Metal Reviews :: View topic - Shovel Headed Kill Machine

I forgot to mention that Paul Bostaph completely owns his drums on this album.

Groovy crap my ass. Chug, chug, chug!!!!!!! It's old-school Thrash with a few groovy moments, it just doesn't have the infamous late 80's tin can production.

Quote:

Groovy crap my ass. Chug, chug, chug!!!!!!! It's old-school Thrash with a few groovy moments, it just doesn't have the infamous late 80's tin can production.

I like the 80's production, gives it a feeling of authenticity. Though I if you released something like Reign In Blood with a slick, 21st century production, everyone would be like "This blows"

True. It's a double-edged sword though, Nuclear Assault's Third World Genocide sounded straight out of 89 and everyone still said that it sucked. I liked the album personally, the production was definatley muddy, but the songs were still good. I really think some people just don't like the thought of older bands releasing music post-92.

Quote:

Yeah, 80's production can't mask bad songs. I think a too slick, Roadrunner Records production can take a good albums balls off.

Now that's something I could never understand: How is recording your music on a $20 Radio Shack Cassette Recorder BETTER than recording it on a professional sound mixer? A lot of metal fans seem think the former's better because it makes the music sound "more underground and less accessible." But seriously. Good production could make an already intense album even more intense (Burn My Eyes, for example), and bad production could really hinder an otherwise great album (Blues For The Red Sun) because you're spending most of your time not actually enjoying the music but just trying to figure out what the hell's going on.

This makes me wonder why so many people complained about the production in St. Anger. I thought nu-metal was supposed to have crystal clear, glossy production.

Mintrude wrote:

Quote:

Groovy crap my ass. Chug, chug, chug!!!!!!! It's old-school Thrash with a few groovy moments, it just doesn't have the infamous late 80's tin can production.

I like the 80's production, gives it a feeling of authenticity. Though I if you released something like Reign In Blood with a slick, 21st century production, everyone would be like "This blows"

Author:	Seinfeld26 [ Thu May 03, 2007 2:11 pm ]
Post subject:	Shovel Headed Kill Machine
I LOOOOOOOOOVE Tempo Of The Damned. In fact, I listened to it in the car just this morning on my way to my internship. Forward March, in particular, is the kind of song I just have to play at least three times in one sitting. So, I've been meaning to pick up SHKM for quite a while, but never really got around to it for some reason. What's the overall consensus on that album here?

Author:	Dylan@Metalreviews [ Thu May 03, 2007 2:59 pm ]
Post subject:
It's not as immediately catchy as Tempo of the Damned is. Much more agressive and just about as groove-oriented. Rob Dukes puts on a really harsh vocal perormance, not even a little bit of melody like Souza excercised at the end of "Forward March" ( I love that song too.) Basically, it is an angrier, more intense, albeit less melodic version of "Tempo of The Damned". I really like both of them though, so it is a definite hit for me. Oh yeah, and it sounds nothing like "Bonded By Blood"

Author:	Dago [ Thu May 03, 2007 6:21 pm ]
Post subject:
Overall miss, but still has its moments here in there. Don't take serious metalcrypt's review of it.

Author:	The_Voice [ Thu May 03, 2007 9:44 pm ]
Post subject:
Semi hit for me, its not a bad album but even if Rob Dukes is a good singer, most of the songs could have been better with Zetro, its like they were made for him, i really miss him on this album. Overall its not as good as Tempo Of The Damned, but still a good album, oh and "44 magnum opus" :

Author:	Radagast [ Thu May 03, 2007 10:12 pm ]
Post subject:
Miss. All the worst parts of Tempo of the Damned x 100 with shitty bass-heavy production and even worse lyrics. "Blaze muthafucka like a roman candle let's burn this bitch straight to the ground." Word to your mother, dawg.

Metal Reviews https://www.metalreviews.com/phpBB/

Shovel Headed Kill Machine https://www.metalreviews.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=9179	Page 1 of 1

Author:	Goat [ Fri May 04, 2007 2:12 am ]
Post subject:
In metal terms, it's awesome. Dumb drinking music with OTT lyrics, what's not to like? Oh yeah, and it's not like Bonded By Blood.

Author:	Caligula_K [ Fri May 04, 2007 6:09 am ]
Post subject:
Tempo of the Damned was okay... this, on the other hand, sucks le testicles. All groove, no thrash. LOSE.

Author:	Seinfeld26 [ Fri May 04, 2007 1:37 pm ]
Post subject:
I have to admit, I'm surprised with the number of Misses. I would think that, after TOTD was so successful, this album would only follow in its footsteps. I'll bet Exodus was really proud of it too, upon release. I'll listen to it on Napster in a couple days and give my opinion thereafter.

Author:	Emmerder [ Fri May 04, 2007 7:30 pm ]
Post subject:
I second Radagast's and Brahm's posts. It's overproduced groovy crap.

Author:	Dylan@Metalreviews [ Fri May 04, 2007 7:58 pm ]
Post subject:
I forgot to mention that Paul Bostaph completely owns his drums on this album.

Author:	Radagast [ Sat May 05, 2007 4:19 pm ]
Post subject:
Dylan@Metalreviews wrote: I forgot to mention that Paul Bostaph completely owns his drums on this album. That, at least, is true. The drumming i susperb. But now Toxic Tam is back in.

Author:	Seinfeld26 [ Mon May 14, 2007 9:18 pm ]
Post subject:
I've finally listened to this album on Napster just now. I have no clue what everybody's talking about. This is a direct hit for me. It's just about as good as TOTD, except a bit angrier and less accessible. Rob Dukes' vocals are almost Death Metal-ish, but the album still maintains enough thrash sensibilities to be a thrash album rather than a death album. Yeah, there's a lot of groove on both albums. But Exodus does the whole groove thing so well, that I see no reason to complain about it. Going Going Gone, the title track, hell just about every song on here is a gem.

Author:	Eternal Idol [ Mon May 14, 2007 10:27 pm ]
Post subject:
Groovy crap my ass. Chug, chug, chug!!!!!!! It's old-school Thrash with a few groovy moments, it just doesn't have the infamous late 80's tin can production.

Author:	Mintrude [ Tue May 15, 2007 5:59 pm ]
Post subject:
Quote: Groovy crap my ass. Chug, chug, chug!!!!!!! It's old-school Thrash with a few groovy moments, it just doesn't have the infamous late 80's tin can production. I like the 80's production, gives it a feeling of authenticity. Though I if you released something like Reign In Blood with a slick, 21st century production, everyone would be like "This blows"

Author:	Unreal [ Wed May 16, 2007 8:03 pm ]
Post subject:
It is not going to be another bonded by blood. It is a different exodus now. But it has some very good sons to play live. I call it a hit.

Page 1 of 1	All times are UTC + 1 hour
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Eternal Idol [ Tue May 15, 2007 6:09 pm ]
Post subject:
Mintrude wrote: Quote: Groovy crap my ass. Chug, chug, chug!!!!!!! It's old-school Thrash with a few groovy moments, it just doesn't have the infamous late 80's tin can production. I like the 80's production, gives it a feeling of authenticity. Though I if you released something like Reign In Blood with a slick, 21st century production, everyone would be like "This blows" True. It's a double-edged sword though, Nuclear Assault's Third World Genocide sounded straight out of 89 and everyone still said that it sucked. I liked the album personally, the production was definatley muddy, but the songs were still good. I really think some people just don't like the thought of older bands releasing music post-92.

Author:	Mintrude [ Tue May 15, 2007 7:15 pm ]
Post subject:
Quote: True. It's a double-edged sword though, Nuclear Assault's Third World Genocide sounded straight out of 89 and everyone still said that it sucked. I liked the album personally, the production was definatley muddy, but the songs were still good. I really think some people just don't like the thought of older bands releasing music post-92. Yeah, 80's production can't mask bad songs. I think a too slick, Roadrunner Records production can take a good albums balls off.

Author:	Seinfeld26 [ Tue May 15, 2007 8:46 pm ]
Post subject:
Mintrude wrote: Quote: True. It's a double-edged sword though, Nuclear Assault's Third World Genocide sounded straight out of 89 and everyone still said that it sucked. I liked the album personally, the production was definatley muddy, but the songs were still good. I really think some people just don't like the thought of older bands releasing music post-92. Yeah, 80's production can't mask bad songs. I think a too slick, Roadrunner Records production can take a good albums balls off. Now that's something I could never understand: How is recording your music on a $20 Radio Shack Cassette Recorder BETTER than recording it on a professional sound mixer? A lot of metal fans seem think the former's better because it makes the music sound "more underground and less accessible." But seriously. Good production could make an already intense album even more intense (Burn My Eyes, for example), and bad production could really hinder an otherwise great album (Blues For The Red Sun) because you're spending most of your time not actually enjoying the music but just trying to figure out what the hell's going on. This makes me wonder why so many people complained about the production in St. Anger. I thought nu-metal was supposed to have crystal clear, glossy production.

Author:	Mintrude [ Tue May 15, 2007 9:59 pm ]
Post subject:
Quote: Now that's something I could never understand: How is recording your music on a $20 Radio Shack Cassette Recorder BETTER than recording it on a professional sound mixer? A lot of metal fans seem think the former's better because it makes the music sound "more underground and less accessible." But seriously. Good production could make an already intense album even more intense (Burn My Eyes, for example), and bad production could really hinder an otherwise great album (Blues For The Red Sun) because you're spending most of your time not actually enjoying the music but just trying to figure out what the hell's going on. This makes me wonder why so many people complained about the production in St. Anger. I thought nu-metal was supposed to have crystal clear, glossy production. I don't know. Maybe it's because I've listened to so much BM over the past year that slick production sounds really wierd to me. I think a lot of modern metal bands, such as Trivium, do sound over-produced, and I don't use that phrase often. I think good production is anything that gets the job done to be honest

Author:	The_Voice [ Tue May 15, 2007 10:17 pm ]
Post subject:
Eternal Idol wrote: Mintrude wrote: Quote: Groovy crap my ass. Chug, chug, chug!!!!!!! It's old-school Thrash with a few groovy moments, it just doesn't have the infamous late 80's tin can production. I like the 80's production, gives it a feeling of authenticity. Though I if you released something like Reign In Blood with a slick, 21st century production, everyone would be like "This blows" True. It's a double-edged sword though, Nuclear Assault's Third World Genocide sounded straight out of 89 and everyone still said that it sucked. I liked the album personally, the production was definatley muddy, but the songs were still good. I really think some people just don't like the thought of older bands releasing music post-92. +1, production doesnt matter if the songs are good.