Jump to content
Sign in to stalk this  
DeiExMachina

Nu-Metal's Relevance

Recommended Posts

So this is my first ever thread other than the "Hello, Metal Forum" one I did earlier. I don't think this has been done before, but if I'm wrong, then hopefully this thread will be deleted when I find out that this thread already exists.Without any further delays, the main thing I'd like to talk about in this thread is about nu-metal, it's relevance as a true metal genre, and if you guys think it is truly relevant. This may cause some friction between people who like nu-metal and people who don't, but I'd like to see your opinions on nu-metal's relevance. A few people believe that nu-metal was the responsible genre for reviving metal in the 90's, however many disagree. I think it has played a role in supporting metal's uprising in the turn of the millennium. Personally, I quite like nu-metal, however, it has its pros and cons, as every genre has. While I do think it adds a new vibe to metal, it kills the fast paced, "in your face", "take no prisoners" style that the metal bands of the 70's and 80's offered. Influenced by hip-hop and somewhat grunge, it has an angst-ridden feel, however sometimes with nu-metal bands, the angst doesn't even exist, and it's constant whining. However, I do give credit to bands such as Korn, Slipknot, and the Deftones for incorporating a lot of technicality into the guitar-work. Some bands incorporate a bass-ridden sound, which fills the mood of the song, and ultimately is one of the reasons why I like nu-metal. I don't like bands like Limp Bizkit and Linkin Park who are considered nu-metal, however, Korn, Slipknot, and the Deftones remain as my favourite nu-metal bands. The main questions I'd like to as you all is this: Do you think nu-metal is relevant towards metal music (in other words, do you think it's a true metal genre)? Do you like nu-metal, or not? And, do you think nu-metal helped revive metal in the 90's, or did death and black metal help metal more than nu-metal did? I'd like to hear your answers and opinions below. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll start off by saying that I am in no way very acquainted with nu-metal, but I do think this could lead to some interesting discussions, so I'll take some time to answer your questions. Do I think nu-metal is relevant to metal when 'relevant' means acknowledging it as a true genre? Yes. I have yet to hear a nu-metal album which I like -that answers your next question-, but I acknowledge the genre as a distinctive branch. Influences from several music styles can be found in metal, changing its sound completely, though leaving it categorised as metal. I don't see why this should be any different from nu-metal. I already said I didn't like nu-metal, but I should add that I don't hold a grudge against the music or its fans (except when they are close minded retards, but that counts for fans of each music genre). Considering nu-metal is a genre which theoretically is or at least should be pretty broad, I'm pretty sure there's some stuff out there which I wouldn't dislike, but as I said: I have yet to find it. I don't know whether nu-metal revived metal in the 90's. Even if it were so, I still think metal never really needed reviving; metal was never dead. I won't argue with you on the fact its popularity was decreasing over time, but to me popularity doesn't seem to be the key to making music work. Compared to other music genres, metalheads are still a minority and even though we are, the music is still very vivid and hasn't stopped entertaining people who enjoy it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that nu-metal is simply just another form of metal. The main thing I should imply is that in the 90's, metal had more of an underground appeal, and when bands like Pantera, and then bands like Korn and Slipknot came onto the scene, they changed metal music massively. I do agree, in no way was metal dead, however, there is a good video by coverkillernation called "Metal THRIVED in the 90's", which is an interesting watch. I highly recommend you watch it to hear his reasons for this, however, metal did face a loss in popularity. I agree that popularity doesn't equate to how good music is. *cough* Mainstream rock and pop music *cough* It seemed as though it faced a stage of near extinction due to the genesis of grunge and the Boy/Girl band groups which dominated the Western and parts of the Eastern World. But in reality, yeah, I should've made that question more clear, regarding the revival of metal. There are quite a few nu-metal bands that are good, it just takes time to have a good look, and not some idiot who gets hyped up and shoves several bands down your throat. A majority of the fans of nu-metal do get agitated when you say nu-metal isn't relevant to metal, and I feel as this further digs a deeper grave for nu-metal, despite it not exactly being a dying genre. Overall, good arguments. Obviously you said you aren't a big fan of nu-metal, and that's all cool. It was just to see what people think about nu-metal's relevancy in metal as a whole. And also, I agree that nu-metal shouldn't be segmented just because it's nu-metal and for its differences, unlike other genres. I guess the reasoning for people disliking nu-metal is due to the lasting impact the thrash, death, and black metal scenes had on metal, while nu-metal had a significant, but somewhat damaged impact to metal, due to metal having a RAPID change from thrash straight into nu-metal, despite the variety nu-metal bands try to implement into their works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So this is my first ever thread other than the "Hello' date=' Metal Forum" one I did earlier. I don't think this has been done before, but if I'm wrong, then hopefully this thread will be deleted when I find out that this thread already exists.Without any further delays, the main thing I'd like to talk about in this thread is about nu-metal, it's relevance as a true metal genre, and if you guys think it is truly relevant. This may cause some friction between people who like nu-metal and people who don't, but I'd like to see your opinions on nu-metal's relevance. A few people believe that nu-metal was the responsible genre for reviving metal in the 90's, however many disagree. I think it has played a role in supporting metal's uprising in the turn of the millennium. Personally, I quite like nu-metal, however, it has its pros and cons, as every genre has. While I do think it adds a new vibe to metal, it kills the fast paced, "in your face", "take no prisoners" style that the metal bands of the 70's and 80's offered. Influenced by hip-hop and somewhat grunge, it has an angst-ridden feel, however sometimes with nu-metal bands, the angst doesn't even exist, and it's constant whining. However, I do give credit to bands such as Korn, Slipknot, and the Deftones for incorporating a lot of technicality into the guitar-work. Some bands incorporate a bass-ridden sound, which fills the mood of the song, and ultimately is one of the reasons why I like nu-metal. I don't like bands like Limp Bizkit and Linkin Park who are considered nu-metal, however, Korn, Slipknot, and the Deftones remain as my favourite nu-metal bands. The main questions I'd like to as you all is this: Do you think nu-metal is relevant towards metal music (in other words, do you think it's a true metal genre)? Do you like nu-metal, or not? And, do you think nu-metal helped revive metal in the 90's, or did death and black metal help metal more than nu-metal did? I'd like to hear your answers and opinions below. Thanks.[/quote'] Personally, I've always hated that movement and regarded it as irrelevant. Death and black metal were infinitely more important to the development of the underground. In mainstream metal though you can still see nu-metal's influence. I do really like Deftones' newer work, but they're not nu-metal and haven't been since the first couple albums. Diamond Eyes is one of my favorite albums actually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only problem In the nu metal. Was tha asshole fred durst. I told you what. Nu metal. Kinda. Help sepultura and help slayer survived Help them. Last longer. Sepultura. Roots was actually. The most successful record in sales. According to the liner notes. In reissue In some ways. Nu metal help bands survived in a way it help bands. Negative. Asshole named fred durst.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally' date=' I've always hated that movement and regarded it as irrelevant. Death and black metal were infinitely more important to the development of the underground. In mainstream metal though you can still see nu-metal's influence.I do really like Deftones' newer work, but they're not nu-metal and haven't been since the first couple albums. Diamond Eyes is one of my favorite albums actually.[/quote']I haven't listened to anything after White Pony. I really need to pick up the albums, but I've never got around to hearing them. Plus, I assumed they still did nu-metal and kept the sound from their first albums. Apart from that, fair answer, man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only problem In the nu metal. Was tha asshole fred durst. I told you what. Nu metal. Kinda. Help sepultura and help slayer survived Help them. Last longer. Sepultura. Roots was actually. The most successful record in sales. According to the liner notes. In reissue In some ways. Nu metal help bands survived in a way it help bands. Negative. Asshole named fred durst.
I agree. I haven't heard Diabolus in Musica yet, however I've heard it sucks. It did have a change in sound, supposedly, which I guess is good, but some might say it's only benefit was to somewhat boost Slayer's popularity. And I can't say anything regarding Sepultura, because I have never listened to them before. I do agree with Fred Durst being a down right asshole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In answering your question no I don't consider nu-metal to be a legitimate subgenre. For a musical style to be metal that must be the foundation of it's sound. This is not the case with nu-metal. As for assisting metal again I don't think so. Metal would have survived regardless. What nu-metal did was create an oversaturation of pseudo-metal bands and facilitate the melodic metalcore explosion. If anything it's been detrimental to metal. Now labels aren't interested if you don't sound like slipknot, korn, disturbed or the melodic metalcore bands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In answering your question no I don't consider nu-metal to be a legitimate subgenre. For a musical style to be metal that must be the foundation of it's sound. This is not the case with nu-metal. As for assisting metal again I don't think so. Metal would have survived regardless. What nu-metal did was create an oversaturation of pseudo-metal bands and facilitate the melodic metalcore explosion. If anything it's been detrimental to metal. Now labels aren't interested if you don't sound like slipknot' date=' korn, disturbed or the melodic metalcore bands.[/quote'] To be fair though, metalcore (or what passes for it now) it sort of At the Gates' fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To be fair though' date=' metalcore (or what passes for it now) it sort of At the Gates' fault.[/quote'] I tend to agree with this, at least in terms of the techniques and melodies that they popularized - not just ATG but they played a big part. It made me really fucking mad and disappointed when the Gothenburg scene and American metalcore started feeding off of one another. It took me years to get back into DT and ATG, and I still can't listen to In Flames. One thing to remember is how revolutionary it felt in the mid 90s to have an "extreme" band become that accessible. The stuff that I dislike now, as dumbed-down precursors to subgenres that I despise, was exciting back then because it all felt like a legitimizing force. Perspective has certainly changed my opinions, and I think the definition of legitimacy has gotten freed up to drift in several directions since "extreme" bands gained a solid piece of the mainstream market. The bands I've been into lately would have probably been dismissed as imitators or impenetrable garbage if they'd come out back then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I tend to agree with this, at least in terms of the techniques and melodies that they popularized - not just ATG but they played a big part. It made me really fucking mad and disappointed when the Gothenburg scene and American metalcore started feeding off of one another. It took me years to get back into DT and ATG, and I still can't listen to In Flames. One thing to remember is how revolutionary it felt in the mid 90s to have an "extreme" band become that accessible. The stuff that I dislike now, as dumbed-down precursors to subgenres that I despise, was exciting back then because it all felt like a legitimizing force. Perspective has certainly changed my opinions, and I think the definition of legitimacy has gotten freed up to drift in several directions since "extreme" bands gained a solid piece of the mainstream market. The bands I've been into lately would have probably been dismissed as imitators or impenetrable garbage if they'd come out back then.
Oh I wasn't really criticizing AtG (although I don't have the highest opinion of SotS), I was just acknowledging the influence they had. They're still miles above most of the American metalcore shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly - and we have talked about this at great length in your absence - there's nothing generally agreed upon. When I was in college we called Converge "metallic hardcore" or "technical hardcore" and the other stuff was "melodic metalcore", but those are kind of cumbersome terms. It would be nice to have something short and descriptive that wasn't also immediately derogatory (like, for instance, referring to Atreyu merely as "shit" doesn't work, since there's so much other "shit" that sounds nothing like them :D).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quick question - are there terms to distinguish between bands who incorporate hardcore and metal' date=' like Converge, Trap Them and Black Breath from what we usually think of as metalcore such as Atreyu, As I Lay Dying etc.? Because there's a pretty big difference in sound and I like some of the former type.[/quote'] I typically refer to bands like Atreyu as mallcore, pop metalcore, or emocore, though melodic metalcore seems to be the most commonly held term for the sound. Black Breath is more of a d-beat/death metal fusion, Trap Them takes their sound from tons of places, but crust/grind would probably be the most appropriate. Converge is the kind of band that embodies the metalcore label, I don't usually hear them referred to as anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I typically refer to bands like Atreyu as mallcore' date=' pop metalcore, or emocore, though melodic metalcore seems to be the most commonly held term for the sound. Black Breath is more of a d-beat/death metal fusion, Trap Them takes their sound from tons of places, but crust/grind would probably be the most appropriate. Converge is the kind of band that embodies the metalcore label, I don't usually hear them referred to as anything else.[/quote'] The only problem with just calling Converge "metalcore" (which I do, typically) is that it won't really help give people the right impression of their music, which is pretty different from a lot of what's claimed the "metalcore" label. I won't stop using the term, but it usually needs some defense or explanation in my IRL conversations. I'd have a hard time calling Trap Them grind, though I hear the influence. I see the crust label but really they just sound like hardcore to me. Very metallic hardcore, and honestly boring IMO, I can't get into them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So this is my first ever thread other than the "Hello' date=' Metal Forum" one I did earlier. I don't think this has been done before, but if I'm wrong, then hopefully this thread will be deleted when I find out that this thread already exists.Without any further delays, the main thing I'd like to talk about in this thread is about nu-metal, it's relevance as a true metal genre, and if you guys think it is truly relevant. This may cause some friction between people who like nu-metal and people who don't, but I'd like to see your opinions on nu-metal's relevance. A few people believe that nu-metal was the responsible genre for reviving metal in the 90's, however many disagree. I think it has played a role in supporting metal's uprising in the turn of the millennium. Personally, I quite like nu-metal, however, it has its pros and cons, as every genre has. While I do think it adds a new vibe to metal, it kills the fast paced, "in your face", "take no prisoners" style that the metal bands of the 70's and 80's offered. Influenced by hip-hop and somewhat grunge, it has an angst-ridden feel, however sometimes with nu-metal bands, the angst doesn't even exist, and it's constant whining. However, I do give credit to bands such as Korn, Slipknot, and the Deftones for incorporating a lot of technicality into the guitar-work. Some bands incorporate a bass-ridden sound, which fills the mood of the song, and ultimately is one of the reasons why I like nu-metal. I don't like bands like Limp Bizkit and Linkin Park who are considered nu-metal, however, Korn, Slipknot, and the Deftones remain as my favourite nu-metal bands. The main questions I'd like to as you all is this: Do you think nu-metal is relevant towards metal music (in other words, do you think it's a true metal genre)? Do you like nu-metal, or not? And, do you think nu-metal helped revive metal in the 90's, or did death and black metal help metal more than nu-metal did? I'd like to hear your answers and opinions below. Thanks.[/quote'] Is nu-metal a genre that is relevant to metal? Yes, but only because it is so often lumped together with metal when it shouldn't be. Most bands in that genre have varying degrees of influence taken from metal, but it tends to range from minimal to moderate at best, and that influence tends to be from metals most banal and least important aesthetics. The direction that these bands are taking is totally different from that of metal, and possesses a totally different set of influences. Many other genres take influence from metal, including ambient, drone, modern jazz and progressive rock, hard rock, various punk genres, even many modern folk, Americana, and bluegrass artists, but does that make them metal? Of course not, unless there is a significant metal element to be found within their sound. People are more than welcome to listen to whatever they like, but the name "nu-metal" is a misnomer which can lead to some frustrating misrepresentation and false grouping. Nu-metal is no more a metal genre than any of the other listed genres above, and simply has no place in a metal discussion, regardless of any merits its fans may feel that the music itself holds. Therefore, nu-metal's supposed role of having "revived metal" in the 90's, which is a ludicrous idea in and of itself, is totally moot. Metal did become less popular in the 90's, but this was due in equal parts to more extreme bands becoming less and less accessible to the mainstream, and that metal in the 80's was sonically much closer to the pop music of the time, causing some crossover in the fan bases of both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Metal did become less popular in the 90's' date=' but this was due in equal parts to more extreme bands becoming less and less accessible to the mainstream... [/quote'] Which more extreme bands are you talking about? This is the opposite of my recollection of the time period. From DM (Cannibal Corpse, Obituary, Deicide, Carcass) incorporating more pop song structure, and gaining a wider audience as a result, to the rise of the melodic Gothenburg scene (including its incorporation of more accessible songwriting and sonic elements, as well as its influence on a soon to be heavily commercialized trend here), to the rise in popularity and polish in the Scandinavian BM scene, to the use of rock elements (Entombed, Amorphis, Tiamat, Xysma), to the success of bands like Fear Factory that kept metal's harsh sonics while writing pop music, to Pantera's release of Far Beyond Driven to widespread acclaim, Sepultura's influential (and boring) mainstreaming beginning with Chaos AD, to the massive signings and marketing pushes for bandwagon jumpers like Dimmu - all across the board, production values went up, money got bigger. Some bands got more poppy, but a much wider audience became accepting of harsher sounds. Sure, co-opting a bit of screaming and tuning your guitar down doesn't make you a metal musician, and I see nu-metal as an inherently commercial, pop based movement; sure, "metal" as a whole lost market share to rock; but the "extreme" end of things really came into its own in the 90s, which might have been a much different story if the popular metal of the 80s had remained ascendant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only problem with just calling Converge "metalcore" (which I do' date=' typically) is that it won't really help give people the right impression of their music, which is pretty different from a lot of what's claimed the "metalcore" label. I won't stop using the term, but it usually needs some defense or explanation in my IRL conversations. I'd have a hard time calling Trap Them grind, though I hear the influence. I see the crust label but really they just sound like hardcore to me. Very metallic hardcore, and honestly boring IMO, I can't get into them.[/quote'] Trap Them sounds like Entombed meets hardcore to me. They're cool, but like you said, not horribly interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Which more extreme bands are you talking about? This is the opposite of my recollection of the time period. From DM (Cannibal Corpse, Obituary, Deicide, Carcass) incorporating more pop song structure, and gaining a wider audience as a result, to the rise of the melodic Gothenburg scene (including its incorporation of more accessible songwriting and sonic elements, as well as its influence on a soon to be heavily commercialized trend here), to the rise in popularity and polish in the Scandinavian BM scene, to the use of rock elements (Entombed, Amorphis, Tiamat, Xysma), to the success of bands like Fear Factory that kept metal's harsh sonics while writing pop music, to Pantera's release of Far Beyond Driven to widespread acclaim, Sepultura's influential (and boring) mainstreaming beginning with Chaos AD, to the massive signings and marketing pushes for bandwagon jumpers like Dimmu - all across the board, production values went up, money got bigger. Some bands got more poppy, but a much wider audience became accepting of harsher sounds. Sure, co-opting a bit of screaming and tuning your guitar down doesn't make you a metal musician, and I see nu-metal as an inherently commercial, pop based movement; sure, "metal" as a whole lost market share to rock; but the "extreme" end of things really came into its own in the 90s, which might have been a much different story if the popular metal of the 80s had remained ascendant.
What I mean is that the more extreme bands of the 80's still shared in some crossover appeal, whereas with the rise of black and death metal in the 90's, the boundaries were pushed even further for a less accessible sound. Even the bands that you mentioned didn't garner anywhere near the success of many thrash metal bands encountered, despite integrating pop/mainstream elements with more harsh sounding ones. On one hand, you're correct that the 90's did move into a more mainstream direction on one side, but on the other were becoming even more inaccessible, especially with the rise of brutal death metal, slam, norsecore (blast beat black metal), black/death hybrids, etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my take on nu-metal: It's a studio exec's interpretation and marketing of that time period's hard rock. Follow the trends of mainstream, accessible "metal" for the past three and a half decades. When NWOBHM/trad metal came out in the 1980s, their response was glam/hair metal. It follows much of the visual and aural aesthetic of heavy metal, but in an accessible, mass-market appeal. Once that lost its luster and no longer became profitable by the late 80s/early 90s, mainstream hard rock turned its eye toward a grunge sound. A punk-inspired, countermovement to the cheesiness and decadence of the 1980s, which the 90s seemed to tried to shake off a great deal in many subcultures, not just music. That's when metal turned to the underground and the nascent death and black metal genres were able to proliferate. When grunge began to wane (it really seemed like Nirvana's demise ruined its profitability), the mid-1990s needed something new. Pantera's ability to thrive through the early 90s (ironic considering they started off as a hair metal and later switched to their groovy form of heavy metal) certainly influenced nu-metal. Groove is infectious. No doubt hip hop influenced nu-metal. The 90s saw hip hop become a mainstream phenomenon, which also is highly groovy. To a man in a suit, the two seem like a perfect fit, which is likely why we've seen so many hip hop-influenced nu-metal bands emerging by the late 90s. I think it's also important to note the significance of so-called "military metal" bands (like Drowning Pool and Disturbed) in the aughts (thanks to Ghouly's husband to introducing me to that hilarious pejorative term) as they seemed to have the nu-metal sound, but with less of the hip hop grooves seen a few years prior. Mainstream music is fashionable and easily goes out of vogue. Metalcore seemed like the next logical step in evolution in mainstream metal marketing. Hell, it sounds closer to actual metal than nu-metal did and it's riding on the coattails of the proliferation of melodic death/death metal that thrived in the underground in the 90s when heavy metal went all quiet on the western front, hence its insurgence in popularity in the late 2000s when nu-metal became old hat. I haven't been all that involved with current hard rock trends (hell, I don't even know if kids still like deathcore) but it would certainly interest me to see what "mainstream" form of metal/hard rock will succeed metalcore. I include mainstream in quotes because quite frankly, rock music isn't the marketable powerhouse it once was. It's very 20th Century. It's not even all that profitable to studio execs anymore. The consolidation of record labels and companies on the airwaves (thanks, Clear Channel!) and their avarice has been challenged by the internet and so they've reduced themselves to just pushing Top 40 drivel everywhere. My post kinda seems like it goes all over the place, but really my point is simple: follow the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your post does hit on a lot of things that I would agree with, but I would offer a slight revision on your portion about black and death metal. Black and death metal existed as early as the early and mid 80's, but it wasn't until Earache, Roadrunner, Peaceville, and other labels started signing any death metal band that could get their hands on in the late 80's that the genre became more commercially viable and widespread. Black metal existed largely on its own in the underground until the 2nd wave explosion, propelled by the media coverage of the church burnings and murders in Europe shed more light on the genre, prompting labels to do the same. These movements existed concurrently with the more popular thrash, heavy, power, speed, crossover, grindcore, and doom metal movements of the 80's, and most experienced growing popularity at the same time. The only difference was the mainstream crossover appeal of the less extreme sides of metal died off in the early 90's, which prompted many bands to change and "keep up with the times", or disband outright. I guess my point is that it was not cut and dry, that one ended and another began, they just experienced shifting degrees of focus from the mainstream media and from the larger (not underground) metal communities. Genres like thrash and heavy metal didn't end in the 90's, it's just that most of the bigger bands went down different paths or stopped making music, whereas others were already creating retro movements in the late 90's to bring them back. I'm not saying that you're wrong or trying to disagree with your point, but wanted to offer my $.02 regarding that these were more ebbs and flows than strict changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can agree with that. I do tend to forget about 1st wave BM and the intent of my post wasn't really to have discrete time periods where everything exists. Of course there are nuances and overlapping; influences from different bands who live in different areas and have concurrent ideas happening independently from one another. Plus, I just wasn't around back then lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate most Nu-metal bands, like in a big way. I have extremely wide range in my music taste but it´s just something that mostly annoys the hell out of me. There are few good bands that i like that could be labeled as nu-metal though. I dig what Cypress Hill did.. I think that Skull & bones is a very good album, both discs. I really like some Korn stuff too. I dunno man, i often can´t stand trendy stuff and my traumas with nu-metal come from era when people who really weren´t into metal suddenly "were". Then it ended after it wasn´t trendy anymore and they went back to their usual techno etc. If someone truely digs it i don´t care of course, great if it works for you. I just i don´t want to be force fed it if i can help it. :D 

Might check those band out you suggested, who knows maybe i find my inner nu-metal lover and rush to buy me a baseball cap and sneakers.:D

Forgot to say, welcome! The more the merrier and the more variety people have in their musical taste around here the better. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to stalk this  

  • Join Metal Forum

    joinus-home.jpg

  • Our picks

    • Whichever tier of thrash metal you consigned Sacred Reich back in the 80's/90's they still had their moments.  "Ignorance" & "Surf Nicaragura" did a great job of establishing the band, whereas "The American Way" just got a little to comfortable and accessible (the title track grates nowadays) for my ears.  A couple more records better left forgotten about and then nothing for twenty three years.  2019 alone has now seen three releases from Phil Rind and co.  A live EP, a split EP with Iron Reagan and now a full length.

      Notable addition to the ranks for the current throng of releases is former Machine Head sticksman, Dave McClean.  Love or hate Machine Head, McClean is a more than capable drummer and his presence here is felt from the off with the opening and title track kicking things off with some real gusto.  'Divide & Conquer' and 'Salvation' muddle along nicely, never quite reaching any quality that would make my balls tingle but comfortable enough.  The looming build to 'Manifest Reality' delivers a real punch when the song starts proper.  Frenzied riffs and drums with shots of lead work to hold the interest.


      There's a problem already though (I know, I am such a fucking mood hoover).  I don't like Phil's vocals.  I never had if I am being honest.  The aggression to them seems a little forced even when they are at their best on tracks like 'Manifest Reality'.  When he tries to sing it just feels weak though ('Salvation') and tracks lose real punch.  Give him a riffy number such as 'Killing Machine' and he is fine with the Reich engine (probably a poor choice of phrase) up in sixth gear.  For every thrashy riff there's a fair share of rock edged, local bar act rhythm aplenty too.

      Let's not poo-poo proceedings though, because overall I actually enjoy "Awakening".  It is stacked full of catchy riffs that are sticky on the old ears.  Whilst not as raw as perhaps the - brilliant - artwork suggests with its black and white, tattoo flash sheet style design it is enjoyable enough.  Yes, 'Death Valley' & 'Something to Believe' have no place here, saved only by Arnett and Radziwill's lead work but 'Revolution' is a fucking 80's thrash heyday throwback to the extent that if you turn the TV on during it you might catch a new episode of Cheers!

      3/5
      • Reputation Points

      • 3 replies
    • I
      • Reputation Points

      • 1 reply
    • https://www.metalforum.com/blogs/entry/52-vltimas-something-wicked-marches-in/
      • Reputation Points

      • 3 replies
    • https://www.metalforum.com/blogs/entry/50-queensryche-the-verdict/
      • Reputation Points

      • 0 replies

    • https://www.metalforum.com/blogs/entry/48-candlemass-the-door-to-doom/
      • Reputation Points

      • 1 reply
×