|
|
Post by ryacus on Aug 30, 2006 4:07:20 GMT 2
This list is getting outrageous people adding random obscure death and black metal bands calling them essential, I mean I like unknown releases as much as the next guy but to call them essential thats fucking outrageous, what do you guys think of this supposed list and which albums do you think are the most out of place.
|
|
Wretch
Member
Savage Thrasher
Posts: 43
|
Post by Wretch on Aug 31, 2006 1:19:10 GMT 2
Can't you discuss MA topics at MA?  Anyway, I guess it depends on how you define essential. If it means absolute must haves to understand the background of a certain genre, than yeah the list would only require about 5 or so albums for any one genre. I don't think just because a band seems obscure means they couldn't be essential though. There are a lot of bands that are overshadowed by the mainstream shit people hear more about. For instance, some would consider Anthrax essential to Thrash Metal, which is completely off the mark if you ask me. "Essential lists" are completely useless and biased. |
|
|
|
Post by crypticremains on Sept 5, 2006 5:01:09 GMT 2
Essential lists are just favourites lists, but they seem more official and important.  |
|
|
|
Post by Hungersorg on Sept 24, 2006 16:33:17 GMT 2
If it's the recent list you're talking about (The one with the Murloc or something) I agree.
Calling a Nightwish album essential makes me sick. It wasn't really an essential list either, just a bunch of album some people liked.
|
|
