Where did you hear this? Does this mean he won't be producing the new Slayer album or that the album is on hold/cancelled?

Actually he was supposed to produce Christ Illusion or at least they were under the impression that he was going to. Here's the blurb on that.


It's a cool little bit, with something of an odd fact revealed by Mr King.


Not usually the sort of thing you admit publicly, but okay...

http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/BLA...wsitemID=54475

I like the low end, maybe thats why old metal doesn't sound heavy to me.

So Master of Puppets does not sound heavy to you then, would you say?

It's heavy in composition, but tonally and the quality of the recording isn't as heavy as a lot of stuff.

So...what's some the other stuff?

I know that tuning down is "instant heavy" and we've discussed it here earlier, but there are bands that are tuned down, sound like they "should" be heavy at the first second of listning and it turns out they aren't at all (ie nu-metal). There are a number bands that are heavier than old Metallica, sure, and if you weren't around in 1986 it's understandable. But a lot of bands are not heavier than old Metallica just because they were tuned to D or lower.

i think it's boils down to the subjective view of what constitutes 'heavy'. is it the tone or the intensity?

old thrash metal had the intensity, there's no denying it. disposable heroes is fucking intense. raining blood is fucking intense. but tonally it's very sharp, like shards of glass being blasted into your ears.

flip it over to something like 'writhe' by kyuss and it loses the edge but the low end kicks you in the pants with two ton shoes. there's no denying it sounds heavy as fuck, but the intensity just isn't nearly as focused. i think the biggest challenge most bands who chose to go for heavy tone was trying to match the intensity the previous generation of heavy bands had established (if they were even interested in following in their older siblings footsteps). with the abundant low end it seems that the focal point of the heaviness was to smother the listener while the old school style pummeled them.

another factor that i think affected the modern perception of what constituted 'heavy' is electronic music. i don't mean the good stuff, i'm talking all the shit dance remix compilations you couldn't get away from in the early-mid 90s that helped give rise to the idea that a deep bass hit = heavy. especially when there was the giant car stereo scene for rich kids with crap cars prior to the fast and the furious convincing them that sounding like a souped up lawn mower = power.

What ever became of this endeavor?

You still haven't mentioned what that "lot of stuff" comprises.

In my view, intensity of the composition is what makes music heavier than how much you drop the tuning. For example, Faith No More's "Jizzlobber", for me at least, is much heavier than, say, any "heavy" Papa Roach song with dropped tuning.

Well, it became really, really large. My father is helping me piece together the first 7-8 years and it has actually been tough to go through it. I was hoping to get this done before I turned 40 but it will definitely not make it now

However, now that I have a better handle on what this takes (earlier, I just figured picking 2-3 albums per year was going to accomplish what I needed) I can put together a time and a plan to do this sometime next year, probably March or so. I am going to Michigan sometime in November and I will hopefully get the last of the material I need after going through my father's LP collection and demanding he play random stuff on the piano and tell me what it is (this was a comedy of errors trying to figure stuff out while texting each other over IM). I can get the stuff after this because by that point I was operating record players myself and reading liner notes, etc.

So I have a plan to do it, it's just not one of those Sunday evening things. I may take a few days off of work.