Why wouldn't i dismiss his opinion? Is it supposed to matter to me because he's in a band? Like he's the only one who thinks that album has a eerie vibe or something? I'm pretty sure most of the children at hot topic and the 50 year old dude-bros think Repentless has an eerie vibe. Am i supposed to give a shit?
As I said, it wasn't supposed to matter specifically that he was famous, just that it was the only reference I had at hand. Besides
@Satanstoenail (who you dismissed because he likes nu-metal) I don't know anybody else who holds
South of Heaven up as their favourite Slayer album.
Anyway this is besides the point.
SoH is nowhere near as evil or eerie as the two albums that came before it and the one that fallowed it up. What the band sounds like to you and others here(even toenail) means more to me than what some random guy has to say about it. That being said, i dont know a single person IRL that considers that album to be their best, and if you want to bring up randoms, than there waaaaaayy more people that would agree with me on that album being pretty soft and tame compared to their other stuff. Shit, i think they even admitted it themselves a few times on how that album was just too melodic or whatnot.
We simply disagree about it not being their eeriest/most evil sounding I guess. I don't think it's their best or their peak genius album though so I won't bother to defend that angle.
I was just saying initially that an album doesn't have to represent a band's true or traditional sound to be their peak genius album, add to that the subjective nature of what makes an album peak material to the fans it's not really something that can be proven or disproven to begin with.
This is all very romantic language after all.
Oh and one of the most evil, wicked, bad ass metal albums of all time doesn't sound evil to you? Aggression, violence and lyrics that basically define that word have nothing to do with it sounding evil? hmmm, ok.
I don't agree that aggressive and violent musical elements define an evil sound.
I could see that for the middle tracks I guess (I don't actually agree, as half the songs are about taking pleasure from mutilating people, which is pretty evil in my book), but I don't see how Angel of Death and Raining Blood aren't evil as fuck. The former is evil in the same way watching a documentary on the Holocaust is evil- the damn people are fucking vile if allowed to be sort of evil. The later is more of a classic Old Testment powerful spiritual force unleashing its power on the worthless humans below sort of evil.
When talking about the atmosphere of a record, I don't really take the specific lyrical content into account. "Raining Blood" though does have a kind of evil feeling to it, with the tension built by the intro for example. But I think the feeling of
Reign in Blood comes almost entirely down to the terseness of the album's length as well as the intensity, aggression and violence of the compositions.
It could be an album based around a concept of eating cotton candy and it wouldn't change my feelings about it being aggressive and violent rather than evil. Of course this is also relatively speaking because it would sound evil by comparison to many other albums by other bands.
The question is what's better, South of Heaven or Seasons in the Abyss. To me, the latter.
I choose
South of Heaven.
I haven't listened to their first two albums as they're not interesting to me.
Never?
