Voto:
On some points, I can agree with you (the loss of attenuation, the keyboardist who annoys me too, embracing trends, etc.), but on others, I think differently, perhaps because unlike you, I'm not a purist of death metal (not that there's anything wrong with being a purist, mind you, but it's obvious that opinions will differ). The substantial difference in thought lies in the fact that you accuse them of becoming metalcore, while they were once legends of technical brutal death. Okay, aside from the fact that I don’t see them as metalcore but rather as technical death metal with metalcore and deathcore influences, in my opinion, we should detach from the forced comparison with their old discography and evaluate their current proposal objectively. If a band is metalcore, does that mean they suck? No. The musical genre itself is never negative; it depends on how it’s played. I believe that those who don’t appreciate this album do so not only for objective reasons but simply because they don’t accept the change in the band they were fans of. The same thing happened with St. Anger by Metallica; granted, it wasn’t exactly a good album, it was full of flaws, and I didn’t like it much, but there were still some good points. Yet it was literally buried in criticism simply because it was made by METALLICA, accused of a shift in direction without considering the actual proposal. Now, this doesn’t sit well with me. In the new Cryptopsy album, there are good ideas, and I think there are quite a few. You don’t like the new musical direction? Okay, no problem, listen to their old albums. But why force a band to FOSSILIZE for eternity on just one genre and reheated soup endlessly? Sometimes the selfishness of a band's fans scares me. Maybe every now and then it wouldn’t hurt to put yourself in the band’s shoes during the creative process... They've made quite a few albums; I think it’s normal for them to want to change. I don’t think it’s a financial matter (since they haven’t earned anything from the change; on the contrary, they’ve lost old fans without gaining new ones). Rather, I see it as a courageous act. It doesn’t seem to me that the basis of their change is the wallet; I see it as illogical and unrealistic; sure, I could be wrong because I’m not in their heads, but for now, I have this opinion. You tell me the singer sounds like a teenager at his first sexual encounter, and you open a round bracket saying (death metal?) while talking about clean vocals. Now, be honest, doesn’t that seem like a purist view with blinders on? Who said that there can’t be clean vocals in death metal? Has a legal decalog of death metal been written in codes and clauses? If it fits and the effect is good, I say: welcome clean vocals! (obviously, if the result sucks, I would think differently, but it doesn’t seem to be the case with Cryptopsy). A gay teenager? Maybe because it reminds you of metalcore? To me, McGachy seems like a good singer; he has a good growl, and his clean voice doesn’t come off as forced or out of tune at all. So technically, he’s a good singer, but if you can’t stand clean vocals in death metal, it will be normal to call his voice that of a "gay teenager" when objectively it isn’t at all. In short, your argument is too based on the death genre and the comparison with the “old” Cryptopsy, and it gives me the impression that you, being an old fan, haven’t been able to assess the album as an objective reviewer should, fan or not. If you can’t stand anything about the new album from a purely COMPOSITIONAL standpoint, then I would say a respectful DEGUSTIBUS resolves everything. That said, I certainly don’t expect to change your mind, but simply to present my point of view, which I feel is necessary since tearing down an album means nullifying all the work and creativity behind it, and that’s something to do with caution, and unfortunately, it’s abused too much on DeBaser (if an album doesn't align with personal tastes, I see scores of 1 f
