yes i agree with this. I was just trying to clarify what Luvers was saying.

Nonetheless :

I wouldn't bring usefulness on the table here.
You can find superiority in different aspects of things, depending of your living needs, if that's your point. But the sole subject of these bits of conversation is the art crafting for the sake of it. We don't need art to live, biologically. We need food in order to live, and a roof to lenghten our life expectancy.
But we don't go to a great restaurant to "get food in order to live", we go there to get amazed by its cooking quality. We don't visit Renaissance castles & manors to expand our life expectancy, neither to play hide & seek, but to admire its architecture and ornaments. But this "superior" word is clearly messing things up.

Come on guys, it's "sophisticated" that in *some degree* can be objective - more obvious in the extreme cases, like comparing Dream Theater to AC/DC but try the same thing with Dream Theater and Rush and it's not as obvious - as it has been pointed out already. "Superior" is definitely a synonym of "better", by definition, it was a wrong choice of word for this particular case. I.e., Luvers was offering a purely subjective evaluation which is open to criticism itself. I don't think the level of sophistication between MoR and the previous/next albums is so distinguishable and certainly not a differentiating factor in quality. But that's besides the point. I can agree with almost everything said under the lense of "sophistication", including one's ability to fully *get* something. But as for objective language regarding art, while personal tastes matter the most to the individual, personally I cannot deny status, influence, impact and yes, success through time (through the years and decades to be exact) - that's the only objective evidence I value.

I wholeheartedly agree with what Abominatrix and Ace_Rimmer have said in this thread. But most of all I agree with Acrobat's statement about Painkiller / Iron Savior. I'm happy to negate my entire post by going on record saying Painkiller is a vastly superior album to anything Iron Savior ever released (ba dum ts). By the way, I find their debut the best thing they ever did, by a mile.

No, all their first six have a lot of really stunning work.

Your posts didn't bother me, I just firmly disagree with most of what you said. And no, I never admitted that Master of Reality was simplistic and/or primitive. Simplistic =/= simple. Master of Reality is a simpler album then say Paranoid, but it's not a simplistic album by any stretch of the imagination. Maybe you prefer the longer, more adventurous and complex tracks of Paranoid, but Master of Reality is an essential album. Judging by the number of bands who mimicked (and keep mimicking what Black Sabath were doing on MoR to this days, it seems obvious to me that this record needed to be made. It's the bluesy heavy/doom metal album that basically created the blueprint of how to write stoner doom metal with tracks like Sweet Leaf and Into The Void (Where do you think Sleep took their inspiration for all their marijuana and space-themed weed odysseys?)

Maybe my meaning wasn't clear, but I agree with you and that's what I was trying to say

That was clearly a hyperbole. Of course there are a lot of terrible black metal bands (black metal is my favourite metal subgenre and most of it is still pretty bad) but Burzum are in the "F" category or sure. The best he ever did was being a part of Mayhem. No wonder he killed Euro, who was indeed destined for greatness.


Let's do this for the next April's Fools. Every review in the site is just a part of this essay about how much Filosofem sucks.

Back on topic, in the era of internet it's easier to find people who align with your tastes. I'm pretty sure I'll be able to find more people in this thread who don't like early Black Sabbath or Venom. Number of the Beast is also one of Maiden's weakest efforts.

At least we can all agree Von were pretty bad and not deserving the "classic" status.

This pretty much sums up my thoughts regarding the first Sabbath album. Sabbath are my favourite band but I've always been a bit puzzled by folk who say the first album was the best they ever got as to me it's so clearly obvious that they found their groove on the next five albums and maximised their creative potential from Paranoid onwards.

I like the first album and appreciate its iconic status in music history - in terms of historical importance, it's easily a 10/10 record - but every time I play it I always wonder why I'm not gripped by it as much as I could be. I think a major issue is not only that the basic production rather saps the songs of their power (although they recorded the album in two days so that's not too surprising) but also that the definitive versions of many of the songs there are to be found in the live recordings and radio sessions from the band's early years (the version of the title track which got put on the Ozzman Cometh comp is the best version of the song by far). With the next five albums, the discrepancy between the studio and live versions isn't so large overall.

On the general subject of this conversation, I'll nominate my usual go to album which is Rust In Peace.

Rust In Peace would be a great release if it was cut down to an EP of the first two songs, Tornado, and the title track. The rest of the album is dull as ditchwater. A lot of the other songs sound forced and they just don't hold the interest like the start and finish of the album. I've mentioned this many times before but the first time I heard the record I liked the above mentioned tracks but noted that the rest of the album didn't make much of an impression. I thought this would shift over time and I'd appreciate the record more but this hasn't happened.

Compounding this is the production. People criticise the 00s remix of the album a lot, but they also seem to think that the original has perfect production which it most certainly does not. The original mix has no bass to speak of and is far too tinny.

Lyrics aside, the REAL essential MOR track for Sleep is Lord of this World.

For me, bands that find a groove and spend longer in the studio polishing their creations just don't necessarily result in more entertaining material. It's regularly the opposite. I only have great things to say about every track on Sabbath's debut. I like the Jew's harp on Sleeping Village as a weird point of difference. Wicked World on the US version is my all-time fav Sabbath song. Warning is entertaining in an over the top way, including Ozzy's misheard lyrics. Evil Woman is a fun, stomping cover.

I rate Sabbath Bloody Sabbath 2nd after their debut as it's a bit different again and delivers a consistently great mood. Paranoid and Master of Reality at least get 3rd and 4th on my Sabbath list, but the tracks are a little hit and miss. I don't care for the arty softer tracks, and whatever makes the overplayed songs appeal to a wider audience is probably the same stuff that makes me like them less. Though I'll never tire of Fairies Wear Boots, Children of the Grave, Electric Funeral and Into the Void.

Bands still searching for their sound and/or playing heavier (as opposed to noodling with musicianship) often just suit my taste. The early material of Scorpions, Priest and Led Zep evoke a favourable reaction from me also.

yeah, I definitely hear that with "Lord of this World".

Anyway, Master of Reality has less jamming on it than the previosu albums. But to me, that just means Sabbath is honing their craft and realising what they are good at. Don't get me wrong, I love extended instrumental jams more than most people, and the loose swagger of "Faireis Wear Boots" makes it one of my most beloved Sabbath songs -- but, Sabbath were learning to steadily groove and to add dynamics to their music in new and interesting ways. Tony Iommi is a fantastic guitarist, and would become a great soloist too, but I don't think the kind of blues jamming on "The Warning" etc is quite him playing to his strengths. He's not Hendrix and to be honest there are lots of amazing blues/bluesrock guitarists from the late 60s and early 70s who could probably do this stuff better than him.
Anyway, Sabbath BLoody Sabbath has always been, and probably will always be, my favourite, but Sabbath is one of my most listened to bands and I don't really want to shit on any of those first six albums in any way. But if anything, there's a good argument to be made for MOR being a step up from previous records.

That's where I stand. It's my favorite Black Sabbath record for the reasons you listed.

Also, yeah, Lord of this World most definitely had a big influence on Sleep!

Master of Reality is a better record than Paranoid. That should be readily apparent to anyone with ears.

I think my actual choice for this thread might still be Operation: Mindcrime. It's probably a great record and has many fantastic songs... but it's also like watching a very well-regarded film whose plot you happen not to like. In need of an edit, I reckon, but certainly I can see why it's a classic for many.

Killers is one of the weakest Maiden albums but seems to be regarded as a classic. It's not a bad record at all, really, but by Maiden's standards it feels a bit lesser. The artwork is great and the production job is a definite improvement on the debut, but in terms of the actual songs it's pretty clear that the first two Maiden albums were composed of their entire repertoire up to that point, and it's equally clear that the strongest songs went on the debut, and the lesser ones mostly went on Killers. Harris has even admitted this in interviews. Does have some classics - the title track, Wrathchild and the total Jethro Tull worship of Prodigal Son - but a fair few songs are blatantly B-side material (Innocent Exile). Also lacks an epic a la Phantom Of The Opera, which otherwise would have lifted it up a fair bit. I think in the context of early 80s Maiden it's easy to see why this album gets rated highly but if one actually listens to it then it's clearly lacking in certain areas.

I don't know. I guess all of what you said here is valid. Plus, Steve Harris saying they put their best songs on the s/t and the rest here is also quite possible (dunno, I didn't verify the information). But the album feeling less polished, less epic then the s/t actually works to Killers advantage, in my opinion. It's rawer, more punk in essence, and it's the Maiden album I find myself going back to the most these days. I'm not arguing it's their best, but I enjoy it a lot, in all it's raw, straight-forward, punk, rebel energy. Dunno if I'd argue that it's better then say Seventh Son of a Seventh Son, Piece of Mind or Powerslave, but I thoroughly enjoy Killers.

Yeah, that's a fair assessment. The street level/punk vibe of early Maiden faded after Di'Anno left. So I can understand why people like the energy and vibe of the record. But the debut has all that with the added advantage of much stronger songs.

I used to post on the old Terrorizer forums (now defunct) and I made the observation that Killers was one of the weaker Maiden albums and got pilloried for it. Despite the fact that I rated all the other 80s albums really highly (OK maybe not Piece of Mind so much) my opinions on Maiden were pretty much deemed invalid there at least partly because I didn't rate Killers as a 10/10 record. That really annoyed me TBH.

Another Maiden record that I think is clouded somewhat by nostalgia is Brave New World.

I get why a lot of folk love this record, as for many people it marked the re-awakening of their interest in the band. Dickinson and Smith back in the fold, strong and consistent songwriting, and a general excitement that Maiden were back. But while there are some terrific moments on BNW, and it still holds up after 20 years or so, I get mystified by people who seem to think that BNW was the high point of the reunion era, or that it's the band's only worthwhile record post 7th Son, as it seems to me the reunion truly hit its stride on the following two albums, both of which in terms of songwriting and production are far superior and hit greater heights.

There's also the interesting fact that a lot of people trash VXI and love BNW, without realising that several songs on BNW were originally written for VXI.

Yeah, more and more when I go back to BNW I find most of the criticisms I have against later Maiden, excessively long and repetitive, are on full display there. I do think they do a better job of it on that compared to the last three, but overall I'd give it a 65% here I think. Worth a listen but not an essential album by any means. Though I would call it the highlight of the reunion era as an album. But that isn't saying a ton.

While I'm glad they reunited as I was able to see them 5-6 times, musically its a bummer that solo Bruce got put on the shelf.

Re: Operation:Mindcrime - I really think that's the pinnacle of where their songwriting was going. I guess it's a fairly long album compared to some in the style, but all the songs are so sharp and well done and the interlude stuff isn't obtrusive at all for me, actually adds to it.

Re: Killers... that's an interesting album in hindsight for them since it feels kind of loose and 70s rock styled compared to everything else they did. They were such a precise band even on the first album, and later of course they got so big and inimitable, so Killers is an interesting artifact since they didn't usually sound that way, and never would again. Feels like an album by a young band figuring it out.

This means I'm fucked forever.

Killers is better than the debut. I'll die on that hill.

Also for BNW, it's got a lot of good songs but some dead spots. It's also extremely surface level material and the cleaner production has endeared it to people over the better songs on all the other recent albums, I think.

But Wicker Man rocks and Ghost of Navigator, Dream of Mirrors and Nomad are some real highlights, for sure.

The conversations on Iron Maiden and Killers are interesting. I largely agree with cosmic_equilibrium on the differences between the two. The song Killers, which in my view is probably the best track on the record was largely written around the time the debut album was recorded. Most of the other tracks already existed, having been written in the 70s, and the three that were written during the sessions for the album in Twilight Zone, Prodigal Son and Murders in the Rue Morgue are nothing stand out. Prodigal Son became the first track recorded by the band to never be played live. It is very clear in the choice of songs between the first and second records what the band thought their stronger material was. I think the only real weak track on the first album is Charlotte the Harlot, though I have never been a massive fan of the bands title track either. The second album however, Wrathchild, Genghis Khan, and Drifter along with the title track are fucking Killer. I do dig The Ides of March, and love the seamless segue into Wrathchild. It only serves the purpose of an intro, and was specifically written to be the concert opening track, but outside of handful of gigs was never really adopted as such.

"Purgatory" is a top 10 Maiden track...that's my hill.

It is, and it's also my favourite Maiden album. I don't really care what Steve thinks their best songs from 1979/81 were, especially not now that it's 2023. maybe the album was turned out quickly but it's also vastly better sounding than the debut, so I guess working with martin just paid off right away in every respect. And songs like "Wrathchild", "Murders in teh Rue Morgue", "Killers", and the awesome and really different-for-them-sounding "Prodigal Son" certainly don't sound like leftovers to me. We're hardly talking Load/Reload here.

Anyway, this thread kind of turned interesting and has had some cool discussion even though it seemed like a dead end as soon as it was made. I always believe people when they say they love an album. I know I wouldn't lie about it, and I'm sure most of us are capable of acknowledging that music could bring about nostalgic feelings in us, but that's an entirely separate thing as holding albums aloft as masterpieces. We don't have to all agree on what the masterpieces are, and in fact it's more interesting that we sometimes don't, but most things called classics really do deserve that status regardless of how we may personally judge them.

I wouldn't take this to nearly the degree that Luvers did, but I do think Master of Reality is overrated in the context of Sabbath's first 6. It's very commonly considered the best of these albums, but I think Paranoid, Volume 4, and Sabotage are all better.

I think you're insane to put volume 4 above the others in the first 6, it's way too disorganized, but Under the sun is top 5 Sabbath so I'll give you that

Master of reality was always my favorite anyway, SBS and Sabotage are absolutely brilliant pieces of music, really progressive albums, but I usually go for more blunt in my music anyway and after forever Lord of this world and into the fucking void smoke

Well, Vol. 4 is certainly one of my favourites. I don't think it's disorganised and I don't really understand what that means in this context. Sure, not everything is executed perfectly: "Changes" is supposed to be a soul song, but Sabbath don't quite carry it off with the right kind of gusto, but even that is in its way a well-written piece of music. It also has "under the Sun", which is one of my favourite Sabbath songs, too, along with "Snowblind", "Wheels of Confusion", and the underrated "St. Vitus Dance". SO yeah....

At the end of the day though this thread so easily becomes just another argument about our favourite albums, or someone coming in and saying that someone else's favourite albums -- actually aren't really all that great are they? The idea of overrated music carries a certain absurdity, doesn't it? Describing something as "underrated" I can get behind -- but let's give people the benefit of the doubt already: People like albums for genuine reasons, not because of some crap about being spoonfed masses or whatever.
We should also always keep in mind that many, even among metalheads, listen to music for a variety of different reasons. I'd say all those reasons have about equal validity, even the ones that might seem shallow to us ("I just like a good tune"/"I like catchy beats"/"I like music that makes me feel happy"). Maybe some of us are more invested in music than some of those people, and so we think about it more, analyse it more, pay attention to more aspects of it -- but at the end of the day it comes down to a very basic thing for every one of us: How does music make us feel? That's why all of us listen. Even if we are chiefly looking for something like technique and craftsmanship in our music, it's because those things engender a response of awe and respect and a sense that there's much to digest and that's why we keep coming back. It's still linked to a purely emotional response.

This could be said for every Iron Maiden album. 7th Son is their best but it still has Can I Play With Madness. Powerslave has The Duellists and Back in the Village which aren't as good as the rest of the album. The Number of the Beast has at least three tracks that are mediocre.

The whole subjectivity thing is all well and good but isn't the fact that it's subjective the reason people argue in the first place, like I say gruesome is shit you might say they're a great tribute, I say nah that's bullshit they suck you might say oh well they're trying to honor chuck schuldiner, and I say yeah that's true but I think that's no reason to praise stolen music.

Because there is no truth to any of it, I have every right to completely tear somebodys opinion of music down, I don't see why not, you have the same right to do to my taste, I'll probably actually laugh my ass off, cuz I think it's hilarious

Subjectivity in my opinion is really just a get out of jail free card for people that are either too lazy to actually back up their taste, or are actually just completely in denial about it and like it for less than genuine reasons.

And besides if you truly love something, why would you care that somebody else doesn't love it, doesn't seem very genuine to me.

Not calling you out specifically, i just think subjective is another one of those words people use in place of an actual opinion

It's all about degrees. All their classic albums have a few songs that aren't as good as the total fucking lightning bolt classics, but some of the "fillers" are just more entertaining.

What's wrong with The Duellists?

If we are bashing classics i would say that British Steel by Judas Priest aged poorly, it sounds like a pop record. Much better albums like Sad Wings of Destiny are forgotten compared to the hit maker 80's machine that were Priest in the Steel era. I also agree with the guys saying that Paul Di Anno's Maiden albums are overrated, and to be honest both Killers and the first one kinda are. Number of the Beast is so much better than those albums.

Although this comment is totally far from reality, and what if it were so? If something sounds like pop or AOR that makes it bad? How rotten are the brains of some metalheads god

Edit: Incorrect quoting

British Steel is their third best 80s album. Lots of good songs besides the obvious hits. I didn't like it that much 20 years ago, but now I love it. It's poppy of course but achieves what it was set to achieve. Grinder!

The only pop-ish songs would be United and Living After Midnight, then The Rage y You Dont Have to be Old... are more hard rock oriented, the rest of the songs are pure heavy metal.

They apparently DID bother you. Look at my first post here, all I did was give a list of eight albums I am aware are venerated by most but I find them subpar compared to those bands' other albums. I never criticized anyone who enjoyed these albums. Now look back at your very first reply. You responded as if I had just stolen your most valued possession and stomped out the life of an adorable baby kitten just for good measure. Any idea what kind of dialogue this would have been if you had simply asked why I disliked these otherwise celebrated albums?It is amazing how you continuously bring up the fact MOR was influential, have mentioned it to me twice and to others but who cares? Even I gave the album its credit for the influence it had in my review but just because a large group of people/bands really like an album does not mean I have to like it. Also, I can (AND DID) give MOR its just desserts because ... and this is important ... being critical of something =/= hating that something. I think Solitude is underrated, Orchid is very eloquent classical and Children Of the Grave is the best moment for all of the 'metal' songs on the album, one of my favorite to feature Ward as the centerpiece and Iommi's tone defines the meaning of heavy. See? I can give credit to where I believe it is due, so perhaps stop acting like I am the antichrist just because my opinion is slightly different than yours about this.

To use the closing quote of film critic Cody Leach, "Opinions are like assholes, but that does not mean you have to be!"

***

Even though I am not a fan of some songs on the debut (title track and Running Free) and like, or love, every song from Killers, I always find myself drawn to the highlights of the debut more.British Steel is still a competently written and well-performed piece of pop music, and... Sad Wings is inferior to British Steel in almost every way. Sad Wings has piss-poor production, a mostly flat bottom end; every live version ever recorded ( even on bootlegs ) for songs Sad Wings sound incredible live but horrendous in studio. Most claim Sad Wings is when Priest found their footing but I could not disagree with that more, it was the final statement of a band staring down their own death. Priest did not become Judas Priest as we know them today until Sin After Sin. I do think Epitaph and two-part Dreamer/Deceiver are very underrated songs though.Yet Dickinson sounds inferior on any cover of those songs from the first two. There is a reason their greatest ballad ( Strange World ) was kept instrumental when they recorded them with Bruce and released them as b-sides or live albums.

Most agree that Maiden's classic period ended after Seventh Son but the only album from the classic period I dislike almost as much as Seventh Sleep Of a Seventh Coma is the consistently weak Number Of the Beast. Aside from the brilliant 22 Acacia Avenue and maybe Hallowed Be Thy Name, the album as well as Seventh Bore Of A Seventh Slumber are two of the most over-hyped albums of the 80s. There is a reason I followed Maiden extensively between '82 and '88 ( even seeing them live a handful of times between Piece Of Mind and SSoaSS ) but beginning with that Seventh Insult Of A Seventh Abortion I became incredibly bored with the entire package. I have always wanted to like Maiden more but they are just too predictable and pretentious to enjoy the same album with different window dressing a dozen times.

Priest did several stronger albums before and after it.

In which corny world British Steel is better than Sad Wings of Destiny? The Ripper solo kills all the songs in BS. Also i like the Black Sabbath style of 70's metal, Priest only did that style in this album. It's true tho that it does not sound like the typical Priest record, but i like that. I feel it is an underrated album.

Also never cared too much about Paul Di Anno's work, i like the guy, but cmon, Maiden is with Bruce, not much of a debate to be honest.

Sad Wings of Destiny (and all of Priest's 70's albums) are perhaps underrated in terms of cultural impact when compared to most of their 80's albums and Painkiller. But among the more dedicated fans of both metal and general music they are properly valued and respected albums. While not truly significant numbers taken from a small sample bias if one looks at the Archives or RYM one can see that Sad Wings of Destiny has better ratings and more scores/reviews than almost all of Judas Priest's 80's albums.

Edit: Where I do think this album is underrated is in its impact on the sound of heavy metal, as a whole, the reason traditional heavy metal sounds the way it does is closer to the impact of Judas Priest's S trilogy than Black Sabbath sound.