What's the death metal golden era ?

[TechnicalBarbarity]

overall i prefer Barnes era CC, but that's slowly been starting to change. I think everything they've done with Fisher is pretty damn solid. Kill is also one of their best albums imo.

 

[Bruticus]

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.

Allfader, I don't think we've been disagreeing this whole time. I'm not making a specific Cannibal Corpse tangent in this 'golden era of death metal' topic, I'm merely using CC as an example to illustrate my point. My point is not that newer death metal is necessarily better because of bigger production, my point is that in attempting to decide the golden era for death metal, can we brush off completely the component of technology (+maturity) ? The majority opinion on this thread seems to be first wave DM. I disagree, I believe it's rather the "second wave" (let's call it that) 93ish-2005ish.

By selecting the 87-93 period, it's implied that despite the technology being limited (just listen to Eaten Back to Life) the song-writing was so brilliant and definitively superior that period was still the better one. I don't see that as realistic. I think the improvement of technology massively upgraded the end result for a dm record, and that the first wave couldn't have been the most interesting exactly because it was the first and lacked a certain hindsight and enough variety in influence (as it had just broken away from thrash), as well as maturity. I find generally the albums of the later 90's/early 2000's period are steadier, more interesting and mature musically.
Not all bands: early Morbid Angel is better, early Death is much better than later Death... but most bands that have ever caught my attention musically in the field: Immolation, Vital Remains, CC, Deicide, Gorguts, Suffocation... were a lot more interesting towards their 3d, or 4th album, around the late 90's/early 00's, as they were more refined musically, bigger sounding, and ultimately more compelling and composed pieces of music.

 

[Allfader]

Allfader, I don't think we've been disagreeing this whole time. I'm not making a specific Cannibal Corpse tangent in this 'golden era of death metal' topic, I'm merely using CC as an example to illustrate my point. My point is not that newer death metal is necessarily better because of bigger production, my point is that in attempting to decide the golden era for death metal, can we brush off completely the component of technology (+maturity) ? The majority opinion on this thread seems to be first wave DM. I disagree, I believe it's rather the "second wave" (let's call it that) 93ish-2005ish.

By selecting the 87-93 period, it's implied that despite the technology being limited (just listen to Eaten Back to Life) the song-writing was so brilliant and definitively superior that period was still the better one. I don't see that as realistic. I think the improvement of technology massively upgraded the end result for a dm record, and that the first wave couldn't have been the most interesting exactly because it was the first and lacked a certain hindsight and enough variety in influence (as it had just broken away from thrash), as well as maturity. I find generally the albums of the later 90's/early 2000's period are steadier, more interesting and mature musically.
Not all bands: early Morbid Angel is better, early Death is much better than later Death... but most bands that have ever caught my attention musically in the field: Immolation, Vital Remains, CC, Deicide, Gorguts, Suffocation... were a lot more interesting towards their 3d, or 4th album, around the late 90's/early 00's, as they were more refined musically, bigger sounding, and ultimately more compelling and composed pieces of music.

I kinda agree. Some bands did their best on their earlier years, some didn't. I, for example, vastly prefer Human and ITP over SBG and Leprosy era Death. Musicianship and production values got far higher in level over the years, to the point that modern albums barely sound like played by humans. The perfection of edition and recordings have brought some good things, but it also has taken some of the "live" feel of old albums. I doubt any band will be able to deliver another Legion on this day and age. Attempts at recreating OSDM alas Incantation have tried to recapture that feel, but modern death metal is a totally different thing altogether.

It all depends on what are you looking for in a certain genre. For death metal "classic" death metal quality is leaning on 89-94, but the genre developed over time, where other bands delivered good stuff, just different.

In black metal this is far more evident, as the genre has been in constant development and it's still going really strong.

 

[Bruticus]

I kinda agree. Some bands did their best on their earlier years, some didn't. I, for example, vastly prefer Human and ITP over SBG and Leprosy era Death. Musicianship and production values got far higher in level over the years, to the point that modern albums barely sound like played by humans. The perfection of edition and recordings have brought some good things, but it also has taken some of the "live" feel of old albums. I doubt any band will be able to deliver another Legion on this day and age. Attempts at recreating OSDM alas Incantation have tried to recapture that feel, but modern death metal is a totally different thing altogether.

It all depends on what are you looking for in a certain genre. For death metal "classic" death metal quality is leaning on 89-94, but the genre developed over time, where other bands delivered good stuff, just different.

In black metal this is far more evident, as the genre has been in constant development and it's still going really strong.

I understand. Do note that I'm talking about '93-'05, I am NOT praising the current scene and its ultra-precision and do not like anything about it anyways.
However. Pulling out the notion that the 1st wave DM bands' production had a raw/epic character to it, as a counter-argument to the vastly improved and powerfully calibrated productions of the later 90's feels an idealist's opinion, at best.

If you asked those musicians themselves which albums they preferred from their own discographies... no question some of them will nostalgically look back and say their first or second record. But those musicians know how they've improved from album to album, how they've grown musically (picked up new things here and there) and become smarter music makers, how they've enjoyed the newer technology and will often point to a later album.
Again, CC is a detonating example of that: pick Eaten, pick Bloodthirsty. Eaten sounds like an album the Bloodthirsty band wrote when they were kids. The difference in caliber is stark, just not even comparable.