Nothing like someone that got into metal in just the last few years shitting on timeless classics because they don't click...



+1. Was bored by it for years and it was one of my first ever black metal albums, but after time and more experience with the genre I've come to really appreciate it.

I gotta applaud the ego it takes to make you think that you are sure after couple of years of listening to metal that those of us who love albums we’ve listened to for 20+ years is simply for nostalgia and that they don’t merit their status. I don’t blame you though I probably would have said something similar at that point in my metal journey. Hopefully you grow in your mindset.

Yeah, "Reborn" is one of my favorite Slayer tracks and has been for decades. It's such a precise and compact piece of razor sharp brutality...a perfect piece of metal, to my ears.

"RIB" is as much a 'mission statement' as it is a collection of songs.

Yeah I can't stand when someone is trying to defend a hate thread, just stfu.

Slaughter of the Soul is okay, it's a classic in the specific subgenre it occupies I guess but it's not a style I'm fond of. In terms of poppy, accessible melodeath there's a few albums I'd prefer to SotS. DMDS though is a genuine masterpiece. Some of the greatest and most sinister riffs in all of black metal history. I'll take it over pretty much any other second wave album with the exceptions of Under a Funeral Moon and Hvis lyset tar oss.

For me, Cause of Death by Obituary is an album which I don't exactly love despite its classic status. It's a great album and all that but I find it a little bit too mid-paced and tame given the fact it's often lauded as one of the very best death metal albums ever. I don't hear that at all.

One thing I hate though about threads like these is when people act as if other people's love for an album is due to nostalgia. You're saying that because you personally don't enjoy something despite its classic status, that instead of you merely being the exception to the rule, the masses of people (often spanning hundreds of thousands to millions of people across multiple generations and nationalities) are all simply confused. It's extremely arrogant and short-sighted IMO. Like I'll admit I personally don't think Obituary are one of the best death metal bands but I won't shit on other people's taste if they feel differently.

I'd say it's mostly overrated besides the artwork. Slowly We Rot is their best work.

Agree with pretty much everything you said, except for the first line. Sabbath set such a high benchmark from Paranoid through to Sabotage, and the steps they took forward in those years were huge. I'm not even saying the first one is a bad album, because it is most definitely not. It's almost the perfect example of a band experimenting, without yet having any idea on what their sound should be. They fine-tuned it perfectly with the second record. The band seem to agree with me, as only a couple of tracks from that record remained in the setlist throughout the 70's Ozzy era after 1971.

I bought it upon release because I was obsessed by Slowly We Rot.
I liked it at first but that disappeared within weeks. I still to this day do not really like 'Cause' that much. I also gave away my CD eventually.
In my circle Rot is still the classic and Cause 'only' the divisive follow-up

I guess I'd include the first two Venoms in this category, since, while I acknowledge and respect the tremendous impact they had on the overall evolution of extreme Metal (to the point that I agree with the people who feel Venom is the most influential extreme band of all time), I also think that they aren't great records on their own, and it feels like their influence has shielded those records from some additional criticism that they would've received otherwise.

Both killer - definitely not just nostalgia talking. Great riffs and songwriting.

Yeah the first two Venom records are awesome, they're all-time great scuzz metal albums. Along with early Bathory and Motorhead they sort of make up a trifecta of fast and rebellious speed/thrash/punk/"black" metal to get sickeningly drunk to and then do a bunch of dumb shit.

It's sort of on you if you don't like the classics. And that's fine. I probably don't unreservedly enjoy every single album that's been given classic designation myself. But still, increasingly as time goes on, i realise, if you don't like something, it's all you. of course the people who like those albums you are talking about a lot aren't going to say they're average or middling. Why would they?
And they're not wrong.
And neither are you, even if you go against the majority's view. You are evaluating a piece of art, not a piece of engineering. There's little objective measurements you can employ here. Not to say that no criticism of art is valid, but I would avoid using words like "average" if possible. An average is a very specific, quantifiable thing, with a formula for reaching it -- you can't really apply that to music. It's enough to: 1. Describe the way something sounds to you; 2. Describe why you dont really like it.

The majority of people who shit on the classics (or consider them mediocre) rarely have any informed criticism to make. 95% of the time it's just some 20 year old who's been listening to metal for a few years and believes that they have a handle on everything. They heard De Mysteriis dom Sathanas a few times, didn't like it and now it's boring and overrated etc.

It's much more interesting when somebody who genuinely knows what they're talking about shits on the classics, even if we vehemently disagree. They have an actual perspective that's grounded in experience and they can usually articulate a reasonable critique.

It's odd how perception can change with time. I discovered Venom in the mid 80s and loved those first four, but within a few years, with the rise of thrash - especially more techy/proggy iteration of it - my admiration for Venom dissipated. Flash forward decades later, and I like those records are even more, now, than I did in '85/'86.
There's just this 'primal', 'blue flame of metal' streak propelling those albums. They almost feel heavier now than they did then, to my ears.

And we all surely have some 'classic' albums we've outgrown.
The album hasn't changed (obviously) but our personal taste has. I have several albums I used to love as a 18/19 year old and now I couldn't stand more than 1 or perhaps 2 songs in a row

Great post. On point. It's not that you have to like the classics but some of these critiques are just so surface level and show you barely tried to engage with the music.

Yes. And context is important. None of this stuff exists in a vacuum. Many things might be called classic not only because people love them, but because they seemed to be the first to really do a particular thing (though whenever someone says something was "the first", there's often a more obscure, earlier example, it's true, and this applies to literature just as much as to music).
An argument I often hear is that, let's say, Ride the Lightning, may have been good "at the time", but has now been superceded by other bands and albums. This doesn't make sense to me, and it makes me sad to think that there are people out there who mostly think of art in this reductive way. A cynical part of me wants to blame the technology industry for this, not directly, but influencing peoples' thinking in subtle ways. For me, I think less like, "what is the pinnacle of thrash metal", and more, "what do Metallica (or insert some artist name here) specifically do on that album that pleases me so much?". The fact that other bands who are influenced by them might be tighter, play faster, be better musicians -- that doesn't matter at all. The point is, they're not metallica. They are, and should be, their own thing, even in some small barely traceable way...they're not "updating" Metallica. that's 100% not the way I want to think of music, especially in 2023, both because of how the world is now, and because of my own personal feelings about this kind of stuff.

Oh yeah totally. The whole thing you wrote here about Metallica is spot on. That's what I've really come to value. The individuality of these bands... I try and look at things now in terms of what a thing is and also whether I just instinctively like it or not, and then work from there if I need to analyze it further. You stop needing to have endless Takes all the time at some point. And honestly I like a lot more stuff since I stopped trying to have terminal reviewer/hot take brain all the time anyway.

This is very true, very accurate and well put. When bands are just copy+pasting a style, one could argue that some band played that specific style better then another, but the idea that more recent bands have "improved" or "surpassed" the older bands is just plain simply. Espeically when talking about bands with such a unique and recognizable style, sound and personnality. Like you said, when I listen to Ride the Lightning, it's to listen to Metallica, to listen to Ride the Lightning, not because it's the best thrash metal album ever, but because it's one of the best, one of these very distinctively unique albums that I enjoy exactly for what they are.

I consider myself competent in terms of black metal knowledge and I will always defend that Burzum is the worst band ever. It's not even about his politics and his worldview, that's the only thing worse than his music. I'll die on this hill.

The question here is... Is it really that interesting for me to write an essay about how much Filosofem sucks? I think it's just better for all of as if I just shut all over it instead of wasting everyone's time.

See, I really doubt anyone could convince me that Burzum is the worst band ever. But I'd definitely like to hear the opinions of people who actually know a little something about something, explain to me why they think Burzum isn't good. It definitely beats listening to contrarian kids who've just discovered In Flames, explain to me why Metallica was actually never a good band. Like, I enjoy Burzum, but find most of his work to be a bit uneven. Even Filosofem I don't listen in full because I find myself losing interest rapidly after the end of Jesu død. The only Burzum albums I listen in full and enjoy from beginning to end are Det som engang var, and controversially, Hliðskjálf.

Well, I admit my interest peaked when you mentioned Filosofem. I think I would be interested in at least a glance at that essay and probably because I think Filosofem sucks too. But if the album had been a classic album I love I'd more than likely have said "nah no thanks". So while I'd hope my interest is in something more than being vindicated over all those fuckers who dare to like an album I don't, I doubt it.

Right! I don't know if this is a fairly new phenomenon or it's just something I've come to observe lately, but it's one of the things that has led me to a certain level of discontent with music criticism in our era. There seems to be this tendency to look at artists as being parts of a system, and each artist as a whole is not really working just to better themselves as an individual unit, but to improve the status of the whole system. in this case, the system would be something like "thrash metal", an artificial category, useful, admittedly, but only in a sort of casual abstract way. People sometimes seem more interested in the question "what will take thrash metal to the next level", rather than, "how is this particular artist doing, and what are the things I like about them and want to hear from them?" The takeaway from this for me: I want less focus on categorisation and the viewing of artists as being part of a system, and more on artists themselves, as individuals, who might happen to contribute to a system, but do so accidentally/without the "we're doing thrash metal 2.0!" mindset. Of course, I realise someone could point out a contradiction in my suppositions here, as I said that stuff isn't created in a vacuum, and therefore maybe the box you want to put a band in does matter. But I think it matters only so much as it helps you organise your music and relate one band to another for yourself and your friends, and, well, sites like the archives.
Hopefully this makes sense to other people.

It makes sense for the fans, but also the bands to think of themselves as part of a bigger picture, of a culture. It allows the bands to find where they fit in, but also to understand the scene, the tendencies, what works and doesn't work, and also how they can be unique, make their art fit with a movement but still be unique enough. I'm guessing this is true for a lot of bands, as only a few greats manage to really just reinvent the wheel and basically pave entirely new avenues (I'm thinking of bands like Agalloch when writing this). So I guess once you've kind of figured out where you exist in this system, it might be hard to just do your own thing without comparing yourself to others, just like it's hard for dedicated and/or knowledgeable fans like us to analyze the work of a band without putting it back in the context of the scene(s) they are a part of, or the time period where they exist(ed).

Like you said, these categories are useful, until they become an obstacle and when they come to become a restricting frame for us to think about art.

I think a lot of critics, especially those who do it professionnally, and even some those who do it as a hobby, come to rely on this kind of frames as they are useful to quickly analyze art and quickly come out with a review. I'm guessing that when you have to "mass produce" criticism to keep up with the market, or maybe just when you have a hard time really finding an angle to analyze art, it comes in handy to have a frame to guide you. Understand that I'm not saying it's all bad, but it can turn into a clutch very quickly if one comes to rely on it too much.

And like you said, it might take away from the enjoyment of listening to music, and what this artist or that artist is doing, and finding an interesting way to talk about it/review it.

What you're describing makes sense. I agree with your point of view, although I do understand that it's a fine line to thread, and I probably took this shortcut of talking about albums mainly from the point of view of what they are contributing to the scene/system, because it was a simpler way to approach it.

Without coming to a definitive conclusion about these subjects, it's definitely interesting to have these kinds of discussions to get our brains going and maybe broaden our perspectives and find other ways, other angles to look at music (and art in general) and how the culture surrounding art (fandoms, reviewing, cultural journalism, etc.) takes form.

Thanks for having this discussion with me, by the way. These are always very appreciated.

Black Sabbath: Master Of Reality
Immolation: Here In After
Possessed: Seven Churches
Sodom: Agent Orange
Venom: Welcome To Hell
Metallica: Master Of Puppets
Slayer: South Of Heaven
Iron Maiden: Seventh Son Of A Seventh Son

The point of the thread is to talk about overrated albums Luvers, not to list some of the best albums of all time. Nice list tho.

One of the most iconic, genre-defining, well-written, well-performed, best produced albums of all time. It influenced more then 3 generations of bands and established some of the most common tropes of the genre. It massively contributed to crafting the entire stoner doom subgenre.

"People only like it because of nostalgia."

Man, this fucking thread hurts my soul. The arrogance and pretentiousness in assuming that if you dislike something, it can only mean that the people who like it are stupid and blinded by nostalgia.



And man, I could make similar arguments for all these records. Fuckin hell...

Precisely!Awww, dry your eyes. The only thing arrogant and pretentious is assuming if someone dislikes something most others like, they must also think those who likes that same something is stupid and blinded by nostalgia.

Since you signaled out MOR. Something being iconic and genre-defining does not make it immune to criticism. Way to succeed at proving the point of the entire thread. And well-written you say? An album with 1 classical arrangement and 6 songs that all feature 3 riffs at most; basic and primitively dull melody lines and atrocious vocals? The next 3 Sabbath albums are infinitely more complex yet focused(see: well-written). After Forever might be the most complex song on MOR but compare it to Cornucopia, Snowblind, Sabbra Cadabra, Killing Yourself... Spiral Architect, Symptom Of the Universe, Megalomania, Thrill Of It All and you will see MOR's proudest moment is but a firecracker to those later - and superior - atom bombs.

Just the first 22 seconds of Hole In the Sky is superior to the entirety of Sabbath's first 3 albums, and 8 of them are inaudible.

Read the name of the thread until you understand it. I don't feel like humoring someone who is just spouting contrarian shit for the sake of it.



At what point did I argue that it was immune to criticism?



Whole lot of words to say that you don't understand that more complex =/= better. MoR is simple and does exactly what it sets out to do. It's a masterpiece.

My answer is chamber music by coal chamber, funnily enough I'm wearing a t shirt for it rn

I think it's pretty corny and goofy teenager shit, but I loved it as a child, and I've always liked the aesthetic of the cd, so it's hard for me to hate it even though I know it's not really that great

Just someone being a true, ahole.

Regarding nostalgia - I'm presenting you 2 specific categories and am wondering whether anyone else has come across recordings that fit one of those categories in the context of their own lives.

On the one hand, there are albums that were recorded and released during my formative years but which I was unaware of for many years to come, e.g. North's "From the dark past". It inhabits this category because it evokes this feeling of nostalgia even though I didn't know it back then, yet its authenticity speaks for itself.

On the other hand, there are recordings which were released only in recent years (well past my formative era) but whose music exudes an atmosphere close enough to those albums that are nostalgic for me, e.g. Skumring's "De glemte tider".

So, who wants to chime in?

The main problem with Kill 'Em All is it's packed with other bands' riffs : Saxon, Venom, Diamond Head, Judas Priest and a bit from Lynyrd Skynyrd.
The album is legendary but anyone who's been inspired by Kill 'Em All has been impressed by its speed and violence for its time, more than the riffs themselves - or they need to listen to the bands Metallica sucked up. I loved it when i was 15 and zero retrospect about the metal genre.

I mean how many riffs does a song have to have to be considered good though? How is that a real metric?

I read it, understood it completely and you are still the one claiming that people who dislike a certain something are claiming those who DO like that same something as stupid and blinded by nostalgia. Whereas there is no need to think that. I find those albums I mentioned as being overrated and middling and that is where it ends. I do not think that you or anyone else who does like them are stupid or anything else, in fact, your subjective perspective never once enters my mind when I am determining my own subjective opinion. Like I wrote before, it is arrogant and pretentious to put those words into others peoples words.

Let me try to make this clearer and simpler: No one gives a fuck if you like/dislike an album. It is arrogant beyond measure to think of yourself as so damn important that you think your perspective means anything to someone else.And yet you tell me I should read the thread title. The thread is literally about how certain albums are immune to criticism.And you still do not get it. While it is true that complex =/= more enjoyment, it is just laughably inane to say that more complex does not equal superiority.

What you are doing is the equivalent of looking at a glorious sprawling mansion, which is a model of efficiency and luxury, and then claiming "that does not make it good, the shotgun shack house was simple and constructed exactly like it was intended. It's a masterpiece."

I bet you are the person who would look at a guitarist who just concluded the performance where they played rock, metal, country, bluegrass, jazz, blues and gospel music and yet you would stand up and yell, "That does not impress me, can they play 'Twinkle, twinkle little star?"

No that would be impressive too, but it wouldn't take away from how great a really simplistic thing can also be. Complexity absolutely does not make something automatically better in every way - it only would if you're specifically looking for something that is more complex.

I could have written this post before diving into this album again a couple months ago. It had been years (maybe a whole decade) that i hadn't listened to it in its entirety.
Reign In Blood remained in my mind this album filled with half-finished, expeditious tracks, with unnecessary crazy tempos and terrible solos. But when i listened to it again after a long break, its MASSIVE SOUND hit me like a brick first. Everything here is crystal clear sonically ; in 1986 it was a huge accomplishment to deliver such a brutal yet limpid music.
And this passage, going from Altar of Sacrifice's break, to the 9/8 riff from Jesus Saves... ok this is straddling between 2 songs, but man... this is a fucking thrash metal epitome right there...

I'd like to listen to these new Metal albums better than Ride The Lightning and Reign in Blood.

I always felt this way about Painkiller. Not that it's a bad album by any means, and the musicianship and production values are fantastic, but I just feel like the songwriting doesn't hold up a lot of the time, it's so basic and repetitive that in some cases I get sick of the ideas quickly ("A Touch of Evil," "One Shot at Glory") or it reduces what could have been a great song to merely a decent one with a bit more variety ("Nightcrawler," "Between the Hammer and the Anvil"). The title track is the only one I'd give a 10/10, although it has several solid 8's-8.5's ("Hell Patrol," "All Guns Blazing," "Metal Meltdown"). Again, not a bad album, I'd probably rate it somewhere in the 70-75 range, and I don't deny it was incredibly influential, but I feel that with the exception of Halford's vocal performance, everything it strives to do has been done better by other bands/albums (Oblivion FL's early demos, Riot's Thundersteel before Painkiller's release, and others after which were of course influenced by the album but still outshine it in most regards, such as Phantom's Cyberchrist and Iron Savior's Condition Red).

Again, I respect the album for the incredible impact it had on subsequent power and speed metal bands, but I don't find it to be anywhere near a masterclass on the style in terms of songwriting/consistency, which it seems it's widely considered to be.

Yeah, I'm not wasting time with you anymore.