BOS if released in the 80's where would it be in the discography ?

@johnglen

I recall "into the pandemonium" was not well received as well, but not for being wimpy, but rather for being "difficult" and "noisy" (that's what they thought of almost every early thrash/death/black album back then). "Cold lake", on the other hand, was indeed criticized as soft and wimpy. I suppose you could say that if you compared it to their earlier offerings. Tom Gabriel himself doesn't like it and calls it a mistake, but -imo- it was a pretty good album.
 
vulture said:
@johnglen

I recall "into the pandemonium" was not well received as well, but not for being wimpy, but rather for being "difficult" and "noisy" (that's what they thought of almost every early thrash/death/black album back then). "Cold lake", on the other hand, was indeed criticized as soft and wimpy. I suppose you could say that if you compared it to their earlier offerings. Tom Gabriel himself doesn't like it and calls it a mistake, but -imo- it was a pretty good album.
Click to expand...
Cold Lake is a good album, i dare say one of the greatest Glam albums ever recorded. but it's not Celtic Frost
 
johnglen said:
Hell, i actually think that SIT was a mistake by Maiden . In 1986 when "master of puppets" and "reign in blood" were released , Maiden should have released "Powerslave part 2" in terms of musical direction as the succesor to powerslave.
Click to expand...
Or just not listened to you & written SiT.
 
vulture said:
@johnglen

I recall "into the pandemonium" was not well received as well, but not for being wimpy, but rather for being "difficult" and "noisy" (that's what they thought of almost every early thrash/death/black album back then). "Cold lake", on the other hand, was indeed criticized as soft and wimpy. I suppose you could say that if you compared it to their earlier offerings. Tom Gabriel himself doesn't like it and calls it a mistake, but -imo- it was a pretty good album.
Click to expand...
Eh , no "into the pandemonium" was accused of being a very "soft" album and a "sell out" by CF . People had no problem with thrash metal , in fact thrash metal was booming at the time with a ton of phenomenal records getting great reviews (remembers the 6k in Kerrang's review for F&J's debut ) .
 
They don't seem to have been losing much sleep over it, though. I'm glad that they never saw it necessary to produce an album aimed at the US market.
 
Black Bart said:
Well, a sequence of 10 years starts at year 1, not "year 0" which doesn't exist. For example, the 21st century logically started in 2001, not 2000.
Click to expand...
vulture said:
Mock me if you wish, but what I said is completely accurate. Mind you, your opinion is indeed the popular one, but no, it doesn't make it any more correct, it's very simple math really. If you don't mind the first decade AD (for example) having only 9 years, well, here you go, you're correct and I'm wrong.

Not that wikipedia is always right, but here's a fairly accurate description of this, citing arguments of both points of view:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium#Viewpoint_1:_x001.E2.80.93y000
Click to expand...
See if both of you actually read what it says in the link you cite, you'll note it says the following:
"Decades are usually referred to by their leading numbers and are therefore immune to this controversy: the decade called 1990s would by its naming not include 2000."
Click to expand...
Likewise, the 1980's do not include 1990. The clue is in the name: the eighties, the nineties. Does 1990 include an eight? No. Hence it's not in the 80's. It's just numbers, it isn't that difficult. The debate about the millennium is totally irrelevant to people referring to the years 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, & 1989 as the 1980's/80's/eighties.
 
But that would mean that the first decade of the Common Era was only nine years long.
 
I can't deny that CriedWhenBrucieLeft's explanation is sound. Therefore, there would be two types of decades. I guess it is not contradictory, though a tad complicated (for me at least). Why not rephrase the title of the thread: "BOS if released between 1980 and 1988..." then? ;)
 
As I've said, the link I provided had arguments for both points of view, so I had clearly read what I posted, otherwise I'd say that the link just proves my point, which is not what I said.

So, you wanna call decades by the leading number? That's fine by me, I won't "mock" you for doing that. That's what's popular to do anyway. Still, that's not the accurate way to count decades and that was my original point anyway, even if my wording wasn't completely clear.
 
Last edited:
johnglen said:
Had something like TBOS been released in the eighties it would have been ridiculed by journalists and , probably, hated by the fans . The metal community in the eighties was extremely close-minded and thus albums like Celtic Frost's "into the pandemonium " were seen as soft and wimpy . If you actually lived at the eighties you would know that many people hated SIT and SSOASS . Hell, i actually think that SIT was a mistake by Maiden . In 1986 when "master of puppets" and "reign in blood" were released , Maiden should have released "Powerslave part 2" in terms of musical direction as the succesor to powerslave . I honestly believe that they would have reached a similar to Metallica status in the U.S market had they done that .
Click to expand...
I agree with you about SIT. I was extremely dissapointed until 7th son came out. I actually love 7th son. Like I said, I appreciate SIT more now than ever because even though it wasn't well received by fans as a whole here in the U.S., then, it was an album way ahead of it's time. It is definately the building block for their current sound which my hat goes off to them for keeping the classic lineup in tact and still making serious music on their own terms! By the way, I'be been on this planet long enough to see original KISS in the 70s (or late 60's if you read the posts before mine up there)! Lol! So Maiden isn't my first rodeo, but God Bless them for being true to themselves and the fans.

It's sad. I live in New Orleans and the last time Maiden played here was '88 for seventh tour. Ace Frehley from Kiss opened. Nowadays for years I have to drive to Texas to see them. I saw them for the first time live in Houston '12 for the maiden england tour. Great show but I must admit their stage show was even better in 88. Hopefully TBOS will bring them back here and back on top like they deserve! It truly is my fav album!
 
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
See if both of you actually read what it says in the link you cite, you'll note it says the following:

Likewise, the 1980's do not include 1990. The clue is in the name: the eighties, the nineties. Does 1990 include an eight? No. Hence it's not in the 80's. It's just numbers, it isn't that difficult. The debate about the millennium is totally irrelevant to people referring to the years 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, & 1989 as the 1980's/80's/eighties.
Click to expand...

Wait. Now I'm confused! How old am I? Have they considered leap years?
 
vulture said:
As I've said, the link I provided had arguments for both points of view, so I had clearly read what I posted, otherwise I'd say that the link just proves my point, which is not what I said.

So, you wanna call decades by the leading number? That's fine by me, I won't "mock" you for doing that. That's what's popular to do anyway. Still, that's not the accurate way to count decades and that was my original point anyway, even if my wording wasn't completely clear.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, the Wiki article you cite doesn't say there are different ways of referencing decades; it specifically states decades are "immune to this controversy". If you are going to talk about "the 80's" (the title of this thread; i.e. "referred to by their leading numbers") it doesn't matter how you're counting years & decades (where there is debate) --this discussion cannot include the year 1990. 1990 is in "the 90's" because of what the date actually reads like. I'm not saying I agree with this, but it is thus defined in the context of the terms "80's" & "90's" e.g. "...the decade called 1990s would by its naming not include 2000." (Wiki)
 
Alright, but how could you call the first decade AD then? Could you say the 0's? No, because there's no year zero and then the tenth year starts with number 1, so not a decade, but rather 9 years.
So, to put this to bed and sequentially speaking, since the first decade AD is 1-10 AD then the 198th decade AD ended on 1980 and the 199th decade AD started on 1981 and ended on 1990.
But, of course, that doesn't stop anyone from calling any 10 years in-between however he likes. By the leading (actually penultimate) year number, 5's-to-4's etc. Don't you agree on that?
 
screen_shot_2015_09_09_at_5_08_16_pm_by_codycameron09-d990uw9.png
 
vulture said:
Alright, but how could you call the first decade AD then? Could you say the 0's? No, because there's no year zero and then the tenth year starts with number 1, so not a decade, but rather 9 years.
So, to put this to bed and sequentially speaking, since the first decade AD is 1-10 AD then the 198th decade AD ended on 1980 and the 199th decade AD started on 1981 and ended on 1990.
Click to expand...
Seriously man, why won't you read the Wiki page you cited? All this other shit, you keep referring to (as interesting as it is), has nothing to do with the naming of the decade "the 80's". It's in the name; whether you, me, my cat, or anyone else agrees with it or not. If you use the term "the 80's" (without qualification), you are referring to years with the number eight in them.
vulture said:
But, of course, that doesn't stop anyone from calling any 10 years in-between however he likes. By the leading (actually penultimate) year number, 5's-to-4's etc. Don't you agree on that?
Click to expand...
If by anyone you mean everyone, then yes.
SixesAlltheway said:
screen_shot_2015_09_09_at_5_08_16_pm_by_codycameron09-d990uw9.png
Click to expand...
Fuck you Brucie! You made me cry once! :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top