Saltiness Over Sadistic Metal Reviews of Sentimental Albums

Old Disgruntled Bastard, one of the few quality metal blogs around, accused Death Metal Underground of writing clickbait on Facebook for our recent Sadistic Metal Reviews of older albums our staff had noticed to be inferior to the best of the past:

To Death Metal Underground: Certain albums have endured – for musical and extra-musical reasons – across decades and among generations of metalheads of diverse backgrounds, and the least they warrant is treatment with the respect they’ve earned. There is no revelation to be made and there is no current of general perception to be reversed by “raping sacred favorites”. Clickbait is distinctly unelitist and pissing in the wind for the fuck of it isn’t terribly smart either.

The aura is often bigger than the event meaning that many get caught up in the hype and forget the need for musical expression, not just technique uncorrelated like Jon Nödtveidt‘s guitar wizardy in Dissection or Cynic‘s albums. The staff of Death Metal Underground do not care about diversity or sentimentality. If we did, then perhaps we would tolerate “worship” metal rehashing the past into pop music. We don’t though. We don’t really care what appeals now or then to new metal listeners looking for something different from radio rock; we just hope they develop their taste and discover the best. Those metal records inferior to the best of the past, those that aren’t even great in comparison, must be decried. Otherwise whatever is acclaimed as the best is not really the best of anything at all, just mere nostalgia.

Manilla Road were no Metallica and made no Master of Reality. Angel Witch tested the waters for selling out on their debut album and drowned. Dissection were always a warmed-over Iron Maiden just like the rest of the mid 90s Gothenburg bands. Kreator were always random and second-rate compared to the better Sodom material and Slayer. Everyone always thought Coma of Souls was annoying; you don’t see anyone walking around with back patches of the cover on battle jackets like Fenriz does with Pleasure to Kill. These inferior albums simply weren’t very influential to the best and greatest. There weren’t entire movements of pioneering bands kowtowing before them like with Autopsy and Bolt Thrower in Sweden and Finland respectively.

For Old Disgruntled Bastard, good luck and godspeed with your Death Metal Battle Royale. So far, we’re enjoying it.

Death Metal Underground believes in sodomizing the weak as “Compassion is the vice of kings stamp down the wretched weak.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

118 thoughts on “Saltiness Over Sadistic Metal Reviews of Sentimental Albums”

  1. Kvädare says:

    Anyone else here sleep in a loft bed?

    1. C.I.L.L. says:

      I did in prison

      No body, no crime

      1. Kvädare says:

        No man, no problem

  2. Marc Defranco says:

    Yeah I got no problem with going after what are considered classic albums. Just because something is old does not mean it’s good, and should be revered. That being said I like some Kreator, Manila Road and Dissection but as stated when compared to their peers they don’t hold up as well. I think I saw somewhere that Kreator was fairly influential for Burzum though so I wouldn’t deny certain bands’ influence despite being second rate

    1. I bet you Varg’s a track skipper.

      1. Marc Defranco says:

        Haha definitely

    2. GGALLIN1776 says:

      Manilla road = equals Manilla folder

      1. GGALLIN1776 says:

        Ignore either the “=” or the equals, wasn’t paying attention lol

      2. I thought it was from The Wizard of Oz.

        1. your welcome says:

          I think Mark the Shark and another guy in the band just got really stoned and came up with a meaningless name that sounded cool at the time.

          1. Hero Quest Player says:

            pretty sure it was a reference to this major battle :

        2. GGALLIN1776 says:

          Yellow brick Heer Maarat, Yellow brick.

          Unless there’s some new sjw version that edited out yellow due to it’s insensitivity to Asians that have never seen it & most likely don’t care.

    3. nigstomper88 says:

      old Kreator being “random” is textbook revisionist narrative weaving. old Kreator arranging riffs in a non-cyclical way is random, but when Massacra (old Kreator worship) does it it’s “phrasal” and brilliant? Varg doesn’t need to like Kreator for their legacy to be validated…

      Dissection suck, although LARM and old anus would disagree, haha

      1. Marc Defranco says:

        I wasn’t making a statement about that I was referring to this part “These inferior albums simply weren’t very influential to the best and greatest.” This site I believe considers Burzum to be one of the best and yet Varg was influenced by Kreator which is deemed not the best here. I see now though that they say “weren’t very influential” which could mean just not as influential as other bands which may be the case with Burzum. As far as Massacra being praised here maybe they took elements of Kreator that they liked but developed them more and did them better (I don’t really know though as I don’t listen to Madsacra but this is just an example of what any band could do). In comparison though would I rather listen to Sodom or Kreator? Sodom of course, easy decision but say it’s between Burzum or Darkthrone, that’s a tougher decision.

        1. Rectal Ignominy says:

          Thankfully, Varg DID like Kreator. Here’s a quote I just read on :
          ‘I liked the two first Kreator albums “Endless Pain”, and “Pleasure to Kill” a lot’

      2. C.I.L.L. says:

        Lots of bands were great in their time

        But failed the test of time

        Hail the strong, and ignore the weak

      3. canadaspaceman says:

        Kreator interviews in mags / fanzines said they slapped all sorts of riffs together on their second album Pleasure to Kill as they were rushed by Noise Records to get another Lp out immediately. That made them even more successful, so I can understand why some people feel Kreator since then created songs with ill-fitting parts.
        I liked Kreator somewhat until Coma of Souls, and then lost interest. Them, and Sodom, Destruction, in the early 1990s started to dilute their sound. I think it was also the cleaner, more “professional” studio prodcvutions that were part of the reason I thought they were getting lame.

  3. GGALLIN1776 says:

    Dissection is fucking amazing, not sure where you get this maiden nonsense. They may have inspired the watain black n bowl but that doesn’t take away from the music.

    If fenriz had a reload backpatch would that make the album tяоо kvlт und krieg?

    1. Maarat for president says:

      Early Watain are musically much closer to 1994 Mayhem worship.
      Then they let in some carnavalish application of random black metal technique
      which they then try to unite with something in between Samael and Rob Zombie
      plus the poor Nodtveidt influence as glacing over that.

      Also, Dissection is actually pretty straightforward NWOBHM hooks with blast
      beats and rasps with sections placed in line in a black metal kind of way.
      Nodtveidt was part of the “This is DEATH metal, because it is about DEATH,
      fuck LIFE metal posers” crowd.

      Now, I’ll grant you Euronymous and his crowd were right about many things,
      but as with most communists, they were not THAT good into channeling
      transcendental art. Nodtveidt never produced anything better than classic
      metal candy with tenebrous names.

      1. Syphilis says:

        The similarities between Watain and Mayhem are mostly superficial. As for Euronymous, he was the only communist in the Norwegian black metal scene as far as I know. It was Ohlin who had the most influence on Mayhem and perhaps the rest of the scene during that brief period of time anyway. Euronymous just appropriated and propagated it.

        1. Euronymous was the “community organizer”.

  4. Maarat for president says:

    Besides DOB has not shown much in the way of discernment, anyway.
    The blog is good in that it tries to cover metal in a sincere way,
    but elitism is only good in the hands of those with superior powers
    of discernment.

    1. thewaters says:

      The writers on this site sure are superior……LMAO. At least Brett is doing good work on

    2. S.C. says:

      But, then, who discerns those with said ‘super powers of discernment?’ God? There is nothing definite about anyone’s opinions… no matter how ‘discerning’ you are. Being critical does not make your criterion the definition; quite the contrary, it just means you’ve only developed a palate by which you taste, and can say, “gross!” Or “yum!” To be the staker of such trivialities as definitions, that should be left to the most insecure and stereotypical philosophers: dogmatists… the very foundation of art is subjectivity, and to perverse it into an objective form (or rather, pretend that it could even manifest a such)… there is no greater illusion.

      1. Thewaters says:

        What a bunch of hogwas. Did your gender studies teacher teach you that profound nugget of wisdom? If we apply your reasoning to your own argument, your argument is left invalid. But wait, logic is the tool of the opressor right? Lmao

        1. S.C. says:

          No dogma. I couldn’t care less how anyone lives their life. Just pointing out the futility of marking opinions as definitions. Certainly my opinions are no different, and I have my tastes. I could tell you why some band you probably adore, sucks, effectively tear it down and shit all over it, because it doesn’t taste right to me. You could also defend said band, maybe effectively. But it wouldn’t ever change that you adore it, and I hate it. I couldn’t ever understand why, so I am choosing to say, instead, why should I care? Why should anyone care? Perhaps if I were led to believe one loved something for no apprent, I would push that person to second guess, question, discern for themselves what they really think, but otherwise, their subjectivity is theirs and no matter how hard I (or anyone) try, I will never understand it. The point is not to express total egalitarian love for everyone, and respect everyone’s feelings (On the contrary, I fully support elitism, in any real manifestation), but to shed light on the fantasy that opinions can and should be held as truth.

          Gender studies??? What an unfounded statement. Best to keep fantasy in your imagination…

          1. Thewaters says:

            Regarding Gender studies:I asked a question.
            Dogma:anything held as established truth. Do you hold your opinion as established truth, or is it just opinion? If you state that everything is just opinion or subjective, that itself is a claim of truth.
            So in other words you claim that there is nothing definitive in anyones opinion, and posit that as a definitive truth claim. Youre not being paradoxical, youre being illogical.

            1. Rainer Weikusat says:

              You aren’t addressing his statement but a similarly looking, much more general one. The original claim wasn’t “everything is just a matter of opinion” but “all opinions about music/ art are entirely subjective”, IOW, “irrational”, de gustibus non est disputandum. But that’s not itself an opinion about art.

              The reason the original statements makes no sense is that such opinions can be more complex than Facebook-style “Like this”. Eg, I used to like Kreator but I don’t anymore, minus sentimental reminiscences, because I like this fairly simplistic style of music less than I used to do in the past. Checking out Riot Of Violence again, I even understand what Daniel Maraat meant by “randomly constructed” and agree with it: The track is essentially “play a riff for some time, then, play another riff for some time”. There’s no apparent connection between this riffs, they just appear adjacent to each other.

              As I wrote in another text, this is filtered through my facilities of perception, and I could be missing something. But it’s nevertheless an observed phenomenon, not an opinion about such a phenomenon.

              1. C.I.L.L. says:

                it’s like we LEARN THINGS over time

              2. thewaters says:

                “…There is nothing definite about anyone’s opinions… no matter how ‘discerning’ you are… ”

                I took this to be a general statement about both art, and reality and general. Perhaps I was wrong? S.C. I would be glad to hear your opinion on this? Was this a general truth claim about art/music, or a general statement of relativity?

                1. S.C. says:

                  It was a paradoxical statement, or presentation of an idea. Were I to take the argument as ‘truth’ then the argument would indeed implode. as it stands, I feel confident standing by it. It also does not mean it can’t be rebuilt. Rather, as I would perceive most things, it is indefinitely under constant (re)construction.

              3. thewaters says:

                YoUR observations might be opinions…….and your observations are MEANINGLESS!

                1. S.C. says:


                2. Rainer Weikusat says:

                  Reply to an imaginary solipsist: Whom do you believe to be talking to? These meaningless noises are quite annoying. Shut up.

        2. S.C. says:

          It is easy for you to make vague attacks on my reasoning, but I see no actual valued attempt at a response. Just memes…

          1. thewaters says:

            I see not attempt on your behalf to apply reason, I read only vague rhetorical assertions about muh opinion……I have attacked your position, in fact you have been flanked, and you have no response.

            1. S.C. says:

              First: your question was entirely implicit of my having taken a gender studies course, so the subtext made it clear it was no mere question. For whatever it's worth, I can assure you I haven't taken any such course, nor do I have a drive to.

              Second: yes it is entirely paradoxical, for the claim is all inclusive (as in, myself included). I am more than willing to be 'wrong.' Thus the statement, as well, does not prove me wrong.  This, as well, shows it to be non dogmatic. I have yet to know of a person who is universally 'right.' Do you believe yourself to be 'right?' Or someone, or something? what even do you believe? This is what I meant when I said, 'I see no actual valued attempt at a response' Only reactions. You cannot make me understand unless you present a new way of understanding.

              Third: I certainly have provided much response, with much more palpable effort and thoughtfulness (And I would argue, with at least some level of logic).  And your responses Have hardly 'flanked', my ideas, if only because you have not even attempted to address everything I've said. Whether my ideas convince you or not, well that is up to your subjective experience. I wouldn't be one to tell you you are wrong for telling me that I am. I believe in what I say, or what I mean to say, but I will also always separate my beliefs from the act of higher thought, or rather, allow them to be destroyed/ reassessed. For there is always more supposed 'Truths' to learn or unlearn.

               To Further clarify my original ideas presented: does not misunderstanding always separate everyone and keep me from really knowing you and you, me? So, can you refute that art is made by (from?) a person or people? That they, create it? Give it a life, in a sense? As a parent to a child? So isn't it then, as child is to a parent (in a sense) an extension of the artist? So even though the art is not the artist, and the artist not the art, there is something of their will placed within that art? A moment in their life? A reason for their making it? So, as you can not understand me, and I can not understand you, how could anyone REALLY understand another's art? Even if in adoration, and a connecting of yourself to the art of another, do you yourself really know what that piece of art means?  Maybe the artist couldn't even tell you after the fact. Perhaps they forgot. Maybe they were a 'different person' then, and so, another chasm was formed between two individuals. So then, isn't art better left a mystery for you to find your own meaning in it?  To not care what ITS  true value is, but only that  YOU find true value in it? This does not mean that there is not bad art and that you should not spit on it. But, does that mean that when you find a piece of art that YOU know to be true and beautiful, then someone (someone you perhaps respect and agree with on what is good art) comes and spits on that piece of art, for THEY know it to be bad; does that mean you should no longer know that piece of art to beautiful? As well, does it mean that this said someone should do anything other than spit on it? My objection is not to that of negative opinion, only to those individuals who mark themselves as taste makers. 'true' knowers of good and bad. In other words, dogmatists…

              1. Rainer Weikusat says:

                […] does not misunderstanding […] keep me from really knowing you and you, me? […] how could anyone REALLY understand another’s art? […] do you yourself really know what that piece of art means?

                All of these »reallys« are really just obfuscation: Something is either known or not known. If it’s known than it’s really known, otherwise, really not known. Inherently, music is meaningless, hence, understanding it per se is impossible. Some meaning can be read into it via interpretation. And the interpretation of the performer/ composer is not necessarily more valuable than anyone else’s. This whole section is »really« just a pointless distraction.

                Some odd twenty years ago, a lot of people used to find »truth and beauty« in this,


                but beyond this interpretation, it also has a nature and this very nature which makes some people see »truth and beauty« is repellent to me, starting with this being a great, big spiritual lie: This doesn’t present a real emotion but a primitively manufactured and seriously overdriven ersatzgefuehl for people who don’t have any in real life: They go to such a concert, cry a bit because this is such a beautiful feeling and then leave all of it at the cloakroom in exchange for their mean everyday jackets and faces.



                Whatever you think is probably wrong.

                1. S.C. says:

                  Haha you miss my point entirely and yet hit the nail the head with your only critique, (disregarding the unsubstantiated claims that I’m probably wrong, or that my rant was a pointless distraction) as if it were a mere triviality that was unintentional; that I am arguing in favor of total obfuscation (yet, without claiming it as definitive truth, for that would make the idea hypocritical). I am asking (not stating): why do you care if someone found this said linked group/ song beautiful? What does it matter to YOU? This is not to question your will to attack someone, (physically, mentally, philosophically), for their loving of said music. But, it IS to say, that perhaps, it takes a certain strength or courage to acknowledge that your tastes, perceptions, beliefs, truths, ‘knowledge’ (that which you think you ‘really’ know) are not immune to scrutiny and dismantling that is derived entirely from legitimate and thoughtfully formulated logic. I am certainly probably wrong, but does that make you right?

                  1. Rainer Weikusat says:

                    disregarding the unsubstantiated claims that I’m probably wrong, or that my rant was a pointless distraction

                    I didn’t write that you were “probably wrong”, I called the entire talking about “artists” and “real meaning of a work of art” a smokescreen for the indicated reasons. I then provided two examples of very much different music while pointing out that there’s more to them than your overly simplistic Facebook-approach to this. It’s not just “like” or “not like” but “like because …” and “don’t like because …”: While the first part of both of these statements is about affection and thus, intrinsically irrational, the second isn’t. My knowledge of musical theory/ terminology is too limited to make meaningful statements about this second part but that doesn’t mean I don’t perceive these differences. For a totally obvious example, the first track is (musically) absolutely centered on (simplified) a boy’s choir soloist vocal performance with instrumental accompaniment while the other is primarily a developing sequence of guitar riffs emphasised by the drums and accompanied by a vocalist.

                    The “whatever you think is probably wrong” was supposed to be a message to anyone engaging in the sport of coming up with conjectures about the state of my teeth, my politic preferences, sexual orientation, mental derangements and hidden motiviations based on the choice of track (I recommend as well worth listening to, despite heavily leaning towards punk).

                    1. S.C. says:

                      I’ve never stated that I believe tastes are merely (as you would put it) Facebook likes or dislikes, and, in fact, stated in my original argument that that they are influenced by one’s criterion (in other words, ‘because’s). I did say however, in a most crude manor, that these criterion do influence one to say either “yum” or “gross.” This is, admittedly, a trivialization, for one who does take discernment seriously will be able to appreciate/ respect/ grant credit where credit is due to that which they still may not enjoy. But ultimately, are we not all sifting through art to find that which satisfies ourselves, and do away with that which leaves us cold? And will you, I or any other of discerning tastes ever be, in any form, unanimous on everything that we would consider to be great art, and the criterion by which to assess it? This does not exclude agreement on some or even most things, but are there not always exceptions, be they great or small? Of course I don’t believe opinion is black and white! My whole argument is rooted in the nature of ambiguity! You’re taking my argument as one for dichotomies, and it couldn’t be farther from it.

                      As a side note, I have not, nor would I ever make juvenile conjectures about your mental health, state of your teeth or sexuality, for of course I would probably be wrong, and it would be a pointless exercise of ‘solipsism’ (as is popularly used ’round here). Even were I to have a legitimate insight into such matters of your being, they would matter nothing to me, so long as you could hold an effectively engaging and intriguing conversation (the only thing I could have any possible insight into); even to that, I have made no comment nor conjecture…

                    2. Rainer Weikusat says:

                      I’ve never stated that I believe tastes are merely (as you would put it) Facebook likes or dislikes, and, in fact, stated in my original argument that that they are influenced by one’s criterion (in other words, ‘because’s). I did say however, in a most crude manor, that these criterion do influence one to say either “yum” or “gross.”

                      Or “like” and “don’t like”, this being the exact oversimplification I was writing about: Take the Cathedral-article as example. One can conjecture that the author likes this album but his statement about doesn’t just reduce to “Yum!”.

                    3. S.C. says:

                      If you read my comment a bit further, you would read that I conceded that such a statement WAS a trivialization, then went on to explain myself further! I do not think I bear repeating myself. My point has been expanded yet you are still addressing merely what I said originally. Respond to what is new.

                    4. Rainer Weikusat says:

                      I’ve now been reading through this numerous times and thinking about it for two days, however, the only meaning I can find in this is still (approximation)

                      By some complex but inherently non-communicatable procedure, the individual arrives at positive or negative value judgement. It’s possible to communicate that, but this doesn’t amount to more than pointing at something and stating “Yum! Yum!” or “Gross! Gross!”.

                      and that’s the point I dispute.

                      I apologize for hijacking a living person for an example in the way I’m going to do that, however, I can’t help it. So here goes …

                      For example, I rarely (if at all) agree with Daniel Maarat’s positive value judgements because he values some things I either don’t care about or detest. As an example for that would be the album title »Like an everflowing Stream&laquo: If it’s a stream, it’s »everflowing« by definition. The adjective serves no meaningful purpose here, it’s just about inserting an e – e – o – i in front of the e – a of stream and maybe additionally, suggest some new age bullshit depth fashionable at that time. But I share some dislikes with him and he’s much more adept articulating why he dislikes something than me. This enables me to understand why I dislike it. Further, even in case where I disagree with his ultimate judgement, the additional information still enables me to understand how he arrived at that and maybe even why I disagree.

                    5. S.C. says:

                      You’re still taking what I’m saying at face value and reducing it to what I may have originally said, but have since expanded upon. I’m speaking to the ambiguity of taste and how none of it is definitive. Nothing you’re saying refutes my ideas. Here I say “one who does take discernment seriously will be able to appreciate/ respect/ grant credit where credit is due to that which they still may not enjoy.” Then in this last comment you state the example, ” I rarely (if at all) agree with Daniel Maarat’s positive value judgements because he values some things I either don’t care about or detest. […] But I share some dislikes with him and he’s much more adept articulating why he dislikes something than me. This enables me to understand why I dislike it. Further, even in case where I disagree with his ultimate judgement, the additional information still enables me to understand how he arrived at that and maybe even why I disagree.” Your example affirms this statement of mine cited, (that you don’t have to agree with another on everything, or even anything, to understand why they find something agreeable or disagreeable) as well as my whole base concept as reduced in this post to a single sentence, and I will restate it in yet another new way: Opinions are ambiguous and are always refutable no matter who States them, so none are definitive. For the individual, opinions do reduce to a like or dislike. That is, however, it’s, reduction. When it is expanded, for at least those of a greater discerning ability, there will be a multitude of reasons for one’s likes or dislikes that the individual developed on their own, though of course, with external influence too. But it will ultimately be their own, subjective criterion. And ultimately they will speak in a positive tone, with praises for that which they “liked” and in a negative tone of that which they “disliked.” This statement is not to represent that their liking or disliking is without reason. But the ultimate effect is that of one liking, or disliking, no matter how many reasons one can have for either. This statement also recognizes the gray area in which one can dislike, but appreciate/ understand/ respect why another does like, or when an individual, typically of great discerning taste, is attracted to something for a reason they could not state. Something that does not fulfill their criterion, but attracts them none the less. No, opinion is not merely “like” or “dislike”, but it can be reduced to such, Just as it can be expanded well beyond.

      2. Thewaters says:

        You do realize that you are dogmatically applying your own opinion here right?

        1. S.C. says:

          Give foundation! You’re just throwing statements around. Even if I am failing, at least I am trying… perhaps my ideas express a paradox but there is no actual dogma within them, only attempts at discerning some supposed ‘truth’ or common ground. I impose nothing of my will on others, unless it suits me to. I am making no statement defined as structure of how one should live their life; perhaps making suggestions as to how one could see things differently, but there is nothing expressly rigid, or ‘dogmatic,’ about anything I’ve said.

          1. thewaters says:

            “…at least I’m trying”…..LMAO

            1. S.C. says:

              I knew this would be the one anchor you could grip on to. By saying this, I mean, even in my failures I am succeeding. It doesn’t bother me to proven, wrong in fact, it is better that way. Better to be challenged and given light upon that which needs to change. Cull my own weakness by exposing it and letting it be tested. It is always better to change, so I will never be reserved. I never keep things to myself. For then I would be always be my reservations.

      3. Billy Foss says:

        I agree. Until I came here, I’d never heard anything contrary to this. Appreciation of art is a subjective experience. However, it should go without saying that this does not imply that every piece of work should be treated with equal value. Our trivial existence is far too short for such lunacy. That’s why articulate, perceptive critics and historians are imperative, and why tribalism of some degree is paramount.

        1. Rainer Weikusat says:

          I agree. Until I came here, I’d never heard anything contrary to this. Appreciation of art is a subjective experience.

          Appreciation is subjective, however, quality (derived from Latin qualis, “What’s its shape” [roughly]) isn’t. In reality, this is more blurry because while quality is objective, reception is subjective. Mr Steven’s generic “diesel engine” metaphor applied to such utterly diverse things a Conqueror, Grave Miasma and (IIRC) Teitanblood is a good example of that. Nevertheless, one can strive to ground an opinion on something more tangible (and communicatable) than “feels good/ feels bad”.

          1. C.I.L.L. says:

            Quality is objective, but whether I like it or not depends on a lot of stuff, including how much I know

            There were a lot of bands

            that REALLY liked

            I was sixteen, eighteen, twenty

            Now they sound like Mariah Carey or ABBA to me

            1. Syphilis says:

              Very few metal comes close to the excellence of ABBA

          2. Billy Foss says:

            The key words there are “strive” and “opinion”. You can certainly strive to form a list of criterion to which you hold each work accountable. That’s a noble goal. It’s also one which is best suited to those with the discernment that comes from experience. It may vary slightly from author to author, but as far as I can tell that’s what DMU aims for. The best example of criteria that comes to mind would be the presence/absence of “riff glue.” And of course, you know that opinions are the epitome of subjectivity. I’m not sure why you worded it like that, unless I misunderstood you.

        2. S.C. says:

          But why not discern, purely, for yourself? Why filter your experience? I mean, of course, filters are inevitable, but why not do your best to limit then?

          1. Billy Foss says:

            Personally, I think both are important because ultimately you are the one who presses play, whether it’s once for the purpose of reviewing or whether it becomes routine because you decide that you actually appreciate what is being expressed. At the same time, if you can find an individual or group with whom you agree more than you disagree, then you can share your values with one another. In reality, objective fact only comes into play if it is concerning a work of historical significance in which some sort of precedent has been set. Otherwise, the canon is subject to the fluid whims of consensus. Fortunately, consensus can be informed by the dispersal of the aforementioned values. Tribalism.

        3. S.C. says:

          Yes, but is not the ‘tribe’ a subjective entity? A close knit group of individuals influencing and formulating their own perceptions and criterion of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ based on communal and shared experiences? I do agree that discernment is a higher goal that one should apply in every aspect of their life, but I disagree with the idea of universal tastemakers. I have no reason to take anyone’s opinion seriously, other than my own or that of someone who I know to share a general perception of reality. But even they will not always be agreeable, at least for myself. So my opinion will still always be left as the final filter of my perceptions, and thus, the only totality by which I will experience reality.

      4. C.I.L.L. says:

        sonic democracy

        no thank You

        Good is good and bad is bad

        1. S.C. says:

          Life sucks and then you die. Is that good or bad?

          1. Syphilis says:

            I already have no life, but non-existence would have been preferable.

            1. S.C. says:

              How would you know? You exist! You can’t say one is worse than the other until you’ve tried the other!

              1. Syphilis says:

                I think there is a slight difference between death and the state of never having existed. Either way sounds promising.

                1. S.C. says:

                  Both are states of non-existence, and at this moment you exist, soooo as far as you’re concerned they are the same thing, rather, you couldn’t speak about one versus the other since you have no experience with either, but you certainly will get to experience one! And it would be the closest approximation to the other.

        2. S.C. says:

          And I’m arguing for true anarchy. Fuck egalitarianism…

      5. Astronaut Bread says:


        MIND BLOWN

        1. S.C. says:


          1. S.C. says:

            I mean this literally, as in, you made me laugh.

            1. Slaughter of the Hole says:

              You should’ve written “LLOL” [literally laughed out loud].

              1. S.C. says:

                Right… I considered it. But… then I went with this overstated form. oh well

              2. S.C. says:

                Not the extra ‘L’ though. Such whit often escapes me… good on you though. Clever.

                1. Slaughter of the Hole says:

                  My nigga, that comment is as this entire thread: you, overthinking everything.

                  Why do you have so much time? LUCKY!

                  1. S.C. says:

                    Minimal real life obligations and a lack of interesting people to talk with… I wouldn’t call it lucky, but it’s… something.

                  2. S.C. says:

                    Better to think too much than too little.

  5. jiij says:

    I come here with an adblocker :)

  6. Thewaters says:

    Even the quality of the comments have taken a dive on this site.

    1. C.I.L.L. says:

      If you put effort into your comments you can improve this situation

      Are you doing this?

  7. nigstomper88 says:

    call it challops, but Master of Puppets was a step down for Metallica. That’s where the proto-Opeth “sensitive” “diverse” songwriting and humanism crept in. Their triumph is either Kill em All or RTL.

    Obviously nothing Manilla Road put out is anywhere near as important/influential/etc, but wait, suddenly popularity matters here? I thought all that matters is music. If a song like The Veils of Negative existence doesn’t move you, you are a false!

    1. C.I.L.L. says:

      Any time a metal album puts too much emphasis on singing, that band is headed for total fuckup

    2. Kvädare says:

      Metallica ranking, the best at the top and the worst at the bottom:

      Kill ‘Em All, Ride The Lightning
      Master Of Puppets
      …And Justice For All
      The rest of the garbage

    3. his balls, your chin says:

      Wrong: the song about suicide on RTL is where it began; so if you’re gonna dis MOP because of dynamics, you done fucked yourself.

      1. Syphilis says:

        Theres dynamics and then theres melodrama. Metallica straddled the line for quite a while.

  8. …but then why promote crap like braindance? The best of 2016 list was terrible and Transilvanian Hunger being negatively scored for not matching the “brilliance” of Brian Eno’s synth farts… Amerika still has good stuff as usual.

    1. Rainer Weikusat says:

      Please leave Amerika where it is.

      Short anecdote not directly connected to it: At some point in time in the past, the Farage-party had to let go of its top immigration guy because – as it turned out to be – he was a Pakistani gangster who had fled to the UK in order to escape a conviction for kidnapping in his homeland.

      1. Necronomeconomist says:

        Great irrelvant story, bro

      2. C.I.L.L. says:

        Ideas are greater than parties, sitzpinkel!

        1. Rainer Weikusat says:

          The word you were trying to use was »Sitzpinkler«, IOW, man who generally sits on the toilet in order to maintain a peaceful relation to the female person he’s sharing a bed with. That’s presumably more applicable to you then it will ever be applicable to me. Not that this would particuarly matter for assessing the “end ‘pro-other white’ discrimination against (muslim) immigrants from India!” party …

          1. Rainer Weikusat says:

            Corollary: Politics in a so-called democracy is about getting access to tax payer money in order to channel it to one’s buddies. This is to be achieved by telling a somewhat well-defined segment of the voter population what they likely want to hear.

            1. Hero Quest Player says:

              Just to complete the statement : Politics in non-democracy being about getting access to taxpayer money to funnel it to one’s buddies, said access being gained by metaphorical, or sometimes litteral, blowjobs upwards in the hierarchy.

    2. says:

      Not really, way too much humanism there.

    3. Vigilance says:

      > still complaining about the TH review


      Transylvanian hunger sucks get over it loser

      1. Astronaut Bread says:

        An example of something useless: a Lance that’s all edge and no point.

        1. Rainer Weikusat says:

          The text basks a bit too much in its own flamebaitness but the analysis contained in it is essentially correct: Transilvanian Hunger (the first 3 tracks and the second to last at least) consists of interesting riffs combined into tracks in an extremely simple-minded and very repitive way, with tracks usually starting with an alternating sequence of too many repetitions of the two main riffs, followed by some kind of bridge and another set of repetitions of one of the main riffs.

      2. That album is still legendary. Please send your braindance articles to Noisey from now on since metal is not your strong suit, you faggot.

  9. Parasite says:

    Daniel I’m going to tie you to a chair, duct tape headphones to your ears and play Flogging the Cargo on repeat. The first 30 seconds actually, over and over again til your head blows up like Scanners.

  10. Gluten-Free Cock says:

    First two Dissection albums are fantastic, Reinkaos was a sub par Dokken album.

    1. nigstomper88 says:

      Oddly a lot of NWN vndergrovnd warriors like it. I’m guessing they either convinced themselves that they like it because the whole suicide album mythology is too alluring to pass up, or they keep it around as the one pop metal album they’re “allowed” to enjoy & otherwise repress their appreciation of gay music.

      1. Astronaut Bread says:

        Nodveidt’s death and suicide note strike me as being enough to convince the soft-minded (as well as Dissection fans) that, like Kurt Cobain, he was a TRUE ARTIST and that Reinkaos is amazing even though it is boring and forgettable.

      2. Marc Defranco says:

        They most likely listen to Reinkaos due to its religious ties. The whole Anti-Cosmic satanism thing. He killed himself because of his beliefs. I think it has to do with once a person peaks they are supposed to end their life

    2. C.I.L.L. says:

      2nd Dissection is pop music, too much like Opeth or Dream Theater

      1. The opening track is a good song and I think there’s another good one there that I can’t remember. Otherwise it’s rather annoying.

  11. C.I.L.L. says:


    Open a dialogue on this important topic

    Purge the weak from the canon

    ODB is the only other blog I read

    I love sentiment too but it has to be matched by prowess or it becomes nostalgia

    Nostalgia is like gangrene of the heart

    1. thewaters says:

      ODB is better than the crap on this site.

      1. C.I.L.L. says:

        Nah nigga they both have their place

        DMU is hardline German philosophy applied to underground metal

        ODB is all heart, a good site

  12. Night Booger says:

    Have a listen to Domains – Sinister Ceremonies, would like to see a review of that here.

    1. That was good but not great. Domains found a formula that worked and ran with it for the whole album.

      1. Exfoliation says:

        Nothing wrong with being good, I am perfectly ok with that.

        1. Slaughter of the Hole says:

          My nigga, you clearly forgot the mission statement: SODOMISE THE GOOD

  13. thewaters says:

    Dude, everything is good man if you think it so…. Only opinions are real…….

    1. It’s the nü-DMU way!

    2. C.I.L.L. says:

      Feelz > realz

      Anyone who disagrees is objectively scientifically proven to be a bigot

      Uneducated and ignorant and stuff

      1. Kvädare says:

        Only death is real?
        Only feels be reel, nigga

    3. his balls, your chin says:

      Only Varg Verkines is real. I like to think i can feel his ‘spirit’ moving in me.

  14. The general consensus among former-ANUS heathens is that DMU have jumped the shark with poor writers, odious political commentary and #metalgate white-idpol griping and a dearth of decent metal to be found. Just a bunch of fools chatting shit and recommending Kaeck and Sammath.

    1. his balls, your chin says:

      It’s called having a blog; blogs are faggotry THE END.

    2. Also regurgitating old articles in dumber form. This SMR is a rip on the top 10 metal shams from ANUS.

    3. Slaughter of the Hole says:

      “The general consensus among former-ANUS heathens”

      How do you know this?

  15. his balls, your chin says:


  16. >Dissection didn’t spawn a whole movement

Comments are closed.

Classic reviews: