In my view, a really good CD does one of the following two things:
1. It gives you that kazoom! experience. It starts on a high, and it never really comes down. Eternal bliss.
2. Itís not that marvellous, your reception is lukewarm, youíre hesitant at best, but you give it another chance and one spin becomes another, and after a while, you realise that youíre hooked.
Either way, listening to music is a personal experience no matter how objective you try to be, it will always be subjectivity that wins in the end Ė and I defy those reviewers who claim the opposite. There are all sorts of technical elements that you can draw into the arena, but in the end, it all comes down to if you like it or not.
And what Iím getting at here is that no matter how raving the other reviews of Desasterís latest opus are, it falls into neither of the two categories mentioned above for me.
Why? Could be the fact that Sataniacís voice sounds like a mixture of Mille, Schmier and Tom Angelripper as they sounded in the mid-eighties Ė something that was ultimately cool back then, but doesnít really have to be repeated over again? Could be because thereís absolutely nothing exciting about all the tested recipes used (although itís delivered professionally enough)?
Iím not saying that it is necessarily bad to be caught up in the 80s Ė I just think that some have a more interesting take on it than others. Desasterís take is not one for me.