"Solid" metal albums

I can't stand it when an album is described as being "solid", like that's a good thing.

In general, I don't listen to "solid" albums. To me that seems like another way of saying "another stock, by-the-numbers metal album with no outstanding features or songs". Like how people describe a new OVERKILL album or something (use another example if you prefer).

It also seems like a cop-out for the reviewer, like they listen to a metal album and as long as it is "true metal" and doesn't feature any weird groove parts, a strange album cover, death metal vocals, modern elements, or techno parts then they say "another solid release from (mediocre true metal band X)!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 5 flaming skulls out of 5!!!!!!!!!!!!!" They don't seem to be assessing the quality of the music at all and it just seems to be praising mediocrity.

LOL @ 5 flaming skulls!

To me "solid" means better than average. I would only give something a
"solid" label if it were a good listen from start to finish, no
skippers after a month of listening. Perhaps it is overused though, I
guess I do see it alot in reviews, but it just never seemed like a
negative to me.

Temple of Blood wrote:

I can't stand it when an album is described as being "solid", like that's a good thing.

In general, I don't listen to "solid" albums. To me that seems like another way of saying "another stock, by-the-numbers metal album with no outstanding features or songs". Like how people describe a new OVERKILL album or something (use another example if you prefer).

It also seems like a cop-out for the reviewer, like they listen to a metal album and as long as it is "true metal" and doesn't feature any weird groove parts, a strange album cover, death metal vocals, modern elements, or techno parts then they say "another solid release from (mediocre true metal band X)!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 5 flaming skulls out of 5!!!!!!!!!!!!!" They don't seem to be assessing the quality of the music at all and it just seems to be praising mediocrity.

It never occured to me, but you make a good point.

T-Roy wrote:

LOL @ 5 flaming skulls!

To me "solid" means better than average. I would only give something a
"solid" label if it were a good listen from start to finish, no
skippers after a month of listening. Perhaps it is overused though, I
guess I do see it alot in reviews, but it just never seemed like a
negative to me.

I agree here. I use the term 'solid' quite a bit to refer to the fact that the album is better than average.

Temple of Blood wrote:

"another solid release from (mediocre true metal band X)!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 5 flaming skulls out of 5!!!!!!!!!!!!!" They don't seem to be assessing the quality of the music at all and it just seems to be praising mediocrity.

One of the larger underground 'zines (I forget which one, "Pit", maybe?) uses "Skulls" as their rating system, and I always used to laugh at it because the ones they really liked all seemed to get a rating of "TEN F**KING SKULLS!"

That was SOD Magazine. That mag ruled!

Lurideath wrote:

That was SOD Magazine. That mag ruled!

SOD, that's it! I couldn't remember if it was them or PIT. I haven't seen either mag in years but I figured it had to be one of 'em.

TEN F**KING SKULLS to you brother!

It's like the Count on Sesame Street. FIVE, FIVE F-ING SKULLS, AH AH!!!

Solid means that the album is a good listen from beginning to end, better than average and without a bunch of filler crap in between a few good songs. It has nothing to do with being "mediocre". I use the term all the time to describe an album that I enjoy listening to from beginning to end. The new Fueled by Fire is a solid thrash metal album. The new Iced Earth is not a solid album as it is uneven and features too much interlude and storyline crap.

Solid to me means it can hold its own against other releases.Nothing groundbreaking,but far from average.

I agree with ult on this one. Solid = No filler.

its a valid point but when did i ever buy music buy reviews. if i want it i will buy it despite what others say. many a time i have bought an one flaming skull album and i thought it was better but it is till a g ood point

Fat Freddy wrote:

Lurideath wrote:

That was SOD Magazine. That mag ruled!

Yeah, I think that was SOD. I just remember I thought their reviews were ridiculous.

ultmetal wrote:

Solid means that the album is a good listen from beginning to end, better than average and without a bunch of filler crap in between a few good songs. It has nothing to do with being "mediocre". I use the term all the time to describe an album that I enjoy listening to from beginning to end. The new Fueled by Fire is a solid thrash metal album. The new Iced Earth is not a solid album as it is uneven and features too much interlude and storyline crap.

To me, even the best metal albums have filler or songs I often wanna skip past. But the great metal albums have highlights or excellent songs or something groundbreaking about it. How often does someone wanna listen to "5150" from "Mob Rules"? Everytime they listen to the album? I skip it almost everytime, and that is one of my very favorite metal discs.

To me, a lot of albums get described by metalheads as "solid" for the reasons I mentioned in my first post just because they can't really think of anything to criticize about it but none of it is really good or outstanding in any way.

There's nothing wrong with using the term solid, if the shoe fits.

I can understand where Temple Of Blood is coming from. I simetimes use the word solid when I can find nothing wrong with an album, but also nothing really groundbreaking. It definitly means that I really like what I hear, but also that it isn't exactly the most exciting album around.

SOLID by U.D.O is a great album and very SOLID. Solid TO ME is a real heavy metal album, with heavy riffs.

SOLID I think is not negative as long as you really mean it and are not just throwing it around. Besides, most of the time I don't listen to reveiws. A large majority of the music I listen to gets blasted by critics all the time. Proffesional music critics are never really worth listening to anyways. They're sole purpose is to find flaws in the music they listen to unlike the common listener who listens to enjoy the music. Except for sites like No Life Til Metal and Metal Metroplis I very rarely read reviews that don't make me roll my eyes or look away in discust (and even I don't always agree with the two I mentioned). In the end I say listen to what you like and who cares what everyone else thinks! The only opinion that matters is yours.

thrasher73 wrote:

Solid to me means it can hold its own against other releases.Nothing groundbreaking,but far from average.

Yeah, that's how I understand the word as well. Sort of a synonym for 'decent'.

Quote :

How often does someone wanna listen to "5150" from "Mob Rules"? Everytime they listen to the album? I skip it almost everytime, and that is one of my very favorite metal discs.

I guess I'm weird then. When I listen to an album (unless it's not a favorite) - I listen to the whole thing, start to finish. I never skip songs. Albums were made to be listened to from start to finish.

I don't skip sections of movies - why should I skip sections on my favorite cds.

Perhaps I'm an odd man out on this - but I listen to stuff straight through and rarely skip tracks.

I have always took it to mean, "No Filler," and applied it to only those albums that I love every song and never skip a track. For example:"Painkiller" or "Kill 'Em All."

Your right Temple of Blood, its a term used as a bit of cop out from reviewers who can't bring themselves to admit the album is middle of the road, nothing special. But the reviewer has to call it solid because the playing is professional, production's clean and a lot of time and effort has gone into making the album. I can't deal with these albums or bands because their nothing special, over time these albums won't age well and will be fairly forgettable and not very 'solid'.

T-Roy wrote:

It's like the Count on Sesame Street. FIVE, FIVE F-ING SKULLS, AH AH!!!

ultmetal wrote:

Solid means that the album is a good listen from beginning to end, better than average and without a bunch of filler crap in between a few good songs. It has nothing to do with being "mediocre". I use the term all the time to describe an album that I enjoy listening to from beginning to end. The new Fueled by Fire is a solid thrash metal album. The new Iced Earth is not a solid album as it is uneven and features too much interlude and storyline crap.

You hit the nail on the head Scott.

Oh, I changed the avatar you gave me since almost everyone here had a cover of an album as an avatar, so put my own. You are still the best