Pantera's Heaviest Album?

sure, people can like a guitarist, if theyre good. worshipping mediocre crap is worthy of an insult.
~gR~
 
Dime is a legend man. If any of you guys appreciate lead work, you can't turn a deaf ear to solos like heard on Floods. I know Pantera tends to attract the typical white trash guys that Brian Posehn testifies too. I'm sure you've seen them too. Dime was proficient at shredding, had great presence and was one of the nicest guys to talk to in metal. I think that kinda helped cement his status as a legend. I won't deny his untimely death probably helped, but Dime was followed well before he got murdered.
And when I say aggro metal, you know, some times metal losses some gusto and aggression when being played by bands like Ramma Gay.

P.S. George Lynch < the dicks in his ass and therefore no way as cool as dime.
 
Dime is only hailed as a legend because he died on stage. I'm a Pantera fan and I'm convinced if he had died of natural causes, he wouldn't be getting as much acclaim as he's getting now. I've heard better guitarists than him.
 
sure, people can like a guitarist, if theyre good. worshipping mediocre crap is worthy of an insult.
~gR~

That's elitist, pretentious bullshit, my friend.

All you guys saying Dime wasn't that good... are you aware of the fact that it's subjetive? Just because you don't percieve him as being very good doesn't mean that to other people he isn't legitimately their best. It's daft to think that your personal perception of ability is the only one that is accurate.

Yeah, Dime wouldn't be honored as much if he was still alive. Same with Hendrix. But Hendrix is still probably the best rock guitarist ever (and I know my fucking way around rock guitarists), so I don't think it's out-of-touch at all for some people to think Dime is the best. And Dime would still be considered one of the greats, along with Pantera, same as bands like The Who and Megadeth are still greats without having quit or died.

Phil is my fave in Pantera anyway. ;)
 
well, i'm an elitist, pretentious asshole. and i'm quite happy with that

and no, skill is not subjective.
~gR~
 
well, i'm an elitist, pretentious asshole. and i'm quite happy with that

and no, skill is not subjective.
~gR~

Hahahahahaha.

Yes it IS. You're silly.

As if there is a specific definition for what makes a "good" guitarist? For you to make a judgment on guitar playing ability, you are deciding on your own perception of what criteria decide someone's level of "goodness." Even as far as "technical" skill (even though 100% of people who use the world technical in music discussion are bullshitting 100% of what they say about it), what decides a technically skilled player? Is it speed, accuracy, form, melody, a combination? Is the fastest player better than other people if he is playing random notes that sound good, and is the most accurate player the best if he's playing slower, less engaging music? And, of course, it's important to note that what we percieve as being the most adept performance is coming from our own personal, unique, fallible perspective and perception.
 
Douchebag Darrel isn't a legend.

Toni Iommi is a legend.
Rob Halford is a legend.
Ronnie James Dio is a legend.
King Diamond is a legend.
Chuck Schundler is a legend.
Dave Mustaine is a legend.
Lemmy Kilmister is a legend.
 
Hahahahahaha.

Yes it IS. You're silly.

As if there is a specific definition for what makes a "good" guitarist? For you to make a judgment on guitar playing ability, you are deciding on your own perception of what criteria decide someone's level of "goodness." Even as far as "technical" skill (even though 100% of people who use the world technical in music discussion are bullshitting 100% of what they say about it), what decides a technically skilled player? Is it speed, accuracy, form, melody, a combination? Is the fastest player better than other people if he is playing random notes that sound good, and is the most accurate player the best if he's playing slower, less engaging music? And, of course, it's important to note that what we percieve as being the most adept performance is coming from our own personal, unique, fallible perspective and perception.

You make some very good points their, it's to bad genocide roach is as ignorant and immature as he is, otherwise that post might have done some good.
 
I love some Pantera's songs here and there. They make some simple songs (i.e. Walk) but sometimes simple works best. And they are heavy metal. They're not "real" metal because they were big in the 90's? I do not care if you dislike them but they're metal.

Their heaviest album has to be The Great Southern Trendkill or Reinventing The Steel.
 
in terms of out and out aggression, then it would be The Great Southern Trendkill.

but the heaviest with the best possible songwriting, then its Vulgar Display Of Power

unfortunately, both of those CDs which I own are severely scratched and will not play.
 
Hahahahahaha.

Yes it IS. You're silly.

As if there is a specific definition for what makes a "good" guitarist? For you to make a judgment on guitar playing ability, you are deciding on your own perception of what criteria decide someone's level of "goodness." Even as far as "technical" skill (even though 100% of people who use the world technical in music discussion are bullshitting 100% of what they say about it), what decides a technically skilled player? Is it speed, accuracy, form, melody, a combination? Is the fastest player better than other people if he is playing random notes that sound good, and is the most accurate player the best if he's playing slower, less engaging music? And, of course, it's important to note that what we percieve as being the most adept performance is coming from our own personal, unique, fallible perspective and perception.
Obviously if you have a large number of objective measures (speed, accuracy) then you can determine skill objectively to a large extent. Music, however, is not a guitar-playing contest, so while Dimebag may have won a few of those in his day it doesn't change the fact that Pantera is lowest common denominator moron metal at worst, and simple fun at best.

Also, Projects in the Jungle was their heaviest.
 
i used to love pantera back when i was in my rebellion teenage years. now ive grown up, listened to so much more heavy metal and come to realize that pantera are infact not that good of a band. oversimplified to say the least, pantera does appeal to a certain type of audience, though, and you cant blame them for that.

either trendkill or far beyond driven is the "heaviest"...
 
I saw Dimebag on that Metal: A Headbanger's Journey DVD. I had never heard him speak, and I was surprised that he had a hillbilly accent that fit my own stereotype of Pantera to a tee.

Redneck metal
Tough-guy metal
Groove metal

Whatever you call, it, it ain't my style. It makes use of too much that seems shallow and lacks depth. Plus it makes/made me mad that whenever you say you like metal, the first thing people say is, "Pantera?". It seems a whole generation of metalheads was fed Pantera at a time when real metal was mostly underground, so they gained a lot of popularity by default.