GMD Votes: Black Metal prelims + discussion

[TechnicalBarbarity]

No, it is not. That title would probably have to go to Ample Destruction.

 

[Manic Ferocity]

Ample Destruction is closer to traditional heavy metal (a la NWOBHM, Manowar, Cirith Ungol, etc.). They don't have the epic warrior Conan the Cimmerian fantasy-esque spirit that you hear in Battle Cry and power metal in general.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Or it just proves that this board is infested with BM-fellating WIMPS that have listened to all the obscure atmogaze black metal acts in existence while remaining ignorant of any non-big 4/Teutonic trio thrash.

It's possible that there's great stuff I haven't heard, but from listening to what ya'll ranked as the top 20 thrash albums, I have to say it's a generally vacuous genre. As for you critiquing black metal, the depth of the genre is simply beyond you. It's like having a 5th grader critique Plato.

 

[Serjeant Grumbles]

"More malleable and open to interpretation" = the powers that be arbitrarily define metal sub-genres as widely or narrowly as they feel a need to. There's far more in common between, say, Metallica and Pantera or Slayer and Merauder, than there is between Root and Silencer or Bathory and Agalloch. However, "groove" and "tuffguy attitude" aren't kvlt so blackwimps can just pretend that stuff has nothing to do with thrash.

I think it's painfully ironic that you say this when you have got to be one of the wimpiest posters here, and that includes female members. I remember SomeGuyDude professed to enjoy a lot of those "wimpy" atmogaze black metal bands you rail against.

While I can't speak for everyone, I'm not adverse to groove, elsewise I wouldn't like Nevermore. However, metal bands centered entirely around groove are akin to action movies composed of nothing but stuff blowing up. Most brutal death metal is equally one-dimensional, but it's more extreme, making it more worthwhile for what it is.

Some genres are arbitrarily drawn as narrower than others, but that's not on account of a conspiracy by the powers that be. I think it simply occurred as happenstance as a result of how different genres evolved. For example, blackened thrash and death/thrash are generally considered to fall under the black and death metal umbrellas, respectively, rather than under thrash. But, back in the 80's, stuff that would nowadays be classified under those aforementioned sub-genres were simply labeled as black metal and death metal. So, from the start, they were set apart from thrash.

 

[Manic Ferocity]

It's possible that there's great stuff I haven't heard, but from listening to what ya'll ranked as the top 20 thrash albums, I have to say it's a generally vacuous genre. As for you critiquing black metal, the depth of the genre is simply beyond you. It's like having a 5th grader critique Plato.

This is by far the most ignorant and pretensious post I've ever seen on this board.

First of all, black, death, and thrash metal developed at roughly the same time in the 80s. The bands were trying to push metal to its absolute limit in extremity, so there was no way of applying a single one of those labels to bands who were all drawing from the same pool of influences. In retrospect, you can't downplay the musical characteristics and general aesthetic of any of those genres because they were all crucial to the development of extreme metal as a whole.

Secondly, first and second wave black metal weren't philosophical movements. They were kids rebelling against the social norm through music, and through extracuricular activities in the most extreme manner they could devise amongst themselves. It's not deep, it's not philosophical, and it certainly wasn't a matter of intellectualism. Metal in general, at its core, is a very primal, visceral style of music. Worthy of analysis on that basis? Sure, but the idea that one of its major sub-genres was comprised of philosophically minded people is laughably untrue.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

For example, blackened thrash and death/thrash are generally considered to fall under the black and death metal umbrellas, respectively, rather than under thrash.

This is definitely not true. Just about every one of those bands identify themselves as thrash metal bands first.

Ample Destruction is closer to traditional heavy metal (a la NWOBHM, Manowar, Cirith Ungol, etc.). They don't have the epic warrior Conan the Cimmerian fantasy-esque spirit that you hear in Battle Cry and power metal in general.

Wat? Battle Cry IS traditional heavy metal. That album shares much more in common with NWOBHM and early Manowar than Ample Destruction.

 

[Krow]

Nah it is.

 

[Manic Ferocity]

Yeah, that doesn't even make sense.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

Nah it is.

Are you talking about Battle Cry or my response to Grumbles?

Yeah, that doesn't even make sense.

How does in not make sense? You're telling me AD sounds more like Hail to England? Or that Ample Destruction is similar to King of the Dead? And you're supposed to be one of the local PM professianados?

Like i said, Omen is traditional heavy metal ... and here are shit load of people that agree with me ...

https://rateyourmusic.com/rgenre/set?album_id=50313

 

[Manic Ferocity]

This is definitely not true.



Wat? Battle Cry IS traditional heavy metal. That album shares much more in common with NWOBHM and early Manowar than Ample Destruction.

How? There's something more epic and battle-ready about Battle Cry that isn't as present in Jag Panzer, Manowar, and most NWOBHM.

This is a pretty silly argument by the way. The line that separates the two is practically invisible and we haven't even factored "speed metal" into the equation yet. I'm ok with calling both albums heavy/power metal.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

.. yea fuck it, me too.

 

[Manic Ferocity]

Are you talking about Battle Cry or my response to Grumbles?



How does in not make sense? You're telling me AD sounds more like Hail to England? Or that Ample Destruction is similar to King of the Dead? And you're supposed to be one of the local PM professianados?

Like i said, Omen is traditional heavy metal ... and here are shit load of people that agree with me ...

https://rateyourmusic.com/rgenre/set?album_id=50313

I was talking about Grumbles post not making sense.

I'm fairly confident that people who don't waste time agonizing over specific genre classifications wouldn't see a problem with Omen being mentioned in a post about power metal albums to check out. Music genres are extremely vague blanket terms at the end of the day. Now, time to officially retire from this argument...

 

[Mort Divine]

professianados

.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

I'm fairly confident that people who don't waste time agonizing over specific genre classifications wouldn't see a problem with Omen being mentioned in a post about power metal albums to check out.

No i don't have a problem with them being mentioned in a post about PM at all. What i did have a problem with was saying that album basically defines US PM and was included in your list of best power metal albums from your initial post. And my response to that post was not challenging at all, just my thoughts on the albums you mentioned ... a few of which i even praised. But yea whatever, lets move on.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

1) Dissection - The Somberlain
2) Darkthrone - A Blaze in the Northern Sky
3) Darkthrone - Transilvanian Hunger
4) Sacramentum - Far Away From the Sun
5) Deathspell Omega - Paracletus
6) Dissection - Storm of the Light's Bane
7) Immortal - Pure Holocaust
8) Ulver - Nattens Madrigal
9) Burzum - Filosofem
10) Satyricon - Nemesis Devina
11) Mayehm - De mysteriis dom Sathanas
12) Enslaved - Vikingligr Veldi
13) Satyricon - Nemesis Devina
14) Deathspell Omega - Fas – Ite, maledicti, in ignem aeternum
15) Bathory - Under the Sign of the Black Mark
16) Gorgoroth - Under the Sign of Hell
17) Arckanum - ÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞ
18) Tsjuder - Desert Northern Hell
19) Satyricon - The Shadowthrone
20) Tsjuder - Demonic Possession
21) Emperor - Anthems to the Welkin at Dusk

As for Inquisition i cant figure out whether to vote for Infernal Regions or Invoking. And i still need to lsiten to some more Marduk before the next thread.

I also think Blood Fire Death is a better album that UtSotBM, but way too thrashy for me to include in this list.

 

[divine_torture]

Give me 1 hour or less and I'll have my list

 

[divine_torture]

1. Mayhem - De Mysteriis Dom Sathanas
2. Darthrone - Transylvanian Hunger
3. Bathory - Under the Sign of the Black Mark
4. Burzum - Hvis Lyset Tar Oss
5. Deathspell Omega- Si Monumentum Requires, Circumspice
6. Rotting Christ - Khronos
7. Gris- Il etait une foret
8. Immortal - Pure Holocaust
9. Cradle of Filth - Cruelty and the Beast
10. Leviathan - Tentacles of Whorror
11. Krohm - The Haunting Presence
12. Austere - To Lay Like Old Ashes
13. The Ruins of Beverast - Rain Upon the Impure
14. Blut Aus Nord - Memoria Vetusta II
15. Bethlehem - Dictius Te Necare
16. Forgotten Tomb - Springtime Depression
17. Watain - Casus Luciferi
18. Gorgoroth - Pentagram
19. Inquisition - Invoking The Majestic Throne of Satan
20. Dissection - Storm of the Light's Bane
21. Peste Noire - La Sanie des siècles - Panégyrique de la dégénérescence
22. Blasphemy-Fallen Angel of Doom
23. Funeral Mist - Salvation
24. Absu - Absu
25. Enslaved - Below The Lights

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

Nah it is.

If this was in response to my statement about thrash and its subgenres than you surely seem to have no idea of what you're talking about ... as usual.

edit: Like i said, most of those bands fall under the thrash metal umbrella and identify themselves as thrash metal bands first and foremost. That's why it is called Blackened Thrash, and not "thrashy black metal" and obviously falls under the TM umbrella. But there are some bands that are clearly heavier on black metal. I personally refer to those bands as thrash/black, not blackened thrash.

 

[divine_torture]

Holy Jesus fuck, another super detailed genre definition discussion!? Yay!

 

[Draehl]

This is by far the most ignorant and pretensious post I've ever seen on this board.

First of all, black, death, and thrash metal developed at roughly the same time in the 80s. The bands were trying to push metal to its absolute limit in extremity, so there was no way of applying a single one of those labels to bands who were all drawing from the same pool of influences. In retrospect, you can't downplay the musical characteristics and general aesthetic of any of those genres because they were all crucial to the development of extreme metal as a whole.

Secondly, first and second wave black metal weren't philosophical movements. They were kids rebelling against the social norm through music, and through extracuricular activities in the most extreme manner they could devise amongst themselves. It's not deep, it's not philosophical, and it certainly wasn't a matter of intellectualism. Metal in general, at its core, is a very primal, visceral style of music. Worthy of analysis on that basis? Sure, but the idea that one of its major sub-genres was comprised of philosophically minded people is laughably untrue.

Being on the general 'side' of black metal I would still agree with this. My only contentious statement is that over the past, say 10 or 15 years BM has progressed further. Not due to particularly positive merits of the genre so much as the fact that, again, it's been taken in more directions. Some could consider that lack of rigidity to be a disorder of the genre, rather than a merit. That's fine.