SODOM vs SLAYER

Jesusandmetal23 wrote:

SODOM generic? Please. Sodom have progressed with each release. Don't tell me that M16 sounds like In The Sign of Evil, because it doesnt.

Agent Orange is better than M16 so they haven't progressed IMO.

Sodom, no contest.

Troublezone wrote:

Jesusandmetal23 wrote:

SODOM generic? Please. Sodom have progressed with each release. Don't tell me that M16 sounds like In The Sign of Evil, because it doesnt.

Agent Orange is better than M16 so they haven't progressed IMO.

And you can say the same thing with Slayer. Some people think Slayer never topped Show No Mercy. So that means they never progressed as well?

Jesusandmetal23 wrote:

Troublezone wrote:

Jesusandmetal23 wrote:

SODOM generic? Please. Sodom have progressed with each release. Don't tell me that M16 sounds like In The Sign of Evil, because it doesnt.

Agent Orange is better than M16 so they haven't progressed IMO.

And you can say the same thing with Slayer. Some people think Slayer never topped Show No Mercy. So that means they never progressed as well?

Well... Most people say Reign in Blood or Seasons in the Abyss are their best.

If Sodom are so good, why aren't people talking about them more? Even a somewhat obscure band like Coroner had people talking regarding their talent.

Some people like certain bands because they are lesser known and not popular (i.e. underground). Since Slayer are famous a lot of people write them off.

Troublezone, in Europe we all talk about SODOM all the time, not with my parents but with metalheads at the pub . Maybe SODOM never did much in the states but hear we have a lot of respect for them because they have been going for so many years, releasing great album and never experiment with other styles and thats something we celebrate. Something we pay back to the band with our LOYALTY to the band. We can not have the same Loyalty with SLAYER because after SEASON IN THE ABYSS they lost a lot of respect. Respect the can get back if they keep releasing great albums like WORLD PAINTED BLOOD.

Quote :

in Europe we all talk about SODOMY all the time

Quote :

We can not have the same Loyalty with SLAYER because after SEASON IN THE ABYSS they lost a lot of respect. Respect the can get back if they keep releasing great albums like WORLD PAINTED BLOOD.

Slayer's first four albums give them a lifetime pass and respect forever. They made their mark and have nothing to prove. Unfortunately other bands are still struggling to reach that point.

Troublezone wrote:

Quote :

We can not have the same Loyalty with SLAYER because after SEASON IN THE ABYSS they lost a lot of respect. Respect the can get back if they keep releasing great albums like WORLD PAINTED BLOOD.

Slayer's first four albums give them a lifetime pass and respect forever. They made their mark and have nothing to prove. Unfortunately other bands are still struggling to reach that point.

Which is why I picked Slayer. But Sodom are the far more consistent band, I give them that.

Jesusandmetal23 wrote:

Troublezone wrote:

Quote :

We can not have the same Loyalty with SLAYER because after SEASON IN THE ABYSS they lost a lot of respect. Respect the can get back if they keep releasing great albums like WORLD PAINTED BLOOD.

Slayer's first four albums give them a lifetime pass and respect forever. They made their mark and have nothing to prove. Unfortunately other bands are still struggling to reach that point.

Which is why I picked Slayer. But Sodom are the far more consistent band, I give them that.

Sodom gets points for their consistency but to me Slayer defined thrash.

I haven't posted here in some time (probably not since I joined) but this thread has peaked my interest.

Sodom vs Slayer - I couldn't choose because both are great band and both have released some very solid albums but also some albums that are less than stellar. For those defending Sodom I'd say albums such as Get What You Deserve, Masquerade in Blood are probably as forgettable as Slayer's Diabolus in Musica and God Hates Us All. So on the point that one band is more consistent than the other neither have a very strong case. Both bands released some very recognisable albums during the 80s but both have since struggled to capture the same level of attention with newer albums.

With that said, Sodom's and Slayer's post-80s albums are neither bad nor necessarily as good as their older releases. It is a matter of opinion afterall and it depends how you approach it.

My problem with these type of threads is that they're flawed from the start. Apart from Sodom and Slayer playing a similar style of metal the similarities end there. The way I see it, those who are primarily fans of Sodom and not so much of Slayer are just frustrated that Sodom doesn't have the same level of mainstream appreciation as Slayer. Ironically, if Sodom were at Slayer's level of mainstream popularity and vice versa, Slayer's fans would be ragging on Sodom for being more popular blah blah blah ... and that's how all these threads end up being.

My answer is neither Sodom nor Slayer; rather BOTH SODOM & SLAYER!

End of debate

Alex Dee Rokket wrote:

I haven't posted here in some time (probably not since I joined) but this thread has peaked my interest.

Sodom vs Slayer - I couldn't choose because both are great band and both have released some very solid albums but also some albums that are less than stellar. For those defending Sodom I'd say albums such as Get What You Deserve, Masquerade in Blood are probably as forgettable as Slayer's Diabolus in Musica and God Hates Us All. So on the point that one band is more consistent than the other neither have a very strong case. Both bands released some very recognisable albums during the 80s but both have since struggled to capture the same level of attention with newer albums.

With that said, Sodom's and Slayer's post-80s albums are neither bad nor necessarily as good as their older releases. It is a matter of opinion afterall and it depends how you approach it.

My problem with these type of threads is that they're flawed from the start. Apart from Sodom and Slayer playing a similar style of metal the similarities end there. The way I see it, those who are primarily fans of Sodom and not so much of Slayer are just frustrated that Sodom doesn't have the same level of mainstream appreciation as Slayer. Ironically, if Sodom were at Slayer's level of mainstream popularity and vice versa, Slayer's fans would be ragging on Sodom for being more popular blah blah blah ... and that's how all these threads end up being.

My answer is neither Sodom nor Slayer; rather BOTH SODOM & SLAYER!

End of debate

You sure did a good comeback, great post

Alex Dee Rokket wrote:

My answer is neither Sodom nor Slayer; rather BOTH SODOM & SLAYER!

End of debate

good way to sum it up.

Don't know any Sodom so Slayer by default for me.

I was listening to Annihilator's carnival diabolos this morning. Beats both sodom and slayer by far

Alex Dee Rokket wrote:

I haven't posted here in some time (probably not since I joined) but this thread has peaked my interest.

Sodom vs Slayer - I couldn't choose because both are great band and both have released some very solid albums but also some albums that are less than stellar. For those defending Sodom I'd say albums such as Get What You Deserve, Masquerade in Blood are probably as forgettable as Slayer's Diabolus in Musica and God Hates Us All. So on the point that one band is more consistent than the other neither have a very strong case. Both bands released some very recognisable albums during the 80s but both have since struggled to capture the same level of attention with newer albums.

With that said, Sodom's and Slayer's post-80s albums are neither bad nor necessarily as good as their older releases. It is a matter of opinion afterall and it depends how you approach it.

My problem with these type of threads is that they're flawed from the start. Apart from Sodom and Slayer playing a similar style of metal the similarities end there. The way I see it, those who are primarily fans of Sodom and not so much of Slayer are just frustrated that Sodom doesn't have the same level of mainstream appreciation as Slayer. Ironically, if Sodom were at Slayer's level of mainstream popularity and vice versa, Slayer's fans would be ragging on Sodom for being more popular blah blah blah ... and that's how all these threads end up being.

My answer is neither Sodom nor Slayer; rather BOTH SODOM & SLAYER!

End of debate

End of debate for you maybe. Anyway, i dont agree with anything but i respect your opinion. MAQUERADE IN BLOOD is maybe not the best SODOM album, but they still sounded like SODOM and that deserves respect because they didnt nail their fans. Also i dont agree that SODOM fans on this post are frustrated because SODOM is not popular like SLAYER. Maybe some people think like that, but me not. I dont care if a band i like is popular or not, i never carred about that. And SODOM dont care about it either because they never put modern sounds in their music to sell more records, the way SLAYER did. They have been always happy with their real thrash metal manics fans.

What did you think about the most recent Sodom album, the Self-titled one?

Personally, I didn't find that album to be too traditional to Sodom's formula. If anything that album threw in some modern elements in the mix too.

Alex Dee Rokket wrote:

What did you think about the most recent Sodom album, the Self-titled one?

Personally, I didn't find that album to be too traditional to Sodom's formula. If anything that album threw in some modern elements in the mix too.

I have to admite that i like the last SLAYER album a lot more then the last SODOM album. I think it still sound like SODOM but the songs are not very good. I hope they comeback soon with a kick ass album. About WORLD PAINTED BLOOD, i think its their best since years and i hope the next is the same or even better, they sound like a pure thrash metal band again, and i love that. Take care.

Slayer for me.

Slayer need to prove themselves, to release something as good as their early material.

Slayer don't really have much to prove anymore. I think their 80s albums are a good summation of what you can expect from Slayer and their future albums. They cemented their style with each successive album in the 80s that it's kinda impossible for them to go anywhere further other than to change their style, which at this stage is unlikely to happen.

They cannot be blamed for trying something new. They did try to expand their formula slightly with Divine Intervention and Diabolus in Musica. Arguably to varying degrees of success. Of course some people will never accept modern elements in an old school thrash band but I don't think the band was ever all that concerned about such sentiments. I liked both Divine and Diabolus, I thought both albums were fresh although I must admit that I did not take to either albums for some time.

Both Divine and Diabolus served their purpose, introducing Slayer to a new generation of fans whose exposure to metal went about as far as Pentera's newer albums at the time. I think Slayer were also concerned about keeping relevant with the scene at the time.

In a discussion where Slayer is pitted against a band like Sodom, it's a bit difficult to put into perspective. But Slayer was after all a lot more instrumental than Sodom. Even though I am a fan of both bands, I think even the most stubborn of Sodom fans will admit that Slayer's Reign in Blood had a wider, stronger and longer-lasting impact than any of Sodom's albums. Who knows why - better management, better connections... right place at the right time ... I don't think there is a particular formula... it's a tough game but it's never about who deserves it more ...

Anyway with that in mind, I think when a band reaches Slayer's caliber of mainstream popularity, the game is no longer about artistic freedom but about how many albums you can sell and to whom you will appeal. There were approx 3 maybe 4 years between Seasons and Divine, time in which the music industry changed dramatically and opinions on what heavy music was were no longer the same as when Seasons was released. Of course if you didn't matter in the 80s anyway and you didn't have any label pressure on you, you're probably gonna release whatever you 100 fans like but when the difference is between going platinum or being dropped off the label, the pressure is on to keep relevant.

I don't like it as a fan because it means a band I started listening to many years ago may compromise, may end up releasing something that is not to my liking but alas I tend not to think of such things when I approach it as a fan, otherwise I'll end up like the many bitter blabbermouth fans and hate everything. As as fan my take on any band, album is whether or not I actually like it. I'm not going to get into issues of purity etc because that's just crap ... I'd rather just focus on me, and whether or not I enjoy it.

Quote :

They have been always happy with their real thrash metal manics fans.

What is a real thrash metal fan?

Troublezone wrote:

Quote :

They have been always happy with their real thrash metal manics fans.

What is a real thrash metal fan?

Personally I don't like nor understand this real vs (supposed) fake fans / music etc.

I think that's just a term invented by Manowar, and then overused by metalheads to justify why the bands they like are better than those others like - i.e. the more popular ones.

It's like how black metal fans utilise the term "kvlt" to separate the popular from the obscure / underground bands.

To me it makes no sense... you like what you like ultimately and no one should tell you otherwise. If you think that an album or a band is tharsh metal then so be it, there is no authority that says what should or should not be thrash metal. Just a million different opinions that are ultimately just that, someone's subjective interpretation - filtered through their tastes, likes and dislikes.

Simple, a real thrash metal fan is somebody that likes thrash metal and doesnt like nu metal, rap or/and alternative influences into thrash metal. I think somebody that doesnt mind strange sounds on a record by a thrash metal band is less a thrash metal fan. If not, he would like the cd to thrash and kill!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Alex Dee Rokket, even if we dont agree a lot, you still know how to explain yourself very well and thats cool. My written english sucks and its harder that way.

i guess that's why i refer to myself as a music fan rather than a metal fan. it's less constricting.