GREATEST METAL ALBUM CUP - Winner: Iron Maiden - Seventh Son of a Seventh Son!

like raspy voices, I don’t like bad screamers. Chuck may be really good at riffs and writing, but his scream is one of the worst I’ve ever heard. In general, it takes a lot for me to like a harsh vocalist and I normally prefer gutturals (Opeth/Amon Amarth) to the more reedy, airy, shrieky screaming.
Well, either you like Schuldiner's voice is not the point here I only mentioned Chuck to reinforce I understand some people (like you) may dislike his voice due to not liking that kind of vocalization or whatever other reason unlike people who like traditional Heavy Metal voices and don't like Kiske's (which is something I surely accept but simply can't understand).
Kiske sounds like a traditional power metal singer to me. Like Dickinson without the gravitas. I don’t like traditional power metal singers (or I guess most traditional metal singers either). To be honest, I don’t even know what a “traditional metal voice” means. Is it Ozzy? Is it Dio? Is it Bruce? Is it Halford? Kiske trends far more into power metal territory, and the only singers I like in that genre are either unique in tone (Khan/Karevik/Russell Allen) or women.
You don't know what a traditional Heavy Metal voice is... OOOoooooookkkk. :oops: Well seems like this is another one of those unfathomable great mysteries one has to search for an answer maybe towards a lifetime, isn't it? :D
Kiske is very unique. His bright voice. The clarity, his high range. His stability. Unique combination.
Basically. :ok:
Apart from Kiske (apart from a young Geoff Tate and a young Dickinson), other male singers use falsetto or can't sing that high.
Carry on my dear Sir. :okok:
Kiske possesses an almost 4 octave vocal range, is capable of reaching extremely high notes (A5) and low baritone notes (E2) as well.
Many singers cite him as a major influence, but a little amount of them sounds like him.
Ah Mr @Forostar things are so easy to do when there are people in this forum who know what they're talking about... :) :cool:
There are many with the Lande, Allen, Khan techniques. They do not sound natural, it is a forced sounding technique, as if someone grabs their throats with a strong hand, squeezing out the sound. Hard work.
Kiske effortlessly changes/reaches awesome notes.
A round of applause for this man, please. :applause:

And may I add one thing? How Many Power Metal Singers can mimic Elvis Presley's lower notes? For a small example of WHAT Kiske is I think the crescendo from baritone to tenor until it reaches stupidly high falsetto on "A Little Time" is enough. Plus saying Kiske sounds like a traditional Power Metal singer is like saying Lemmy sounds like Cronos from Venom. Chronology sometimes gets in the way. :p
And the man is in his 50's and sounds EXACTLY THE SAME HE DID when he entered the band. Ridiculous.
 
Halford is a singer I like more than Kiske but Halford screams his highest work. Kiske sings his high notes.
He is bright, and it sounds more effortless. Different, a more unique style for such range.

Halford still has a unique sounding voice though.
Yup... But many of the notes Halford screamed back in the day were so high pitched there was no other way for a grown adult to reach those clean. Unless there's some anatomy missing from your reproductive system. :P
 
Yup... But many of the notes Halford screamed back in the day were so high pitched there was no other way for a grown adult to reach those clean. Unless there's some anatomy missing from your reproductive system. :P
What about Yannis Papadopoulos from Beast In Black? Although I doubt if there are parts missing...
 
And the man is in his 50's and sounds EXACTLY THE SAME HE DID when he entered the band. Ridiculous.
Nah, he has a darker timbre now (and they tune down half a step). I think he sounds better now than he did way back when.
 
Last edited:
Well... Cool matches on this one.

Ah crap! I'm with you on this one @Magnus... Two iconic records and one has to go off the board. Already gave my two cents about Epicus. As for Venom's debut (and my favorite from the band) all I can say is I truly imagine how much of a blast this was when it came out. These dudes captured the essence of Lemmy and company's speed and heaviness, stripped it from the more Rock N' Roll side to it, multiplied its aggression bathing it in some really putrid punk sound and surrounded it with devil worship imagery and lyrics. Yeah the playing is really sloppy at times, but fact is some of the songs in Welcome To Hell are true blasters. Sons Of Satan opens the record kicking some serious behind. iconic headbangers like Witching Hour, Angel Dust or Live Like An Angel follow the same route, In League With Satan's groove is out of this world while simple yet dark and nasty riff based tunes like Red Light Fever or 1000 Years Of Sodom are truly bulky and addictive despite the cheap production and performance. The tracks I like the least here are the ones where Venom still has too much of that Motorhead chip turned on (like Poison or the title track) . Otherwise this is a truly essential footstep on what would be Black and Thrash Metal, simply put the heaviest thing released to date in metal and would remain being so until 1984 when Slayer Released Haunting The Chapel and Metallica gave us Ride The Lightning (since IMO Welcome To Hell is way more thrashy, aggressive and heavy than both speed metal filled Slayer and Metallica's debuts). This is one hell of a record (pun intended :p) but I'll have to go with my favorite for this matchup. And while giving major props to Cronos and company, my vote goes to Candlemass.

Keeper vs Symbolic... Really? This game is really turning into a slaughter house of classic records. Well... here goes nothing. Prior to the release of the abomination that is Chameleon, early Helloween simply could do no wrong (yup, Pink Bubbles included: apart from a couple of awful tracks I consider the rest of the album to be excellent). Walls Of Jericho and Keeper Pt 1 were both top notch each one in their own way. Then came Keeper Part 2 and while still being absolutely stunning, there were some little breaches here and there that its prequel (much similar in style) didn't suffered from. It starts with a full heavy metal speedster in Eagle Fly Free and although by then the term Power Metal wasn't yet established, I believe this song became the archetype for the genre. You Always Walk Alone follows the same mold at a slower tempo and with less exciting melodies and dynamics and then the record starts losing coherency. Don't get me wrong: I absolutely love Rise And Fall and Dr. Stein both lyric and music wise (especially the underrated craziness of Rise And Fall) but these two songs when compared with the bulk of Keeper Pt 2 are undeniably strange bodies: wacky and comical cheered up tunes that seem to belong somewhere else. I Want Out also dwells a bit on a different lyrical level but in this case it's not wacky and the music sounds absolutely suitable (BTW hell of a track). The same can be said for the calm and sad We Got The Right. The rest of the album is a collection of really great songs in the same style of the first two tracks in Save Us and March Of Time and, like its sibling, the album also features a 13 minute epic tune with some interesting passages. So I may be nit picking a bit but I think the only minor problem with this record is what we get when all the parts are added to a whole. Where Walls Of Jericho was absolutely D&D meets Heavy Metal cheesiness, Keeper Pt 1 had that mystic and fantasy aura and Pink Bubbles was all about that surreal almost nonsensical motive, Keeper Part 2 seems to be all over the place. And if it's true that while doing so it spawns some gorgeous songs, as a whole it sounds a bit less convincing that the three aforementioned records. Nevertheless it's a classic for the years to come and full of excellent tracks. The problem is Symbolic reaches that status with much more coherency as a whole IMO. So, yeah... this one goes to Death.
 
Last edited:
You don't know what a traditional Heavy Metal voice is... OOOoooooookkkk. :oops: Well seems like this is another one of those unfathomable great mysteries one has to search for an answer maybe towards a lifetime, isn't it? :D
Metallica, Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, and Black Sabbath are some of the most successful "traditional" metal bands of all time. None of their singers sound alike. My point stands.
 
You know... I've got a problem with Axl Rose's high pitch notes. It does bad things to my nerves. Now let's get one thing out of the way: this has nothing to do with the man's attitude. I couldn't give a toss about it. And I'll go even further: Axl is FAR from being a bad singer. As matter of fact he's really skilled and although his voice is a bit to nasal, he's got a great range, good technique, nice attack... to sum it up: when it comes to the technical (and even expressive) side he's a truly crafted vocalist. But I SIMPLY CAN'T STAND THAT DAMN HIGH PITCH! Every time he goes falsetto it seems someone is pushing fiberglass down my eardrums. Now is this Axl's problem? Absolutely not: as I said even when he hits those high notes that wreck my nerves he nails them 100% in technically terms. The problem is mine that simply am unable to stand the dude's timbre. And I'm perfectly aware when it comes to this matter, unlike others that go "Hey bro... I hate this guy's voice's. He sucks bro!" just because they don't like it.
That being said is kinda difficult for me to enjoy fully GN'R. Overall this is a good Hard Rock album. A bit too overrated? Perhaps when it comes to composition since it's main influence can be easily traced. Now I'm not saying they're Aerosmith copycats or something similar but one can easily notice the great influence of Tyler's band on GN'R's debut. So what made this album sold millions? I believe it's a combination of factors. First than everything the somewhat provocative attitude of the band spearheaded by his frontman. Then Slash delivers some vicious riffage and even more amazing soloing. There's also the excellent drumming of Steven Adler: this dude knows how to create exceptionally well crafted rhythms and is the unsung hero of this record. And finally I think these guys managed to mix that 70's Heavy Rock feeling with 80's Hard Rock, distancing from the goofy metal Hair Metal scene and modernizing that retro flavor. Of course Welcome To The Jungle, It's So Easy, Mr. Brownstone, Paradise City (or Zero The Hero pt II) or the mid section of Sweet Child O' Mine are truly well done rock cuts filled with energy. My only problem with this album is a) even kinda liking it it's a bit outside my interest area, b) although the band really made an intelligent update and mix of hard n' heavy sounds there's nothing stunningly innovative here and c) once again... my dislike for Axl's high pitch, a voice he pulls on the majority of the tracks.
So yeah... I can easily understand why this record is a classic that strongly impacted the late 80's Hard Rock scene and I think all the success was deserved. There's talent, guts, is well planed and delivers its load in a in your face/ incisive way. Plus it came out in the right time to blow the Poisons and Motley Crues of the world to second plan as people said "now this is quality hard rock with balls!". That being said so is Aenima and my vote goes easily to Tool.

Finally we have MegaDave versus one of the most successful bands from the 90's. Of course Rap Metal was nothing new but it wasstill in its embryonic state with Run DMC's collaboration with Aerosmith, 'Thrax bringing the house down along with Public Enemy in a new version of their classic Bring The Noise or some of Faith No More's more Hip Hop ventures. Even on the other side of the Atlantic Clawfinger's demo was well known by now. But truth be told it was RATM who propelled the genre to another level of exposure.
So other than that what has RATM to offer? Well, groove, energy and lots political messages. I always had this weird little feeling (just a itsy bitsy impression) that communism is far from being the most popular political movement in the States :p (be it nowadays or in the early 90's). And taking in account they're an American band it was almost certain these dudes would raise some eyebrows to say the least. Musically it's filled with pros and cons. Curiously enough the song that made them go boom (Killing In The Name Of) is perhaps one of my least favorite from the lot. But one must admit there's some truly engaging material here: Know Your Enemy and Take The Power Back combine razor sharp riffs that somehow reminds a lighter Helmet with groovy as hell hooks that even dare entering funk's domain. Bombtrack is also an engaging opener. But where I think this album kinda falls short is precisely what @Jer pointed out: the remainder of the songs' morphology is way too similar. So how can one explain this record's sucess? Well firstly Rap Metal was a scene that was starting and although not being THE pioneers fact is RATM's debut was the record that massively spearhead the genre. Then one cannot deny that, although the majority of the songs are tooo similar, Zack's rap attack is aggressive as hell, Tom's riffs were punchy and his unorthodox exploring with the 6 strings were quite original to say the least and the rhythm section was really good.
Personally, apart from two songs, I think this record is kinda meh but utterly understand its appeal and why it was a win hands down. Curiously enough the only record from the band I overall like is The Battle Of LA, a record that - while sounding like RATM - is much more eccletic without losing an inch of strength. As for the political message I could care less: don't support it but it's not an isolated case in bands I'm fan of. And taking in account that I'm not even a RATM fan then I reaaaaally don't give a damn. That being said So Far is one of my favorite Thrash albums and this is an easy vote to Megadeth.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Jer
I think it's a difference between favourite, best, and great. To me, favourite is what I like. Best is what the critical or educated community leans towards. Great is based on influence and achievement.
I've never stumbled upon terminology (considering music) dived like this, but it makes sense and I can live with it. Thumb up.
 
b) although the band really made an intelligent update and mix of hard n' heavy sounds there's nothing stunningly innovative here

I wouldn't call it innovative, but Slash is probably the first major rock/metal guitarist since the first Van Halen album came out to not show much influence from Eddie Van Halen. If Eddie never happened Slash would still sound like Slash, I don't think you can say that about many other guitarists.
 
I wouldn't call it innovative, but Slash is probably the first major rock/metal guitarist since the first Van Halen album came out to not show much influence from Eddie Van Halen. If Eddie never happened Slash would still sound like Slash, I don't think you can say that about many other guitarists.
Yup, if we only take in account the more mainstream bands I think you're correct. Slash is much more heavy blues/ 70's prone (once again the 70's heavy vibe brought to the band's stew).
 
I've been trying to express that opinion for years, but every time the discussion had to begin from the starting point of acknowledging his skill even though I said it dozens of times before. So I just gave up at some point.
I’m just gonna start comparing it to Dream Theater for all the non-progheads.

“I don’t like Dream Theater!”
“But you have to acknowledge their skill!”
- on a loop, falling into infinity
 
I’m just gonna start comparing it to Dream Theater for all the non-progheads.

“I don’t like Dream Theater!”
“But you have to acknowledge their skill!”
- on a loop, falling into infinity
That’s generally how it goes. Not on Maidenfans perhaps but every damn comment field. I like DT a lot but that schtick gets old quick. Everybody knows they can play Johnny B Goode.
 
Back
Top