Don't normally like to comment on people's reviews because they are subjective opinions.
That being said, I don't get what your whole perception of the djent scene has to do with this as an individual album. If fans got into it thinking it was a genre and not a technique what does that have to do with animals as leaders music?
The main idea of the review, aside from the critique, was to emphasize how Weightless breaks the trends that the self-titled helped set.
|It also seems like you don't care for the jazz infusion into progressive or technical metal but you don't state what the preferable alternative is. Although you don't either clarify an alternative or why this influence is negative you then continue the rest of your review speaking about it as a definitive weakness to both animals as leaders and technical metal as a whole.|
" to help dissolve the quicksand of trends and myths that engulf progressive metal, but if written as well or better than Weightless, they will join Animals as Leaders as being the pivotal change in pulling the genre out, just as they led the way into it."
I guess sentences like this are just my problem with reviews as a whole and what the blogosphere or critic community turns music into.
If they led the way in this genre then since they are the originators is it really a negative to then eschew classical jazz influences? They aren't the copycats they are the leaders so ditching a style they helped innovate because they now have pretenders seems nonsensical.
I do care for it. In fact, I love it. I'm just tired of it becoming a fad. It's not that the incorporation of jazz itself is a weakness, it's the fad that surrounds it and stops progression which is the weakness. If bands can come up with creative ways to incorporate that then I'm all for it, but when they don't, a fad-breaking album from a big name is necessary to progress the genre. Intended or otherwise, that's what Weightless does. At any rate, I'm glad that Tosin & co. were able to unwittingly make the progressions while simply making music they love. It proves that they're deserving of the attention they receive because they are able to create progression organically.
|More to the point though I hate how you seem to phrase the composition of music. I can almost guarantee that Animals as Leaders (and 99% of bands that write there own songs) don't sit down and say things like "ok last album was good but now we have copy cats lets make a decision right now that we are not going to write anything with x, y and z in it."|
I am in no way the same league as a Tosin Abasi but as someone who has been playing guitar for a decade and has written with lots of bands I can tell you that's generally not how it works. You either through jamming with the band or off by your own writing try and come up with something that you think is rad. What defines the music you are happy enough with to record is not some pre-set list of rules you put in place for the album. It is instead built off your entire collection of musical influences, events in your life, playing abiliity, etc. Meaning it comes from your collective experience in life not from some sort of direct rules especially as they apply to trying to fit into a fractured and contentious genre like Metal.
I agree, but also I would think a genius of Tosin's caliber would appreciate the value of constant progression, and as I stated before would have no problem doing something new while still remaining true to his own individual creativity and writing honest music that he loves. When someone truly appreciates music, progression is not a hard task to complete, and the way you're speaking about progression and individual identity as being mutually exclusive is entirely fallacious.
|Inspiration and creativity are organic which is why trying to dice up their end product into specific meanings and sub-contexts is frankly just annoying.|
I agree, but inspiration and creativity are not always present (especially in fad genres where you have bands seeking only money or attention instead of making the art they love), which in combination with general musical ignorance is what creates the specific meanings and sub-contexts I explained in the review. To deny that they don't exist is simply being blind, especially after the musicians themselves have admitted to witnessing it.