Review Summary: Embryonic Metallica. From what I'm told, it was quite a revelation at the time of its release, but knowing what Metallica would go on to do (which still isnt that impressive), there's not much reason to listen to it.
1 of 9 thought this review was well written
Considering its undeniable historical importance (the first thrash album in history, let us remember), this is a surprisingly unimpressive record. Everything, from the songs to the riffs, from the musicianship to the production, sounds rather unremarkable and terribly dated (in a bad way, I mean - albums can also be dated in a good way). Hetfield's vocals doesn't show a sign of future developments - sometimes it seems like the guy simply can't hold it. The debt to the NWOBHM is all too evident - to me, also not a good sign.
Ok, this is not that solid-sounding as their future albums, in fact it's not solid sounding at all, I enjoy songs like "Hit The Lights", "The Four Horsemen", "Seek And Destroy", "No Remorse" and the bass solo of master Cliff Burton "(Anesthesia) Pulling Teeth". The thing about this record is that the only ones that sound like good musicians is Burton and Hammet, otherwise Hetfield sounds like he can't sing at all and his lyrics don't help much, in fact I laugh at his lyrics in this album, I'm pretty sure I could write better and deeper stuff than that. And Ulrich's drumming is just crap, to this day Lars can't drum, but he still has some good drum beats in songs, although I know a couple of drummers that would kill Lars' ass in one song...otherwise Hammet never seizes to amaze me, he always does an outstanding work with Metallica and Burton always did, I'm sure he's rocking with his bass in heaven.
Sure, the song might be full of energy, but the compositions are quite lacking, and it seems Metallica have drawn out their song lengths since the very beginning for some strange reason. Here, rather than long song lengths being an advantage & being put to good use (the progressive leanings of their next few albums are much more accomplished), this slow-motion punk-metal borders on boredom on just about every song, despite being forcefully energetic. Some of the more concise cuts are well worth raving about: "Jump in the Fire" in particular, but "Hit the Lights" & "Whiplash" are also fine. Overall tho, this is a bit too much of a mixed bag, and the noticeably inferior songwriting sticks out like a sore thumb.
It is inescapable that this album is very, very average. I dont care how influencial and whatnot this is. I dont care if its the first thrash album (this isnt true anyways). That doesnt mean its good. Some nice riffs here and there, and in my opinion, Kirk Hammets best perfromance, but really, only The Four Horsemen stands out as being anything better than mindless early thrash nonesense. I know it unfair to compare this to more modern metal masterpieces (Latter day Death, Cynic, Neurosis, Nevermore etc.) because of its age, but I dont care. There are metal albums that have came out since this release that make it sound like the childish bestial lips thrash rumblings that it is.
...........What can I say? Kill 'em All is not the first thrash metal album, nor is Metallica the bast band in the genre. At the same time however, this certainly isnt the best review out there either.
It's alright as a review (especially for a first), but two things:
a.) You sound like even you are unsure what you feel about this album. Is it good? Bad? Average? Even you don't know - read this piece to yourself once again, and you'll see what I mean: your opinion cycles to all three conclusions in the space of a couple of paragraphs.
b.) It actually reads like an angsty rant, as opposed to a critically justified, thought-out review.
Still, decent start. Welcome to the site, and hope to be hearing more from you soon!
in fact it's not solid sounding at all, I enjoy songs like "Hit The Lights", "The Four Horsemen", "Seek And Destroy", "No Remorse" and the bass solo of master Cliff Burton "(Anesthesia) Pulling Teeth".
so it's not solid at all, yet you like half the songs? also
not bad for a first, but yeah it does read like a stream-of-consciousness rant rather than an actual review.
on a side note, is your name based off progmaster85? are you Proggy in disguise?
The problem I have with this review is the horrid bias. You've got this problem explaining your viewpoint in the review, and then you try to explain it further, as if you're trying to prevent someone from misinterpreting your statement. Fuck that, just do it right the first time.
The entire review just comes off as kinda pompous in a, "Here, this is how it is. And I'm gonna try to elaborate by dragging along the point to ensure you get it" sort of way, although there is no real point you make, just rehashed biased crap.
in fact I laugh at his lyrics in this album, I'm pretty sure I could write better and deeper stuff than that.
They aren't, but go ahead and try. More pompous nonsense.
Also, you typed 'perfromance' rather than 'performance' in the middle of the last paragraph, among other grammatical inconsistencies that I'm too lazy to point out. Last sentence is lolwut.
Poor first review. Hope you do better next time around.