Palabra de Dios
Heavy Metal Weatherman
And they picked the correct Electric Wizard album. Once "Funeropolis" comes on, it's a goddamn doom fest.
Heaviest albums of all time....
- Thread starter mëtålspëd
- Start date
AeonicSlumber
srs
- Aug 14, 2008
- 4,893
- 0
- 36
Honestly, that Slipknot album is heavier than all of these CDs people listed in this thread as counter arguments, and I'm saying that as a fan of all of those CDs people listed in this thread and not a fan of Slipknot (well besides the self-titled record). Vulgar Display Of Power should have totally replaced Machine Head though I'd say. That shit is truly heavy.
AeonicSlumber
srs
- Aug 14, 2008
- 4,893
- 0
- 36
I got my username from this CD so I'm obvi a fan. However...naw.
$ End-of-thread encountered.
(I swear you could use mine as a boat-anchor.)
...hell naaawww.
You went to the trouble to post it twice, so I felt compelled to click on it.
Kinda reminds me of the post-Hooters dump I took this morning. It was really only impressive to me, and not nearly as heavy as I thought it was, initially. I could have sworn that I lost 5 pounds, but, alas.....
Seriously, though...with a list like that, and various interpretations on "heavy", there will be a lot of "right" answers. Definitely some "wrong" ones as well...guess that's kinda the point.
For my two-cents: how 'bout some Kreator? Motorhead? How 'bout (gasp!)...Manowar!
Rock on!
dcowboys311
Member
J. Golden
Heaven and Hell Records
The day Dream Theater 'Awake' came out I was so excited to get it. Yes I was excited over Dream Theater at one time. Anyway I picked up the album and put it into the CD player in the car belonging to the girl I was going out with at the time. (forget her name) Well after listening to it she makes the comment that the other guys she went out with listened to much heavier stuff like Megadeth, Metallica, I could not help but to find that to be funny and so cute. Well we return to my place and I introduced her to Winter and she then knew what heaviness was. I also learned that day that chisks like doom and heaviness; a theory that has proven itself time and time again.
AeonicSlumber
srs
- Aug 14, 2008
- 4,893
- 0
- 36
TribunalRecords
Record Label(s)/Vocalist
Funny when i read this thread message title SLIPKNOT's "Iowa" instantly came to my mind. That record is still an overly intense listen with everything that is going on within each song. My vote for heaviest album ever for sure.
Regor
Regor:1 Cancer:0
I Call Shenanigans! Burn My Eyes is infinitely heavier than any Beatles album. I don't give a flying rat's ass what their 'criteria' for 'heavy' was.
And also, WTF?! No Testament "The Gathering"!? Bullshit!
BTW, I saw some random Slipknot hate. Iowa is easily one of the heaviest albums of all time, whether you like Slipknot or not.
nomisofsiman
Member
AeonicSlumber
srs
- Aug 14, 2008
- 4,893
- 0
- 36
Reading is your friend dude. The context for why they felt that Beatles album is supremely heavy is justified.
Regor
Regor:1 Cancer:0
Apparently reading should be your friend dude, as I said I didn't give a flying rat's ass what their 'criteria' was
AeonicSlumber
srs
- Aug 14, 2008
- 4,893
- 0
- 36
So if someone told you that a house was on fire, but it was an electrical fire, you'd say "oh well it's not a REAL fire, I don't care what the circumstances were, but since nobody accidentally dropped a match, I don't give a rats ass, nothing's really on fire!"
Makes perfect sense. Dude justifies his argument pretty well and your only reply is essentially plugging your e-fingers into your e-ears like a child.
Also for the record, I read your post and ironically no, once again reading is your friend because he had no criteria on his page. A criteria is a standard, but he had no standard for what makes all of them heavy. In fact, his whole article is about different reasons for why he thinks each record is heavy. I was talking about his justification for that one album, not for a standard he may or not be holding his article to. But yeah, pretty telling that it doesn't matter how good a case he could make because you still "wouldn't give a rat's ass." Incredibly mature response that doesn't at all sound like it came from a stereotypical metalhead.
Makes perfect sense. Dude justifies his argument pretty well and your only reply is essentially plugging your e-fingers into your e-ears like a child.
Also for the record, I read your post and ironically no, once again reading is your friend because he had no criteria on his page. A criteria is a standard, but he had no standard for what makes all of them heavy. In fact, his whole article is about different reasons for why he thinks each record is heavy. I was talking about his justification for that one album, not for a standard he may or not be holding his article to. But yeah, pretty telling that it doesn't matter how good a case he could make because you still "wouldn't give a rat's ass." Incredibly mature response that doesn't at all sound like it came from a stereotypical metalhead.
Regor
Regor:1 Cancer:0
Alright, so maybe my use of the word 'criteria' was wrong BY THE WEBSTERS DICTIONARY DEFINITION OF THE WORD. Ugh, how about I replace my statement with 'reason', is that better for you Mr. Oxford?
And my maturity level has nothing to do with the fact that he's lumped in a Pop-Rock band into a category befitting that of metal music. And in my stereotypical metalhead opinion, the Beatles have no place is such a category.
And my maturity level has nothing to do with the fact that he's lumped in a Pop-Rock band into a category befitting that of metal music. And in my stereotypical metalhead opinion, the Beatles have no place is such a category.
Regor
Regor:1 Cancer:0
AeonicSlumber
srs
- Aug 14, 2008
- 4,893
- 0
- 36
His "reason" was that for the 60's before there was metal, that album was brutal as shit. Of note, the list is not "heaviest metal albums of all time," but "heaviest albums of all time" so it's fair game to have non metal bands in there (reading... do it). You're free to disagree, but I'm also free to say that you not giving "a rat's ass" just because The Beatles isn't a metal band (lol at "pop rock" though, you realize when they came out such a thing as "pop rock" didn't even exist? Or are you too busy showing off your internetmetalness to realize that + the fact they have an entire prog rock period of music that is anything but pop?) is pretty hilarious (equally hilarious is dubbing me "MR OXFORD" because I can read and you clearly are having trouble with it....)
J. Golden
Heaven and Hell Records
I'm sure if I walk to my CD self I can find someone who used fuzzy heavy guitar before The Beatles; matter of fact Link Wray did.
For anyone's interest;
http://www.guitarworld.com/50-heaviest-songs-black-sabbath-50-41
For anyone's interest;
http://www.guitarworld.com/50-heaviest-songs-black-sabbath-50-41
Corsair
Member
- Aug 17, 2009
- 550
- 1
- 18
Hrm. No credit for one of the first bads to be describes as even belogning to a then-nonexistent genre? SLB isn't exactly obscure. I mean they weren't beatles popular, but it's not like they're off the musical radar or anything. At the risk of sounding like an elitist snob, most of the albums/groups mentioned are pretty front-and-center, and there are a lot of less well-known releases that could easily compete with anything that was listed. Obviously it's just an opinion piece, and I'm glad the writer spent some time justifying, but ...we can do better. and within a year or two of span, there were albums by Captain Beefheart, Frank Zappa, Pink Floyd... Amon Duul II's Phallus Dei is (arguably) pretty damn heavy for it's time. It seems like having the White Album in there is just kinda there to piss off the tr00 bl00 metulhudz, justification being something of an afterthought. Context shmontext, something being heavy within context rather precludes the need to have it listed as being one of the heaviest OF ALL TIME. If we're including things because of their cultural and historical context, why not include Wagner, or Elvis or something? It would then, be more appropriate to make a list of "Heaviest albums within their place in the history of music, and influence" and then every other pick of the list would be rendered objectively poor choices.
And of course there are some of the more obvious choices: Sabbath and Zepplin being some of the most exhausted, Blue Cheer. Couple others I can't think of off the top of my head, but the more I think about it, the more I think the Beatles pick is there to be controversial. I can maybe get on board with dopethrone. Dopesmoker not so much, and having them both seems redundant anyway. Plus there's a distinct underrepresentation of other genres. Clearly the writer has a preference that excludes Black Metal, anything that hints of Prog (Mastodon excluded.) NWOBHM, Avant-whatever. Plenty of Death, Thrash, -Core, etc though. Stoner doom, but excluding Traditional, Epic, etc. Now that I'm looking t it, excepting the Beatles, every band on the list is from the US. Hm.
Making "OF ALL TIME" lists is always damn stupid.
Last edited by a moderator:
Palabra de Dios
Heavy Metal Weatherman
Similar threads
