Jump to content

Lies & Statistics


MaxFaust

Recommended Posts

For reasons not important here I got involved in a "do you remember 1980" type of discussion, somewhere else on the Wonky Wonder Web.

As it happens, I do in fact remember 1980. Long story. Never mind.

My point here ... and the question I wish to raise ... is, does anyone know anything about "relative release frequency" throughout the years? As in, how many acknowledged (non controversial on genre) metal releases have there been per year since 1980? Is this something somebody has bothered to research? And, if so, are the data available to the general public, somehow, somewhere? You would think this was a typical "Martin Popoff" problem ... but I simply have no idea. No clue where to look. 

The afore mentioned discussion stranded in pointless speculation about how many more releases of metal albums there are today than in the legendary year 1980. My feeling -- which may not be worth shit when it comes down to it -- is that more new stuff is being released per week these days than per year in and around 1980. It's simply no longer humanly possible to listen to "everything metal" any longer, because the day doesn't have enough hours. Sacrifices have to be made.

Anyway, anyone in the know?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Figures would obviously be hard to come by in this day and age of self-released bedroom projects, and a plethora of small labels releasing obscure material. There is no doubt in my mind that there are more releases in the metal genre than probably ever before, and certainly many multiples more than in 1980 when you fundamentally required a budget, studio and label support to create anything material. 

Martin Popoff would indeed be the guy to ask, and probably the only person on earth loony enough to try to figure it out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you do a year-by-year search on Metallum, there's a clear trend. They list 129 releases for 1980; by 1990 the number is closer to 1,000; by the mid 90s it's half again that much. Fast forward to 2010 and they list somewhere just under 10,000. The numbers for the middle of the decade and onward range from around 16,000 to over 18,000.

MA's idiosyncratic standards for what constitutes "metal" are a problem for those numbers, especially their weirdly purist stance against hardcore influences. They also aren't entirely clear on what constitutes a "release", although I know they try to be. I guess it's impossible to talk about this without splitting hairs but they split the wrong ones IMO. Another issue is the possibility of under-reporting for the years before the site existed, as opposed to more complete data or even over-reporting now. But I doubt that the overall trend would look very different if it was possible to correct for any of those potential issues. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Splendid. It would seem I was somewhere around the right track.

9 hours ago, FatherAlabaster said:

idiosyncratic standards for what constitutes "metal"

This is why I added that "non controversial on genre" bit. It gets tedious very fast when, say, the discussion turns to whether Limp Bizkit (sp?) is a real metal band. I don't care what they are ... nor do I worry much about "new people getting the wrong idea". People should pick whatever they like, and try to enjoy their time. 

So ... 18,000 new releases last year? Damn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, MaxFaust said:

This is why I added that "non controversial on genre" bit. It gets tedious very fast when, say, the discussion turns to whether Limp Bizkit (sp?) is a real metal band. I don't care what they are ... nor do I worry much about "new people getting the wrong idea". People should pick whatever they like, and try to enjoy their time.

I tend to agree, even if I go into the weeds on specifics sometimes. The reason I bring it up is that there's likely a bunch of stuff they exclude that you, or some other reasonable observer, might call "metal". Last year was something above 16,000, and I'm sure there will be more added as people catch up on posting it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Specialization is inevitable at this point in time. 

I have the feeling that I've heard pretty much "everything" that was released in 1980 ... but only a few years after, I'd definitely lost control and started looking for narrower genre-oriented material ... in the general direction of Motorhead, Venom, Exciter, Tank ... as the eternal problem with this sort of thing is money. You just can't afford to buy it all. And even if you could, when are you going to have time to listen to everything? 

Also, there's a new problem in town.

What exactly constitues an "album" these days? That was a spinoff question that came up during one of those inevitable "record of the year" conversations. It would seem like the music market is back at that point in the 50s and 60s when people would buy singles rather than albums. I have friends my own age who have completely stopped buying music in hardcopy. Instead, they have a godzillion tunes on their fucking phone. Who saw that one coming? Also, people cherrypick one or two songe from albums released by various bands, rather than buying the entire product. I'm uncertain what this "means" (if anything).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Join Metal Forum

    joinus-home.jpg

  • Our picks

    • Whichever tier of thrash metal you consigned Sacred Reich back in the 80's/90's they still had their moments.  "Ignorance" & "Surf Nicaragura" did a great job of establishing the band, whereas "The American Way" just got a little to comfortable and accessible (the title track grates nowadays) for my ears.  A couple more records better left forgotten about and then nothing for twenty three years.  2019 alone has now seen three releases from Phil Rind and co.  A live EP, a split EP with Iron Reagan and now a full length.

      Notable addition to the ranks for the current throng of releases is former Machine Head sticksman, Dave McClean.  Love or hate Machine Head, McClean is a more than capable drummer and his presence here is felt from the off with the opening and title track kicking things off with some real gusto.  'Divide & Conquer' and 'Salvation' muddle along nicely, never quite reaching any quality that would make my balls tingle but comfortable enough.  The looming build to 'Manifest Reality' delivers a real punch when the song starts proper.  Frenzied riffs and drums with shots of lead work to hold the interest.


      There's a problem already though (I know, I am such a fucking mood hoover).  I don't like Phil's vocals.  I never had if I am being honest.  The aggression to them seems a little forced even when they are at their best on tracks like 'Manifest Reality'.  When he tries to sing it just feels weak though ('Salvation') and tracks lose real punch.  Give him a riffy number such as 'Killing Machine' and he is fine with the Reich engine (probably a poor choice of phrase) up in sixth gear.  For every thrashy riff there's a fair share of rock edged, local bar act rhythm aplenty too.

      Let's not poo-poo proceedings though, because overall I actually enjoy "Awakening".  It is stacked full of catchy riffs that are sticky on the old ears.  Whilst not as raw as perhaps the - brilliant - artwork suggests with its black and white, tattoo flash sheet style design it is enjoyable enough.  Yes, 'Death Valley' & 'Something to Believe' have no place here, saved only by Arnett and Radziwill's lead work but 'Revolution' is a fucking 80's thrash heyday throwback to the extent that if you turn the TV on during it you might catch a new episode of Cheers!

      3/5
      • Reputation Points

      • 10 replies
    • I
      • Reputation Points

      • 2 replies
    • https://www.metalforum.com/blogs/entry/52-vltimas-something-wicked-marches-in/
      • Reputation Points

      • 3 replies

    • https://www.metalforum.com/blogs/entry/48-candlemass-the-door-to-doom/
      • Reputation Points

      • 2 replies
    • Full length number 19 from overkill certainly makes a splash in the energy stakes, I mean there's some modern thrash bands that are a good two decades younger than Overkill who can only hope to achieve the levels of spunk that New Jersey's finest produce here.  That in itself is an achievement, for a band of Overkill's stature and reputation to be able to still sound relevant four decades into their career is no mean feat.  Even in the albums weaker moments it never gets redundant and the energy levels remain high.  There's a real sense of a band in a state of some renewed vigour, helped in no small part by the addition of Jason Bittner on drums.  The former Flotsam & Jetsam skinsman is nothing short of superb throughout "The Wings of War" and seems to have squeezed a little extra out of the rest of his peers.

      The album kicks of with a great build to opening track "Last Man Standing" and for the first 4 tracks of the album the Overkill crew stomp, bash and groove their way to a solid level of consistency.  The lead work is of particular note and Blitz sounds as sneery and scathing as ever.  The album is well produced and mixed too with all parts of the thrash machine audible as the five piece hammer away at your skull with the usual blend of chugging riffs and infectious anthems.  


      There are weak moments as mentioned but they are more a victim of how good the strong tracks are.  In it's own right "Distortion" is a solid enough - if not slightly varied a journey from the last offering - but it just doesn't stand up well against a "Bat Shit Crazy" or a "Head of a Pin".  As the album draws to a close you get the increasing impression that the last few tracks are rescued really by some great solos and stomping skin work which is a shame because trimming of a couple of tracks may have made this less obvious. 

      4/5
      • Reputation Points

      • 4 replies
×
×
  • Create New...