Smash or Smash It?!

[sixxswine]

Bruce Dickinson's Skunkworks album... 1996 saw Bruce enlisting the help of some young musicians (some might even saw who isn't younger than him!) and suprisingly he got Jack Endino on board as producer, which his claim to fame was his work with "Seattle" bands...
Smash or Smash it?!
Why?!

 

[SoundMaster]

It's a very uneven record....some of it is excellent, but much feels like "filler" to me. The "Balls To Picaso" album, which is it's "artistic cousin", IMO, is much stronger. Overall, on a scale of 1-10, I'd give Skunk a 6.

So it's neither a 'smash', nor does it deserved to be smashed!

 

[Wyvern]

I like that album a lot. Unlike Bruce I think it has a very good sound and was quite modern when it came out without being mallcore or anything like it.

May be not as epic or crafted in the melody arrangements like AOB, CW or TOS buts ongs like 'Back From The Edge', 'Inertia', 'Solar Confinement', 'Inside The Machine' are kick ass and the rest are very even so I don't feel much filler in it.

Bruce wanted at the time something unrelated to Maiden and more modern without changing his view of metal and I think he made it. Very underrated album IMO (and much better than the last 2 Maiden albums).

 

[EVERLOSTINDEADETERNITY]

I honestly cant say as Ive only heard the Studio B recordsing of the skunk stuff. But I will say Chemical Wedding= Godly. Period.

 

[Firehead]

Good album. Don't smash it, but don't expect it to be like Iron Maiden.

 

[Pabla]

I could never get into Skunkworks...