Random Metal Thoughts

I like most high pitched vocalists myself.

Temple of Blood wrote:

Fat Freddy wrote:

McMaster had his irritating moments when he sang for Dangerous Toys as well, haha.

Is it the high-pitch?  Are there any lower-pitched vocalists that you think are irritating/annoying?

I got nothin' against high pitched vox. I love Halford, Warrel Dane, King Diamond, Jon Oliva, Midnight, James Rivera, Lizzy Borden, etc. ...though obviously most of those guys' aren't hitting the highs the way they used to.

Certain voices just hit that weird spot at the base of my skull that makes me cringe, that's all.

Thelemech wrote:

ZombieHavoc wrote:

Boris2008 wrote:

No matter what yardstick you measure by apart from maybe being innovators, the big 4 totally deserve their title and I think that it's silly when people try to expand this by including Testament/Overkill/Death Angel/Kreator/Sodom/Insert favorite Thrash Band Here.

If you are talking about the original guys who helped establish the genre then yes, you have to include Exodus for sure.

I always think it's weird too. I mean, just by record sales and familiarity alone, it's clear they are the big four. That doesn't mean they are the best or most skilled or whatever, per se. I mean, why would you care whether the community at large considers your favorite thrash band to be one of the "big four" or not. That title anyway seemed more like a way to make a big deal over the four bands touring together anyway more than anything else.

I had never heard them categorized as such before that (maybe they've been called that since 1984, I don't know--I just never heard it before).

Whether your preferred band is "big four" or not is arbitrary and really affects nothings. It's like the rock n' roll hall of fame...how much does it really matter if the band you like gets nominated or inducted anyway? It doesn't. At all.

I just had a random thought that was all??!!! Why not a Big 7 - I was a fan in the mid eighties - the Big 4 as great as they obviously are - they were not the only Thrash Metal masters or innovators in the genre. And truly the Big 4 are already my top Thrash bands anyway.

Well, I was just commenting on Boris' post, which I don't know if was in response to yours or not.

ZombieHavoc wrote:

Thelemech wrote:

ZombieHavoc wrote:

Boris2008 wrote:

No matter what yardstick you measure by apart from maybe being innovators, the big 4 totally deserve their title and I think that it's silly when people try to expand this by including Testament/Overkill/Death Angel/Kreator/Sodom/Insert favorite Thrash Band Here.

If you are talking about the original guys who helped establish the genre then yes, you have to include Exodus for sure.

I always think it's weird too. I mean, just by record sales and familiarity alone, it's clear they are the big four. That doesn't mean they are the best or most skilled or whatever, per se. I mean, why would you care whether the community at large considers your favorite thrash band to be one of the "big four" or not. That title anyway seemed more like a way to make a big deal over the four bands touring together anyway more than anything else.

I had never heard them categorized as such before that (maybe they've been called that since 1984, I don't know--I just never heard it before).

Whether your preferred band is "big four" or not is arbitrary and really affects nothings. It's like the rock n' roll hall of fame...how much does it really matter if the band you like gets nominated or inducted anyway? It doesn't. At all.

I just had a random thought that was all??!!! Why not a Big 7 - I was a fan in the mid eighties - the Big 4 as great as they obviously are - they were not the only Thrash Metal masters or innovators in the genre. And truly the Big 4 are already my top Thrash bands anyway.

Well, I was just commenting on Boris' post, which I don't know if was in response to yours or not.

And once again Boris didn't mean to offend anyone!   I was merely saying that in terms of sales, press coverage, concert draw, and (mostly) for being groundbreaking acts in the genre these four bands are way ahead of the rest. Ask a casual metal fan about thrash metal and they are going to mention one or all of these four bands. It doesn't mean that they are the best, it just means that they were the biggest and most well known by some distance. I love Dark Angel and Kreator and Deathrow and Exumer, it doesn't mean that they could ever be in the big 4 club because they were not anywhere near as popular as those bands.

Oh I was not offended and you do both bring up valid points. A part of me just thinks that there are some thrash bands that though nowhere the sales juggernauts but that were still hugely influential.

Compare it to the big artists of the progressive rock scene. Yes, ELP and Jethro Tull were huge sellers and played stadiums...but when it comes to influence King Crimson is arguably more important than any of them, despite never coming close to being a household name or selling tons of albums. Plenty of other prog bands that were artistically successful and influential but never made a large sales impact. Success doesn't equal quality, in fact many times the exact opposite is true.

UNCLE SAXON'S KICKASS CDS wrote:

Required Fields wrote:

DallasBlack wrote:

Why does most grindcore consist of blood and guts lyrics? Even many of the Christian grindcore bands I've come across seem to use gruesome imagery. Wouldn't a band want to stand out by going in another direction?

What's really weird about grindcore is most bands have lyrics that are really shocking, gory, misogynistic, or all of the above (usually all of the above, particularly in "porngrind"), or are really insightful and intelligent. Not much in between that I'm aware of.

What?  Like "Teabagged at Birth" and "Fingercuffed from the Grave", etc?

I'm referring to 1980s-era Napalm Death for grindcore without blood and guts lyrics or misogynistic content. (Yes, I know, none of Napalm Death's albums have blood and gore lyrics or misogynistic lyrics, but their 1980s albums are their only true grindcore albums, even though many of even their most recent albums have grindcore elements.)

I wish Fates Warning would record a version of this song.



Such an amazing tune, and it's so out of place on that Engine album (which isn't very good, unfortunately).

Going through the Mercyful Fate catalogue, it`s been a while since last time... Heavy Metal does not get better than this!

As for Belladonna; I think he is a perfect fit on Armed and dangerous and Spreading the disease. After the direction change on Among the living not so much.

McMaster doesn't have irritating moments. He's awesome whether it's Dangerous Toys, Broken Teeth, Watchtower, Evil United..... You get the picture.Hehe.

Totally agree Thrasher!

Queensryche's run of quality through at least Empire and maybe even Promised Land is one of the most impressive in metal.

MetallicSeminarian wrote:

Queensryche's run of quality through at least Empire and maybe even Promised Land is one of the most impressive in metal.

I'd add Hear In The Now Frontier. I know it's different and was a big turn-off for a lot of fans, but the quality songwriting is still there. It's a great album, just a bit left of center for Queensryche.

I need to check out HITNF again. I don't know if I ever made it past track 5 or so.

Temple of Blood wrote:

I need to check out HITNF again.  I don't know if I ever made it past track 5 or so.

You won't like it.

When lave solidifies,
it becomes hard rock !
But if it has iron ore in it,
does it become heavy metal ?

He sure is purty.

Why is the "new" Temple of Blood album never coming out?

Eyesore wrote:

MetallicSeminarian wrote:

Queensryche's run of quality through at least Empire and maybe even Promised Land is one of the most impressive in metal.

I'd add Hear In The Now Frontier. I know it's different and was a big turn-off for a lot of fans, but the quality songwriting is still there. It's a great album, just a bit left of center for Queensryche.

A friend of mine insists that the main failing of HitNF is its length. I am inclined to agree because it does feel like it drags towards the end, but I'm not sure how I'd edit or resequence it for greater impact.

Here's a question for everyone. Can an album be perfectly alright in and of itself but become "bad" because it's not a good fit for a band? I'm not talking about "they sucked at that kind of music" as much as, "What the hell is Slayer doing an Irish Folk Disco album for?"

For background, I recently picked up hte entire Nazareth discography (along a few others) and, because I hate myself, I tend to listen to these things in sequence to get a sense of how an artist developed. Now, the same friend (he of the "HitNF" opinion) warned me that the first two Naz albums sucked, so I was braced for some crap as I usually tend to at least be in line with his views. Boy, he was WRONG! Their first album is great, BUT the second is a bit of a sudden left turn from which even the band seem to admit they needed to correct themselves.

Catch is, it's not a BAD album, but it sounds like their best attempt to sound like folk rockers and it doesn't really fit with what you're expecting and doesn't exactly play to their strengths either.

Just curious if anyone has any others that either prove or disprove the "They shouldn't have taken this direction, therefore it sucks" phenomenon.

"Fight for the Rock" by Savatage probably fits this category for some.

Oh, and to close on a total note of sleep-deprived nonsense, I started to type that album name and first put down "Fight for the Sock." I'm just imagining a tribute album where they've changed all the song lyrics to be about pets.

This IS the random thoughts thread.

Runicen wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

MetallicSeminarian wrote:

Queensryche's run of quality through at least Empire and maybe even Promised Land is one of the most impressive in metal.

I'd add Hear In The Now Frontier. I know it's different and was a big turn-off for a lot of fans, but the quality songwriting is still there. It's a great album, just a bit left of center for Queensryche.

A friend of mine insists that the main failing of HitNF is its length.  I am inclined to agree because it does feel like it drags towards the end, but I'm not sure how I'd edit or resequence it for greater impact.

Personally I think the last three songs—"Hit the Black," "Anytime/Anywhere," and "Sp00l"—are the best on the album, and some of the best Queensryche has ever recorded. If I could go back and make them shorten it at all, I'd probably ax "Get a Life." Not a terrible song, but that chorus annoys me sometimes.

Yeah, not one of Tate's finer turns, vocally, and not the strongest material either.

I just listened to a Decibelgeek podcast on the NWOBHM and they played "Rapid Fire" by Judas Priest.  Fail.  Priest was not part of the NWOBHM.  Come on guys.

stormspell wrote:

Why is the "new" Temple of Blood album never coming out?

Because our guitarist quit right before he was supposed to go into the studio and I have two kids now.  

Thankfully our drummer is helping me record rhythm guitar tracks too and that has been a big help.  He's played guitar almost as long as I have.  This new material is much more technical than our old stuff and guitar-wise I was really out of practice.  I've been focusing on vocals for the last several years.

Once the rhythm guitar tracks are recorded it will come along much quicker.

I could write a longer explanation on all the delays but this is the tl;dr version.

Keep in mind that I spent several months working with CAULDRON BORN too.

Rest assured that this is a big step up from what we did in the past.  Not to mention Andre' Corbin on leads!!!

Witchfinder wrote:

I just listened to a Decibelgeek podcast on the NWOBHM and they played "Rapid Fire" by Judas Priest.  Fail.  Priest was not part of the NWOBHM.  Come on guys.

You're right of course but there's no doubt that British Steel was a conscious departure from their '70s sound in order to position themselves in and market themselves to that scene.

Boris2008 wrote:

Witchfinder wrote:

I just listened to a Decibelgeek podcast on the NWOBHM and they played "Rapid Fire" by Judas Priest.  Fail.  Priest was not part of the NWOBHM.  Come on guys.

You're right of course but there's no doubt that British Steel was a conscious departure from their '70s sound in order to position themselves in and market themselves to that scene.

Sure, but the show was about NWOBHM bands, and the hosts knew very little about the whole movement. Instead of playing a Priest tune everybody knows, they could have played an actual NWOBHM band. It was a missed opportunity.