Yes, this album. Pre-Nevermind*. When basically only musicians in Washington knew or cared who The Melvins were.

Imagine thinking Warner Brothers™ care about signing objectively great music instead of what fads they can capitalise on.

Album Rating: 4.5

yea two sides of the same coin being argued here ultimately



damn you warner bros for making sitar think that sales and label signing mattered on what record became the most* influential record of the 80s when nowadays thrash has been dying and sludge lives on everywhere







* = dopefiend's own opinion that got one-up'd by sitar

"When basically only musicians in Washington knew or cared who The Melvins were."

The Sex Pistols shocked the world of music at their Manchester 1976 gig. They had an audience of around 40 people.

"when nowadays thrash has been dying and sludge lives on everywhere"

See, it's statements like this where you contradict your own argument. How are you coming to the conclusion that "sludge lives everywhere" and "thrash has been dying"?

True that. Thrash isn't dying any time soon.

But... if you want to talk about genre creativity, thrash has been pathetic for the past 20 years.

Album Rating: 4.5

out of all the things i said, how is it a contradiction, I’m curious

Because you're making sweeping statements connecting influence and popularity while also disagreeing with the fact that Kill Em All's greater popularity makes it ipso facto more influential.

Yeah, everyone knows that Baby Metal is more influential on metal music than Opeth.

Popularity does not match musical influence.

"Yeah, everyone knows that Justin Beiber is more influential on music than Voivod."

Nice strawman but yes, Justin Beiber is MUCH more influential than Voivod, on a global musical level.

But this discussion is limited to underground metal albums of the '80s.

I changed that example as it was too hyperbolic, though I think the point still holds true.

So influence is literally just how popular you are and has nothing to do with innovation? Got it.

I think a band needs to be original in some form to be influential.

The influence of original musical ideas (Voivod) > the decisions of major record label pop singer scouts (JB)

"So influence is literally just how popular you are and has nothing to do with innovation?"

See, again with the straw men. Are you saying that Kill Em All is not innovative?

No, but are you saying Justin Beiber is? If you thought that innovation and influence were correlated you would not say that JB was more influential.

No, but are you saying that for all their innovation the music of Voivod has influenced pop music more than Justin Beiber?

We can go all day with these vapid straw men arguments.

No, of cause Voivod have not influenced mainstream pop music. But I doubt JB had any impact at all on the trajectory/musical language of pop music.

Lol, why are we comparing apples and cheeseburgers? The original argument was about "important underground metal albums of the 80s". And all other things being equal the album that is more widely heard and emulated is the more influential.

Yes, and my point is: The album that is most widely heard is not necessarily the album that is most emulated.

"Influential" artists that have nothing original to say are not detectable in their so called imitators.

And how do you determine which album is most emulated?

With your ears. If you devote some time to an individual genre it becomes quite clear which artists had and did not have something to be emulated.

Some are more obvious than others. Like the truth that Metallica will have a legacy tenfold that of Vektors.