Hmm...I always got the feeling it was the other way around for some reason. Many share the opinion that it was the grind albums that put them on the map. I've always doubted that though, seeing as how they made some of the best death metal of their time.
I don't see how anyone can listen to South of heaven and not be annoyed at the laughable vocals and pitiful attempt to create a brooding atmosphere. It also comes off as if they are trying to hold back on that album which adds to the awkwardness of it.
I thought Napalm death was liked for being a mixture of death metal and grindcore?
@ Internally Deformed - The assumption that if you cant appreciate South of Heaven you are an illusioned try hard who only listens to inferior demos for their perceived rarity (this is basically the poser argument), is just fucking stupid. Ive grown up listening to this album since before I ever dabbled in rare metal, and I never really see what my friends saw in it. I was all about Reign in Blood back then, though I have since grown more fond of Show No Mercy and Hell Awaits. There is nothing wrong with having differing taste in metal.
They are deathgrind. Pure grindcore isn't even metal.
Here's some beautiful music everyone can get into!
Id say no its standard deathgrind.Scum is pure grind surely?
You seem to overstate how much thrash and death metal I actually listen to.Chill out, my point was more about MrTago's description of Slayer as mediocre than about that particular album; that just happened to be the one we ended up discussing.
It does seem strange to me that someone could dislike Slayer while liking scores of bands that emulate Slayer and probably would never have existed without them, but I get that taste is subjective and whatnot.
2 br00tal 4 u.I listened to this because I love the word "bourgeois". It was physically painful to listen to on headphones!
You seem to overstate how much thrash and death metal I actually listen to
It does seem strange to me that someone could dislike Slayer while liking scores of bands that emulate Slayer and probably would never have existed without them, but I get that taste is subjective and whatnot.
I dislike this idea that just because a band is a pioneer that automatically means they are good or one of the best. A lot of people think that the best bands and albums in metal have to be these renowned classics and that more obscure and lesser known stuff just can't be as good which to me that mentality goes against what metal was all about. I enjoy digging through obscure stuff and discovering hidden gems I can enjoy as much as the classics or often I prefer the hidden gems over the classics.
How the fuck can someone not like south of heaven? I get it's not their best album but still.
Immolations close to a world below would like to have a word with you.I agree that it isn't necessarily true that the band responsible for creating a style or a genre is better than anyone else at it (Hellhammer for instance). It just so happens, in my experience at least, that they usually are. It isn't a coincidence for me that most of the best thrash albums were written within the first few years of thrash's existence, and likewise for death metal, despite the fact that there are probably far more bands now playing in either of those genres than at the time of their inception.