The Official Metalsetlists.com 100 greatest metal albums of the 80s list!

[JRA]

Here's the thing about Rush's Moving Pictures. There's still plenty of riffs on it and in 1981, there was a little bit of a drought in terms of rock records that fit the bill, particularly after the prolific year of 1980. Off the top of my head, you really only had Killers, Welcome To Hell, Diary of a Madman, Mob Rules and Fair Warning. Compared to 1980 where you had so much shit that people had to leave some albums off a top 10 of 1980, Moving Pictures temporarily filled a vacuum. At least until Signals came along and the sound was completely drenched in synth and Alex was sounding way too much like Andy Summers.

Point being, most metal bands with prog influences will still cite Moving Pictures as influential to them. Signals, not so much. Also I believe I only said Permanent Waves and Moving Pictures were allowed. Anything else after that, no dice (and I love Grace Under Pressure).

[PVH5150]

Originally Posted by JRA

Off the top of my head, you really only had Killers, Welcome To Hell, Diary of a Madman, Mob Rules and Fair Warning.

1981 was huge.

Judas Priest - Point Of Entry
ACDC - For Those About To Rock
Def Leppard - High N Dry
Motley Crue - Too Fast For Love
Thin Lizzy - Renegade
Saxon - Denim & Leather
Riot - Fire Down Under
Raven - Rock Til You Drop
Tygers of Pan Tang - Spellbound
Accept - Breaker
The Rods - The Rods
Michael Schenker Group - MSG
Anvil - Hard n Heavy
Y&T - Earthshaker

[illuminatus917]

Wait, so Moving Pictures is allowed because it's influential? And because there weren't a lot of good metal albums in 1981?

[Maiden33]

Originally Posted by JRA

Here's the thing about Rush's Moving Pictures. There's still plenty of riffs on it and in 1981, there was a little bit of a drought in terms of rock records that fit the bill, particularly after the prolific year of 1980. Off the top of my head, you really only had Killers, Welcome To Hell, Diary of a Madman, Mob Rules and Fair Warning. Compared to 1980 where you had so much shit that people had to leave some albums off a top 10 of 1980, Moving Pictures temporarily filled a vacuum. At least until Signals came along and the sound was completely drenched in synth and Alex was sounding way too much like Andy Summers.

Point being, most metal bands with prog influences will still cite Moving Pictures as influential to them. Signals, not so much. Also I believe I only said Permanent Waves and Moving Pictures were allowed. Anything else after that, no dice (and I love Grace Under Pressure).

1) So if you're implying number of riffs makes an album eligible, I strongly suggest you put on that s/t Whitesnake album. Literally every song other than Here I Go Again and Is this Love have killer riffs - literally some of my favorite guitar riffs of all time are on that record. Both more numerous AND heavier riffing than appear on Moving Pictures.

2) Not really, see list posted. Second, how does a slow year make something more acceptable? Considering we're now talking about a 10 year span, who cares if one year was a bit slow? (Even though in reality, not sure it even was).

3) So influence makes an album alright? Need me to pull up the numerous interviews/articles I've read over the years where guys who formed (several quite heavy) metal bands after the mid-to-late 80s say that their first hard rock record was Pyromania? Hell, it was MINE, 18 years after it came out. Same goes for that s/t Whitesnake record honestly, it's a benchmark album of the hard rock/"hair metal" genre if there ever was one. I think this is a somewhat weak argument as is, but if you're gonna use it, I can counter with several albums that you have issues with.

Again, I just come back to the fact that you're trying to police something based on arbitrary rules that are based on your limited knowledge of something. If you're going to be at the helm picking and choosing what can and can't go on, you can't be making exceptions for random things like that, and only going after the albums you happen to know off the top of your head are easy to disqualify. Hell, I'm more offended by the fact that you're willing to allow some EPs, which in a way is the same issue. Hell, someone's already posted an EP on here that you didn't even catch because you don't even know it's an EP. Same as there's an album or two that I've seen people submit that are EASILY not any more "metal" than some of the ones you called out on my list, but you don't even know what they sound like. Why not just set a basic set of rules and just have faith on the people submitting to just keep it within the general boundaries?

[RAZOR]

I'm gonna work on my list later, although I think there's way too many if, ands or butts involved with this.

[JRA]

Originally Posted by PVH5150

1981 was huge.

Judas Priest - Point Of Entry
ACDC - For Those About To Rock
Def Leppard - High N Dry
Motley Crue - Too Fast For Love
Thin Lizzy - Renegade
Saxon - Denim & Leather
Riot - Fire Down Under
Raven - Rock Til You Drop
Tygers of Pan Tang - Spellbound
Accept - Breaker
The Rods - The Rods
Michael Schenker Group - MSG
Anvil - Hard n Heavy
Y&T - Earthshaker

Point of Entry is a terrible terrible record and anybody who says it's a highlight of 81 needs to be beaten retarded.

For Those About To Rock is a disappointment, though it can also be on a list.

I will ultimately allow Anvil, but fuck them too, horrible band that never made any sort of dent because they suck.

a good 30% of that is stuff only Eddie Trunk would remember.

I will say that I did forget about Crue and I can never remember whether Fire Down Under came out in 81 or 82.

There's a couple of other worthwhile one's there, but Moving Pictures was ultimately more relevant to metal than a good half of that list.

as for me all of a sudden not allowing Whitesnake? Jeff, you brought that on yourself by being a smartass and not telling me which one is apparently barely hard rock, and by me playing a guessing game and using process of elimination. I strongly suggest you take out most of the stuff you think barely qualifies and replace it with whatever Maiden, Dio-Sabbath, Dio, Riot and Savatage albums you left off, since those are more likely to make it anyway.

Let me put it this way folks, I know if there's a band that you think a stereotypical longhair Metallica worshipper would think is too "gay" "glam" "pop" or whatever for a metal list (Motley Crue withstanding), leave it off.

[RAZOR]

Originally Posted by JRA

Let me put it this way folks, I know if there's a band that you think a stereotypical longhair Metallica worshipper would think is too "gay" "glam" "pop" or whatever for a metal list (Motley Crue withstanding), leave it off.

...but your stereotypical Metallica worshiper probably wouldn't even know who, say...Sodom are.

[illuminatus917]

To be honest that Whitesnake album should've been on my list, I just completely forgot about it.

If you're not going to count that Pink Floyd album throw Whitesnake's self-titled in there somewhere and fill the spot.

[JRA]

Originally Posted by RAZOR

...but your stereotypical Metallica worshiper probably wouldn't even know who, say...Sodom are.

It's not a matter of how much of the underground they know, it's which hard rock bands weren't heavy enough. Like I said at the beginning, AC/DC, Motley Crue, Thin Lizzy, Guns N Roses, Van Halen, KISS and the first two Rush albums of that decade all had that credibility. 98% of others didn't.

[Fates Guardian]

Originally Posted by JRA

I will say that I did forget about Crue and I can never remember whether Fire Down Under came out in 81 or 82.

'Fire Down Under' was 1981. Glad to see some love for Riot in here. \m/