Newest Review: ... singer has i sinister sound. the only problem with them is almost every song sounds the same, and they have too many members but thats what... more
It takes NINE guys to make music like this??
Slipknot in general
Member Name: cswann
Slipknot in general
Date: 13/08/01, updated on 01/10/01 (234 review reads)
Advantages: Tracks seem to be very short
Disadvantages: The music's really incidental, isn't it?
I first heard a Slipknot record sort of by accident, on the radio. Sure, I'd heard OF them, heard a lot about them, read a lot about them - their act, the apparently disgusting things that form part of their act - I'd just not heard any of their music.
Because, let's face it, with a band like Slipknot, their reputation precedes them. The hideous masks, their onstage persona, even their names (their numbers, should I say). I'd quickly got the idea that they slotted somewhere within some genre, no doubt with a specific name, but essentially heavy / noise / metal.
...and, yes, I'd also formed the impression that I probably wouldn't like their music.
I have some pretty heavy and discordant stuff in my own record collection. The Pixies, Husker Du, The Archers of Loaf... even my Iron Butterfly CD (recorded 1968) - all music that's been known to make other people in the house shriek about me turning the volume down. I don't think that, musically, I shrink from 'noise' as such.
Anyway, back to Slipknot...
The Steve Lamacq Show was on the Radio as I came into the room, and the track playing was one that, for some reason just made me think straight away, "that sounds like the sound that a band that look like Slipknot would make" ? in my not very articulate way.
It had faint, rhythmic guitars, scuzzily played, but pretty much in the background, Very much to the fore, was a screaming vocal. Mostly the lyrics were unintelligible, but I think I caught the word "sex" every so often. It didn't progress much, sounded the same all the way through, but thankfully the track was very short, so it was over soon. And, sure enough, I was informed that it was a Slipknot track.
So... to be frank, I don't like their music at all, in fact I think it's extremely bad music.
And the overriding thought I keep having is this - how can it take nine guys to make
d of, essentially straightforward, noise... I mean, Husker Du could make a great racket, and there were only three of them. According to my reckoning there must be at least 4 guys in Slipnot stood around twiddling their thumbs at recording sessions.
I apologise for not writing more about the music itself. You know, a detailed review of the album, and so on. That's because I've only heard one Slipknot track. It was only short, but it somehow managed to be all of the following things: nothing special / boring / noisy / predictable.
Predictable in more than one way, actually. In the sense that the music offered no surprises whatsoever, and never seemed to even promise any.
But also predictable in a far more serious way: if Slipknot ended up sounding just like I expected they would, what does that say about how predictable they are in general?
I don't like making snap judgements, when it comes to music, but what I heard sounded dire - why would I want to hear anything else by them?
I make no apologies for not writing more about the band. The outrage, the band members, and so on. But I honestly feel it's been done to death, and frankly I'm not impressed by them at all - so for me to go on again about the stage antics or the obscenities would just reinforce what already seems to be the case - that Slipknot's image is far more important than their music.
Which of course, it is. The image, and the marketing (let's not forget all the merchandising - all those NINE masks to sell to the punters!)
I'm going to try my best to avoid hearing anything by Slipknot ever again.