Unpopular Metal Opinions

I think as far as 'The Big Four" goes and arguments about who should or shouldn't be considered as members of this exclusive club: This was a term that was in use very early on in the development of thrash metal and at the time those four bands were literally the biggest four thrash bands around. Testament were quite late to the party, The Legacy coming out after Reign in Blood, Master of Puppets, Peace Sells and Among the Living so were never in with a shout of being considered in The Big Four. Time has dictated otherwise and revealed their consistent back catalogue to merit inclusion, but The Big Four is like the Mount Rushmore of thrash and will remain as those four for time immemorial.

Despite all these differences of opinion, which I was hoping for when beginning this thread, please remember that what unites us is more important than what divides us. Go to RYM and read their board's, there you will find people who think every single album on this site is shit and we are all idiots for enjoying them.

Finally, I must 'fess up that one of my original points is not actually my opinion and I included it in the hope of getting a reaction. Can you guess which it was?

1. All In Flames albums are great, and their dive into Alternative Metal still makes them one of the most innovative bands ever. One day people will realize these guys basically perfected Pop Metal and once the stigma for that dies I believe they will get the credit they deserve.

2. Since I see the name being thrown around... Thrash Voivod > Prog Voivod

3. 70's metal, in general, is not that great. It's only revered because it came first. Basically one riff and a guitar solo away from Hard Rock. There was almost no innovation for the first decade, whereas the 80's saw a massive explosion in subgenres, technique, delivery, etc. There is not a single 70's metal album I consider a masterpiece, with Judas Priest's Sin After Sin being my favorite, but nowhere near my top.

4. Atmosphere, mood, emotion, delivery > technical skill, prowess, wankery, complexity 

5. Doom Metal is one of my favorite genres, but 80's Doom is really bland. Even Cadlemass is not among my favorite Doom artists. I feel 80's Doom had not yet captured the - as I mention above - atmosphere and mood that it gained in the 90's that made it a truly melancholic genre rather than just a lethargic and boring one.

The earlier In Flames melodeath albums are great, with The Jester Race being second place in the melodeath classic reign (first being that At the Gates album). But as innovative as their later alternative/pop metal albums are, they really distanced themselves far away from their original sound and sound way too different from their heavier glory, similar to Katatonia.

Prog Voivod (the late 80s transitional trilogy) just slightly greater than Thrash Voivod (the first two albums) and far greater than the rest.

I'm also not really into 70s metal bands (Black Sabbath, Judas Priest, Motorhead), when heavy metal was mostly just a singular genre, often closer to hard rock. The 80s will probably forever be the minimum decade for me to go for all the innovation and subgenres. I'm sure the only people who consider 70s metal albums true masterpieces are people who are either oldie fans or 70s metal fans or super-fans that like every single decade of metal.

I like both atmosphere and technicality, which is why I like both the post- and progressive ends of the Infinite.

Doom metal is also a favorite genre of mine, but I prefer just death-doom, gothic doom, and sludge doom, which are slightly faster in some cases while keeping the dark melancholy. Traditional and funeral doom are so slow and bland that if I was given the entire Candlemass discography, I would speed it all up to be 2x faster. I used to do that for bands like My Dying Bride, but not so much anymore, since I can tolerate the slowness more now. No more blaspheming the whole reason for doom! ...At least for now.

I think as far as 'The Big Four" goes and arguments about who should or shouldn't be considered as members of this exclusive club: This was a term that was in use very early on in the development of thrash metal and at the time those four bands were literally the biggest four thrash bands around. Testament were quite late to the party, The Legacy coming out after Reign in Blood, Master of Puppets, Peace Sells and Among the Living so were never in with a shout of being considered in The Big Four. Time has dictated otherwise and revealed their consistent back catalogue to merit inclusion, but The Big Four is like the Mount Rushmore of thrash and will remain as those four for time immemorial.

Despite all these differences of opinion, which I was hoping for when beginning this thread, please remember that what unites us is more important than what divides us. Go to RYM and read their board's, there you will find people who think every single album on this site is shit and we are all idiots for enjoying them.

Finally, I must 'fess up that one of my original points is not actually my opinion and I included it in the hope of getting a reaction. Can you guess which it was?

Lol! Now I'm imagining a Big 4 + Testament split compilation where the cover art is a parody of the Deep Purple in Rock cover with the faces of all the bands' lead singers.

Let me guess...when you called Death "f***ing average"?

I like these spicy hot takes! Here's some of mine:

• Slayer's Reign in Blood is shit. I never cared for Slayer, and even though Seasons in the Abyss is a classic in every sense of the word, most people excuse this album's awful production as part of the charm. It's not.
• Anthrax were (and still are) the best of the big four. But since were on the topic...
• Testament are the best thrash band that came out of the eighties, with the best overall discography of any of the big four, and should have been apart of the big four instead of that meandering solo shit show that is Dave Mustaine's Megadeth.
• Pantera fans are the worst fans in all of metal. Their idolization of this band as a deity who are incapable of critique is honestly terrifying and my favour with the band has deteriorated greatly because of it since the passing of Dimebag.
• Emperor's best album was Prometheus
• Ænima is still Tool's worst album. Even after having Fear Inoculum for over a year.
• Opeth's progressive rock pivot of the 2010s is not as bad as you initially thought.

That's all I got for now. If this thread keeps up and I see some more spicy hot takes, I may update.

What about the production job on "Reign In Blood" doesn't float your boat exactly? I'm intrigued as its generally regarded as the benchmark that all other thrash records are judged against. It's also my all-time favourite metal release.

Despite really loving "Spreading The Disease" & "Among The Living", I'd say that Anthrax are the least substantial of the Big Four personally.

I've never seen Testament as being on the same level as the Big Four. Their first couple of records were obviously very strong but didn't really push the thrash genre forwards & weren't done any favours by their thin production jobs. I don't think I've ever rated one of their records above a 4/5 to be honest. They're the definition of a second tier artist for mine.

I get where you're coming but my recent experiences with Twitter have shown that obsessive Metallica fans are much less tolerable than Pantera's. That platform is literally full of people whose primary mission in life is to try to convince people that Metallica's post-Black Album material is actually comprised of a long list of unheralded classics.

"Prometheus" was a solid release but I'd have to go with the majority on this one. "In The Nightside Eclipse" is the pinnacle of Emperor's career for mine with the releases either side of it rounding out the top three.

I rate "Aenima" as a genuine classic & Tool's second-best album behind "Lateralus.

I agree about Opeth's prog rock era. I don't think that band are capable of producing rubbish.

Let me guess...when you called Death "f***ing average"?

No, that one is merely hyperbole.

1. King Diamond is a terrible vocalist and the real talent in Mercyful Fate has always been Denner and Shermann.  That withstanding, none of their albums are worthy of nearly half of the praise they receive and all of KD's solo releases are boring.

2. Likewise, Joey Belladonna is an overrated vocalist and Anthrax's output is patchy at best.

3. Voivod have never released a good album and are none of my business.

4. Amon Amarth have been releasing the same album for the last 29 years and it is still boring.

5. The internet has too many fucking lists on it.

6. Iron Maiden were at their best when Paul Di'Anno was on vocals.

7. Meshuggah sacrifice power and passion in their music in favour of unnecessary complexity.

8. AC/DC are massively overrated and nowhere near as influential as fans make them out to be.

6. Iron Maiden were at their best when Paul Di'Anno was on vocals.

Thanks, Vinny. I refer you to point #1 on my original post.

1. Lyrics matter. Bad lyrics ruin good stuff for me, and they always equate into a rating unless I don't understand the language (even then I will translate if possible). Bad lyrics are no different than bad guitar to me. 

Quoted SilentScream213

Interesting comment and not one you hear bandied around in metal circles much. For me, the vocals matter a huge amount, not so much the lyrics, although really cheesy lyrics make me cringe (the new Briton Rites album, for example, is lyrically awful). I would be genuinely interested to know, what do you look for specifically in lyrical content that would cause a big boost in your rating of an album and conversely what would deserve a docking?

Here are my general ones

1. Lyrics matter. Bad lyrics ruin good stuff for me, and they always equate into a rating unless I don't understand the language (even then I will translate if possible). Bad lyrics are no different than bad guitar to me. 

2. I don't care about impact or historical significance or anything like that. I listen to music in a vacuum. And thus...

3. 70's metal, in general, is not that great. It's only revered because it came first. Basically one riff and a guitar solo away from Hard Rock. There was almost no innovation for the first decade, whereas the 80's saw a massive explosion in subgenres, technique, delivery, etc. There is not a single 70's metal album I consider a masterpiece, with Judas Priest's Sin After Sin being my favorite, but nowhere near my top.

4. Atmosphere, mood, emotion, delivery > technical skill, prowess, wankery, complexity 

5. Doom Metal is one of my favorite genres, but 80's Doom is really bland. Even Cadlemass is not among my favorite Doom artists. I feel 80's Doom had not yet captured the - as I mention above - atmosphere and mood that it gained in the 90's that made it a truly melancholic genre rather than just a lethargic and boring one.

Here are more specific ones

1. All In Flames albums are great, and their dive into Alternative Metal still makes them one of the most innovative bands ever. One day people will realize these guys basically perfected Pop Metal and once the stigma for that dies I believe they will get the credit they deserve.

2. Since I see the name being thrown around... Thrash Voivod > Prog Voivod

3. Most underground Thrash is better than any of the Big 4 barring Slayer. The other 3 were pretty much Thrash lite and that's probably why they got popular. (I still love them, just love my dark underground Thrash more).

4. St. Anger is not that bad? Not great, but... 

I honestly don't care all that much about lyrics unless they have a significant impact on the atmosphere which I would say is quite rare. I'd also suggest that this wasn't always the case for me though. When I was much younger & had to purchase physical copies of everything I would spend hours & hours pondering over lyric sheets but at the end of the day I'm a musician who cares much more for the sounds coming out of the speakers than I do the lyrics, image or cover art.

I can certainly understand people not getting into 70's metal. I personally only regard one 70's release as a genuine metal classic (i.e. "Paranoid") however I don't agree that there was very little innovation going on. Albums like Black Sabbath's "Sabbath Bloody Sabbath", Rainbow's "Rising" or Legend's "From The Fjords" were all pushing metal music forwards in my opinion.

In regards to 80's doom metal, again I can understand where you're coming from there. The traditional model wasn't as targeted as it was the result of a wider array of influences (perhaps the result of rock music being at its absolute peak during the 70's) & isn't for everyone. I think the popularity of party-time hair metal probably encouraged people to provide a response in the other direction by the late 80's.

I like Voivod's first couple of releases but don't think they compare to their next few albums. They only really got going with "Killing Technology" in my opinion.

I think the best work of the Big Four is hard to top. Sure there are bands that were/are more consistent but few can match the mid-to-late 80's output of those four bands.

"St. Anger" really is that bad in my opinion. Unlistenably bad in fact.

1. King Diamond is a terrible vocalist and the real talent in Mercyful Fate has always been Denner and Shermann.  That withstanding, none of their albums are worthy of nearly half of the praise they receive and all of KD's solo releases are boring.

2. Likewise, Joey Belladonna is an overrated vocalist and Anthrax's output is patchy at best.

3. Voivod have never released a good album and are none of my business.

4. Amon Amarth have been releasing the same album for the last 29 years and it is still boring.

5. The internet has too many fucking lists on it.

6. Iron Maiden were at their best when Paul Di'Anno was on vocals.

7. Meshuggah sacrifice power and passion in their music in favour of unnecessary complexity.

8. AC/DC are massively overrated and nowhere near as influential as fans make them out to be.

Despite the fact that I've grown to love King Diamond over time, I agree that the real gold comes via his accompanying instrumentalists. It wasn't only the guitarists with Mercyful Fate. Drummer Kim Ruzz was absolutely on fire on records like "Melissa" too. I have to admit that I actually prefer some of the King's solo material over Fate's best work & Andy LaRocque is a major component of that. I think it comes down to my age as much as anything as, even though I prefer the darker Fate atmosphere, I can't deny my attraction to the flashier, shreddier solo work.

I really love Joey Belladonna to be honest. He's a major reason for my long-time love of records like "Spreading The Disease" & "Among The Living". Not only can he really sing but he also possesses enormous charisma & brings a level of x-factor that's hard to define.

The internet can never have too many lists. In fact, I think there should be a separate internet specifically for lists. If that was the case I'd probably never visit Google again.

I disagree on the Meshuggah topic. Their complexity is half of the attraction for an old muso like me as it's just so over the top. They're still ridiculously heavy too.

If you spent as much time researching & listening to the NWOBHM as Ben & I did whilst preparing for the Metal Academy podcast you may change your mind on the AC/DC topic. Sure they've released the same album a thousand times in a row but almost every underground NWOBHM band took as much influence from AC/DC as they did from Black Sabbath, Judas Priest (who took their own influence from AC/DC) or Motorhead. I don't think I was prepared for just how important they were to the development of that scene & metal in general. Van Halen too for that matter. 

1. Lyrics matter. Bad lyrics ruin good stuff for me, and they always equate into a rating unless I don't understand the language (even then I will translate if possible). Bad lyrics are no different than bad guitar to me. 

Quoted SilentScream213

Interesting comment and not one you hear bandied around in metal circles much. For me, the vocals matter a huge amount, not so much the lyrics, although really cheesy lyrics make me cringe (the new Briton Rites album, for example, is lyrically awful). I would be genuinely interested to know, what do you look for specifically in lyrical content that would cause a big boost in your rating of an album and conversely what would deserve a docking?

Just to be clear I'm not saying anything DESRRVES to be docked for any reason, but I rate things completely subjectively, and therefore it's just lyrics I like versus dislike. Lyrics I really don't like include:

Boastful/we're a metal band playing metal/let's party/come headbang with us type stuff, a big reason why I'm not a huge fan of Kill Em All as opposed to the very serious and literature inspired lyrics on Ride the Lightning.

Anything silly or humorous unless it's pulled off insanely well, which I haven't heard yet. I love tongue in cheek stuff if they go all down and act like they're serious though (Ghost, Powerwolf)

Drug use, when delivered in a "let's get high/drunk" manner. I love when bands look at the actual struggles and effects of abuse, but I hate any lighthearted promotion of it.

Probably goes without saying, but prejudice when played straight. No problem at all if a band wants to write a song from a nazi's perspective and have very serious lyrics if done well, but if members are actually voicing their own opinions and seriously encouraging prejudice, no good.

Then there are just generally poor lyrics. No substance, no emotion, no message... Megadeth's "Wake Up Dead" is an example of a song with great music that I can't enjoy because of how awful the lyrics are.

Lyrics that make me think are good, lyrics that make me feel are best. Any song with lyrics that manage to choke me up is pretty immediately at least a 4.5/5 for me.

Lyrics that make me think are good, lyrics that make me feel are best. Any song with lyrics that manage to choke me up is pretty immediately at least a 4.5/5 for me.

That's a great point and one I can wholeheartedly get behind. The lyrics and their heartfelt delivery are probably the main reason Warning's Watching From A Distance is my favourite album - they get me every time.

Lyrics that make me think are good, lyrics that make me feel are best. Any song with lyrics that manage to choke me up is pretty immediately at least a 4.5/5 for me.

That's a great point and one I can wholeheartedly get behind. The lyrics and their heartfelt delivery are probably the main reason Warning's Watching From A Distance is my favourite album - they get me every time.

I actually haven't heard Warning yet (I will, don't worry) but 40 Watt Sunn (same vocalist) is in my top 5 bands for that reason. Some of the most powerfully moving lyrics and delivery I've ever heard. Warning is a band I look forward to getting sad to haha.

I think it's great that we can have this thread and still keep things friendly. Everyone's opinion is totally valid.

Except for Daniel's opinion that Summoning are shit. That's just wrong. 

3. Voivod have never released a good album and are none of my business.

4. Amon Amarth have been releasing the same album for the last 29 years and it is still boring.

5. The internet has too many fucking lists on it.

6. Iron Maiden were at their best when Paul Di'Anno was on vocals.

7. Meshuggah sacrifice power and passion in their music in favour of unnecessary complexity.

Quoted MacabreEternal

Voivod's albums are really good, especially their earlier albums. I love Prog Voivod (the late 80s transitional trilogy), just slightly greater than Thrash Voivod (the first two albums) and far greater than the rest.

I agree that throughout Amon Amarth's almost 3-decade career, they've released so many albums with the same Viking themes. But they're still really killer, and I think of all their albums (plus their EP) as an ongoing Viking saga.

"Too many f***ing lists"!? This is kind of a thread where we create many lists, and you've fallen into that trap!

This opinion harkens back to the first two to ever appear in this thread, written by Sonny:

1. Number of the Beast was a serious let down after the immense Killers.

2. Piece of Mind is the best Maiden album with Bruce Dickinson. Seventh Son.. is pretentious shite.

Even though he has enjoyed one of the Bruce Dickinson albums, I can see how immense both of you think of the albums with Paul Di'Anno. Of course, nothing wrong with that, both singers are probably some of the best in metal!

I believe complexity is part of Meshuggah's passion and power, and Veil of Maya has that too in songs like "With Passion and Power".

4. St. Anger is not that bad? Not great, but... 

For as hilariously embarrassing as St. Anger is, at least it had potential. Death Magnetic meanwhile was both disappointing and empty. St. Anger saw these heavy metal giants tackle nu-metal, and fail. But instead of refining it or doing something completely different, the group decided to make a paint by numbers thrash metal album, produced by Rick Rubin (who also produced Reign in Blood) that was not just an absolute disaster from a sonic point of view, but it was the album that is most devoid of identity than any previous Metallica album.

This opinion harkens back to the first two to ever appear in this thread, written by Sonny:

1. Number of the Beast was a serious let down after the immense Killers.

2. Piece of Mind is the best Maiden album with Bruce Dickinson. Seventh Son.. is pretentious shite.

Even though he has enjoyed one of the Bruce Dickinson albums, I can see how immense both of you think of the albums with Paul Di'Anno. Of course, nothing wrong with that, both singers are probably some of the best in metal!

Just to clarify, I really enjoy most of Maiden's albums with Bruce, except Brave New World and SSoaSS - Number of the Beast included. I merely prefer Di'Anno's punkier, more aggressive vocal style and was very disappointed at the time, when he and Maiden parted ways. I just happen to like Piece Of Mind more than the other Bruce albums and really don't get the deification of Seventh Son.. as it doesn't fire me like other Maiden albums.

As far as the claim that there are no great metal albums from the seventies, I guess this depends when you got into music. It's no surprise that I am an older metal head (shortly due to enter my sixtieth year - Fuck!!!), so I will obviously view records I grew up with differently than someone looking back three or four decades with no temporal context. I had good times with good friends listening to those records (some of whom are no longer with us), hanging out, going to gigs together, partying, so they are bound to resonate  with me more on a personal level. I think one of the great tragedies of the internet age, streaming and personal audio equipment is that lack of a shared experience with other like-minded travellers through life and whilst I concede that there is nothing wrong with listening to music impartially, I am unable to do so - context is everything in my mind and I admire those who can critique music without bias, unfortunately I'm not one of them.

I would, however, be first to admit that seventies' metal has more of a rock component, but I love 70's rock as well - my favourite musical year is 1971 - and I make no apologies for it. If you think you get to death metal, black metal, doom metal or whatever your metal genre of choice is, without those albums, then you are wrong. It's all interconnected - it's evolution, man.

^^^^^^^

Outstanding post right there.

As far as the claim that there are no great metal albums from the seventies, I guess this depends when you got into music. It's no surprise that I am an older metal head (shortly due to enter my sixtieth year - Fuck!!!), so I will obviously view records I grew up with differently than someone looking back three or four decades with no temporal context. I had good times with good friends listening to those records (some of whom are no longer with us), hanging out, going to gigs together, partying, so they are bound to resonate  with me more on a personal level. I think one of the great tragedies of the internet age, streaming and personal audio equipment is that lack of a shared experience with other like-minded travellers through life and whilst I concede that there is nothing wrong with listening to music impartially, I am unable to do so - context is everything in my mind and I admire those who can critique music without bias, unfortunately I'm not one of them.

I would, however, be first to admit that seventies' metal has more of a rock component, but I love 70's rock as well - my favourite musical year is 1971 - and I make no apologies for it. If you think you get to death metal, black metal, doom metal or whatever your metal genre of choice is, without those albums, then you are wrong. It's all interconnected - it's evolution, man.

Just wanna clarify it's just my personal taste that they don't appeal to me as much - not taking away from their importance or saying they can't be masterpieces to another person! I just didn't bother tempering my take cause that's what this thread is about haha. Like you, I am absolutely effected by my experiences with an album when I judge it, I don't think anyone can not be to some degree. But it doesn't have anything to do with not growing up in the era for me - I have very important experiences listening to bands like Slayer despite not getting into metal until the 2000's. It's all just a matter of taste.

1. "Crystal Mountain" is comfortably the weakest song on Death's "Symbolic".

2. "Peace Sells... But Who's Buying?" is Megadeth's best record.

3. "Super Collider" isn't all that bad for a poppy metal record & is superior to four or five of Megadeth's other albums.

4. "Countdown To Extinction" & "Killing Is My Business... And Business is Good!" are both inessential.

5. "Painkiller" is Judas Priest's only genuinely classic album.

*Prepares for the inevitable backlash to my horrifying (but completely honest) claims* :)

I personally believe that there's a window of time in our youth we're things impact us much more strongly than later in life. The games I played, the music I listened to, the movies I watched, when I was aged between about 12 and 18, will always have a nostalgic element that makes them more important to me than they would be if I'd experienced them later in life.

This makes it really hard to judge whether albums like Altars of Madness, Master of Puppets and Reign in Blood really are head and shoulders above everything released in the decades since, or whether it's just the impact they have on me personally due to my age at the time of experiencing them. It also results in things that I experienced during that time that might not otherwise have appealed to me much at all (such Amorphis' Tales From the Thousand Lakes and Cradle of Filth in general) being really important to me.

I'm not sure what the evolutionary purpose of this phenomena might be, but I do believe it's a thing. Thoughts?

I personally believe that there's a window of time in our youth we're things impact us much more strongly than later in life. The games I played, the music I listened to, the movies I watched, when I was aged between about 12 and 18, will always have a nostalgic element that makes them more important to me than they would be if I'd experienced them later in life.

This makes it really hard to judge whether albums like Altars of Madness, Master of Puppets and Reign in Blood really are head and shoulders above everything released in the decades since, or whether it's just the impact they have on me personally due to my age at the time of experiencing them. It also results in things that I experienced during that time that might not otherwise have appealed to me much at all (such Amorphis' Tales From the Thousand Lakes and Cradle of Filth in general) being really important to me.

I'm not sure what the evolutionary purpose of this phenomena might be, but I do believe it's a thing. Thoughts?

Psych major here - During adolescence, our bodies are hyper-sensitive to stimulus of all kinds, especially emotional stimulus. This means that experiences and feelings we have at this stage in our life are intensified, and therefore solidified as significant memories in our brain. Anything that makes us feel strongly is more liable to be remembered and considered important to us, and since we are prone to feel more of everything in this period of our lives, what we experience often becomes ingrained much more significantly than in other periods of life. Evolutionary purpose? Humans need to take risks to evolve, and this risk taking behavior stems from the extreme sensitivity to feeling and the drive for more of it in this period of our lives. Favoring music (or anything) from this time period is a by-product of this.

At least, that was the consensus when I learned it. The field is always changing (and it's been some time since studying psych) so the details might not be 100%, but that's the gist of it.