even though riddled with breakdowns and chugging done 100x over, Nii isn't taking the easy way out with power chords and simple chord progressions for the chorus. There is actual work and skill put into the sort-of shredding that he does in between the chugging riffs. I've always enjoyed Nii's playing, even when I've been at odds with their music. The part that bothers me though, is my complaint with Monster: it's the same thing just dressed up differently to give the appearance of legitimate musical change when there is none. The level of distortion or the switch to extended range guitars (Nii was playing a 7 string last time I checked) =/= musical progress. Musical progress relies on how the music is structured, written, and where the band goes with it. What is girugamesh doing here? Nothing different than what they've been doing their entire career. Everything is in common time and features a half-step resolution at the end of every measure to lead into the next. Not only that; but sprinkle in some quick diminished hammer-on's and pull off's to add to the metalcore vibe. It's lazy; but in a way that is not only formulaic, it's underwhelming. Is it too difficult to extend a musical idea? Why can't a progression last longer than the given measure? Why don't they go anywhere with the music? Despite that very harsh criticism, I'm still excited as this is an even further step away from that mess known as "GO" EDIT: Just noticed the album is already up for download. Looks like I'll be listening to that next.

Uroboros, for me. The band had previously released two underwhelming albums with Withering to Death and Marrow of a Bone that featured a weird mash-up of influences in their infancy: pop, nu-metal, and metalcore. The albums featured the same variation in sound across different genres and subgenres; but never really explored them. They were there, as if superficial, to show that Dir en grey was trying REALLY hard to show that they can write heavy music: That they are a competent band outside of the VK scene. It was on Uroboros that they were able to finally release an album to the world where they were like "see? We can do this shit too". Though not a flawless masterpiece, it featured the band at a level of songwriting maturity previously unknown to them. EDIT: spelling

You're a bit more optimistic than I am. This single took everything Crossfaith was about, and watered it down to feature more cleans and an emphasis on the electronic parts. Their previous album hinted at this change; but here it is even more evident. I became turned off to their music when Apocalyze came out, and with this single I have grown even more distant. There's no longer that energy I had in anticipation for new releases. Instead that's been replaced with dread: a fear of where they're going with their music and what it will become.

"slow flowing compositions"? What does that even mean? Slow indicates tempo; but "flowing"? What are you trying to describe here? And more importantly, what is it about these "slow flowing compositions" that are evident in both sukekiyo's music, and the 12012 previews? EDIT: for clarification