Coming from a guy that only started listening to metal around the late 2010s, I've noticed that a lot of what we called "classic albums" are quite average, but whenever you say "I prefer (album thats better than said classic album)" you immediately see fanboys defending said album

Slaughter of the Soul and DMDS are 2 such albums in my book, and given that we have albums that were made around the same time (or earlier) that still sounds excellent even today, I really do not understand the hype behind these 2 albums (although DMDS has the controversy behind its creation)

The first Black Sabbath record. It was Paranoid where Sabbath really made their sound. Sure, the self titled has the eponymous track, which is of course incredible, but the rest of it is just a heavier version of what Jethro Tull were doing, without the musicianship that Jethro Tull had at the time.

At least Sabbath gradually improved from that, and their self titled was the worst album they had until Ozzy was fired, then peaked again with Heaven and Hell
Can't say that about ATG when their best work is their debut and its just downhill from there, treading more water with each album

No idea what you’re talking about regarding DMDS, what doesn’t sound excellent to you? The drum sound and performance are almost unmatched for starters. Also the first Sabbath is incredible and totally holds up, probably second favorite Sabbath for me. I can only agree with the best ATG being the debut and Gardens of Grief but I still like Slaughter for what it is.

I hate this thread already!

Yes your opinion is the only right one. Really, average for you, that is not a true fact though.

agreed on all of this, though i can understand if someone doesn't like attila's vocals of course, but that's hardly grounds for dismissal for the album - i can't get past king diamond's vocals, but i still recognize that i'd love melissa and oath if i could, and that's on me

Awesome, another "I've got a shit opinion, so I must share it thread". Nice.

For me this sentence went offroad when you said 'we' What is 'we' anyway in 2023?
In my experience the term 'classic' in metal has always been used rather loosely and differently by many people.
The days when everyone seemed to call 'Number Of The Beast' a classic are way behind us as there is less and less cohesion within the metal scene as a whole compared to 35-40 years ago.

To me 'classic' not only means an important historic album in general but one which made impact when it came out but also is regarded a milestone in hingsight.
The hindsight part always makes it tricky, especially when a scene becomes less and less cohesive.
And I do realise if I were to make a list of 1989 classics, others might have lists which differ from mine.



If you speak badly about something which means a lot to someone else, you can expect a response. To be surprised about it, would be rather naive.
I dislike many so called 'classics' in several subgernes and I know some people will respond to it once I open my mouth but it is what it is.
My opinion doesn't change their enjoyment so what I think in the end is pretty harmless anyway. And vise versa

To each his own but De mysteriis is probably one of the few albums from that era that are great despite their controversy. Can't say the same about other bands recording 20 minutes of music and then filling the rest of the album with crappy ambient music to call it an album.

Left Hand Path? There was a time I liked it but middling pretty much defines it.

But I dunno. It's really hard to separate nostalgia from enjoyment that is purely musical. I mean, I'm incredibly nostalgic for Kill em All because I listened to it nearly every day as a young teen. On paper most of the riffs are kinda generic but does that mean it's middling?

Normal people don't have a problem with classic albums they like being criticized if the criticism has a solid base and is well done, when I did my review of Ride the Lightning I only received positive comments even though I didn't treat it as a masterpiece like many do. People talk shit about the criticism of the classics that is made with an air of superiority while dismissing a 30 year old album that was influential and memorable as overrated rubbish while praising a 2 year old album that only 14 people have heard as the true pinnacle of the genre.

Most classics are legitimately thought of that way for good reason. First Sabbath is incredible rich old rock and roll. I dunno - got to echo and say we have too many "I'm a special snowflake and this is what I hate" threads.

Kill ‘‘em All has generic riffs? I guess if you look at the 40 years of riffing they helped inspire.

True. Though you could say the same thing about Slaughter of the Soul.

I dunno, maybe this is more of a reflection of shallow listening practices (encouraged by streaming platforms etc) than the quality of the albums in question? When I was younger I’d leap to conclusions about stuff and then find that, with time, I could find stuff I liked. At the end of the day, all it might mean is you have another album to love (or not, but what’s the worst that could happen?)

Yeah this feels like the "Give me your unpopular opinions" thread part 2. Although that thread did have good conversations I don't think we need another.

There's stuff that's well-liked that I can't stand, but at some point you mature enough to realize it's not because everyone else is just blinded by nostalgia.

That may be precisely why Sab's debut remains one of my favs and remains so endearing to me all these years later.
Tull's first ~15 years were remarkable...one of the greatest bands ever, IMO.
(That, and the absolutely perfect sound/production of Black Sabbath...few records sound better, to me.)

Lot of people mistake it being an earlier rock sound for it being worse somehow - you see weird comments about that album not being fully metal yet as if it's a critique of it. Very weird. Part of the greatness is that bluesy, earthy sound and how good all those band members were even back then. It's raw.

Shallow listening and what Acrobat said about streaming prolly doesn't help either - and everyone's gotta have a take!

The Number of the Beast

Black Sabbath Technical Ecstasy

The vast majority of the Joe Lynn Turner era of Rainbow.

This is the smartest thing anyone will say in this thread. I think a lot of people are more excited to have hot and "interesting" takes than they are actually explore what they like.

Well, this thread is basically a disguised unpopular opinion thread, and the first few posters have already presented their opinions as if they were pure facts.

I'm with you here, DMDS and Black Sabbath's debut are amazing album. DMDS is quite unique to this day, and the performances on it are outstanding. Some amazing musicianship and the songwriting is excellent. It's deserving of all the praise, and obviously not because of nostalgia (I wasn't into black metal when I was 5 years old).

Black Sabbath's debut is my 3rd favorite, right behind Master of Reality and Paranoid. Again, nothing to do with nostalgia, I just think it's a very compelling album. Sure the doom/heavy metal sound was still taking shape there, but that's also part of the appeal. It's a very bluesy rock album, but some of the core elements that would come to define Black Sabbath were already there. Saying Black Sabbath's debut is basically just an heavier version of Jethro Tull were doing at the time is... um... questionable?

Like I keep saying, a lot of them just listen to the hype and not the real music.

Another hate thread.

A short while ago I thought about the question of why Kill 'Em All has held up so well, and is still considered a classic album, despite being technically bare-bones.

There's a riff at around the 2 minute mark of The Four Horsemen that is a great example of the album's magic. It's just 0-0-0-0-0 in a galloping rhythm with a few power chords at the end. On its own, it's nothing special. But in the context of the song, it's absolutely vital. It perfectly encapsulates the experience being conveyed by the lyrics, thereby connecting with the listener's imagination. It feels like the horsemen really are drawing near.

Or how about Motorbreath's chorus? "It is going to take your breath away" - everyone stops on the last syllable, and it's like getting the air punched out of you. It's an album where the payoff from the whole unit far outweighs any flaws in the individual parts. Sometimes the arrangement can be just as important in a song as what's being played.

Reign In Blood.

Angel of Death, Postmortem, and Raining Blood are legendary, untouchable songs, but the rest of the album is mostly forgettable and overall it's the worst of their first five.

You don't think anyone likes this for reasons except nostalgia?

The other tracks require more than a few listens to appreciate, because they pack so many quality riffs into such compact structures. Altar of Sacrifice is the best out of them for me. Tom's vocals are at their best on this album also. The way he yells stuff like "I'll make you follow" is satisfying in a way that I can't quite describe. I still prefer Hell Awaits, but it's not far off.

To me that is the cringiest part of the album. I can't stand it.

I'm having trouble with my acronyms today I guess. What the heck is DMDS (it's probably really obvious and it is just completely going over my head)?

RIB is a flawless piece of work - the short song lengths, the lack of the usual kinds of hooks or whatever, I wouldn't change anything and I think most of the detractors' preferences of how they'd want it to be would make it a lot weaker for me. It's just such an utter concentrated, focused piece.

I agree with LawrenceStillman about DSDM. I find it relatively underwhelming and each time I listen to it, I can't help but think they kind of messed up something bit with this album. I'd even say it's one of the less interesting among the "second wave's great old classics". Attila's voice sounds grotesque and cringe at times, I'm not very fond of the guitar sound nor Euronymous way of playing which sound a bit too clean and clinical (maybe because he re-recorded his riffs again and again) and some compositions lack in structure which are sometimes a bit redundant. In the end, the overall album lacks the hellish atmosphere that can be heard in Darkthrone, Burzum, Emperor, Immortal, Satyricon...

Anyway, I'm not saying DMDS is bad, it sure has qualities. But because its release had been delayed many times due to reasons we all know, this long awaited opus which was supposed to be a classic before it was even recorded finally happened to be a bit of a dud... However, I'm convinced that if it had been released one or two years earlier with Dead, its atmosphere would have been different and it probably would have been such a classic album! This is why I like to call it a cursed album.



Maybe you have a problem with others having a different perception?

I would disagree on the rest of the album big time. Cuts like Reborn, Altar of Sacrifice, Postmortem, Jesus Saves, Necrophobic, etc, are all scorchers.

Tastes very and all but I hear this and wonder if I'm listening to the same record.

De Mysteriis Dom Sathanas by Mayhem.

People, myself included, seem to react negatively to the suggestion that we only like some classic albums out of nostalgia, and not so much because we genuinely believe the albums to have inherent qualities. Most of us don't mind others not having the same tastes as us, but it's a little more annoying when someone flat out tells you that the album obviously sucks and that you only like it because of nostalgia or some other bullshit like that.

One of these invites dicussion, the other one is an insult to others intelligence.

This thread sucks but coming from the same guy that was whining about his sister forcing him to listen to stuff he doesn’t like (imagine being that desperate for attention), that was to be expected.

DMDS and SOTS are both absolute bangers that hold up super well.

Master Of Puppets.

The slow songs on that album are really boring. The best thing that happened to that album's reputation was Cliff Burton's death.

The "problem" with De Mysteriis Dom Sathanas is that it's not a very simple album. It's got the reputation as the big black metal classic, but it's not the best first impression of the genre. It has many layers going on, even synth lines that are buried in the mix. The vocals are very experimental and strange, and there are very few hooks and catchy melodies to grab your attention. It's not the equivalent of The Number of the Beast or Ace of Spades.

It may have been the first black metal record I ever listened to, and I didn't like it all. Then I spent time with more "simple" bands like Darkthrone, Gorgoroth and Burzum, and then when I returned to DMDS it made much more sense to me.