GMD Poll: Top Ten Albums of 1997
- Thread starter TechnicalBarbarity
- Start date
... the thrashing alone makes it better than every black metal release from this year.
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,848
- 113
lol, the lyrics are the one thing I like about that album, peak dorky medieval stuff. Otherwise it's a complete riffless shitfest.
~Neurotica
perfectly insane
- Mar 27, 2006
- 7,913
- 236
- 63
Oh wow, hello there <3*8) Omnio by In the Woods...
There is something inside me dripping
"In the Woods... really helped expand black metal in Norway during the mid-90's along with Empyrium and Enslaved into more interesting and progressive territories" @unknown
"Omnio is sort of like a less structured Pale Folklore in sound. Much, much less structured though."@MasterOLightning
"Omnio is one of the most (possibly best is the word i'm looking for) structured concept albums i've heard. Pale Folklore is as loose as my grandmother." @hibernal_dream
shout out to their biggest fan @~Neurotica for posting/recommending them at least a hundred times
Chosen By:
@Anom@nder Rake (#1)
@spikes77 (#1)
@Mort Divine (#2)
@Terasophe (#8)
TOTAL POINTS: 32
~Neurotica
perfectly insane
- Mar 27, 2006
- 7,913
- 236
- 63
isn't it great to be too lazy to take santa's hat off your avatar?
zabu of nΩd
Free Insultation
- Feb 9, 2007
- 14,620
- 805
- 113
Serjeant Grumbles
Active Member
- Mar 20, 2005
- 4,380
- 2,872
- 113
I'm surprised Anthems even made it. As I recall, I don't think Nightside made the 1994 poll; to be far, there was stiffer competition there.
Bloopy
Active Member
Those mistakes could be reported/fixed on the respective websites at any time. Best to compare all including label/band sites when there's a discrepancy. Make a best estimate as to which one is correct and why the others are wrong.
Slammed
Active Member
- Jun 15, 2017
- 31,254
- 44,984
- 113
What could be done is someone could make a website that compares all known websites that have such information on them, that site could correlate all that information, then based on user statistics suggesting which site has a higher reliability factor which is obviously worked out by a poll it then tells everyone which is the most reliable source for selecting a release date. Anyone who uses any other site gets whipped with a damp potato sack and must forfeit all their votes.
tbh i need to know so i can decide where to put D666 on my yearly list on RYM, those lists are far more important than most of the ones on this forum which have been influenced by numerous alts.
CiG
Dimension Hatröss
Bloopy
Active Member
Band has always said '97, even on their old website as archived in 2003:
https://web.archive.org/web/20031024003541/http://www.destroyer666.net:80/unchain.html
A run of CDs dated 1996 when printed doesn't say much about when they got into listeners' hands.
https://web.archive.org/web/20031024003541/http://www.destroyer666.net:80/unchain.html
A run of CDs dated 1996 when printed doesn't say much about when they got into listeners' hands.
and what bands websites say doesn't mean much either ... for example with Symphony X. What i want to know is, like you said, when the albums were actually first in the hands of listeners.
Bloopy
Active Member
Still a case of considering all the information available and reaching an intelligent conclusion. Symphony X's website was contradicted by the review quoted on their own MySpace, so their '97 clearly refers to the wider release.
yes, everyone here already knows what they were referring to with that '97 statement. Just pointing out that "wider release" means jack shit when were talking about when the album was initially released and that just because they have it listed as a certain year on their own website doesn't mean much. All we need is proof that someone purchased that album in '96. We cant just take info we read from 2-3 different sites and come to our own conclusion tbh, unless those sites contain information from people who actually bought said album.
CiG
Dimension Hatröss
Personally I don't buy that Unchain the Wolves is a '96 album. This Discogs image we're all going by says 1996 on the back but 1997 on the disc and this is our only contrary source? It probably has something to do with copyright dates or something, but until we have something concrete I think we should count it as a '97 album.
I remember the infamous radio interview from '97 (it's on Youtube, I obviously didn't hear it when it went down) where they were supposed to be promoting the new album but instead were fucking with the interviewer, cracking cans of beer into the mic and rambling about "the spirit of the white man" and this went down in June, middle of the year, and it's perhaps a little weird to be promoting a "new album" at least 7 months out of 1996.
Just my 2 cents.
I remember the infamous radio interview from '97 (it's on Youtube, I obviously didn't hear it when it went down) where they were supposed to be promoting the new album but instead were fucking with the interviewer, cracking cans of beer into the mic and rambling about "the spirit of the white man" and this went down in June, middle of the year, and it's perhaps a little weird to be promoting a "new album" at least 7 months out of 1996.
Just my 2 cents.
bands promoted their new albums for much longer than just 6-7 months after they were released. At least back then they did.
But yea, their discogs page is the only thing that's making me think twice about including it in my '97 list. They're usually more on point than RYM. You guys gotta know at least one person out there in Australia or New Zealand that purchased the album the day it came out. That would be good enough for me
CiG
Dimension Hatröss
Agreed, but the general vibe of the interview is that it pretty much just came out.
Sorry, I don't know any metalheads much older than me. But here's a question that might ease your skepticism; if it was released in 1996, why would the label print 1997 on the disc? Jumps out to me as kinda weird to print a future date on something, but it makes a lot of sense to print earlier dates on something due to the business side of things.
yea, that's how they did it back then. There werent new albums coming out by hundreds off bands every week. An album was still considered fresh and new for a long while after it was released.
the same reason why the would print something that has a past date. Maybe they thought it was going to be released in '97? I dont know, but those print dates dont mean much without someone saying when they actually purchased that album on released date. Plus there are a bunch of albums with misprints/typos, it can be the disc or the case who knows. Someone should sent an email to the band asking them when it was first released in Australia, lol.
CiG
Dimension Hatröss
Yeah fair enough. I'm definitely aware that bands even still today tour an album as if it's new and needs promoting a year after release.
Honestly I'm thinking the 1996 bit is a misprint, possibly caused by confusion since the album was recorded in 1996. Someone should email those wankers though.
Similar threads
