Metal Reviews

The 80's era metal was I dunno, more pure, somehow; it's hard to phrase with words, but I know you know what I mean.
Same goes for the early 70's proto-Metal and the late 70's NWOBHM.

70's Sabbath is godly, i dont care what bands you like but you cant really argue with Tony Iommi's Riffs.

Adveser's right up to a point; a band being famous and hyped will certainly make them more visible and talked about. Yet whilst that may increase your likelihood of hearing them/checking them out, it doesn't mean that you're more likely to enjoy them (unless you're an idiot, of course). Take a personal example: Rush. I checked them out properly after coming across the name and listening to The Spirit Of Radio on the radio. But I love 2112 because it's an amazing album, not because of the band's popularity, and will always put it in my top 10 because of my enjoyment. The fact I checked them out may have been influenced by the band's popularity, but not my enjoyment of them, and the same goes for DevWal loving the Sabs.

Another example: progressive brutal death Londoners Corpsing. I got into them completely randomly, but they're still one of my favourite bands despite not being at all well-known. Popularity will only get you so many friends, dude. Personality's what keeps them, digame?

yeah

iirc CoB had an album or two in the Popoff book.

Without wanting to get involved in the discussion of whether 70s Black Sabbath benefits from too much hype, I would say Adveser is right that that Popoff book is kinda backward looking... IIRC, about half the top 30 is either Sabbath, Priest, Motorhead, Metallica or Maiden. It gives the impression that metal's best days are behind it, which is not the case at all.

There may be still new bands and new albums in the metal wod that are good, but the best metal has to offer has already came out. IMO of course. As good as the new Overkill album is, their best was from the 80s. Just one example.

That is the only point I was making, and look at my list so far, there are a ton of old classic albums on there too. I wasn't trying to make the case that popularity equals being overrated, i'm making the point that overexposure leads to a deluded sense of quality. I was there at one time myself. I had never heard of anything underground. Everytime I take someone that I was in the position of ten years ago and introduce them to what metal has had to offer since it's decline in promotion and popularity they always seem to be shocked at the quality and seem to think they've beep duped.

In some cases, that is definitely true.
Take Metallica, for instance.

Popularity works both ways.

I try to agree with that statement with regard to some death and black metal bands that have absolutely no talent. A great deal of underground death metal bands (Master, Exhumed) and other have just recently gotten popular. Also bands like Archgoat, Blasphemy, and Profanatica are a big what the fuck when they are sucking the air away from superior bands. Seriously, bands like that only had the timing right, when they engendered themselves into being. I don't know I'm not an archivist or anything, but I'd like to believe that some bands should stay underground.

Dude, what the fuck. Master have talent.

Yeah but the thing about that is that Overkill are an 80s band and no matter how well they make a new album they will always sound like the 80s. So why not just listen to 80s stuff?

On the other hand I would say the best releases from the last few years e.g. Traced in Air, Monotheist, and various other things are the ones that actually chart new courses, and in doing so can easily stand alongside the best stuff from the 70s/80s.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Daniel Ekeroth's Swedish Death Metal. It's probably the best book on a metal sub-genre I've ever read. It's generally very difficult to find decent books (or documentaries for that matter) on metal.

Lords of Chaos isn't so great, but I think I have some kind of nostalgia complex attached to it because I read it when I was in my mid teens and I seem to be nostalgic about everything music related from back then. It could have been worse, and I think it's decent if you're just getting into the genre.

It's kind of strange how many people here seem to like Christie's Sound of the Beast because I've only ever heard bad things about it. I personally thought it was a load of crap and everyone I know who's ever read it thinks about the same. What, exactly, did you guys like about it?



So what exactly is your definition of "talent."