I have always found it peculiar that for most musicians, their “career-defining” releases tend to occur early in their career. One would think that a twenty-something (or even younger) performer with relatively limited life experience and still growing skill set would be less likely to craft a masterpiece than the same performer with another decade or two under their belts, with more to say, more resources at their disposal, and possibly with greater skill in composition and performance.

And yet, examples of early-career pinnacles abound in the world of metal (and not only) music. While Iron Maiden continued to release quality albums for their entire forty-some year span to date, and Metallica still sells out stadiums, most fans would point to their respective 1980s periods as containing their absolute creative peaks. You can make a solid argument that Dio spent the entirety of his career attempting, and failing, to reach the heights of “Holy Diver” as parodied in a “South Park” vignette. With more modern examples, it is no coincidence that artists as diverse as In Flames, Paradise Lost, Halloween, and many others are making conscious nods to their early-period work with their most recent or upcoming releases. So, why does it seem that the band’s likelihood to create a universally recognized masterpiece seems to be inversely proportional to their tenure as a recording artist?

Personally, I think that much of it has to do with nostalgia. I found it peculiar that the older examples of many genres would be hopelessly naïve, poorly recorded, and sometimes even poorly executed by the modern standards – but the same people who would worship at the altar of “Skydancer” or “The Jester Race” would usually thumb their nose at something new released with similar production quality, regardless of the quality of writing or performance therein. Many albums made by overly enthusiastic teenagers retain their status as timeless classics not because they are objectively better executed than late-career works by the same bands, but because they made the largest impression when we first heard them, and the memory of that impression is powerful enough to subsume any realizations that maybe, just maybe, that mid-period record when the band flirted with (insert genre here: prog rock, pop, darkwave, you name it) was, objectively speaking, a more impressive piece of output.

In other words, I believe that in many cases we look at these “definitive” records with rose-tinted glasses, both because of when we first heard them (and what aspects of our life experience we associate them with), and because we might have been more willing to accept the idea over its execution at the time. After all, Celtic Frost’s early works are, objectively speaking, a barely listenable mess, however, it is those early records which captivate the public’s imagination over much more proficient “Monotheist”. Many other artists, metal and not, would spend their entire recording careers living off well-regarded early releases, constantly reuniting with those vintage lineups to perform the “classic (insert year here) release in its entirety” or to release new material as an excuse to go on tour and play the songs that their fans know. How often is it that we look at late-career output of any given band as masterpieces? Of course, it is easy to point out some specific examples if one wants to be a contrarian. That said, my point is that often those early career releases are assessed unrealistically, and are placed on impossible pedestals where nothing would ever compare. Corollary to that, for many listeners expectations of new music become similarly unrealistic. Oh, the irony!

Satan

Earth Infernal

2022, Metal Blade Records

Rating: 85%

As metal roared back to the forefront of public consciousness in the new millennium, it led to a curious wave of 1980s and 1990s cult artists reuniting and attempting to capture the spotlight once again. In some cases, these reunions amounted to little more than one-off festival appearance for the faithful, while others managed to resume their recording careers with various degrees of success. Case in the point, unfortunately named UK traditional/speed metallers Satan, whose career enjoyed a resurgence of sorts with a slew of releases starting with 2011’s “Life Sentence” and continuing all the way to their newest offering, 2022’s “Earth Infernal”.

Despite the band’s name evoking much harsher imagery and sound, Satan remains true to their NWOBHM roots, keeping to a sound characterized by speedy riffing, melodic vocals, and slight flair for the dramatic. To be fully transparent, I missed the band the first time around. Surely enough, I have heard the name, and was aware of the band’s history rife with name changes and attempts to find audience appreciative of its brand of metal, however, I have not listened to Satan in any meaningful way until fairly recently. As a result, “Earth Infernal” was my first true foray into what the band has to offer, with no real reference point.

So, what do we have here? How about ten tracks that would not have been out of place in speed metal’s mid-1980s heyday, hinting just enough at power and thrash metal without crossing fully into those territories? The lyrics harken back to the glorious apogee of the era when metal was still irreverent and when songs about everyone’s favorite fallen angel were still somewhat shocking, coming through with enough conviction to let you know that this band is for real, and is having fun with it. The album’s production is on the raw side, which fits the sound well, and adds certain authenticity to it.

Satan keeps moods and tempos sufficiently varied that the songs stand out on their own. There are moments where the band can spend a bit longer getting to the meat of the song than some of their more straightforward peers, but the songs generally do not overstay their welcome, and have enough memorable parts where repeated listens reveal additional layers, melodies, or other elements. At their best, Satan brings up memories of pure unbridled energy once inherent in metal during more innocent times – it is hard not to headbang with complete abandon to the sounds of “A Sorrow Unspent” or “The Blood Ran Deep”, while “Ascendancy” at times felt like a spiritual successor to Judas Priest’s anthem “Exciter”. Brian Ross’s vocals are occasionally reminiscent of Jag Panzer’s Harry Conklin, though perhaps not as operatic, and they fit the music like a glove.

Now, there are more polished bands out there, and “Earth Infernal” is not by any means a groundbreaking album, but it is a highly enjoyable throwback to the era when denim, leather, and spikes ruled the pit, and when the shadow of Lucifer sent PRMC into paroxysms. For the retro metal fan in all of us, it is hard to do better, because unlike many modern-day artists, Satan were there in the genre’s heyday, and are still going strong. “Earth Infernal” is not going to change the world, but it is a quality album made with heart and conviction, and it shows. Good stuff.

Poseidon’s Anger

“Tales From Near and Far”

Rating: 80%

Studio projects are often a mixed bag in terms of quality and consistency, though sometimes they offer creative opportunities not often available to conventional bands. While a traditional artist has to at least consider the possibility of performing the material live and maintaining a stable lineup, these constraints do not apply to studio bands and projects with their vast stables of contributors and use of arrangements or instruments that would be difficult to faithfully replicate in concert. Therefore, a band conceptualized in this manner has to thread the fine line between making the best use of myriad talents involved in the creative process, and keeping to an artistic vision that is internally consistent, cohesive, and overall greater than the sum of its parts.

As a studio-only creation, Poseidon’s Anger is surprisingly consistent in style and approach, and managed to create a very solid sophomore release with “Tales From Near and Far” despite few hiccups. The band has achieved this end through staying true to a singular core style of American power/heavy metal popularized by the likes of recent Iced Earth output or a heavier version of classic Manilla Road, with the variety provided through the use of multiple vocalists on various tracks. Occasionally, the band employs keyboards and exotic instrumental and vocal melodies, however, these are not overused, and rarely take center stage, which helps to keep them as welcome additions instead of an overpowering presence.

Most of the songs stay in the mid-paced territory, though there are both faster and slower sections throughout the record to create a sense of dynamics. Those looking for all-out speed metal should probably look elsewhere, but the majority of the material on “Tales” is well-crafted, and has an epic feel suitable to the history-themed lyrical content.

Each of the album’s nine tracks (plus a short keyboard-and-spoken-word intro) employs a different vocalist to give the songs a distinct feel. For the most part, it works very well, though there are few mismatches between the prevalent vocal style and the songs (most notably on “Son of the Dragon”, which could have benefitted from a more aggressive vocal approach, and on “Vercingetorix”, where the vocal acrobatics are sometimes overpowering the rest of the song). The use of both male and female vocalists with diverse styles was a welcome addition to the album, and while all singers are clearly coming from a power/heavy end of the metal spectrum, they are individually distinct, and add unique flavor to the songs. In particular, both “Deborah” and “Sinhagad” benefit from unusual vocal phrasings, while “Goliad”, “Dragon of the Morn”, and “The Last Cavalier” are elevated by strong performances that stay within genre confines but showcase the talent and the professionalism of the singers.

The songs are typically built around several riffs, which range from raise-your-fist classic metal of “The Last Cavalier” to more aggressive modern metal rhythms of “Sinhagad” and Iced Earth-ish tempo changes of “Vercingetorix”. The use of electronic drums (albeit with a live drummer) occasionally creates an interesting effect of giving a slight mechanical edge to certain hi-hat sounds, though it is not a distraction, and the smart use of double-kick segments on faster tracks tends to give the songs a good sense of dynamics. The guitar work, particularly the leads, is melodic and varied without being overly flashy, technical when it needs to be yet subdued when the vocals take center stage.

All in all, “Tales” sounds like a record made by a cohesive band, with a singular concept, and a tight sound. While there are areas for Poseidon’s Anger to grow on future releases (more variation in song tempos and exploring fits between vocalists and songs on certain songs being chief amongst them), the band delivers a strong and consistent album that is both entertaining in its present shape, and bodes well for its future development. Good stuff.

Get the digital release of the album at:

https://www.cdbaby.com/cd/poseidonsanger1

In Flames

Battles (2016)

Rating: 74% (decent)

We all have to grow up some time. At a certain point in our lives, we care less about late-night party scene and more about getting up for work early in the morning, less about the latest craze and more about getting our children into better schools while encouraging their first accomplishments. Our living rooms are now covered in family pictures rather than in band posters and edgy counterculture proclamations.

It only goes to reason that our musical heroes have also aged. Where the teenage version of me raged against the world along with the seminal melodic death releases such as “The Jester Race” or “Whoracle” made by the guys only a few years older than myself, the mid-30s version of me begins to recognize that In Flames of 2016 is considerably closer to middle age, and is probably dealing with many of the same existential dilemmas I have found myself in at this point in my life – parenthood, matters of personal and artistic legacy, a general change in the pace of life. The band’s last several albums hinted at this, but now, with “Battles”, In Flames had delivered the record fully immersed in the mindset of early middle age, where youthful exuberance and aggression are generally tempered by considerably more sedate and introspective emotions.

In short, “Battles” sounds like a metal album made by a group of guys pushing 40 and feeling it. For the most part, the album is mid-paced, with more emphasis placed on vocal lines and catchy melodies than on outright riffing and speed. Some of the arrangements have a very distinct pop influence, most notably on “The Truth” (which for some reason rekindled my memories of such 1990s radio-rock wonders as P.O.D.), but also surfacing throughout the record. While this produces the sound guaranteed to turn off the metal purists, the end result is surprisingly listenable, and might broaden the band’s appeal to the crowd with nostalgic feelings for the nineties.

There are several songs where In Flames attempt to harken back to their trademark twin guitar riffing (“The End”, “Us Against the World” – the latter being a definite throwback to older era as one of the fastest tracks on the album), but “Battles” is less about guitar heroics and more about the general atmosphere. Unlike 2014’s “Siren Charms” with its often directionless meandering and rushed songs, “Battles” presents a rather cohesive whole, and has a good amount of diversity within the material. Sometimes it works very well to produce an atmospheric, moody modern metal record – at other times, the experiments get in the way (for example, the electronic s in the beginning of “Save Me” are a distraction), but for the most part, nothing on “Battles” is outright offensive.

Perhaps this might be the album’s biggest critique. It feels honest, but it also is not very challenging, and seems content to tread the same waters as the last several In Flames records. Everything on “Battles” is decent to good, but not much of it is great, and some of the experiments veer dangerously into the territory where they lose the core In Flames sound of intricate dual guitar work and folk-inspired melodies in modern arrangements. In place of those melodies, the band takes an almost synthpop-inspired approach, which challenges the core of what this band is, and further alienates many of the older fans who were angered by “Reroute to Remain”.

 At its core, “Battles” is about 30% “A Sense of Purpose”, 30% “Siren Charms”, 30% nineties-era heavy rock, and 10% outright heavy pop of bands like Amaranthe. The songs are generally good, and while many represent relatively safe ideas, they feel like they represent who the members of In Flames are at this stage in their life. So, perhaps the “Battles” they are talking about are less about turning the world upside down and more about making it to the next PTO meeting or paying the bills on time, but at least it sounds like In Flames care, and this is all I can really ask of them at this stage in their career.

This has been a contentious electoral process, and it brought out the worst in many of us. That said, it was also a learning experience, both for me personally, and for us as a nation. It produced both good, bad, and ugly outcomes while shaking our political and social alignments to the core.

The good: the process of voting for candidates maintains its integrity. I will admit that I had my doubts about the electoral process prior to the election, and was expecting to see a preordained result, however, the fact of Trump’s unlikely victory suggests that the candidates are, by large, elected through the votes of the citizens rather than by some clandestine process… unless, of course, you are the Democratic party (more on that later).

The bad: while the public trust in mainstream media was already low, this election has essentially put a nail in the coffin of the idea of truly independent press in the United States. The press coverage of the 2016 election has removed the doubt that the mainstream media is a tool of the political establishment, and will continue to provide slanted, one-sided, and oftentimes outright false coverage of the events to benefit their candidate of choice.

The ugly: oh my, where do I start? Let’s skip the obvious (the election of a political equivalent of a shock-jock to the highest office in the nation), and examine how it got to this point. The Washington political establishment has created this mess themselves by encouraging polarization of the country in naïve hope that it creates reliable voting blocs to push their candidates through the gerrymandered districts, while the core of the government policies has not significantly changed outside of social window dressing. As such, the politicians acted without any accountability, pushing through ill-advised policies and acting in their own benefit rather than benefitting the nation at large. Now, the results of this polarization and arrogance are rearing their heads.

This 2016 election season, the voting public sent a clear message to Washington – the status quo just will not do, and Washington insiders and career politicians failed to heed it. This is what powered the rise of Bernie Sanders on the Democratic side, and the rise (and the eventual victory) of Donald Trump on the Republican side of the election. The voters made it clear early in the primary season that they did not want an establishment candidate, and that they wanted a candidate who actually addresses the things that matter to them, with a degree of believability.

It did not matter that Trump’s campaign promises might turn out to be worth less than the air expelled from his lungs while speaking. It did not matter that Hillary Clinton publicly subscribed to certain policies championed by Bernie Sanders. In the end, the voters wanted to take a chance on Trump (never mind his own dealings with Washington insiders over the course of his time in the public eye), and did not believe Clinton’s sincerity (after her decades of being, well, a politician, and doing what politicians routinely do). The public wanted change. We were promised change with Obama, and got more of the same leadership by politicians, for politicians, never mind that Obama himself was in retrospect a fairly decent leader who would have easily won a third term if he was eligible. If this new fresh face did not deliver real change, the voters asked themselves, why would another career politician?

And this brings me full circle to the Democratic party’s selection process. It appears that the party’s thought process for selecting a candidate was rooted in an outdated paradigm that once a voter can be galvanized into the party, he or she will vote on the party line. They mistook the enthusiasm many people felt for Bernie Sanders with the enthusiasm for the party, and did not realize that many Sanders voters represented the same rebellion against the status quo which produced Donald Trump. These voters were not vested in the Democratic party, and could no longer be swayed by traditional fearmongering (vote for our candidate, because the other candidate is a monster). The selection process by the DNC did not help, as it created well-founded suspicions of collusion and foul play to push their preferred candidate at the expense of what the more enthusiastic voters actually wanted. The Democratic VP candidate was a nail in the coffin, a non-entity outside of Virginia, and a slap in the face to the progressive movement who did not want another establishment choice. As such, the Democratic party could not galvanize their voter base, while the Republican party managed to galvanize theirs in spite of resistance from the party elites – in fact, the very fact that the Republican party elites offered Trump lukewarm support at best probably helped his chances with the anti-establishment voters.

In short, the Democratic party used a process which produced a weak, uninspiring candidate with too many flaws, and alienated a sufficient part of its voter base to make it count come November 8^th. Had the superdelegates served their intended function of picking the most eminently electable candidate (especially knowing who the opponent was going to be), we would have been talking about President-elect Sanders (or Biden, if we were to be given a more mainstream choice) today, by a landslide. Instead, backroom political maneuvering and shady underhanded deals produced perhaps the only Democratic candidate Donald Trump had a realistic chance at beating.

As a side note, I have no regrets over voting the way I did, and will not be blamed for not supporting a bad Democratic candidate to prevent an election of an unknown. It was on the Democratic party to provide the voters with a candidate acceptable to all (or at least most) of the party’s base, and the party has failed to do so. If the Democrats wanted Democratic votes, they should have put forth a better candidate instead of going for the next-(wo)man-up mentality and losing an eminently winnable election.

To continue with the ugly side of things, this election has been as contentious as any in the recent memory. Even the worst of the insults and accusations thrown at Obama paled in comparison to what transpired between Clinton and Trump. I am thoroughly disgusted that we as a nation stooped down that low, and that such childish slurs actually impacted our thinking at the polls. E-mails? Russians? Benghazi? Grab them by the…? I was really hoping that we were more mature than this, and that our voting public had a greater understanding of what did and did not matter in this election. The amounts of sheer bigotry and hatred on both sides of the electorate made me shake my head. We are supposed to be the people of one nation, though of many different creeds, ethnicities, religions, and orientations, yet we certainly did not act like it. This is another side effect of long-standing polarization of the electorate, and I can only hope that as the newer generations enter politics, we can see some healing.

In conclusion, I can only hope that we can overcome the wounds caused by decades of two-party mismanagement and bitterness. Perhaps the system of checks and balances works as it was intended to. Perhaps Donald Trump proves the old idiom that your qualities as a person do not necessarily translate into your qualities as a leader of the greatest nation in the world. Perhaps he will surprise us all and go down in history as a great president (though there is no telling which way his time in the Oval Office will go). Perhaps we even need a flawed individual like him in the office to reflect on who we are as a people, and to find a way forward as a unified nation and, hopefully, a force for good in the world after almost losing our way. All I can do is hope.

I must confess: I have never been a huge Motorhead fan. No, it is not due to any issue I had with the band or their music; while I have always appreciated their craft and importance in the grand scheme of all things heavy metal, my gateway to the genre remained firmly with the artists from the next wave of style – Iron Maiden, Metallica, and the like. Motorhead has always existed on the periphery of my musical interests – loud, willfully rude and gleefully obnoxious, yet oddly charming for the few times I gave them a listen (though neither “Ace of Spades” nor “Bomber” replaced “Master of Puppets” or “Powerslave” in my regular rotation through the teenage years).

With that said, it is very easy to overlook the substance behind the hard-drinking, hard-living bombast making up Motorhead’s stage image. I had a chance to see the band play live some time in mid-aughts, and though Lemmy and crew had by then settled in a comfortable, blues-tinged heavy rock style that pleased the diehards, they remained a potent act on stage and in the studio, producing a number of quality releases well into the present decade, when any pretense of commercial success from releasing new music gave up the ghost in the changing industry. While “Lemmy IS God” catchphrase has become a running joke thanks to “Airheads” (the movie that epitomized many of the hard rock/heavy metal clichés of the 1980s), there is no denying that the late, beloved frontman was one of the most widely recognized faces of an era, a spokesperson for everything that was loud, proud, and rebellious about the genre.

Perhaps some of my younger readers may not find it easy to relate, but for those of us whose teenage years encompassed the 1990s, this is another sad milestone in an era of popular culture. As heavy metal gained global prominence, it did so on the strength of larger-than-life personalities who embodied certain aspects of the genre, culminating in its modern image as the music of rebellion, individuality, and nonconformity to society’s often repressive aspects. From the leather-and-chains image popularized by Judas Priest to affinity for tales of both fantasy, horror, history, or darker, more violent aspects of psyche and mythology, the genre grew into public consciousness thanks to these metal gods who quickly became household names even outside of their fan bases.

I was fortunate enough to see many of these artists perform live while still in their prime or reasonably close to it, however, nothing lasts forever. Reading the metal-related news content is often a depressing exercise in seeing these erstwhile heroes leave us, sometimes as a consequence of lives lived with a careless abandon, but more often due to advanced age and health complications that often accompany it. While Lemmy Kilmister is the latest old-school rock star to leave us, he is not the last, and it is not infeasible that in the next ten years, many of the elder statesmen of metal and hard rock will no longer be making music.

It is an end of an era, because just as the old guard’s heyday passed into the glorious history of heavy metal, the very nature of the industry and of the music scene changed.

At the tail end of 2015, it is probably safe to say that the days of the great rock stars are numbered. With the ever-falling album sales falling beneath sustenance level for even the kinds of artists that would have been considered mid-level in the past, new music becomes more often than not an exercise to get on the road and to sell collectible merchandise. The record labels that once pushed the artists and helped to get them into the hearts and minds of the public are no longer making the kind of profits they were once used to, and as a consequence, are less willing or likely to support anything but a “sure thing” with a preexisting market and as broad a mass appeal as possible. While I can spend hours giving my thoughts on the nature and the reason behind music industry changes, this is neither the time nor the place for it.

It is also safe to say that the metal scene has seen a degree of fragmentation. A big part of appeal of larger-than-life characters like Lemmy, Ozzy Osbourne, Ronny James Dio, Rob Halford, Lars Ulrich, Dave Mustaine, and the like is that love them or hate them, everyone has an opinion of them. They are instantly recognizable; they have their own personality traits and opinions that endear them to the fans or cause heated arguments; they are the subject of adoration whose music often takes personal meaning to people from wide range of backgrounds all over the world. As technology and declining conventional music sales make music easier to produce locally, and overall less profitable (so that fewer big-name artists can emerge), the number of channels where one can get their music increases.

In my opinion, this leads to existence of innumerable local scenes separated by genre, location, or even personal relationships (where a scene can form around social media such as a forum or a Facebook group, even if the participants are not in physical proximity). While this does make it easier to find like-minded musicians and fans, it also has an effect of lessening the impact of “wide appeal” artists – as the metal music becomes more complex and continues to diversify and specialize, there are far fewer artists who can elicit the same excitement from the fans of melodic hard rock as they could from the followers of the more extreme forms of metal, the prog listeners who like their music on the heavier side, or adherents of metallic hardcore. As a result, while the 1970s, 1980s, and even early 1990s brought us a number of widely known, charismatic personalities in heavy metal and associated genres, there has been a large dearth of such genre heroes since.

Do not get me wrong. I am not saying that there has been no great music in the past twenty years – far from it. What I AM, however, saying, is that we are seeing the last of the charismatic personalities that once embodied heavy metal for the public at large.

I am looking at the “elder statesmen” of metal, and am noticing a disturbing trend. While metal has no shortage of flamboyant and outspoken characters, the scene fragmentation led to many of such characters remaining big names in their respective sub-genres… and nowhere else. I do not mean to take away from the people like Jon Schaffer, Abbath, Timo Tolkki, or Tomas Lindberg (all great musicians in their own right), but none of them are at the general level of renown that can be compared to the likes of Ozzy Osbourne, Bruce Dickinson, or Ronny James Dio. In fact, the closest thing I see to a metal-associated “rock star” to emerge since 1990 or so is Phil Anselmo (ex-Pantera), and even he is pushing fifty and probably in the last third of his musical career (one can debate whether or not Trent Reznor should be included here as well; I think he deserves an honorable mention due to being in a related genre).

The one thing in common between most of the older rock stars who made metal an unforgivable showcase of glorious flamboyance is that they were firmly entrenched in their positions by mid-career, when they overcame the potential for fading away as one-hit-wonders and proved their lasting power. Looking at the newer artists, I am struggling to find any who might be in the same place in terms of popular acclaim, and who might be as universally beloved and appreciated as Lemmy or Dio are now. Yes, there are some memorable personalities, but would anyone outside of specific genres know them? Would musicians and fans of all the diverse corners of metal appreciate and revere them, now or in ten, twenty years?

And this brings me back to Lemmy, the man who seemingly embodied everything a rocker was supposed to be, both in terms of image and lifestyle. He represented one aspect of the rock’n’roll fantasy for many of us, and even those of us who were not necessarily Motorhead fans could respect his place in the genre history, the influence of his works on other artists, and the fact that Lemmy and Motorhead continued to make quality music in spite of declining commercial viability until the very end.

We live in the waning age of the rock star; while there will always be smaller-scale celebrities in various subgenres of heavy metal, the true giants of the genre are not long for this world. In the next five to ten years, more of the beloved artists will probably call it a day. Who will come to replace them? Will there be anyone to carry the torch of metal as a whole, or will the genre continue to fracture into thousands of disparate scenes and fandoms, no longer united in purpose and mutual recognition, but becoming something quite hard to define and genuinely amorphous?

And therefore, I raise a toast for Lemmy, for Dio, for Jeff Hanneman, Clive Burr, Layne Staley, and many others no longer with us. I raise a toast for the greatest age of rock and metal music, when giants of hedonistic excess and undisputed attitude walked amongst us, and gave us all a peek at the fantasy that once was heavy metal. I raise a toast to all of us who were there, who got to see the ministry of the music and who witnessed the glory that once was while it was still with us – for those of us who remember.