Written by vezzy on 15.10.2010 at 16:48

Written by Daniell on 15.10.2010 at 16:36

You're an obstinate one, aren't you?

Just think for a minute and tell me:
How the hell can you justify that Metallica is "overrated"? How do you measure it other than by your own opinion? What level of praise is ok, and what level warrants the "overrated" label? Believe me, it's completely pointless even to try...

As are you, in your pursuit of utopia where everything is opinion and you cannot argue against that.

Decline in quality, intense mainstream popularity (Metallica are really popular among newbies, including the t-shirts, up there with Iron Maiden and others), the ever continuous "first four albums" phenomenon and how they're all masterpieces, we get it. Not the same anymore, now they're a different band, much more accessible, soft and radio-friendly. (okay, Death Magnetic song lengths aren't radio-friendly, nor are St. Anger's, but accessibility and especially lower quality is evident). It's ridiculous, how is Metallica not overrated?

Probably not so good for me to necro this discussion but I feel I need to add this...

Thing is, even the things you listed can be taken so subjectively.

Decline in quality - Although there IS some level of subjectivity it, quality can be mostly measured objectively. However: 1) As I see it, St. Anger for example gets panned amongst metalheads almost universally. And the albums that are praised are mostly Ride the Lightning and Master of Puppets which are indeed excellent albums and are landmarks in thrash metal. 2) For example, where does this apply to Wintersun (I know we're talking about Metallica now, but I'll make a point with this later)? The only album WS released IS quality.



Mainstream Popularity - This is related to point 1) in my previous part. Which audience are we measuring popularity in? I can accept proclaiming something 'overrated' when it has so much general hype around it, however, 'mainstream' people have generally a different order of values in music than 'metalheads' (using quotes because I generally dislike this kind of differentiating, but I cannot really express myself in any other way here, I hope you got what I mean). For example, as I said in 1), amongst metalheads, usually only the first few albums are praised.
And it makes me wonder. 'Metalheads' have different tastes as well. Some people hate power metal. Some people can't stand black metal. Whatever. But still, most of us here at least DO have something in common. So did it occur to anyone that if amongst people with generally similiar interests, something is popular, then it might not be popular because it is easy-to-listen, commercial shit, but because it is /good/ ?
I mean, I listen to what I find good. And I actually value points which are generally considered as defining a band as having good 'quality'. So if I like something then it generally conforms to those principles. If there is anyone here who thinks similiar way as I do, as well as similiar tastes, then chances are, he's gonna like that band too. Multiply this by many and you get a band popular amongst 'metalheads'. And where did I get to this point from? From said band being easy-to-listen commercial shit? No, from being good.
I am saying this because I see this trend growing that once something gets popular even amongst 'us', it gets labelled as WTF OVERRATED LOL'. Just some food for thought.

And of course, related to Wintersun, it has no mainstream popularity. It is still an extreme metal band with harsh vocals and values other than catchiness. It is not mainstream at all. Therefore, it is only popular amongst 'metalheads'.



the ever continuous "first four albums" phenomenon - I touched this in 1). Good albums get praised for being good. Bad albums being trashed for being bad. Time and 'we heard this before' does NOT make an album less good.


Why did I get Wintersun into this all? That is also one of those bands that constantly get labelled as 'overrated', yet for example, by your points, it is not overrated at all. This either means two things: 1) I have just proved Wintersun isn't overrated. 2) Your viewpoints on a band's 'overratedness' are wrong.

So how do we decide what is overrated now?

I agree with everything Vezzy said about Metallica and the black album.
I won't start again with this but I said already that Metallica in their current form and taking into account they released nothing but crap for over two decades are the most overrated metal band ever.

I told it already and will mention it again: Metallica and the black album both are overrated and it's a fact, not an opinion. Same for Iron Maiden after SSOASS.

There is no way current Metallica and current Iron Maiden cannot be considered as overrated.

Written by Guest on 04.01.2011 at 01:34

...and then Moses came and declared the 11th Commandment: "Metallica and the black album both are overrated and it's a fact, not an opinion. Same for Iron Maiden after SSOASS."

For me, it's not a matter of who is right or who is wrong. It's just about being realistic. Those bands receive way too much praise compared to bands who release much better albums and get much less recognition.

^ THIS.

I guess there is a difference between Metallica and Wintersun though. Metallica are overrated by mainstream goers and metalheads alike, whereas Wintersun - largely by metalheads. Doesn't mean they aren't overrated, sorry.

Time and 'we've heard this before' do not decrease an album's quality, no. But a heap load of praise and spotlight gaining later, it gets old and cliched, because of all the times it has been copied.

"But, what about Black Sabbath?"

Sabbath never get old.

WOW, look at how many responses their are to a low score, haha.

Nonsense review just to incite outrage

Written by vezzy on 15.10.2010 at 16:48

It's ridiculous, how is Metallica not overrated?

Simple. They aren't being given credit for something they haven't done. If somebody said that Metallica was the _only_ thrash metal band to come out of the 80'es, then that person would be objectively overrating the band. Saying that a band is overrated, because they are popular - no matter how popular they are - is pretending that your opinion is worth more than that of others. That, my young friend, is simply nonsense.

This is a shit review however. I generally like people who aren't afraid to go against the majority viewpoint, but when it's done this poorly, it's just useless. This is supposed to be a review of Reign In Blood, but the reviewer thinks that it is necessary to mention that in his opinion Megadeth doesn't deserve to be considered one of the great four of thrash. Wow! How relevant to his case against RIB!

Also, the first two paragraphs barely even touch on the album that this review is supposed to be about. I am actually really surprised that such a review was accepted as late as in 2008.

Written by Guest on 14.02.2011 at 19:11

This is a shit review however. I generally like people who aren't afraid to go against the majority viewpoint, but when it's done this poorly, it's just useless. This is supposed to be a review of Reign In Blood, but the reviewer thinks that it is necessary to mention that in his opinion Megadeth doesn't deserve to be considered one of the great four of thrash. Wow! How relevant to his case against RIB!

Also, the first two paragraphs barely even touch on the album that this review is supposed to be about. I am actually really surprised that such a review was accepted as late as in 2008.

Although your comment is very offensive and vile, I still read it to its entirety. It's your opinion and I respect it but there was no need for you to inundate me with insults. Usually after publishing a review, I go to something else and I rarely ever reply to users' comments because they are entitled to their own opinions and it would be pointless to throw down the gauntlet just because they don't agree with me, but I still read them though as a thank-you for reading my modest review. Here's the thing, what you read isn't a suck-up Blabbermouth review nor a Metal Archives' for Slayer's Reign In Blood. I totally agree with you, I should've presented more supporting arguments, especially for this album which is considered to be the thrash bible. But I didn't, do you know why? Well, simply, because back then there were already two reviews of this album, both of which are bringing out what sort of impact this album had when it first rose from nothingness. Stuart and Edible Autopsy (the members who reviewed this album) focused on the technical side of RIB and delivered two brilliant reviews. Had I focused on the technical side too, I would have given RIB 9.5 but I wanted to give MS, to give you something different and I had to push it to the limit and beyond, so I focused on how appealing the sound could be, not only to thrashers because let's face it, thrash devotees love it and I can understand why, but what about progressive, hard rock or even heavy metal fans? In order to deem an album perfect, it has to be acknowledged and listened to, by every metalhead on this planet. RIB succeeded to do the first part but I highly doubt that it ever came close to the second. Why? Well, because we all say it's a landmark album but we seldom listen to it, and those of us who do, they do it for the sake of its undying heaviness while in their cars with Angel Of Death on the stereo, just to grab some attention and enhance their reputation of true metalheads. But dammit metal is not about heaviness because if it were, then Carnophage must be the greatest metal band of all time, but the truth is, they suck...big time.

I repeat, Reign In Blood, heaviness-wise, it's mind-bending but when it comes to the music itself, it's slightly under the average...and it's hands down, the most overrated album of all time. Period.

Written by Mindheist on 14.02.2011 at 21:35

Although your comment is very offensive and vile, I still read it to its entirety.

Thank You.

Quote:

It's your opinion and I respect it but there was no need for you to inundate me with insults.

My scathing comments were directed only at your arguments, not your conclusion or you personally. I stand by what I said, your review is awful.

Quote:

Here's the thing, what you read isn't a suck-up Blabbermouth review nor a Metal Archives' for Slayer's Reign In Blood. I totally agree with you, I should've presented more supporting arguments, especially for this album which is considered to be the thrash bible. But I didn't, do you know why? Well, simply, because back then there were already two reviews of this album, both of which are bringing out what sort of impact this album had when it first rose from nothingness.

That wasn't what I was missing from your review. Mentioning how influential or successful a work is might only work as an introduction, but it's irrelevant to the conclusion - whether the conclusion is that the work is good or bad - and irrelevant to the arguments that are presented to support that conclusion. I don't want you talk about impact, popularity or anything like that, I just want you to talk about the album and not sidetrack to whether or not Megadeth is worthy.

Quote:

Stuart and Edible Autopsy (the members who reviewed this album) focused on the technical side of RIB and delivered two brilliant reviews. Had I focused on the technical side too, I would have given RIB 9.5 but I wanted to give MS, to give you something different and I had to push it to the limit and beyond, so I focused on how appealing the sound could be, not only to thrashers because let's face it, thrash devotees love it and I can understand why, but what about progressive, hard rock or even heavy metal fans? In order to deem an album perfect, it has to be acknowledged and listened to, by every metalhead on this planet. RIB succeeded to do the first part but I highly doubt that it ever came close to the second. Why? Well, because we all say it's a landmark album but we seldom listen to it, and those of us who do, they do it for the sake of its undying heaviness while in their cars with Angel Of Death on the stereo, just to grab some attention and enhance their reputation of true metalheads. But dammit metal is not about heaviness because if it were, then Carnophage must be the greatest metal band of all time, but the truth is, they suck...big time.

That paragraph - despite containing some of the same mistakes as the review, such as talking about the reputation of the album and it's fans, rather than of the actual album - is better than your entire review.

Quote:

I repeat, Reign In Blood, heaviness-wise, it's mind-bending but when it comes to the music itself, it's slightly under the average...and it's hands down, the most overrated album of all time. Period.

Saying something is overrated translates out to: I don't like it as much as the average metal fan, therefore they are all wrong, while I alone am right. Overratted, underrated = meaningless words. Still, I like the fact that you don't back down from your opinion. I myself, have never been a fan of Slayer. I don't like their music much, I don't like their lyrics at all and I don't like the vocals. The problem with your review was not that you gave a popular album a poor rating (bold, I say), but that you brought up completely irrelevant topics, such as Megadeth not belonging in "the big four". Why would you do that, unless you aren't taking your review seriously? I would have commended you if your review had stayed on topic and presented more arguments for your admittedly bold conclusion. I don't mind well-written negative reviews at all, even if they criticize my favorite bands. One of my favorite past-times (weird though it may be) is searching the internet for NEGATIVE reviews of my favorite bands/albums. I actually really liked one reviewer, who gave a 3/100 (and that's pretty bad) score to Blackwater Park, an album, which I consider to be one of the all-time best metal albums. The reason for this, is simple - the review was very well written. Had that person side-tracked and wrote something like: "And btw, Dream Theater is another overrated prog metal band" then I'd have disliked that review too.

Written by Guest on 14.02.2011 at 22:13

My scathing comments were directed only at your arguments, not your conclusion or you personally. I stand by what I said, your review is awful.

Again, I respect your opinion. But I still believe you pushed it a little bit and what seemed to be a "scathing comment" for you was in fact prejudicial and deleterious to hear for me. But no problem, you seem to be a well-educated guy who knows what he's talking about, and that what matters the most to me.

Quote:

That wasn't what I was missing from your review. Mentioning how influential or successful a work is might only work as an introduction, but it's irrelevant to the conclusion - whether the conclusion is that the work is good or bad - and irrelevant to the arguments that are presented to support that conclusion. I don't want you talk about impact, popularity or anything like that, I just want you to talk about the album and not sidetrack to whether or not Megadeth is worthy.

Maybe you didn't quite understand what I was saying. Mentioning Megadeth's unworthiness of being a deserving member of "The Big Four" mirrors Slayer's RIB's unexplainable (soon to be proved explainable) deeply-revered recognition worldwide and thus putting across that something widely popular can't necessarily be valuable or unmatchable.

Quote:

Saying something is overrated translates out to: I don't like it as much as the average metal fan, therefore they are all wrong, while I alone am right. Overratted, underrated = meaningless words.

No actually, and with all due respect, there's no such thing as a meaningless word. Overrated and underrated bands have always been there, especially during the past 2 decades. Cradle Of Filth for example are deemed (by "average" metal fans as you say) to be one of the best black metal bands to have ever made surface, thus including them in the same category with gods like Negura Bunget and Enslaved, whereas I'd like to think of them as a pathetic disgusting band whose reputation was given to them on a silver platter, just because they always feature explicit nudity and dark outraged landscapes (yeah Dimmu Borgir, Mayhem and Darkthrone might pop into one's mind as well) and came into the world in the right place at the right time.. I mean come on!

Quote:

Still, I like the fact that you don't back down from your opinion. I myself, have never been a fan of Slayer. I don't like their music much, I don't like their lyrics at all and I don't like the vocals. The problem with your review was not that you gave a popular album a poor rating (bold, I say), but that you brought up completely irrelevant topics, such as Megadeth not belonging in "the big four". Why would you do that, unless you aren't taking your review seriously?

I've already answered your question above. Still, I'd like to add something else. Like I said those who preceded me on reviewing it were simply brilliant and I don't think that talking about its technical side would seem such a clever thing to do for a third review which is supposed to bring something new to the table. So maybe I didn't talk much about the album but I surely gave a well-structured analysis for my obvious astonishment that some of the metal heavyweights consider it to be the best thrash record of all-time. To me, it doesn't even make it to the top 5.

Quote:

I would have commended you if your review had stayed on topic and presented more arguments for your admittedly bold conclusion. I don't mind well-written negative reviews at all, even if they criticize my favorite bands. One of my favorite past-times (weird though it may be) is searching the internet for NEGATIVE reviews of my favorite bands/albums. I actually really liked one reviewer, who gave a 3/100 (and that's pretty bad) score to Blackwater Park, an album, which I consider to be one of the all-time best metal albums. The reason for this, is simple - the review was very well written. Had that person side-tracked and wrote something like: "And btw, Dream Theater is another overrated prog metal band" then I'd have disliked that review too.

Yeah, again, I agree with you, I should've given a truckload of arguments to support my "case" but it had already gotten too long and I was afraid that people wouldn't read it, plus MS doesn't accept long review so I had to pick the ideas that highlight the bold rating I gave. Maybe, now, if I had to re-write it again, I would add a couple of things but my rating would remain the same?And I still believe my review, as outrageous as it might look to some people, is still worth the reading. As for Blackwater Park, I completely agree, it's by far one of the best progressive death record of all-time, but the reason why I don't "worship" Opeth like I used to is Mikael's unappealing growls that stand out from time to time. And if I had to pick my best Opeth song, Deliverance, Blackwater Park and The Leper Affinity would make the cut. And you can tell that Lopez's departure has been such a blow to them, as their sound has slightly been affected. But it's not our topic now, is it . Oh and don't get me even started on Dream Theater lol. I liked the song "a change of seasons" though .

Written by Guest on 14.02.2011 at 19:03

Written by vezzy on 15.10.2010 at 16:48

It's ridiculous, how is Metallica not overrated?

Simple. They aren't being given credit for something they haven't done. If somebody said that Metallica was the _only_ thrash metal band to come out of the 80'es, then that person would be objectively overrating the band. Saying that a band is overrated, because they are popular - no matter how popular they are - is pretending that your opinion is worth more than that of others. That, my young friend, is simply nonsense.

i hope you understood while you were writing those words that you are wrong. metallica ARE overrated in almost every aspect. they wouldn't be if (after the black album) they'd disband or stoped "selling" themselves. but they didint, they've created bullshit (compared to their fame) and tried only to trade on the "name" they already had and their ability to be good and enjoyable on stage. but there are many bands that are more professional, more talented, more skilled who because of the star system are not That famous. (of course and because it is really hard today for a young band to create 4 great albums in a row as metallica did -though IMO not all 4 are that great).

Written by Mindheist on 15.02.2011 at 00:24
]
Again, I respect your opinion. But I still believe you pushed it a little bit and what seemed to be a "scathing comment" for you was in fact prejudicial and deleterious to hear for me. But no problem, you seem to be a well-educated guy who knows what he's talking about, and that what matters the most to me.

I am sometimes rude, because it shocks people out of complacency, not because I don't respect them. Glad you caught that

Quote:

Maybe you didn't quite understand what I was saying. Mentioning Megadeth's unworthiness of being a deserving member of "The Big Four" mirrors Slayer's RIB's unexplainable (soon to be proved explainable) deeply-revered recognition worldwide and thus putting across that something widely popular can't necessarily be valuable or unmatchable.

I do understand what you were trying to say, but you would have gotten your point across simply by saying that popularity =/= quality, everyone (everyone with half a brain that is) would have agreed and you had stayed on topic.

Quote:

No actually, and with all due respect, there's no such thing as a meaningless word. Overrated and underrated bands have always been there, especially during the past 2 decades. Cradle Of Filth for example are deemed (by "average" metal fans as you say) to be one of the best black metal bands to have ever made surface, thus including them in the same category with gods like Negura Bunget and Enslaved, whereas I'd like to think of them as a pathetic disgusting band whose reputation was given to them on a silver platter, just because they always feature explicit nudity and dark outraged landscapes (yeah Dimmu Borgir, Mayhem and Darkthrone might pop into one's mind as well) and came into the world in the right place at the right time.. I mean come on!

Controversial opinions strongly stated are always welcome, but the problem arises when one thinks his/her opinion is worth more than everybody else's and that only he/she knows an artwork's objective value. That's why it is perfectly OK to say that CoF sucks (the equivalent of saying that you don't like them), but wrong to say that they are overrated (the equivalent of saying that you don't like them and anyone who likes them more than you is mistaken). This is why I dislike the words overrated/underrated and I never use them to describe a work of art, whether I like it or not.

Quote:

To me, it doesn't even make it to the top 5.

Me neither, never liked Slayer.

Quote:

Yeah, again, I agree with you, I should've given a truckload of arguments to support my "case" but it had already gotten too long and I was afraid that people wouldn't read it, plus MS doesn't accept long review so I had to pick the ideas that highlight the bold rating I gave. Maybe, now, if I had to re-write it again, I would add a couple of things but my rating would remain the same?And I still believe my review, as outrageous as it might look to some people, is still worth the reading.

Outrageousness is by the far the finest quality of your review IMO. I REALLY like people who aren't afraid to make unpopular statements.

Written by Deadmeat on 15.02.2011 at 18:45

i hope you understood while you were writing those words that you are wrong. metallica ARE overrated in almost every aspect. they wouldn't be if (after the black album) they'd disband or stoped "selling" themselves. but they didint, they've created bullshit (compared to their fame) and tried only to trade on the "name" they already had and their ability to be good and enjoyable on stage. but there are many bands that are more professional, more talented, more skilled who because of the star system are not That famous. (of course and because it is really hard today for a young band to create 4 great albums in a row as metallica did -though IMO not all 4 are that great).

We have no objective standards against which we can measure a band's fame and determine whether they deserve to be as famous as they are or not. The only context in which the word overrated can be used in a non-arbitrary fashion is when we talk about what a band/person/character has done or achieved. Example: saying that Metallica single-handedly popularized thrash is overrating them, because we'd be ignoring all the other early thrash bands. We cannot use the word overrated objectively when talking about what somebody (or everybody) thinks of Metallica.

Written by Guest on 16.02.2011 at 12:18

Written by Deadmeat on 15.02.2011 at 18:45

i hope you understood while you were writing those words that you are wrong. metallica ARE overrated in almost every aspect. they wouldn't be if (after the black album) they'd disband or stoped "selling" themselves. but they didint, they've created bullshit (compared to their fame) and tried only to trade on the "name" they already had and their ability to be good and enjoyable on stage. but there are many bands that are more professional, more talented, more skilled who because of the star system are not That famous. (of course and because it is really hard today for a young band to create 4 great albums in a row as metallica did -though IMO not all 4 are that great).

We have no objective standards against which we can measure a band's fame and determine whether they deserve to be as famous as they are or not. The only context in which the word overrated can be used in a non-arbitrary fashion is when we talk about what a band/person/character has done or achieved. Example: saying that Metallica single-handedly popularized thrash is overrating them, because we'd be ignoring all the other early thrash bands. We cannot use the word overrated objectively when talking about what somebody (or everybody) thinks of Metallica.

i didn't came here and ask you to receive a dictionary-answer about popularity and the term "underrated". it is a discussion here and mathematics cannot solve every problem on the earth.... Metallica are overrated comparing them with many bands out there who have created as good albums as metallica did and have done as big "mistakes" as metallica has done.

Written by Deadmeat on 16.02.2011 at 12:31

i didn't came here and ask you to receive a dictionary-answer about popularity and the term "underrated".

Why did you come here? To state your opinion as an empirically established truth and get away with it? Not on my watch.

Quote:

it is a discussion here and mathematics cannot solve every problem on the earth....

Whom did you get this dictionary of math from anyways?

Quote:

Metallica are overrated comparing them with many bands out there who have created as good albums as metallica did and have done as big "mistakes" as metallica has done.

Actually, they are criminally underrated. I don't care how popular Metallica are, they deserve to be more popular, because I say so.

There. I've just made a statement with exactly as much weight as yours - none. That's because I - just like you - don't know how much every single person likes Metallica or exactly how much they deserve to be liked.

Written by Guest on 16.02.2011 at 13:10

Written by Deadmeat on 16.02.2011 at 12:31

i didn't came here and ask you to receive a dictionary-answer about popularity and the term "underrated".

Why did you come here? To state your opinion as an empirically established truth and get away with it? Not on my watch.

Quote:

it is a discussion here and mathematics cannot solve every problem on the earth....

Whom did you get this dictionary of math from anyways?

Quote:

Metallica are overrated comparing them with many bands out there who have created as good albums as metallica did and have done as big "mistakes" as metallica has done.

Actually, they are criminally underrated. I don't care how popular Metallica are, they deserve to be more popular, because I say so.

There. I've just made a statement with exactly as much weight as yours - none. That's because I - just like you - don't know how much every single person likes Metallica or exactly how much they deserve to be liked.

well i've seen metallica live in a huge crowd, they've my fav band for some years and i searched about them a lot also i've talked with many many people about them and still do -not only in this forum but in 2-3 more. i am not a journalist to be able to analyze them in the best possible way but surely if you COMPARE them to most bands out there they can be called overrated.

Written by Deadmeat on 16.02.2011 at 13:52

well i've seen metallica live in a huge crowd, they've my fav band for some years and i searched about them a lot also i've talked with many many people about them and still do -not only in this forum but in 2-3 more. i am not a journalist to be able to analyze them in the best possible way but surely if you COMPARE them to most bands out there they can be called overrated.

Saying that you don't like them as much as most people will suffice. I feel the same way about Metallica, Iron Maiden, Slayer and a thousand other bands, but I wouldn't dream of pretending that I alone can evaluate any of those bands objectively.

Written by Guest on 16.02.2011 at 13:59

Written by Deadmeat on 16.02.2011 at 13:52

well i've seen metallica live in a huge crowd, they've my fav band for some years and i searched about them a lot also i've talked with many many people about them and still do -not only in this forum but in 2-3 more. i am not a journalist to be able to analyze them in the best possible way but surely if you COMPARE them to most bands out there they can be called overrated.

Saying that you don't like them as much as most people will suffice. I feel the same way about Metallica, Iron Maiden, Slayer and a thousand other bands, but I wouldn't dream of pretending that I alone can evaluate any of those bands objectively.

mate the forum has been created for the people to discuss and say their opinions. but where is the beauty of the discussion and the argument when in most discussion-themes "we are not the ones to judge as we cannot know surely all the aspects etc"? people say opinions and try to explain them. i guess it's no use to say "you cannot say that cause you dont have enough knowledge and i cannot say that for the same reason". then we should never discuss with each other and let everyone have their beliefs -which we know that are wrong as they are wrongly -based. do you get me?

Written by Deadmeat on 16.02.2011 at 14:13

mate the forum has been created for the people to discuss and say their opinions. but where is the beauty of the discussion and the argument when in most discussion-themes "we are not the ones to judge as we cannot know surely all the aspects etc"? people say opinions and try to explain them. i guess it's no use to say "you cannot say that cause you dont have enough knowledge and i cannot say that for the same reason". then we should never discuss with each other and let everyone have their beliefs -which we know that are wrong as they are wrongly -based. do you get me?

I don't argue this at all. What I said about in-determinability rendering the words over/underrated meaningless, applies only to what I consider to be a _misuse_ of those terms. When someone says that Metallica is single-handedly responsible for the popularity of thrash metal, then we can successfully argue that he/she is overrating Metallica, because other thrash bands have listeners too. But most of the time, the word is used in a way that simply means: If you like it more than me, then you're wrong. That statement is arrogant, unfalsifiable and meaningless. Saying that something is overrated isn't equivalent to saying that something is bad, horrible or the worst effing thing ever, it's saying all of that and tacking on: everyone in disagreement is wrong, only I can evaluate things objectively. I've always found that to be stupid and I always will. Cheers.

Written by Guest on 16.02.2011 at 22:11

But most of the time, the word is used in a way that simply means: If you like it more than me, then you're wrong.

so here is the problem. i guess that when someone says that a band is overrated he (mainly) means that the band has become more famous (in comparison with other bands) than they should according to their quality and their releases and not that they are bad. for example i dont believe that metallica are bad. i just believe that they have for example 1 perfect album, 1 very good, 3 good, 2 decent, and 2 shitty albums and they shouldn't get the praise they do today.

These guys don't deserve to be a part of "the big four" neither does Megadeth. ironic???

Written by Sepulnation on 22.03.2011 at 14:45

These guys don't deserve to be a part of "the big four" neither does Megadeth. ironic???

Who the hell do you consider worthy of that distinction then?

Written by Troy Killjoy on 23.03.2011 at 13:02

Written by Sepulnation on 22.03.2011 at 14:45

These guys don't deserve to be a part of "the big four" neither does Megadeth. ironic???

Who the hell do you consider worthy of that distinction then?

I don't consider the term "Big Four" as any kind of distinction or anything special. It's only a stupid marketing trick.
Humans feel the urge to invent pointless concepts sometimes.
Especially as it does not have to do with musical quality and you can find much better Thrash bands.

Written by RavenKing on 23.03.2011 at 13:37

Written by Troy Killjoy on 23.03.2011 at 13:02

Written by Sepulnation on 22.03.2011 at 14:45

These guys don't deserve to be a part of "the big four" neither does Megadeth. ironic???

Who the hell do you consider worthy of that distinction then?

I don't consider the term "Big Four" as any kind of distinction or anything special. It's only a stupid marketing trick.
Humans feel the urge to invent pointless concepts sometimes.
Especially as it does not have to do with musical quality and you can find much better Thrash bands.

Exactly, its always been a totally superfluous idea

Written by Troy Killjoy on 23.03.2011 at 13:02

Written by Sepulnation on 22.03.2011 at 14:45

These guys don't deserve to be a part of "the big four" neither does Megadeth. ironic???

Who the hell do you consider worthy of that distinction then?

as other guys have said these bands should not be called "big 4" cause they are not the biggest. especially the awful anthrax. and if you want to see it otherwise tell me 1 thing that can metallica or anthrax have in common with slayer. on the other hand the "teutonic thrash metal trio" (sodom, kreator, destruction) does have common thing MUSICALLY and there is a meaning on saying that. and in this case i dont think that anyone calls them BIG or GREAT etc. no meaning to do that..

Written by Deadmeat on 24.03.2011 at 13:46

Written by Troy Killjoy on 23.03.2011 at 13:02

Written by Sepulnation on 22.03.2011 at 14:45

These guys don't deserve to be a part of "the big four" neither does Megadeth. ironic???

Who the hell do you consider worthy of that distinction then?

as other guys have said these bands should not be called "big 4" cause they are not the biggest. especially the awful anthrax. and if you want to see it otherwise tell me 1 thing that can metallica or anthrax have in common with slayer. on the other hand the "teutonic thrash metal trio" (sodom, kreator, destruction) does have common thing MUSICALLY and there is a meaning on saying that. and in this case i dont think that anyone calls them BIG or GREAT etc. no meaning to do that..

Anthrax are certainly one of the biggest. They have sold more than any of the Teuronic thrash trio.

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 24.03.2011 at 13:56

Anthrax are certainly one of the biggest. They have sold more than any of the Teuronic thrash trio.

Funny how people continue to forget that... I remember you saying the same thing on one of the guest reviews for an Anthrax album and someone commented on Anthrax not counting as one of the big four because they weren't as popular as Metallica/Slayer/Megadeth.

Written by Deadmeat on 24.03.2011 at 13:46

as other guys have said these bands should not be called "big 4" cause they are not the biggest. especially the awful anthrax. and if you want to see it otherwise tell me 1 thing that can metallica or anthrax have in common with slayer. on the other hand the "teutonic thrash metal trio" (sodom, kreator, destruction) does have common thing MUSICALLY and there is a meaning on saying that. and in this case i dont think that anyone calls them BIG or GREAT etc. no meaning to do that..

I don't recall many people claiming Slayer to be a "small" thrash metal band, "biggest" or not (kind of a redundant statement, since 3 of the 4 bands aren't the biggest, only one is). After all, any metal band that sells 40,000 copies of their debut album of the course of 2 years isn't insignificant. They've also sold over 500,000 copies each of a combined four albums (i.e. gold certification). No big deal.

As for Anthrax being awful...that's your opinion, but they're also considered part of that movement due to their popularity and influence, with their music being featured on MTV and the band even having a couple appearances on popular sitcoms back in the day.

Just because musically the bands don't sound identical doesn't mean they aren't/weren't worthy of a collective moniker. Even "True Norwegian Black Metal" bands didn't all sound the same, and NWOBHM covered a wide variety of playing styles, yet they're collective monikers as well. As stated previously in response to what I asked, it's a marketing ploy. I can agree with that. But what is worth trying to market that isn't popular?

At the end of the day, Slayer is part of that big four of thrash. The only chance any other band had at making that "line-up" was Overkill or Exodus, though I doubt their popularity matched the likes of Slayer/Anthrax/Metallica/Megadeth.

PEOPLE! i didnt say they didnt sell the most. i said they weren't all that good (or THE BEST if you want) to be calle the BIG 4. nothing more. but i dont give a shit about the sales in order to call a band great. metallica sell albums to non-metalheads. so do anthrax.