This review, which will be in two parts, will be a little different, and I'm warning you at the beginning so that no one embarks on reading without knowing what they're getting into. We will discuss three related but distinct topics: in the first part, the new Sick New World Festival in Las Vegas, which took place at the end of April, and its positive and negative points; in the second part, the debut of Brazilian Eloy Casagrande at festivals as the drummer for Slipknot .
By now you're probably familiar with the latest chapters in the recent story about Brazilian Eloy Casagrande joining Slipknot (see how I've already changed the order of the items here?). Well, if you're not, check out the second part of this review to understand a little more.
What was it like covering Sick New World?
Well, dear reader, our two-person team personally went to Las Vegas on a special mission collaborating with Wikimetal , firstly to check out this brand-new festival, now in its second edition, but also, as we already had Slipknot as one of the headliners and speculation about the drummer's identity was growing, we also went to try and see this debut at a large-scale event up close.
So, whether this perspective is valuable to you or not depends more on you, but what we have to offer is a direct account from the dry, asphalt trenches of the Las Vegas Festivals Grounds, where Sick New World took place.
Nobody told us. We didn't copy information from any other source and we made our own shaky videos from the eye of the storm (more details about that later) when Eloy first hit the drumsticks on that drum kit.
Why does this matter? Maybe it doesn't really matter, but we went there with that goal in mind, and our opinion about the festival and everything else comes from what we experienced firsthand as travelers, not from some random "sifting" of what people commented on online.
I don't want to come across as reactionary here, swimming against the tide of the advantages of modernity. Nowadays, the coverage of events of public interest, whether political, cultural, or of any nature, actually relies heavily on the average citizen, equipped with a smartphone and a social network. The positive side of this is the speed and reach of information. Even if no media outlet is present covering a specific event, some paying attendee jumping into the crowd with their cell phone and recording everything, even with questionable quality, will be doing a public service by spreading to the world firsthand that exclusive video of their idol dropping their pants or killing it with an incredible solo performance.
Just to be clear: speed and reach of the audience's perspective: Good! Complementing the audience's perspective with the experience of someone who was there professionally to cover the event: even better!
So what's so bad about it then? Why am I making this long digression? Because I'm personally fed up with seeing "coverage" of festivals and shows in general that are limited to citing setlists, reproducing videos of the audience, and repeating published information without much criteria, verification of veracity, or any critical perspective. A very clear example that just happened at Sick New World, just to illustrate what I mentioned:
Several websites reported that Oli Sykes , vocalist of the band Bring Me The Horizon, had joined the Japanese band Babymetal during their show to sing together "Kingslayer," a track from Post Human: Survival Horror , which featured the Japanese band. The problem is that this didn't happen.
The main stages at Sick New World, all the same size and set up side-by-side, as is common at many festivals, were called Red Stage and Gold Stage. We had just finished watching Danny Elfman and decided to stay in the same spot, on the Red Stage, to wait for Slipknot's show, which was next on that stage. Staying there guaranteed us a good spot for later, and from where we were, we could see, somewhat sideways but relatively well, the Bring Me The Horizon show happening on the neighboring Gold Stage.
Nobody told us. I didn't read it anywhere. I saw that the Japanese band participated in the English band's show during one song, not the other way around, as reported on several websites, including prestigious outlets like the British magazine NME . A simple fact-check would have shown that the Babymetal show was on the Red Stage, in the early afternoon, with the Las Vegas sun beating down on people's heads. In the video of someone in the audience used to illustrate this erroneous report (including on the NME ), it's clearly visible that it was a nighttime show, the Bring Me The Horizon show on the Gold Stage.
So, tell me, attentive reader: am I making a mountain out of a molehill? Does it really make a difference in the world who participated in whose show? Perhaps this specific misunderstanding isn't serious enough to cause any real harm in the world, but it's very sad to think that it takes extra effort on the part of the audience that consumes this type of content to differentiate between the website that took the trouble to send representatives to physically cover an event, and the one that simply copied information and videos directly from the social network of someone who happened to be present at the event.
Is it possible to physically cover all the festivals we'd like to cover? Is there enough budget and even enough time for that, considering that some happen simultaneously with others that are just as interesting? Of course not. But I just wanted to end (I hope) my rant with a plea for greater appreciation of the work of those who physically cover these events and try to produce something original from what they saw and experienced firsthand. Pay attention to distinguishing when there is genuine effort of this kind and when what you are reading has simply been copied from somewhere else.
Okay, parenthesis closed, let's move on to what someone who was there, professionally and physically present, can tell us about Sick New World and Slipknot's first big show with Brazilian Eloy Casagrande on drums.
Positive and negative points of Sick New World
First, objectively, 3 positive points and 3 negative points of Sick New World:
POSITIVE POINTS:
1 - The festival takes place in Las Vegas.
I consider this a particularly positive point for those who enjoy traveling and discovering different and iconic places, like Sin City. It was our first time there and we were very impressed. It's one of the most tourist-driven cities in the world, so if you plan to go to the next Sick New World to see your favorite band and manage to spend a few extra days enjoying the city, whether gambling in a casino or just exploring, the level of your experience is bound to be tremendously elevated. Oh, and the price of a few nights at some good hotels can be surprisingly affordable, because what they really want is for you to stay there for the casinos, and then, yes, spend your money.
2 – The lineup brought together some big names in Metal, in a moment with special significance.
For fans of headliners System of a Down and Slipknot, it was historic. It was SOAD's first show of the year, and they hadn't performed like this since Sick New World in 2023. The set was packed with great classics that hadn't seen a show in quite some time. For Slipknot fans, the performance marked the beginning of a 25th-anniversary celebration for the band. They took the stage in their iconic red jumpsuits and also brought back a lot of material reminiscent of their beginnings in 1999. All this at their first big show with their new drummer.
3 – The lineup also featured a large number of lesser-known bands.
Okay, this is kind of obvious. Every self-respecting festival brings in some big names and several other smaller acts that are worth checking out. What I found positive here was something that, from another perspective, could be negative. In just one day, there were 72 bands taking turns on 5 stages. The first shows started before noon, and the time between the sets of the first and second bands on the smaller stages was 25 minutes, which means that, including the stage change, each of these played for even less time, something close to 20 minutes. Why is this in the positive points column? Because short sets and quick changes can be a good way for the audience to get a small sample of several new bands, and certainly those who favored the smaller stages had a lot to absorb.
NEGATIVE POINTS:
1 - The Las Vegas Festival Grounds is not a pleasant place.
To sum it up: lots of asphalt and very little shade in the entire area between the stages. This in a city with a desert-like climate (because, after all, it was built on top of one) and with an attendance that seemed a bit higher than ideal for the available space.
2 – Too many bands crammed into too little time.
As promised, what I mentioned earlier as one of the positive aspects—the possibility of discovering several lesser-known bands in a short amount of time—also ends up appearing on the list of negative aspects of the festival. It's up to you to judge which is more important.
There were five stages in total. On the two main stages I mentioned before, there was a good number of shows. In a little over half a day, there were seven shows on the Red Stage and eight on the Gold Stage. On the three smaller stages, however, there were 18, 19, and 20 shows. That's a lot of sound to adjust, a lot of rushing around, and bands coming and going. And so, if the goal was to give the audience a taste of several lesser-known bands, in some cases it may have backfired because the very chance these bands have to showcase themselves to larger audiences can be compromised by the short time to prepare and present their best.
3 - The Festival still doesn't have its own identity.
And by that, I'm not so much referring to the visual identity, which I found quite poor, from the somewhat circus-like font of the logo to the illustrations of diabolical little creatures in a setting that I think was supposed to be a kind of Tim Burton- in hell. Nor am I referring to the apparent lack of criteria in the names of the stages (Red, Gold, Spiral, Syren and Diablo. I didn't understand the connection, forgive me if it was obvious and I missed the joke). I'm talking more about the fact that there's still nothing the Festival seems to want to be remembered for. The only distinctive thing, up to this second edition, seems to be the fact that it takes place in Las Vegas.
Now, a comment that could be another negative point, but that would spoil my symmetry of 3 positive and 3 negative points:
It irritates me a little what I'll call the disregard for the vibrant culture and community of metalheads. I don't know, it seems that when events are created for this type of audience, offering some kind of unhealthy environment is part of the package because if it's too comfortable, the headbangers might disapprove of the whole thing.
Obviously, the issue is more about an understanding that the audience's lack of sophistication doesn't require as much investment, rather than a genuine desire on the part of the promoters to gain legitimacy with that audience.
In any case, the three negative points I mentioned seem to be a direct consequence of this alleged neglect. It seems they're counting on a certain masochism from the metalhead, who might even find some of the hardships amusing.
I'll leave you with a final appeal for this section. If you don't like reading this much text (and if you've made it this far, I'm sorry) and just want to know which songs were played at show X and that it was truly incredible, that's fine. Just be aware that this information can be generated from a computer keyboard anywhere in the world, but the critical eye and account of someone who was in the eye of the storm, that's a whole different ball game. But if you want to continue this adventure, click here to read the second part of the coverage , where we talk about Slipknot's performance and Eloy Casagrande's big debut with the band at festivals.