Thoth-Amon
Hypochondriac
- Apr 4, 2006
- 6,821
- 8
- 38
i'm one of the most highly opinionated motherfuckers on this board and i don't care if i make an ass out of myself proving it


Whatever Hanneman says, there is homogeneity to it, and I dislike overly homogenous music, be it Reign in Blood, European flower metal (as in Sonata Arctica and the like), "norsecore" black metal like 1349, Dragonforce, or any genre with "grind" in it, etc. Judas Priest albums change mood and feel drastically from song to song--"Exciter" does not sound much like "Beyond the Realms of Death", which does not sound like "Saints in Hell", which does not sound like "Heroes' End". A 7-minute song is almost invariably better than seven one-minute songs that all sound alike, because it actually has time to develop somewhat instead of just fizzling out.
Then there's the so-called singing of Tom Araya, who severely damages the album by himself and contributes to the homogeneity by having absolutely no variation whatsoever in his voice except for the one rape scream in "Angel of Death" that is actually pretty cool. Slayer could have been helped greatly by having a competent death metal vocalist.
That's the same thing. Unless you're taking objectively, but why should you?However I do not think it is a shitty album. I just do not like it.
The average metal suite is actually far less homogenous than Reign in Blood, and they have a distinct rise and fall of tension that carries throughout the entire suite. There are even individual songs that pack more variety into less than a third of Reign in Blood's running length without sounding disjointed. Even thinking of Reign in Blood as a single musical unit, I don't finish it thinking that it has taken me somewhere or provided any sort of experience, not in the same way that Ulver's Bergtatt a suite of similar length, does. It can only do one trick, and it does it over and over until I lose interest and listen to Forbidden or hell, an earlier Slayer album, instead. It's not awful music, just either severely underdeveloped or severely overextended and either way outclassed by its predecessors.
And I actually have heard death metal covers of "Angel of Death" that sound better than the original.
I think what saves RiB from mediocrity is its very short length and great punch.It's over before you're completely annoyed with it. I'm not sure I could've taken 10 more minutes of Slayer in RiB mode. Not such a bad album, but far from a masterpiece too.
The average metal suite is actually far less homogenous than Reign in Blood, and they have a distinct rise and fall of tension that carries throughout the entire suite. There are even individual songs that pack more variety into less than a third of Reign in Blood's running length without sounding disjointed. Even thinking of Reign in Blood as a single musical unit, I don't finish it thinking that it has taken me somewhere or provided any sort of experience, not in the same way that Ulver's Bergtatt a suite of similar length, does. It can only do one trick, and it does it over and over until I lose interest and listen to Forbidden or hell, an earlier Slayer album, instead. It's not awful music, just either severely underdeveloped or severely overextended and either way outclassed by its predecessors.
And I actually have heard death metal covers of "Angel of Death" that sound better than the original.
What a load of pseudo-intellectual claptrap. Firstly, it's a thrash metal album, and referring to it as a "suite" is seventeen shades of the gayest gay and should be ceased henceforth. Secondly, the beauty and appeal of Reign In Blood is that it is a short, sharp blast of pure aggression. It has much in common with a lot of punk and hardcore albums in this regard. The songs have barely any gaps between them and are arranged so that the listener will be slapped around the chops furiously for under half an hour with barely any let up. If you are wanting it to 'take you somewhere' on a musically varied journey then you're most definitely barking up the wrong tree. If you don't like the way it sounds today or find it "severely underdeveloped", then you are probably attempting to read far too much into it. And if you really think that death metal vocals would work better on it, you basically shouldn't bother listening to it again, because you have entirely missed the point of the album in every aspect.
Yea, it's got great pacing too. It is lacking in dynamics though. Postmortem and Angel of Death are classics, regardless.honestly i can only think of a few albums as well paced and put together as this one
What a load of pseudo-intellectual claptrap. Firstly, it's a thrash metal album, and referring to it as a "suite" is seventeen shades of the gayest gay and should be ceased henceforth. Secondly, the beauty and appeal of Reign In Blood is that it is a short, sharp blast of pure aggression. It has much in common with a lot of punk and hardcore albums in this regard. The songs have barely any gaps between them and are arranged so that the listener will be slapped around the chops furiously for under half an hour with barely any let up. If you are wanting it to 'take you somewhere' on a musically varied journey then you're most definitely barking up the wrong tree. If you don't like the way it sounds today or find it "severely underdeveloped", then you are probably attempting to read far too much into it. And if you really think that death metal vocals would work better on it, you basically shouldn't bother listening to it again, because you have entirely missed the point of the album in every aspect.
What a load of pseudo-intellectual claptrap. Firstly, it's a thrash metal album, and referring to it as a "suite" is seventeen shades of the gayest gay and should be ceased henceforth. Secondly, the beauty and appeal of Reign In Blood is that it is a short, sharp blast of pure aggression. It has much in common with a lot of punk and hardcore albums in this regard. The songs have barely any gaps between them and are arranged so that the listener will be slapped around the chops furiously for under half an hour with barely any let up. If you are wanting it to 'take you somewhere' on a musically varied journey then you're most definitely barking up the wrong tree. If you don't like the way it sounds today or find it "severely underdeveloped", then you are probably attempting to read far too much into it. And if you really think that death metal vocals would work better on it, you basically shouldn't bother listening to it again, because you have entirely missed the point of the album in every aspect.
It's not awful music, just either severely underdeveloped or severely overextended and either way outclassed by its predecessors.