Diamond Head - Canterbury

Diamond Head - Canterbury

Why does everyone hate this CD? I remember I use to have an old interview with Metallica from '84 or so where they made a comment like, "We were very big Diamond Head fans, but not anymore." He was speaking of the released of Canterbury. A quick check on Metal-Archives reveals an equal disdain from the reviewers there.

Yes, Canterbury revealed a different side to the band than Lightning to the Nations/White album. Other NWOBHM bands took this direction. Tygers of Pan Tang had The Wreck-age, Saxon had Innocence is No Excuse, Def Leppard took a total trip down pop lane after High n Dry. Is Diamond Head really that bad in comparison? Is it the more commercial direction? The cleaner production? The songs?

No opinions on this album huh?

I thought we had a few Diamond Head fans around these parts. Where's Trog when you need him?

Don't have this one so I can;t comment

Never heard it either, however I used to have a Diamond Head "Best Of" and I will say that I couldn't make it through to the end without hitting the skip button. While I don't know for certain, there was probably a track or 2 from Canterbury on there.

Their early NWOBHM stuff is awesome, but after the record companies got hold of 'em and tried to buff & polish the grit outta them, they lost me.

I don't remember hearing Canterbury, but do remember hearing mostly negative things about it.

ultmetal wrote:

Diamond Head - Canterbury

Why does everyone hate this CD? I remember I use to have an old interview with Metallica from '84 or so where they made a comment like, "We were very big Diamond Head fans, but not anymore." He was speaking of the released of Canterbury. A quick check on Metal-Archives reveals an equal disdain from the reviewers there.

Yes, Canterbury revealed a different side to the band than Lightning to the Nations/White album. Other NWOBHM bands took this direction. Tygers of Pan Tang had The Wreck-age, Saxon had Innocence is No Excuse, Def Leppard took a total trip down pop lane after High n Dry. Is Diamond Head really that bad in comparison? Is it the more commercial direction? The cleaner production? The songs?

Why do they get such a long sentence, punk?

I question the disdain for Pyromania, to be honest. That is one bad-ass ROCK album. Not pop rock, either. Just as catchy as High 'N' Dry, and there's no stinkin' balad! You guys are nuts. Haha.

Eyesore wrote:

ultmetal wrote:

Diamond Head - Canterbury

Why does everyone hate this CD? I remember I use to have an old interview with Metallica from '84 or so where they made a comment like, "We were very big Diamond Head fans, but not anymore." He was speaking of the released of Canterbury. A quick check on Metal-Archives reveals an equal disdain from the reviewers there.

Yes, Canterbury revealed a different side to the band than Lightning to the Nations/White album. Other NWOBHM bands took this direction. Tygers of Pan Tang had The Wreck-age, Saxon had Innocence is No Excuse, Def Leppard took a total trip down pop lane after High n Dry. Is Diamond Head really that bad in comparison? Is it the more commercial direction? The cleaner production? The songs?

Why do they get such a long sentence, punk?

I question the disdain for Pyromania, to be honest. That is one bad-ass ROCK album. Not pop rock, either. Just as catchy as High 'N' Dry, and there's no stinkin' balad! You guys are nuts. Haha.

No disdain for Pyromania. That was my point actually. Def Leppard went for a more glossy, polished sound on Pryomania, which I honestly think was the motivation for pushing Diamond Head towards that sound on Canterbury. People don't hate Pyromania or Innocence is No Excuse, so why the hate for Canterbury?

Oh, I know. I more or less riffing off the "pop lane" comment. See I don't hear much pop yet on Pyromania. On "Photograph," sure, but that's about it. Everything else, in my opinion, is straight up hard rock. Not as raw, mind you, but still rock.

Eyesore wrote:

Oh, I know. I more or less riffing off the "pop lane" comment. See I don't hear much pop yet on Pyromania. On "Photograph," sure, but that's about it. Everything else, in my opinion, is straight up hard rock. Not as raw, mind you, but still rock.

Yup, same on Canterbury. However, it is certainly more glossy sounding and less aggressive. As much as I love Saxon - No Excuse for Innocence, it most certainly isn't as "aggressive" or "raw" as those early albums. Same holds true for Pyromania, though not as drastic IMO.

I've never heard Canterbury. I've seen it, but some reason always thought it was a live album. Weird. And I've only ever heard one Saxon album.

I heard Cantebury and considered owning it to round out my collection but decided against it. Sorry but mellowness and quasi-progressive structures are not what I seek in a Diamond Head album. "Lightning To The Nations" is such a metallic masterpiece that Canterbury just feels like...an afterthought.

I'll show some love for this album. Even though its a little more on the softer side I think its a pretty good album. Makin' Music and Out of Phase are great songs. I'm trying to refresh myself on this album but my computer kind of froze but I remember thinking it wasn't a bad album and I liked it. I've always said I don't mind if a band changes their sound just as long as the songs hold up thats all that counts.

there is nothing wrong with canterbury. it's just different than lightning to the nations and people cant deal with different.

I like this album and also never understood the hate. I will admit it does drag in places but overall I won't rank it much below the earlier releases.

Another one that gets the hate and that I love is Death And Progress. For some reason I've always been into that album.