Quote:

Written by Doc G. on 04.03.2008 at 22:30

It was example but generaly Motorhead albums are like one even thay changing for decaids

What do you mean?

That motorhead in 80ties sounds like garage punk, than there was 2guitarists thay sounds diferent and in 2000+ lil diferent, but still ewery song in radio you recognase Lemmy

Quote:

Written by Bad English on 04.03.2008 at 22:36

Written by Doc G. on 04.03.2008 at 22:30

It was example but generaly Motorhead albums are like one even thay changing for decaids

What do you mean?

That motorhead in 80ties sounds like garage punk, than there was 2guitarists thay sounds diferent and in 2000+ lil diferent, but still ewery song in radio you recognase Lemmy

Well of course, they have a signature sound, no matter who the guitarist is/are, because Lemmy is always behind the music. Anyways yeah, I'll agree Venom hasn't really changed there sound at all, despite line-up changes, they just have improved production values.

People actually keep up with Venom? lol wow, I mean I love them to death, but I find that everything they did after Black Metal , just didn't seem worth-while.

Written by Guest on 05.03.2008 at 00:26

People actually keep up with Venom? lol wow, I mean I love them to death, but I find that everything they did after Black Metal , just didn't seem worth-while.

I think their newest album, Metal Black, is actually really good. It's yet another great comeback! But yeah, from what I've heard from their middle era didn't seem nearly as good.

Written by Dangerboner on 05.03.2008 at 07:38

Written by Guest on 05.03.2008 at 00:26

People actually keep up with Venom? lol wow, I mean I love them to death, but I find that everything they did after Black Metal , just didn't seem worth-while.

I think their newest album, Metal Black, is actually really good. It's yet another great comeback! But yeah, from what I've heard from their middle era didn't seem nearly as good.

What, what what? Metal Black a great comeback? That album was totally uninspired drivel to me. A lot worse than an already mediocre album such as Possessed. But then again none of Venom's albums are objectively speaking good. Refreshing and new and influential to the scene the first two were but that's it.

On the other hand, middle era's Venom albums aren't as bad as people want us to believe... I mean, The Calm Before The Storm or Cast In Stone aren's exactly what we would call a masterpiece but they're decent heavy metal in the vein of a band that had always made just that, decent heavy metal that, like Marcel said, lost its refreshing status after the first two (ok, three) albums.

Written by Dangerboner on 05.03.2008 at 07:38

Written by Guest on 05.03.2008 at 00:26

People actually keep up with Venom? lol wow, I mean I love them to death, but I find that everything they did after Black Metal , just didn't seem worth-while.

I think their newest album, Metal Black, is actually really good. It's yet another great comeback! But yeah, from what I've heard from their middle era didn't seem nearly as good.

Dude, I think me and you are the only ones who seem to thoroughly enjoy that album.

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 05.03.2008 at 17:06

Written by Dangerboner on 05.03.2008 at 07:38

Written by Guest on 05.03.2008 at 00:26

People actually keep up with Venom? lol wow, I mean I love them to death, but I find that everything they did after Black Metal , just didn't seem worth-while.

I think their newest album, Metal Black, is actually really good. It's yet another great comeback! But yeah, from what I've heard from their middle era didn't seem nearly as good.

What, what what? Metal Black a great comeback? That album was totally uninspired drivel to me. A lot worse than an already mediocre album such as Possessed. But then again none of Venom's albums are objectively speaking good. Refreshing and new and influential to the scene the first two were but that's it.

Turn up your hearing aid, Marcel! xD It's hard to debate an album when someone just says "no, it sucks" lol. UUHH NUH UH!!!

It has some very fast moments and most of the songs are catchy to me at least, and while I don't think the entire album is consistently entertaining, overall I find it enjoyable. I'd give it somewhere around a 7.5, or maybe a little higher.

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 05.03.2008 at 17:06
But then again none of Venom's albums are objectively speaking good. Refreshing and new and influential to the scene the first two were but that's it.

Refreshing/new/influential isn't "good" enough for you?

Written by totaliteraliter on 06.03.2008 at 23:31

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 05.03.2008 at 17:06
But then again none of Venom's albums are objectively speaking good. Refreshing and new and influential to the scene the first two were but that's it.

Refreshing/new/influential isn't "good" enough for you?

If you put all influences aside yes, they were not great albums, production values were pretty bad, skill is minimal, and the riffs are incredibly repetitive. And the fact the only thing theyve really changed over the years is production, even though I do love Venom Ive come to terms with these things.

Written by Doc G. on 07.03.2008 at 05:18
production values were pretty bad

Would you argue that the raw production did anything but enhance the album's effect?

Written by Doc G. on 07.03.2008 at 05:18
skill is minimal

True, but do you really think the albums would have been better with extremely tight playing and slick production? It would have sucked the soul right out of it, I think.

Written by Doc G. on 07.03.2008 at 05:18
and the riffs are incredibly repetitive.

This is a problem why?

I don't know, it seems like you're criticizing it for not being something it had no intention or reason to be.

Written by totaliteraliter on 07.03.2008 at 05:32

Written by Doc G. on 07.03.2008 at 05:18
production values were pretty bad

Would you argue that the raw production did anything but enhance the album's effect?

Written by Doc G. on 07.03.2008 at 05:18
skill is minimal

True, but do you really think the albums would have been better with extremely tight playing and slick production? It would have sucked the soul right out of it, I think.

Written by Doc G. on 07.03.2008 at 05:18
and the riffs are incredibly repetitive.

This is a problem why?

I don't know, it seems like you're criticizing it for not being something it had no intention or reason to be.

I know, it had its own sound, its part of what made Venom Venom. But if your looking from a technical level, thats what made the albums bad.

Written by Doc G. on 07.03.2008 at 06:00
I know, it had its own sound, its part of what made Venom Venom. But if your looking from a technical level, thats what made the albums bad.

Well sure, if you have some sort of strangely simplistic view that "technical = good."

Written by totaliteraliter on 07.03.2008 at 06:11

Written by Doc G. on 07.03.2008 at 06:00
I know, it had its own sound, its part of what made Venom Venom. But if your looking from a technical level, thats what made the albums bad.

Well sure, if you have some sort of strangely simplistic view that "technical = good."

Sorry, I meant from an objective point of view....you really fail to see any point I'm getting at.

Written by Doc G. on 07.03.2008 at 06:23
Sorry, I meant from an objective point of view....you really fail to see any point I'm getting at.

I don't think so... if you're saying that objectively "technical > not technical" or "skilled musicians > comparatively unskilled musicians" then I still believe this is an invalid way of evaluating these particular pieces of art.

Written by totaliteraliter on 07.03.2008 at 06:39

Written by Doc G. on 07.03.2008 at 06:23
Sorry, I meant from an objective point of view....you really fail to see any point I'm getting at.

I don't think so... if you're saying that objectively "technical > not technical" or "skilled musicians > comparatively unskilled musicians" then I still believe this is an invalid way of evaluating these particular pieces of art.

Technically, by that I mean put any opinions aside, production values=bad, skill level=low, variation=not much. I'm not saying it isn't fun to listen to, but by no means would I consider these albums masterpieces. I think that is what Marcel was getting at, that is probably why he doesn't consider Venoms albums to be good. How can I break it down any further so it can fit onto my airplane spoon?

Written by Doc G. on 07.03.2008 at 06:46
Technically, by that I mean put any opinions aside, production values=bad, skill level=low, variation=not much. I'm not saying it isn't fun to listen to, but by no means would I consider these albums masterpieces. I think that is what Marcel was getting at, that is probably why he doesn't consider Venoms albums to be good. How can I break it down any further so it can fit onto my airplane spoon?

I don't disagree with any of those evaluations (skill level=low, etc...). What I disagree with is concluding that these prevent the albums from being objectively "good." Because you are basically saying for an album to be objectively good it needs to have clean production, skilled musicians, and varied compositions. It suggests that the early Venom albums would be better with skilled musicians, clean productions, and more complex songs. It's just a view I find irrelevant to these albums and a tad absurd. You should look at the album on its own terms if you want to evaluate it objectively.

Everything Venom have done from Welcome To Hell to The Calm Before The Storm I would consider brilliant.. Venom have never sold out but have taken a few wrong turns in their time.

A promotional video for "Hell", the new album from Venom, can be viewed at this location.

Written by Guest on 05.03.2008 at 00:26

People actually keep up with Venom? lol wow, I mean I love them to death, but I find that everything they did after Black Metal , just didn't seem worth-while.

Hey, I actually prefer Venom's Prime Evil and Temples Of Ice more than any other Venom album.

They seem to have a southern metal feel to their music now...which to me is crap! Besides BS of course

I completely disagree with the above 2 comments, I thoroughly enjoy most of their new stuff, I pretty much see it as same old venom with better production qualities.

And what the hell is southern metal?

Written by FoxZdemoN on 18.06.2008 at 20:11

They seem to have a southern metal feel to their music now...which to me is crap! Besides BS of course

what is that "southern metal"

G-O-O-O-O-O-O-G-L-E

Southern Rock exists but southern metal doesn't unless it is some sort of new genre tag which has all of a sudden popped up because some numbwit added it to wikipedia. And knowing that most of the wikipedia entries on metal are too far from the truth to be taken seriously I doubt the term actually exists outside of forums.

The first thrash band...
yet the first does not have to be the case.
ANd it is the case for me with Venom.

Written by Candlemass on 21.06.2008 at 15:30

The first thrash band...
yet the first does not have to be the case.

good point!

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 21.06.2008 at 15:17

Southern Rock exists but southern metal doesn't unless it is some sort of new genre tag which has all of a sudden popped up because some numbwit added it to wikipedia. And knowing that most of the wikipedia entries on metal are too far from the truth to be taken seriously I doubt the term actually exists outside of forums.

Agreed. Ridiculous break-downs of genres is incredibly pointless. I remember a few years ago I started hearing the term "Bodom Metal" used in serious contexts just because a few knock-off bands started playing COB style. Its getting out of hand.

Venom opened the door to a whole new breed of metal. Welcome to hell was comprised of demos which the record company felt was good enough to release as an album against what venom wanted. Hence the difference in production values. "Black Metal" was the first studio recorded album and is a classic influential masterpiece. They had the balls to go all out and hype up the satan charade to drum up attention for themselves because they knew they lacked musical ability like Judas Priest or Sabbath. IT WORKED!! "At War with Satan" had a 20 minute marathon of a song which showed they did have some talent. It didn't go over that well because you can't take up half your live shows with 1 song when you rarely played live as it was. "Possessed" the band was never happy with. By this time other bands with more talent like Slayer and Metallica had taken over as the leaders of the scene but still cited Venom as their main influence. "Calm Before the Storm" was a weak attempt to refuel with a new lineup. Exit Cronos! We all know without him its not Venom. Jump ahead to "Cast in Stone" good album with better production but still lacking. "Resurrection" GREAT album!! Whats the difference? They got somebody who could play drums finally. I live by this to this day : a badass drummer can make a mediocre guitarist sound great, bad drummers make it all sound like shit. Mantas's guitars on "resurrection were very good. "War Against Christ" "Loaded" Firelight" and "Black Flame(of Satan) are great songs. Some of the best Venom has done. "Metal Black" to me was missing Mantas riffs and ended up sounding generic and rushed. From what I have heard so far "Hell" is better than "Metal Black"

I love Venom, I bought the fuckin' boxset which for some reason is not listed on here (?) after listening to my first few Venom albums. The first was Black Metal of course and then it progressed from there. Metal Black wasn't that bad, best the've done in awhile at least. I don't know if I will check out Hell though, we'll see. Bitch Witch! 1000 Days in Sodom, let the good times roll!!