Sign in to follow this  
Summers

Giver - Every Age Has Its Dragons (Like an Empire) (Single) (2020)

10 posts in this topic

Release - January 15, 2020
Genre - Metalcore, Melodic Metalcore
Quality - MP3, 320 kbps CBR

 

Tracklist:

01. Every Age Has Its Dragons (Like an Empire) (3:32)

 

Download

 

Support!

Facebook / iTunes

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other Releases by

looking at their artworks and music videos you can tell they're hugely into that 1910-1940 (ballpark) big mood, great aesthetic, but sound's not doing anything to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sound is dope. Song is dope. 
New Defeater/MLIW. 
Best in the genre far and away right now. 
Said this when they released they're last single. Not great songs for marketing, and this one's sound is way more polished than the last one. It's like they're actually hard or something... gonna be a little inaccessible for the glitz-grabbers. Still, would not be surprised at all if this band goes the WSS route, and softens up next album or something, and then they get huge as they become shit. Our only real hope is they were angry when WSS did that, otherwise they'll probably fall prey just the same. 
But I'll take em as they are now. Album should be one of my most anticipated in hc in years. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and yikes, @deskget '1910-40 big mood aesthetics' off the Giver page for yikes' sake. Are you impressed with yourself?  lol, sorry. But it's image-based, and it reeks, like you're trying to relate to something you've studied so as to take pride in your knowledge of both art and history. 

This is music, not image. Read the vid. Its about living a righteous life. It's something you are, not something you wear.  Don't be part of the empire Bessy.  no hard feelings, insult for gain, not insult for insult's sake. hope you think about it, but not too much ;) much love. you're more than what I've criticized, friend. 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LionHeart24 said:

and yikes, @deskget '1910-40 big mood aesthetics' off the Giver page for yikes' sake. Are you impressed with yourself?  lol, sorry. But it's image-based, and it reeks, like you're trying to relate to something you've studied so as to take pride in your knowledge of both art and history. 

Can you explain exactly what you mean by "off the Giver page for yikes sake"? because I have no clue what you're talking about there, I literally just felt like at least a few of their MVs are going for that mood and so is the new album artwork and wanted to say that I like that pre-ww2 cinema vibe it gives off, but that I don't enjoy the music and you go on rambling on about something completely random..? I don't understand where I went wrong for saying that.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, desk said:

Can you explain exactly what you mean by "off the Giver page for yikes sake"? because I have no clue what you're talking about there, I literally just felt like at least a few of their MVs are going for that mood and so is the new album artwork and wanted to say that I like that pre-ww2 cinema vibe it gives off, but that I don't enjoy the music and you go on rambling on about something completely random..? I don't understand where I went wrong for saying that.

I can, but I'm not sure it'd be hugely clarifying, unless you really wanted to try to understand what I was saying. 

I hear that you were just saying something very simple that you liked. But in that opinion, I was hearing the reflection of a misunderstanding that this song and band sort of alludes to, and sometimes speaks upon, directly. This particular one talking about a general attitude or style of existence that is like an empire, which creates a system of nearly mythological images/idols (dragons) in the form of accepted beliefs, practices, etc. In our empire, people blog about aesthetics as a means of self-validation, and they like to share their studies/knowledge/etc. as a form of expression. They are a walking, blogging empire, passing on the exact mode of living that has people stuck in an unnatural and petty cycle of dependence-- on work, history, doctors/pills, social validation/likes, etc. The way you focused on '1910-40 big mood aesthetics' sounded, to me, like a reflection of being in a high school or college class and hearing a student try to validate themselves by relating to an already established concept/totality that a group could all relate to (an external summary of a whole array of specific art/ideas, a whole genre of aesthetic -- 1910-40 big mood aesthetics) rather than just treating the individual piece of work that would have to be felt personally by means of its actual, internal value which can never be explained or proven, only understood and believed in, its real effects felt. Giver, to me, is hardcore -- a way of treating the raw, internal force of soul/will/agency that truly makes life into what it is. The cause behind the reaction of two chemicals.  And when I listen to it, I understand more, and become more. So to watch someone just comment on the outside and miss out on the inside, is like c'mon bruh, why were you focused on the outside? You missed the good part because your attention was distracted by pettier things. So in that sense, by you targeting the aesthetic, you were basically stating yourself as the exact opposite of Giver, which focuses on the inside/the personal first, and therefore realizes the bigger Empire is just an accumulation of the personal empires that are the average person who carries out a cycle that the empire/system reproduces in the form of likes, preferences, perceptions, and behaviors.  You might say "I just like it" or "I just don't like it,"  and that I'm just saying all this because I like it, which I would have no real proof in your eyes for disputing, but in my opinion, that's a little short-sighted, or momentary, and your genuine like and preference is something that has to be uncovered and cultivated, and one opinion can definitely be closer to true than another, even in terms of preference.  

This all sounds quite pedagogical and long-winded, and is maybe no easier to understand, and all the easier to judge. That's why I initially just went with an emotive insult as a way of trying to evoke all this. It didn't work. But this usually doesn't either, but hey, maybe next person who says anything like this, you'll have something to relate back to and it won't be as confusing, less easy to judge as random or mystifying. Cheers. 

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@desk Also don't think you were wrong. You just said what you thought. Then I responded. Then you did. If we were both sufficiently receptive, I see no reason why we would have not both got a little righter. 
Even if I thought your opinion was mediocre or shallow, it would be totally fine to share it. How else would we tangibly observe our preferences and mature accordingly to our having seen them? 
I mean obviously don't share a shit opinion with a strnager face to face with a gun or anything, cause there'd be consequences. But there's not a huge level of consequences associated with one or even many bloggers disliking your opinion. The real effects of your preferences/ opinions are obviously way more important than that. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, LionHeart24 said:

I can, but I'm not sure it'd be hugely clarifying, unless you really wanted to try to understand what I was saying. 

I hear that you were just saying something very simple that you liked. But in that opinion, I was hearing the reflection of a misunderstanding that this song and band sort of alludes to, and sometimes speaks upon, directly. This particular one talking about a general attitude or style of existence that is like an empire, which creates a system of nearly mythological images/idols (dragons) in the form of accepted beliefs, practices, etc. In our empire, people blog about aesthetics as a means of self-validation, and they like to share their studies/knowledge/etc. as a form of expression. They are a walking, blogging empire, passing on the exact mode of living that has people stuck in an unnatural and petty cycle of dependence-- on work, history, doctors/pills, social validation/likes, etc. The way you focused on '1910-40 big mood aesthetics' sounded, to me, like a reflection of being in a high school or college class and hearing a student try to validate themselves by relating to an already established concept/totality that a group could all relate to (an external summary of a whole array of specific art/ideas, a whole genre of aesthetic -- 1910-40 big mood aesthetics) rather than just treating the individual piece of work that would have to be felt personally by means of its actual, internal value which can never be explained or proven, only understood and believed in, its real effects felt. Giver, to me, is hardcore -- a way of treating the raw, internal force of soul/will/agency that truly makes life into what it is. The cause behind the reaction of two chemicals.  And when I listen to it, I understand more, and become more. So to watch someone just comment on the outside and miss out on the inside, is like c'mon bruh, why were you focused on the outside? You missed the good part because your attention was distracted by pettier things. So in that sense, by you targeting the aesthetic, you were basically stating yourself as the exact opposite of Giver, which focuses on the inside/the personal first, and therefore realizes the bigger Empire is just an accumulation of the personal empires that are the average person who carries out a cycle that the empire/system reproduces in the form of likes, preferences, perceptions, and behaviors.  You might say "I just like it" or "I just don't like it,"  and that I'm just saying all this because I like it, which I would have no real proof in your eyes for disputing, but in my opinion, that's a little short-sighted, or momentary, and your genuine like and preference is something that has to be uncovered and cultivated, and one opinion can definitely be closer to true than another, even in terms of preference.  

This all sounds quite pedagogical and long-winded, and is maybe no easier to understand, and all the easier to judge. That's why I initially just went with an emotive insult as a way of trying to evoke all this. It didn't work. But this usually doesn't either, but hey, maybe next person who says anything like this, you'll have something to relate back to and it won't be as confusing, less easy to judge as random or mystifying. Cheers. 

82147555_765795200573158_508295382612679

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, LionHeart24 said:

I can, but I'm not sure it'd be hugely clarifying, unless you really wanted to try to understand what I was saying. 

I hear that you were just saying something very simple that you liked. But in that opinion, I was hearing the reflection of a misunderstanding that this song and band sort of alludes to, and sometimes speaks upon, directly. This particular one talking about a general attitude or style of existence that is like an empire, which creates a system of nearly mythological images/idols (dragons) in the form of accepted beliefs, practices, etc. In our empire, people blog about aesthetics as a means of self-validation, and they like to share their studies/knowledge/etc. as a form of expression. They are a walking, blogging empire, passing on the exact mode of living that has people stuck in an unnatural and petty cycle of dependence-- on work, history, doctors/pills, social validation/likes, etc. The way you focused on '1910-40 big mood aesthetics' sounded, to me, like a reflection of being in a high school or college class and hearing a student try to validate themselves by relating to an already established concept/totality that a group could all relate to (an external summary of a whole array of specific art/ideas, a whole genre of aesthetic -- 1910-40 big mood aesthetics) rather than just treating the individual piece of work that would have to be felt personally by means of its actual, internal value which can never be explained or proven, only understood and believed in, its real effects felt. Giver, to me, is hardcore -- a way of treating the raw, internal force of soul/will/agency that truly makes life into what it is. The cause behind the reaction of two chemicals.  And when I listen to it, I understand more, and become more. So to watch someone just comment on the outside and miss out on the inside, is like c'mon bruh, why were you focused on the outside? You missed the good part because your attention was distracted by pettier things. So in that sense, by you targeting the aesthetic, you were basically stating yourself as the exact opposite of Giver, which focuses on the inside/the personal first, and therefore realizes the bigger Empire is just an accumulation of the personal empires that are the average person who carries out a cycle that the empire/system reproduces in the form of likes, preferences, perceptions, and behaviors.  You might say "I just like it" or "I just don't like it,"  and that I'm just saying all this because I like it, which I would have no real proof in your eyes for disputing, but in my opinion, that's a little short-sighted, or momentary, and your genuine like and preference is something that has to be uncovered and cultivated, and one opinion can definitely be closer to true than another, even in terms of preference.  

This all sounds quite pedagogical and long-winded, and is maybe no easier to understand, and all the easier to judge. That's why I initially just went with an emotive insult as a way of trying to evoke all this. It didn't work. But this usually doesn't either, but hey, maybe next person who says anything like this, you'll have something to relate back to and it won't be as confusing, less easy to judge as random or mystifying. Cheers. 

 

bruh this site isn't worth the amount of paragraphs you are posting 

  • Upvote 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Joseph said:

 

bruh this site isn't worth the amount of paragraphs you are posting 

i hear you, but by that logic, no site and very few people would be worth that amount of paragraphs. And I think someone should do it probably, and that person is probably me, like occasionally haha. been here for forever tho, and have less than 200 posts, so its all good. and happens the same way every time, and gets more amusing sort of each time. Say something long and specific in response to general nonsense. Have bloggers gravitate to 'react' with a haha or a confused or a downvote. A couple one-sentence replies. I reply 1-2 more times, but shorter. They don't reply usually, and half as many ppl react again. In the process, I exorcised some thoughts and got a little smarter, and a little more balanced, and gave a little less of a shit about nonsense and likes and reactions, etc.

So what I'm saying is, I hear you, but in a way, you should try it. Might see it different. I ain't talking about being compulsively pulled into dispute. I'm just talking about making a point. And listening to who and what comes back. I guess thats kind of fucked up tho, idk, lol, so maybe you're right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

Copyright © 2013-2020 Kingdom Leaks.