In 2013, Carcass put out Surgical Steel. It was the group's first record since 1996's Swansong and a lot of people were wondering how the new stuff would sound considering the latter record's sound. Guitarist Bill Steer said in an interview with Loud that the group found it nice to be able to write a new record without any expectations considering the 15 years worth of silence, but also throws in there that he wouldn't have done it up to the standards of modern metal because he doesn't like the direction modern metal has gone in.
I think it was very beneficial, because we would have driven ourselves crazy if we really sat down and analyzed what would be an appropriate record for us to make in this current climate. Speaking personally, I don't think it's very impressive when an older band comes back and tries to keep up with the young guns, tries to have some new, modern edge to what they do. Firstly, it would have been dishonest in our case, because we genuinely don't like the direction that a lot of new metal has taken. But also, it would have just been embarrassing, because you just can't fake that kind of thing. So it's better to stick with the influences that you really feel, and just specialize, do what you do best. And also avoid things that don't suit you.
I wonder what aspects he doesn't like? Or if modern metal just sucks to the group as a whole. Considering the last time Carcass as a unit put a record out is now 19 years ago, nobody in the group really had to try to conform Carcass' sound to what was going on. So maybe it's an "if it ain't broke" kind of situation? Or the guys just flat out never kept up with the new shit and just stuck with the bands they liked.
Still, interesting! He also touches on why Swansong is a good record (it is).
…but I guess with Swansong, I've said this a few times, I guess it's become the album that people feel obliged to say they hate, even if they haven't maybe heard it properly. I do know some people where it's the exact opposite; they find that their number one Carcass album. So there's no hard-and-fast rule about this, but I just noticed as a fan of music myself, people tend to, with an artist who's done a string of albums, they tend to take on one record in particular as being the weak album, or the mistake or whatever. After a while, it's not even so much an opinion [as] it's just a platitude, this little soundbite that gets trotted out time and time again. And if people repeat something enough times, they start to believe it. If you look at Black Sabbath, there are a lot of people who just dismiss the "Born Again" album as being ridiculous because Ian Gillan's on it. But, I don't know, if I'm really into a band or an artist, I like to hear everything, and even give the records that didn't initially grab me a chance. I think Swansong has become one of those records. It's by no means a perfect album, it's not nearly as balanced as Heartwork, but it has things on there that are unique to that record. For all of its faults, I think Jeff [Walker, bass/vocals] and myself are still fond of it.
I'm on the defensive with that one… I still dig that record.
