What's the death metal golden era ?

[Allfader]

Morbid Angel's best albums are easily Altars and Covenant. I thought there was a consensus about it.

I would add 1994 as well based on Luciferion's debut (which is by its own merit some of the best death metal ever made), The Bleeding, Blasphemy Made Flesh, Drawings of the Dead, When The Sky Turns Black and so many others.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

Morbid Angel's best albums are easily Altars and Covenant. I thought there was a consensus about it.

I agree with this. Blessed seems to get the in-crowd(or what remains of it) love around these parts and i used to really like the album too but i think it's pretty clear that Covenant is a much stronger outing.

 

[The Ozzman]

Morbid Angel's best albums are easily Altars and Covenant. I thought there was a consensus about it.

I would add 1994 as well based on Luciferion's debut (which is by its own merit some of the best death metal ever made), The Bleeding, Blasphemy Made Flesh, Drawings of the Dead, When The Sky Turns Black and so many others.

Pretty sure this thread covered it: http://www.ultimatemetal.com/forum/threads/gmd-poll-morbid-angels-discography-ranked.1289018/

 

[Bruticus]

Covenant is the best Morbid Angel album by light years

Like which track off Altars can compete musically with God of Emptiness ? Right.
And it's hardly like God is the only great death metal track on that record. Just comparing Vincent's vocals on the first and on Covenant, it's like Covenant Vincent is the adult version of Altars Vincent with a whole octave deeper, immeasurably more presence on the whole record. As a whole the first two records are so much more messy than Covenant, musically it's very obvious, Covenant is much more focused and concise, therefor sharper, while I suppose one could argue that that isn't necessarily a sign of maturity and the first two records were more "wild and raw" or sth along those lines but it's not convincing.

Anyways I'd include Covenant in a golden age bracket that would start around 92 and span over about 10-15yrs ending around 2005ish. For eg Kill or Organic Hallucinosis, two of the very best records I've heard, come out in 05 and 06 respectively. Oh and I, Monarch 2005. I believe things start to go to shit around that 2008ish period with deathcore/djent etc... and a shitty scene generally.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Altars is by far the best. Covenant edges out Blessed but neither album is good. If Covenant had Blessed's ass production it would be a coin toss.

I'd extend death metal's golden age from 88 through 95. A lot of the big names died in 93 concomitant with thrash, but there were still notable and important albums coming out regularly up to then. 96 was when things really started to decline, though you still had pioneering releases that would define a later second wave in the form of None So Vile and Here in After.

 

[Allfader]

Like which track off Altars can compete musically with God of Emptiness ? Right.
And it's hardly like God is the only great death metal track on that record. Just comparing Vincent's vocals on the first and on Covenant, it's like Covenant Vincent is the adult version of Altars Vincent with a whole octave deeper, immeasurably more presence on the whole record. As a whole the first two records are so much more messy than Covenant, musically it's very obvious, Covenant is much more focused and concise, therefor sharper, while I suppose one could argue that that isn't necessarily a sign of maturity and the first two records were more "wild and raw" or sth along those lines but it's not convincing.

Anyways I'd include Covenant in a golden age bracket that would start around 92 and span over about 10-15yrs ending around 2005ish. For eg Kill or Organic Hallucinosis, two of the very best records I've heard, come out in 05 and 06 respectively. Oh and I, Monarch 2005. I believe things start to go to shit around that 2008ish period with deathcore/djent etc... and a shitty scene generally.

Altars has a lot of things on its favor. Its historical and functional importance is simple immense. It's modern death metal in the 80's.

Absolutely NO one was playing such defined death metal back then. Before Altars, all death metal was basically a heavier version of thrash with growls. The drumming, the riffing, were all still traceable to thrash in a very noticeable way. Then, this appeared, in 1989:



The triplet-driven blastbeat at the beginning already set the band apart of everything else (no death metal band was actually playing blastbeats in the 80's), only grindcore bands were), the production, the riffing style are absolutely beyond everyone else back then. Just like Hellhammer and Celtic Frost laid the foundation for the first black and death metal on early 80's, Altars is the album that influenced most of death metal even to this day and it's the album that started a new age for extreme metal as a whole.

 

[Bruticus]

Altars has a lot of things on its favor. Its historical and functional importance is simple immense. It's modern death metal in the 80's.

Absolutely NO one was playing such defined death metal back then. Before Altars, all death metal was basically a heavier version of thrash with growls. The drumming, the riffing, were all still traceable to thrash in a very noticeable way. Then, this appeared, in 1989:



The triplet-driven blastbeat at the beginning already set the band apart of everything else (no death metal band was actually playing blastbeats in the 80's), only grindcore bands were), the production, the riffing style are absolutely beyond everyone else back then. Just like Hellhammer and Celtic Frost laid the foundation for the first black and death metal on early 80's, Altars is the album that influenced most of death metal even to this day and it's the album that started a new age for extreme metal as a whole.

Innovation is great, but surely not the all-deciding factor. If it were, you'd just say Death is the greatest death metal band of all time, Altars the greatest death metal record of all time because it introduced blasts etc., and that's that. We all understand it isn't that simple (thankfully). A precursor band may lay down the foundations for a style, only to see a band shortly after refining the genre and producing an even better result; or, a precursor band may produce a powerfully innovative record, only to themselves finetune their sound and come up with a riper more mature album a few years later.
Is there a track on Altars approaching the musical calibre of God of Emptiness ?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Altars sounds waaaay more like thrash metal than Leprosy does. Both are still death metal, but just saying

 

[CiG]

Altars is by far the best. Covenant edges out Blessed but neither album is good. If Covenant had Blessed's ass production it would be a coin toss.

I'd extend death metal's golden age from 88 through 95. A lot of the big names died in 93 concomitant with thrash, but there were still notable and important albums coming out regularly up to then. 96 was when things really started to decline, though you still had pioneering releases that would define a later second wave in the form of None So Vile and Here in After.

If you're a tradfag it declined in the mid-90's but most of my favourite old death metal albums are from the so-called period of decline (1994-1999). Obscura, Pierced From Within, Here in After, Failures for Gods, Molesting the Decapitated, Diabolical Conquest, Mercenary, De Profundis, Voracious Contempt, Blasphemy Made Flesh, None So Vile, Third Eye Function, Inbreeding the Anthropophagi, Path of the Weakening, you had the rise of bands like Skinless, Deeds of Flesh, Nile, Malignancy, Dying Fetus, Disgorge and lately I have to admit Formulas Fatal to the Flesh is steadily becoming my favourite Morbid Angel album.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Yeah death metal never really creatively stagnated until maybe this decade. I'm a thrashfag anyways so I don't really care about death metal outside of a couple dozen albums.

 

[Bruticus]

So recording technology and sound account for nothing in later years of death metal ? Sound alone, production quality, is a major advantage in metal. Not as much in certain other genres. Think of what The Bleeding sounds like and then what Kill sounds like for CC. Song-writing may've been fine on the first, but it sounded like a dried up raisin in terms of dynamism and sheer power compared to Kill. Those massive power chords with that deeeep sound, the technical riffing despite being played on extremely low-tuned gtrs totally audible and that clinical precision of the gtrs and bass and drums locking in together... how does The Bleeding compare to that when the song-writing too was excellent on Kill ?

No this isn't a flash vs substance argument, but, in death metal you really can't take away the sound part. If Cannibal Corpse death metal was all about depicting clinical speed and precision, heaviness, and just POWAH it's difficult to argue the Barnes-era records make as much of an impact as those later colossal monuments of death metal. The "old and classic" status thing really isn't convincing here.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

An album like Consuming Impulse would sound like garbage if recorded like 99% of death metal post-mid-90s.

 

[Allfader]

So recording technology and sound account for nothing in later years of death metal ? Sound alone, production quality, is a major advantage in metal. Not as much in certain other genres. Think of what The Bleeding sounds like and then what Kill sounds like for CC. Song-writing may've been fine on the first, but it sounded like a dried up raisin in terms of dynamism and sheer power compared to Kill. Those massive power chords with that deeeep sound, the technical riffing despite being played on extremely low-tuned gtrs totally audible and that clinical precision of the gtrs and bass and drums locking in together... how does The Bleeding compare to that when the song-writing too was excellent on Kill ?

No this isn't a flash vs substance argument, but, in death metal you really can't take away the sound part. If Cannibal Corpse death metal was all about depicting clinical speed and precision, heaviness, and just POWAH it's difficult to argue the Barnes-era records make as much of an impact as those later colossal monuments of death metal. The "old and classic" status thing really isn't convincing here.

Heaviness is not just about "heavy" production/tone. Riffs themselves are heavy, even regardless of the actual sound. Incantation up to Diabolical Conquest is some of the most crushing death ever made, yet the production of those albums is not perfect or the heaviest out there.

Modern death metal can sound as massive as you want, but songwriting comes first. God of Emptiness is still one of the best death metal songs ever, despite the decades of production advancement. Altars is still a landmark of the genre, because the songs are just masterful.

 

[Allfader]

So recording technology and sound account for nothing in later years of death metal ? Sound alone, production quality, is a major advantage in metal. Not as much in certain other genres. Think of what The Bleeding sounds like and then what Kill sounds like for CC. Song-writing may've been fine on the first, but it sounded like a dried up raisin in terms of dynamism and sheer power compared to Kill. Those massive power chords with that deeeep sound, the technical riffing despite being played on extremely low-tuned gtrs totally audible and that clinical precision of the gtrs and bass and drums locking in together... how does The Bleeding compare to that when the song-writing too was excellent on Kill ?

No this isn't a flash vs substance argument, but, in death metal you really can't take away the sound part. If Cannibal Corpse death metal was all about depicting clinical speed and precision, heaviness, and just POWAH it's difficult to argue the Barnes-era records make as much of an impact as those later colossal monuments of death metal. The "old and classic" status thing really isn't convincing here.

Heaviness is not just about "heavy" production/tone. Riffs themselves are heavy, even regardless of the actual sound. Incantation up to Diabolical Conquest is some of the most crushing death ever made, yet the production of those albums is not perfect or the heaviest out there.

Modern death metal can sound as massive as you want, but songwriting comes first. God of Emptiness is still one of the best death metal songs ever, despite the decades of production advancement. Altars is still a landmark of the genre, because the songs are just masterful.

 

[Allfader]

So recording technology and sound account for nothing in later years of death metal ? Sound alone, production quality, is a major advantage in metal. Not as much in certain other genres. Think of what The Bleeding sounds like and then what Kill sounds like for CC. Song-writing may've been fine on the first, but it sounded like a dried up raisin in terms of dynamism and sheer power compared to Kill. Those massive power chords with that deeeep sound, the technical riffing despite being played on extremely low-tuned gtrs totally audible and that clinical precision of the gtrs and bass and drums locking in together... how does The Bleeding compare to that when the song-writing too was excellent on Kill ?

No this isn't a flash vs substance argument, but, in death metal you really can't take away the sound part. If Cannibal Corpse death metal was all about depicting clinical speed and precision, heaviness, and just POWAH it's difficult to argue the Barnes-era records make as much of an impact as those later colossal monuments of death metal. The "old and classic" status thing really isn't convincing here.

Heaviness is not just about "heavy" production/tone. Riffs themselves are heavy, even regardless of the actual sound. Incantation up to Diabolical Conquest is some of the most crushing death ever made, yet the production of those albums is not perfect or the heaviest out there.

The Bleeding has stellar songwriting and excellent performance. Even Barnes did a great job. The album is varied, well written and it flows just great.

Modern death metal can sound as massive as you want, but songwriting comes first. God of Emptiness is still one of the best death metal songs ever, despite the decades of production advancement. Altars is still a landmark of the genre, because the songs are just masterful.

 

[jimmy101]

lately I have to admit Formulas Fatal to the Flesh is steadily becoming my favourite Morbid Angel album.

Gyeah boy! That's probably my #0001 MA album. Fucking ruthless album.

 

[CiG]

The Bleeding is way better than Kill, and honestly I'm not a big fan of modern Cannibal Corpse production in the first place. Much prefer that more dry style they had on Butchered at Birth, Tomb of the Mutilated and The Bleeding. They have an almost demo tape kind of quality, where everything is stripped back and laid bare.

 

[jimmy101]

I agree with the opinion on production qualities, but it's pretty hard to argue with the songwriting on Kill.

Kill showcases CC at their most unorthodox & unpredictable best.

 

[Bruticus]

Heaviness is not just about "heavy" production/tone. Riffs themselves are heavy, even regardless of the actual sound. Incantation up to Diabolical Conquest is some of the most crushing death ever made, yet the production of those albums is not perfect or the heaviest out there.

Modern death metal can sound as massive as you want, but songwriting comes first. God of Emptiness is still one of the best death metal songs ever, despite the decades of production advancement. Altars is still a landmark of the genre, because the songs are just masterful.

no issue there I think you're making a strawman of my post and you didn't get the message. I'm not suggesting production is everything, that's the strawman. I'm saying: it has to account for something. I say "it's a clear advantage in metal" generally. For e.g. in sth like shoegaze/synth pop not as much, and I'm sure other genres too. Metal needs to sound massive. Song-writing is number 1: people would rather lsn to great death metal with mediocre recording than shit death metal with great production. Although even that isn't certain today. But anyways.

Would you agree an album like The Wretched Spawn or Kill sounds a lot more ominous and monumental in size and intimidating than an album like The Bleeding, in large part because the production is incomparable between them ? Frantic Disembowelment is 10x better song-writing wise than any song on the Bleeding, let's leave song-writing out of this: do you agree the later albums sound a lot more massive and crushing/heavy ? OK. Does that account for nothing ?

 

[Allfader]

Would you agree an album like The Wretched Spawn or Kill sounds a lot more ominous and monumental in size and intimidating than an album like The Bleeding, in large part because the production is incomparable between them ? Frantic Disembowelment is 10x better song-writing wise than any song on the Bleeding, let's leave song-writing out of this: do you agree the later albums sound a lot more massive and crushing/heavy ? OK. Does that account for nothing ?

I think those albums sound heavier and are certainly more technical, but I wouldn't call them better. It's a matter of taste. This song, for example. It mixes great groove, riffs, pace and vocal performance.



Barnes era Cannibal Corpse sounds far more macabre and ominous than Fisher's. Not only the lyrics are more deranged, but the vocals are more intimidating and fucked up. The production is also rawer, which provides an additional edge.