Venom - Metal Black (#3203)

Adveser · **Joined:** Tue Nov 13, 2007 1:26 am **Posts:** 2491

DevotedWalnut wrote:

Adveser wrote:

This my opinion of venom:

They are an abolutely atrocious band that is better left a intriguing mystery than actually be listened to. Thier music is shit and thier image contrived as hell. That said, everyone loved the image and by extension listened to the records. Some people can't help but love the shlock that is horrible old black metal. My theory is that this is based 100% on the "legacy" these bands somehow created. In other words, there's been so much discussion about these bands since so few were so terrible and one-dimensionally influencial. Every poorly written and executed black metal band of the era can cite venom's lack of ability as the inspiration to start making thier own half-assed brand of music. What I am saying is these guys had a lot of passion and really wanted to have a good band, but they lacked any of the techical skill necessary to play music that is enjoyable and sorely lacked the originality and songwriting ability to be worth a fuck. Thier name has been brought up by more famous brand names so thier material has taken on a life of its own and become "legendary" despite its lack of ability to stand on it's own two feet.

Try burning a venom album and labelling it as some demo from a local band, see how many people think it is any good.

since when do we care what you think?

I'm sorry, I didn't realise we were here to stroke each others balls with faint praise of everything.

Goat · **Posted:** Mon Dec 03, 2007 2:03 am

Let's keep it friendly...

Eternal Idol · **Posted:** Mon Dec 03, 2007 9:55 pm

Hear me calling!
JOIN THE PACK!!!!!!!
Raised in Hellfire!
METAL BLACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

DevotedWalnut · **Posted:** Thu Dec 06, 2007 5:21 pm

Adveser wrote:

DevotedWalnut wrote:

Adveser wrote:

This my opinion of venom:

They are an abolutely atrocious band that is better left a intriguing mystery than actually be listened to. Thier music is shit and thier image contrived as hell. That said, everyone loved the image and by extension listened to the records. Some people can't help but love the shlock that is horrible old black metal. My theory is that this is based 100% on the "legacy" these bands somehow created. In other words, there's been so much discussion about these bands since so few were so terrible and one-dimensionally influencial. Every poorly written and executed black metal band of the era can cite venom's lack of ability as the inspiration to start making thier own half-assed brand of music. What I am saying is these guys had a lot of passion and really wanted to have a good band, but they lacked any of the techical skill necessary to play music that is enjoyable and sorely lacked the originality and songwriting ability to be worth a fuck. Thier name has been brought up by more famous brand names so thier material has taken on a life of its own and become "legendary" despite its lack of ability to stand on it's own two feet.

Try burning a venom album and labelling it as some demo from a local band, see how many people think it is any good.

since when do we care what you think?

I'm sorry, I didn't realise we were here to stroke each others balls with faint praise of everything.

Didn't really answer my question.

Adveser · **Joined:** Tue Nov 13, 2007 1:26 am **Posts:** 2491

Does that deserve an answer? This is a message board, and a public one at that. Whether not anyone cares is up to them, not you.

As long as the people that matter care what I think, that's all I care about. Obviously I'm enjoying conversating here or I would have left!

Radagast · **Posted:** Fri Dec 07, 2007 8:42 pm

Adveser wrote:

they lacked any of the techical skill necessary to play music that is enjoyable

Now hold on just a minute there, chuckles.

Since when did musicians need to be technically skilled to make enjoyable music? And since when do you get to decide what kind of music I find enjoyable?

Sure, Venom played nothing more than braindead, sloppy, sped-up NWOBHM. Doesn't mean Raise the Dead and Red Light Fever aren't fucking great songs though.

Jeff@Metalreviews · **Posted:** Fri Dec 07, 2007 8:54 pm

Good call Radagast. Some of the best songs in music are also the simplest in structure and technique. Just look at the Ramones as an example.

heatseeker · **Posted:** Fri Dec 07, 2007 10:07 pm

I wouldn't say good music has to have complexity and technicality, but it really helps...

The Ramones suck pretty badly tho.

noodles · **Posted:** Sat Dec 08, 2007 1:20 am

the most enjoyable musicians are the ones who intentionally choose the flawed takes over the cleaner ones for their recordings, duh

Adveser · **Joined:** Tue Nov 13, 2007 1:26 am **Posts:** 2491

noodles wrote:

the most enjoyable musicians are the ones who intentionally choose the flawed takes over the cleaner ones for their recordings, duh

I must disagree. It has a lot more to do with the "feel" of the song than anything. No musician would choose a second-rate version of any song for any album. I agree that some people love albums done in a very quick fashion, such as the first black sabbath album, but that is never a matter of choice, it is a matter of money. Studios were extremely expensive in the 80's, even for a couple days of time, the bands were spending probably over 5 or 10 grand.

Radagast · **Posted:** Sat Dec 08, 2007 2:55 am

Adveser wrote:

noodles wrote:

the most enjoyable musicians are the ones who intentionally choose the flawed takes over the cleaner ones for their recordings, duh

I must disagree. It has a lot more to do with the "feel" of the song than anything. No musician would choose a second-rate version of any song for any album. I agree that some people love albums done in a very quick fashion, such as the first black sabbath album, but that is never a matter of choice, it is a matter of money. Studios were extremely expensive in the 80's, even for a couple days of time, the bands were spending probably over 5 or 10 grand.

Like those early Venom albums, then?

Adveser · **Joined:** Tue Nov 13, 2007 1:26 am **Posts:** 2491

Radagast wrote:

Adveser wrote:

they lacked any of the techical skill necessary to play music that is enjoyable

Now hold on just a minute there, chuckles.

Since when did musicians need to be technically skilled to make enjoyable music? And since when do you get to decide what kind of music I find enjoyable?

Sure, Venom played nothing more than braindead, sloppy, sped-up NWOBHM. Doesn't mean Raise the Dead and Red Light Fever aren't fucking great songs though.

I actually agree with this, some of my favoties don't have a lot of technical ability, but they can make the most of what they have. Good songs come from the entire musical spectrum and levels of ability. My point is that thier albums are very hard to enjoy because of thier flaws. As posted above, I doubt this was a choice. But when bands choose to be sloppy, that says to me they don't care about thier music at all.

I think they are good for what they are, but I will stand with my original post that they are sorely lacking in a lot of areas many people place a lot of value in.

Eternal Idol · **Posted:** Mon Dec 10, 2007 4:04 pm

Cronos was great and still is.
Mantas started out sloppy but got pretty damn good.
Abaddon has the same amount of skill as Lars Ulrich, which means he's a passable drummer at best.

But once you get past the Big 4 albums of Venom's career, you're fooling yourself if you think all Venom ever did was sloppy party music. Calm Before the Storm, the entire Tony Dolan era, Cast in Stone, Metal Black, all of these albums don't feature an ounce of sloppiness, and feature a ferocious band that was tight and well-organized. Try listening to the damn band before making blanket statements that prove you have no clue as to what you're talking about. Sure, Bathory did it better, but Venom was still more than worthy of their legendary status.

Metal Reviews

Venom - Metal Black (#3203)

Who is online