Apparently In Flames re-recorded Clayman...
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 8 of 36

Thread: Apparently In Flames re-recorded Clayman...

  1. #1


    Join Date: Jun 2010
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    ME: Ibanez RGs
    MA: Cordoba Custom Flamenco
    MB: Ibanez SRs
    Rig: 5153 / Kemper

    iTrader: 0

    Apparently In Flames re-recorded Clayman...

    …and it's terrible.

    So here's the original instead.


  2. Thanked by:


  3. Remove Advertisements
    MetalGuitarist.org
    Advertisements
     

  4. #2


    Join Date: Apr 2015
    Location: Sweden
    ME: Solar A1.6ET
    Rig: Kemper

    iTrader: 0

    I have never listened to In Flames (I actually haven't even conciously heard them before this) so I have no bias to either version so my "unbiased" take on this is:

    The new version isn't necessarly better in the music department, it sounds more safe and boring, but personally I actually like the sharper vocals on the new version compared to the more dull singing on the original.

    I love the mindless parrot-repetitive comments about this.
    I've seen many people say it sounds thin compared to the original.

    THERE IS MORE LOW-END IN THE NEW RECORDING!!!

    How hard is it to listen?

  5. #3


    Join Date: Apr 2017
    Location: Kansas City
    ME: ESP E-II V-II
    Rig: Kemper and Marshall

    iTrader: 0

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocka_Rollas View Post
    I have never listened to In Flames (I actually haven't even conciously heard them before this) so I have no bias to either version so my "unbiased" take on this is:

    The new version isn't necessarly better in the music department, it sounds more safe and boring, but personally I actually like the sharper vocals on the new version compared to the more dull singing on the original.

    I love the mindless parrot-repetitive comments about this.
    I've seen many people say it sounds thin compared to the original.

    THERE IS MORE LOW-END IN THE NEW RECORDING!!!

    How hard is it to listen?
    The low end isn't the problem, it's weird to me that people would say that. To me, the problem is that it's dull, and the production is relatively raw and uninspired which makes it sound flat and lifeless compared to the original. The OG recording is bright, sharp, and punchy, none of which I'd use to describe the rerecording.
    C'mon son.

    Hellevate

  6. Remove Advertisements
    MetalGuitarist.org
    Advertisements
     

  7. #4


    Join Date: Apr 2015
    Location: Sweden
    ME: Solar A1.6ET
    Rig: Kemper

    iTrader: 0

    I agree with you about all points

    but I've seen a bunch of people actually calling it thin. That makes no sense since there's factually more low-end in the new version. Thats all I was saying hahaha

  8. #5


    Join Date: Jun 2011
    Location: Stockholm

    iTrader: 0

    It's just a more dynamic version... I can appreciate that, but I think I like the original more.

  9. #6


    Join Date: Oct 2008
    Location: Helsinki, Finland
    ME: 1990-91 Ibanezes
    MA: Seagull S6
    MB: Ibanez SR500
    Rig: Laney IRT Studio

    iTrader: 0

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocka_Rollas View Post
    I have never listened to In Flames (I actually haven't even conciously heard them before this) so I have no bias to either version so my "unbiased" take on this is:

    The new version isn't necessarly better in the music department, it sounds more safe and boring, but personally I actually like the sharper vocals on the new version compared to the more dull singing on the original.

    I love the mindless parrot-repetitive comments about this.
    I've seen many people say it sounds thin compared to the original.

    THERE IS MORE LOW-END IN THE NEW RECORDING!!!

    How hard is it to listen?
    There's more low end, but the guitars sound super thin because they seem to be lacking in mids.

    I don't think it's terrible, but it just sounds a bit dull.

    The original album is great though, although it was the album where Anders' screamed vocals really took a turn for the worse. The music was still really cool.
    "How can less be more? It's impossible. More is more."
    -Yngwie J. Malmsteen

  10. #7


    Join Date: Nov 2011
    Location: Portugal

    iTrader: 0

    Guitars sound super dull on new version... in fact they sound like most of guitars nowadays, almost like the amps have a blanket on top... there's no grit just smooth distortion.

  11. #8


    Join Date: Oct 2008
    Location: King of Prussia, PA
    ME: PRS CE22
    MA: Richard Cogger Classical
    MB: Fender Bulletbass
    Rig: Mesa Mark V/TA30

    iTrader: 3 (100%)

    Quote Originally Posted by Ola Englund View Post
    It's just a more dynamic version... I can appreciate that, but I think I like the original more.
    There's stuff I like about it but the original is hailed as some of the best guitar metal guitar tones for a reason. They didn't capture that magic so I definitely like the original much more.

Tags for this Thread


Fractal Audio Systems  Shred Training  Angel Vivaldi
Bowes Guitarworks  NumbSkull Audio Production



VigLink badge