Bishop: How did you know which album I had? Anyway, I'm listening to it now but I got side-tracked reading about burglar alarm services. Only partway through on a particularly interesting point about a man who removed his shoes before coming in did I remember I'd put the album on. I dunno man, maybe I've grown out of this sort of music. As a disclaiming - I've never heard this album before, so I'm coming in fresh. I'm on the track "Heartwork" and it reminds me heavily of an Arch Enemy song I can't quite put my finger on. I know Michael Amott's part of both - I'm just surprised, I honestly didn't realise how similar the styles could be at times.
Elliott: I remember you saying which album you had some years back. my take on heartwork is it can't decide what it wants to be. most carcass albums can't. it can't decide if it's death metal or heavy metal, so it trys to blend them into a weird melodic death sound. personally I always thought the sweeds did it better. but I don't want to spoil your impressions with my take. and yeah, arch enemy was like heartwork 2.0 but with a shit vocalist..that was until carcass recorded heartwork 2.0
Bishop: I resent the Arch Enemy point. The first few albums, the ones with Johan Liiva at the helm, were pretty brilliant in places. There was a dip when Angela joined, but it still had it's shining moments after they got a few more albums in. Then they got repetitive, but I digress. Maybe it's because I'm coming into this so late. It's like when you see a film that kick-started a certain genre, and you're dull to it because you've already seen everything that came after it and was influenced by it. This album just feels pretty bland to me. I can't put my finger on it, but I largely thing that's because there's nothing to put my finger on.
Elliott: yes, the first couple albums were good, i'll give you that. I was referring to the later material, when they decided to become a serious joke band if you know what I mean. my main problem with this album is it goes in one ear and out the other aside from a few intro riffs. the followup swansong actually had catchy songs, and the early grindcore stuff was just awesome, but this feels like fast food. you eat it and go..what'd it taste like? also do you get the idea that carcass doesn't know what they want to be on this album?
Bishop: Yeah, I agree with that totally. Them not knowing what they want to be could be an issue. It sorta sounds to me like a band that has no pressure on them, they create music and just sorta go, "Yeah, that sounds good" and sticks with it. It's like they had no pressure to try and stick out from the crowd like more generic bands do. Maybe that's an issue with being in such a niche market.
Elliott: I never thought of it like that but I agree, they wanted to expand and get a bit bigger but no one had any expectations. you were either blown away by the last album and thought they couldn't do better, or you thought the last was an overly long mess that went nowhere. this sounds like a band asking are we death metal or hard rock? rather than blending the two like Swedish bands they just seem confused. you'll get hard rock sections, blast sections..not very melodic either
Bishop: No, nothing really there in terms of melody. Maybe that's why it falls flat. I don't have a lot more to say on this. I don't really enjoy it, and I don't get the fuss, or why some people seem to hold it to high regard.
Elliott: the vocals are alright I guess. but yeah, carcass is really only 2 albums for me the first one and the last. Sweden did melodic death a lot better. this just feels machine like to me. not big on the production either