Thanks guys.
Batty, when I got into metal I knew what I liked --- Maiden, Motorhead and Mozart (sorry, Red Dwarf joke again) --- Saxon, Leppard, Whitesnake, Purple, Zep (to some degree), Diamond Head, and I did try some what would have been called thrash at the time, like Tank, Anthrax, Anvil. I did like it okay but I think something that turned me off even trying Slayer was that they had ---whether deserved or not --- this rep for being the loudest, noisiest (different thing), dirtiest and fastest band around. Now I like fast but not so fast that it all blends together into one indistinguishable mess of noise. I had them pegged to be honest with the likes of Venom et al.

I prefer my metal to be at least somewhat melodic and Slayer just never appealed to me on that level. Plus I assumed --- probably wrongly --- they were Black Metal, and I hated that. So all that taken into account and remembering I wasn't the type of metalhead who strayed too far from what I knew I liked, it's really not that surprising that I never listened to them before, other than a brief snippet of "Raining blood" on South Park, which did nothing to make me want to hear them more. There are piles of bands I never touched --- Sepultura, Death, Cradle of Filth, Children of Bodom --- and others I tried --- Haggard, Blind Guardian --- but whose death vocals immediately turned me off. Sad really because Haggard's music was really great but I can not get past d/v.

So as a metal fan I knew what I liked, knew what I hated, and knew what I was likely to hate. After hearing RiB my opinion has been changed very slightly, but in general no, Slayer are not a band (at least, based on this album) that I would listen to for pleasure.

Sorry!

The reason that you dealt with this album ok compared to the Venom material, is that Reign in Blood has better songs which flow superbly, they're also far superior musicians than Venom ever were and the production is light years from Venom as well. You've listened to one of the band's most famous albums, but to really appreciate the quality of Reign in Blood you have to take it in the context of its time which is 1986 and you really need to be familiar with what was happening in metal at that time as well, only then can you really grasp this album and what it offered.

Well, I would and I wouldn't agree with that. I just found it a too-fast, blurry mess after the first track, which I was mightily impressed with. It's just not my sort of thing. As I said, there are three important elements in metal --- or any music --- to me, and they are melody, melody and ... oh what's the last one? Oh yeah. Melody. Without that I don't care how avant-garde, experimental, fast or brootal you are, you're not gettin' near these ears.

Never gonna be a Slayer fan, Julian. Have to accept that and move on.

:pssst: :)

In fairness though, the winos on O'Connell Bridge are better musicans than Venom ever were. My three cats are better muscians than Venom ever were. Hell, I'm a better musician and I can barely play! Venom were just a really bad joke.

Wait a minute. Are you saying Blind Guardian have death metal vocals? :confused:

Sure they were a bad joke, but that's what's so great about them. They can't play, but the sheer energy hidden behind the wall of noise just stirs the blood. The lyrics are puerile and ridiculous, but that's why they're so much fun. The production is awful, but it's part of what gives their music such a dark feel. Venom may suck, but man do they suck good.

Talking of Venom, here's an interview:laughing:

What I heard did. I'm quite prepared to listen to them again if that's not the case. But you know what I mean: dark, growly, unintelligible, I'm-comin-to-kill-ya-with-a-bloody-axe vocals....
Yeah but I don't listen to band for novelty or comedy value. Like I said, I need melody in my music. I can appreciate their appeal, and their place in metal myth, as you'll see if you check the feature I did on them for "Maidens, Monsters, Witches and Bitches" (or is it the other way round?) for my journal...

These are the one's I've listened to at least a dozen times each. Definitely worth the time to listen to them at least a few times. But you will know which ones you'll want to listen to more than once.

The * are the ones I still listen to completely periodically after 30-35 years. but I listen to select tracks from all when I need to.

*The Clash --- London calling (This is definitely the best Clash album but also one of the top 10 albums of all time...in my opinion...even if you don't like punk :-) )
*REM --- Automatic for the people (This is the best REM album)
U2 --- The Joshua Tree
AC/DC --- Back in black
*Neil Young --- After the gold rush
Paul Simon --- Graceland (An exceptional album but I still prefer There Goes Rhymin' Simon)
Stevie Wonder --- Songs in the key of life
Simon and Garfunkel --- Bridge over troubled water
*Bob Dylan --- Blood on the tracks

"God, he vomited on the dog, didn't he?"

"Oh, he did, aye."

:laughing:

Dude, Blind Guardian are one of the least-death-metal bands on the planet. I don't know what you think you heard, but you heard wrong. They should be one of your favorite bands to be honest.

Venom are just three hilarious Geordies:laughing:

As for Blind Guardian, the vocals of Hansi Kursch are gruffer than a lot of power metal vocalists, but the subject matter of their songs are a world away from death metal, despite the fact that some of their stuff is quite dark.

So are the guys from "Auf wiedersein, pet", but I wouldn't listen to an album by them! As I said, being funny doesn't make you listenable, not as far as I'm concerned anyway.
Noted. Will send for review and report back. Best album/best to start with?

I was referring to the video here and not their music.

Best three are Tales from the Twilight World, Imaginations from the Other Side and Nightfall in Middle-Earth. The second album here is often regarded on some lists as the best power metal album ever recorded, but the third is their most epic. Personally I don't think you'll like them despite their fame and reputation in the power metal world, as Hansi Kursch is not your type of vocalist, but you'll appreciate the complexity of their sound.

Well screw you then :p:

"Wye-aye! 'Ow do you choon theese fooking guitah then mon?" ;)
Oh, and anyone who mentions "Crocodile shoes" is asking for trouble...

He's a cockney :p:

If Hansi Kursch's vocals are too much for him then he might as well go listen to N'SYNC.

Already have done, for my journal. God after that I needed the loudest metal I could get just to drive those bloody digital piano tunes and close-harmony singing out of my head! Urgh!

To push the boat out a bit further:
Boards Of Canada- Geogaddi
Burial-Untrue
The Pogues-Rum, Sodomy and The Lash

Thanks for the suggestions but if you look back you'll find that a) I hate the Pogues b) I have no time for rap/hip-hop and c) I'm not trying to expand my horizons genre-wise here, which seems to be something people are confusing my intentions with. What I want to do, am doing, is trying to listen to albums I should have heard already, given the genres I like. Doesn't mean I won't occasionally step outside for a moment (I still wake up screaming about Captain Beefheart!) but generally, I'm not looking to "push" anything, just listen to albums that for one reason or another I have not yet done so.

With that in mind, I think it may soon be time for "Close to the edge..."

Oh, also: I listened to the new Boards album and hated it. I was told "Music has the right to children" is the one, so if --- if --- I do one, it'll probably be that.

You should do one like that in the future. Seriously consider it. You know we would back you and throw so many suggestions your way. You'd have to open your mind a bit for it though.

Seeing as how you haven't reviewed "Nevermind" yet, I'm afraid I'll have to guilt trip you into it....

TROLLHEART! Why aren't you thinking of poor Powerstars at home with his two broken computers, being forced to browse the internet on his 3DS's crappy browser! The one thing he wants to read, and it's not up yet! Please, think about the children!


Nah, really though, can you tell me when you'll think about it? I already know that the "One Minute In" and "One Track In" rankings aren't gonna be good, cuz the first song is "Teen Spirit" but I think you'll like the rest. Heavy, but it has some melody.

I'll take your suggestion under advisement. :) Yeah it's a good idea. Trouble is that would be like FIVE journals, and I don't think the universe is built to withstand such awesomeness! :laughing: Nah the thing is it's hard enough keeping four going (as you can see) along with everything else -- my discographies of Marillion and Steve Earle, for example, and more to come --- without trying to fit in another. But I like the idea. Just won't happen for some time yet. Need my desk cleared, as it were. Thanks for the suggestion though.

Beware, however: feelings will more than likely be hurt, and a few hearts broken... ;)

All right, all right Mr 3DS! (What IS that anyway?) :confused: I'm doing it, I'm doing it! It's next up okay? Happy now you've ruined my whole Sunday?? :rofl: Trying to review two metal albums a day plus everything else; think I don't have enough to do? :banghead:

Watch for it in the next few days.
THEN
Close to the edge.
Definitely.
Maybe.
:shycouch:

Yes. Yes, I'm very happy.

Really though, it should be a great read, along with Metal Month. Good on you and your hard work, TH. :)

BTW, 3DS is a handheld gaming system. Nothing people your age would care about. ;)

Hey I'm still reading the thread (agree on Loveless, I can't get into it even when i try) but I wanted to see if maybe you wanted to take these on judging by what you have on your list (I'm excited to see how you like After the Gold Rush, way better than Harvest as far as folky classics go for me):

Marvin Gaye - What's Goin On (it's like the Smile of Soul)
The Beach Boys - Smile (it's like the ... no wait, it's really really great though)
The Stooges - Funhouse (it has its roots in rock like the White Stripes or ZZ Topp but is then warped by heroin, sex, and the devil)

See that's the thing about me saying in the future. I mentioned the future as in maybe you would have retired some of the other journals and you have more free time to open a new journal. I didn't mean currently by adding another journal to your already impressive list.

Hey thanks! I don't really see it as work though; I just enjoy it and am happy if others do too.
Meh, give me a cup-and-ball any time! New fangled gadgets, I don't know. You kids and your wireless radios, gramaphones, all instruments of the devil, wasn't like that in my day, made our own entertainment zzzzzzzzz :)

Thanks man. I intend to get back to this soon; Metal Month takes a huge amount of research and listening time. I'll definitely put Marvin on the list. I really hate the Beach Boys so probably not them and the Stooges don't really interest me, too punky. But you never know. I'll probably do Marvin sooner than later; I do like his music and there's certainly not enough soul here.

Ok I see. Well the thing is I don't really see any of my journals being retired, other than perhaps this one at some point. I do like the idea though, but as I say I'd need to be free to embrace the concept. You make some very good points there.

Damn, you seemed like a Pet Sounds guy to me. No trouble, I still recommend it if you ever are interested in hearing "THE GREATEST ALBUM NEVER RELEASED (WELL UNTIL ABOUT TEN OR TWO YEARS AGO DEPENDING ON HOW YOU LOOK AT IT)", it has a really interesting history though. The Stooges i understand, their sound is pretty dirty and sloppy. I am glad Marvin made it though! It's a unique album in its own right, Soul aside, I'm thinking you'll enjoy it.

BTW that Sisters of Mercy album has a horrible cover, but I am interested, also now I'm gonna try Slowdive. Thanks! Probably will try Low again too, I started it a little bit ago and the first track put me off a little, but it sounds like either i'm just being picky or it gets wayyyy better. I did get a tiny bit into Station to Station's beginning and it sounded great.

Right Powerstars here you go. Be careful what you wish for... ;)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...albumcover.jpg
Title: Nevermind
Artiste: Nirvana
Year: 1991
Chronological position: Second album
Previous experience of this artiste?: "Smells like teen spirit". That's it.
Why is this considered a classic? I have often asked myself this question without an answer.

My thoughts
One minute (or thereabouts in) ---- (Given the fact that I, like everyone on the planet, know "SLTS" I'm giving it till second track in before making any comments) Good, great, bad, meh, still waiting or other? Good
One track in --- Good
Halfway through --- Meh
Finished --- Very meh

Comments: Somebody please explain to me the attraction of Nirvana. Yeah, they were an okay band, but just okay as far as I can see. Why did they suddenly become the godfathers of grunge and rise to messianic stature? Just don't get it. Like, I'll be honest and credit where credit is due, it's a decent album. But it's not The Second Coming, as some (many) people would have you believe. I mean, I read that it's been included in the Library of Congress as a "culturally significant or historical recording", for ****'s sake! Was "Number of the Beast", "No sleep till Hammersmith", "Selling England by the pound" or even "Thriller" put in there? What is wrong with the world? This is NOT a religious experience! It's just an album, an okay album, maybe even a good album. But not anything to stick up on your dresser and worship with candles on either side of it.

I can think of a hundred better rock albums, none of which probably get this almost fanatical level of respect. It's like I said with "Loveless": what's the big fuss? It's okay but it's not to me a milestone in music history. Maybe it's because Cobain took his own life and there's a certain rabid fan mentality dedicated to preserving his memory, but do people feel the same about INXS? What about Boston? See? Suicide is not a reason to worship a singer. But I don't see anything hugely innovative or interesting about this album. It's not anything special, not to me. Maybe my perception is coloured by too many years of hearing how great Nirvana were, but I'm not signing up. Just on auto-pilot now, waiting for it to end. Hey, a new "Family guy!" ;)

Favourite track(s): I couldn't use that word for any of the tracks here. Okay, okay: Something in the way is not terrible; the only one that actually made me listen.
Least favourite track(s): Most of them but Polly really bugs me, with its amateurish rhymes and depressing vocal. Territorial pissings is very annoying too.

Final impression --- Honestly? I'd rather listen to Slayer. Or Morbid Angel. Well, maybe not Morbid Angel. But Slayer would be preferable to this.

Do I feel, at the end, A) I wish I had listened to this sooner
B) I'm sorry I bothered
C) I might end up liking this
D) Have to wait and see
E) Bit underwhelmed; was ok but a classic?
F) Definitely enjoyed it, but again would I consider it a classic?

A big B here, though I suppose at least I can now say I've heard it and award it a great big MEH.

Well I love the album to bits, but that's preference. Sorry to hear you weren't into it.

It's not even that I wasn't into it. Given a few more listens I might like it and I don't hate it. But I do not see that it deserves or earns the messianic adoration people have given it. I mean, it's no "Dark side of the moon", "Zep IV" or "In rock" now is it? But as you say, it's all preference and while I wouldn't dismiss it as a bad album I would certainly not consider it what I would call a classic.

But then, what do I know? ;)

"Close to the edge" next...

Where were you and what were you listening to in 1991? Because I remember that was the first time that I'd heard of them and I remember just how unique they were, and the energy and focus that they had as well.

To be fair it's the perfect example of what a "culturally significant and historical recording" should be, for the impact that it had on a generation and it's rather similar to what the Who's My Generation and the Sex Pistols Never Mind the Bollocks had on previous generations.

I'm not sure why you've mentioned No Sleep till Hammersmith as this is a live album at a time when nearly all the best live bands were putting out great live albums anyway and it's just one of many at that time. The others could all be candidates but Number of the Beast for such an important album is actually quite disjointed, Thriller was what was expected and Selling England By the Pound came out at the height of prog, point being that all these albums with the exception of Iron Maiden were nothing new and overly surprising to the listener.

I've listened to absolutely thousands of albums over the years and I can honestly say that Nevermind is actually one of the best and most complete from beginning to end. Sure the band were ruined with the hype surrounding Cobain, but suicide and death is all part of the romance that is rock and will probably never change.

Also I've no idea why you've mentioned Boston in this context either or are you referring to Brad Delp here?

Just think of them as the Beatles, Black Sabbath and the Pixies all chucked in a liquidizer and you might actually enjoy them a lot more.

I think it's more of a cultural artifact than truly classic album (well it did spawn some of the biggest singles of its era), i feel this way about Sgt. Peppers as well, it may have been more inventive in its time (as perhaps Nevermind is considered now) but in terms of its greatness now, it's solid, but doesn't enthrall me even as much as other Beatles releases. But because it came at the peak of psychedelia and hippies and musical experimentation, it's hailed as a revolutionary piece of art or something (even though Pipers at the Gates of Dawn did trippy music way trippier in the same year imo).

I disagree with you about Nevermind but I don't really care to discuss that.

Just wanted to point out that you are talking about the National Recording Registry of the Library of Congress, governed by the National Recording Preservation Board. As in it preserves culturally significant recordings that "are culturally, historically, or aesthetically important, and/or inform or reflect life in the United States."

And, yes, Thriller was added in 2007. They currently add 25 recordings annually. You can see the entire list on the Wikipedia page I linked.

1991? Let's see. I was ten years working, would have been 28, so more than likely listening to prog and some metal. Thing is, back then I wasn't too deep into the net and more to the point torrents, websites like allofmp3.com weren't around yet and so I bought my CDs, and bought what I liked. I had been a big record collector in my earlier youth but when it came to CDs I just bought new albums I wanted, and they weren't all that often. I remember for many months, years even I subsisted off my, at the time, about 200-CD collection and played many albums to bits. I didn't go off looking for new bands, I just waited till my favourite artistes released new albums. I hated SLTS the first time I heard it, and every other time, and still do. So why would I buy an album, waste fifteen pounds ninety-nine on a CD I would not want?

Essentially, at that time, I stuck to what I knew.
I still think it was overhyped. Maybe it caught the zeitgeist or whatever, but it did nothing for me. I do not feel, after listening to it, that I've been missing out.
Hey gimme a break! After listening to Morbid Angel, Carcass and Death and a dozen other metal bands I've never heard before, my synaptic pathways are a little scrambled. What's yer name again? What am I doing here??


Yes, I was. I was trying to make the point that IF Nevermind was so successful in latter years based off the fact that KC topped himself, why then did people not feel the same about Boston's debut?
Ah, no thanks. I don't for a minute think that's anything like a fair representation of their sound, which to me is nothing special. In fact, I won't be thinking of them at all.

See, this is what I meant when I asked at the OP for people not to start shouting at me saying "How can you not like that? It's a classic!" Eye of the beholder, man. Or ear, in this case. Takes all kinds.

One song I wasn't really into until the volume got turned down was "On a Plain." The Unplugged version is wonderful. The entire Unplugged album actually has a very particular song about it. Ahem, in any case...some other classics I will direct you towards for the future...

Red Hot Chili Peppers - Blood Sugar Sex Magik
Queen - Innuendo

And, if it can be considered a classic,
The Killers - Hot Fuss

See you weren't experiencing life in the US when the album was release that's the reason you are missing out on how it affects people culturally and was a reflection of life during that period of time.

Of course it's going to be over hyped to you being across the pond.

Yeah good point. I suppose it would be the same with the likes of say Oasis over here, though I never liked them. Or even the NWOBHM.

Powers, "Innuendo" a classic album? I don't think so. I like Queen but there are far more classic albums of theirs I would consider before that late-era example...

Engine, even if you disagree with everything I say, I know you stay well away from the journals as a rule, so I'm honoured you graced my little journal with your presence. :thumb:

I actually agree with you on your review of Nevermind. I find Bleach far more enjoyable.

Well hey, I thought you might have heard the ones more widly considered classics, and I really do enjoy Innuendo.

This is my position exactly. Bleach has all the grit and immediacy that was glossed out with the David Geffen polish of Nevermind.


Having said that, everything changed after Nevermind came out. Hair Metal all but died. I'll give credit where credit's due, even though I don't ever intend to listen to Nevermind again.

This is a great thread! I should do something like this.