Metal Church - Hanging in the balance

Recently listened to this one and I think it's their worst. It sort of sounds abit like Chris Poland's Damn the Machine but in a bad way sure the musicianship isn't weak but the style of music doesn't suit the band as well.

I think it's a fantastic album,probably the most consistant of the Mike Howe era. I like the songwriting, the production,everything about it except the cover!

I don't like it at all either. It's like weak hard rock IIRC.

I have not been able to get into any Metal Church after The Dark.

i did not buy it at first because of its atrocious album cover. But in my opinion it is a very good album

...but is it a good album for someone who is a fan of the first two? In other words, is it a real continuation of the band that put out the first two albums?

AchrisK wrote:

...but is it a good album for someone who is a fan of the first two? In other words, is it a real continuation of the band that put out the first two albums?

Not at all, but the band (and metal music) was at a completely different place in 1993. I think the band aged well. Personally, I think "The Dark" is pretty bland compared to the band's earlier and later output (on par with "Masterpeace", IMO). It's all opinion. Tomato, tamato.

I felt MASTERPEACE was their worst, but HANGING is no real great shakes either. It simply sounds like a band that was at the end of its rope and ready to give it up.

Good album, lame cover.

Excellent album. Check out, End Of The Age or Gods of A Second Chance. Not sure how you can call it weak, it was a heavy album.

What were they thinking when they chose that atrocious cover art?! But I always really enjoyed this album... there are some excellent songs, such as Losers in the Game, End of an Age, Waiting for a Savior... Of course, The Dark is better.

For me the first three Metal Church albums are pure gold.

The first two with Wayne and the first one with Howe.

After that ... well I'm just not much of a fan.

I like all Metal Church albums, but HITB was a little less inspired imo.

Temple of Blood wrote:

It's like weak hard rock IIRC.

Who's IIRC?

This has been a common conversation since this album came out....everyone hate the over and people are split on whethern it is good or not. I love all of Metal Church's albums. I would have to vote this one as their worst (well, maybe their last one too) just because I only like about half of the songs. Bit the other half (losers in the game, no friend of mine, end of an age, down to the river, etc) are awesone metal songs. IMO.

I don't know...I think it had a lot of attitude about it...I liked it.

S wrote:

I don't know...I think it had a lot of attitude about it...I liked it.

fingers wrote:

Temple of Blood wrote:

It's like weak hard rock IIRC.

Who's IIRC?

IIRC = If I Remember Correctly

Calling it weak is crazy talk. It's an awesome album.As for the cover,who cares? It's the music that counts.

I think covers affect people a lot. I've avoided albums because of covers that I then liked once I heard them.

I like this CD, but don't love it. 8/10

ZetaReticuli wrote:

What were they thinking when they chose that atrocious cover art?!

According to Ian Christe's book "Sound of the Beast," the band had no say whatsoever in the album cover/design and didn't know how awful the cover was until the CD was printed and copies were in their hands. They weren't happy about it at all, but it was obviously too late for them to do anything about it by that point.

Fat Freddy wrote:

ZetaReticuli wrote:

What were they thinking when they chose that atrocious cover art?!

According to Ian Christe's book "Sound of the Beast," the band had no say whatsoever in the album cover/design and didn't know how awful the cover was until the CD was printed and copies were in their hands. They weren't happy about it at all, but it was obviously too late for them to do anything about it by that point.

Then i guess their record label did it on purpose to get a good laugh. It probably hurt sales to have potential new fans look at the cover and think "what is this crap"?

Troublezone wrote:

Then i guess their record label did it on purpose to get a good laugh. It probably hurt sales to have potential new fans look at the cover and think "what is this crap"?

That record was pretty much doomed from the git-go. The band really weren't into it anymore, the only label that would give it the time of day was Joan Jett's label (Blackheart Records), which had crappy-at-best distribution at the time, and then they went and slapped that monstrosity on the cover. Ugh.

I've always liked HitB, if for nothing else, it is Pul O'Neill doin' something other than Savatage. He sort of makes MC sound a little like savatage though. Especially in the opening track.