Seriously? I am surprised. Get this down ya ;)

AS you know RMR I love your reviews but its obvious extreme metal is not your thing:) I really think you've missed the point with this album and the above paragraph of yours really hits the nail right on the head. Not only was this Slayer album meant to be the meanest and fastest album of its time, but the whole thing was actually meant to be a blur that sped along at a million miles an hour and a complete frenzy of agression and power, the band weren't looking for song structure or development and certainly not any melody and the great production picked every detail up which was rare for a lot of thrash albums at this time. I wouldn't expect anybody that wasn't into extreme metal or hardcore to really like this album, this is an album for those already annointed in the ways of extreme music. Slayer are not Metallica, were a listener can gradually get into their music by finding elements that they like. You either just love what Slayer do or you don't really and no real in betweens. Do I think this album deserves all the hype it gets? Most definitely!!! Its a defining album of not just thrash metal but extreme metal as a whole, its a legend that has hepled to shape the heavier and more agressive spectrum of modern metal.

I saw you compared this album to a Octopus by Gentle Giant, I'm listening to a lot of early 1970s prog at the moment so I may give that album a twirl soon, haven't listened to it in donkey's years.

Thanks for the compliment!

Can't disagree with anything you've said. Just note on the Gentle Giant comparison that I obviously wasn't comparing the sound of GG and Slayer... they clearly sound nothing alike, but for me both albums (Octopus and Reign in Blood) looked like winners on paper, but both ended up being disappointments for me.

I have never been a big Slayer fan, but this album does kick ass. However, I still think "Master of Puppets" is better.

the whole extreme metal milieu can be done in a way where your ears can pick up interesting stuff, there's nothing interesting about RiB

Napalm Death have interesting breaks and solos

Darkthrone often uses rock n roll riffs, albeit very much speeded up

Ya now I see what you referring to here, just two highly rated albums that disappointed you.

Thats all very good, but Slayer did it before both these bands.

I've held my tongue long enough. If you don't like this album then you simply don't get 80s thrash metal. That's okay but you should try to understand why Reign In Blood is a classic.

Like all 80s thrash it's a speedy mixture of NWOBHM and hardcore punk that was popular at the time. For the popular bands Slayer did it in one of the punkiest of ways and that's probably why you don't like the vocals. That's b/c Araya gives you only a monotonous scream. No melodics, no frills, not even on beat all the time. You have to appreciate that to like this album.

As for "interestingly sped up rock-n-roll" guitar solos, I counter that King's solos took them to a new level. For some reason, all of these bands had to stick guitar solos into all of their songs which was anathema for fans of hardcore. Some thrash bands pulled it off pretty well without lame theatrics but King just went wild and made guitar solos that had absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the songs. As if a feral animal took control of the lead guitar for about twenty seconds.

Also, as has been said a trillion times, the Rubin production is great and really bridged the gap between metal and punk. For these reasons it deserves all of the praise it receives and, I repeat, if you don't like it then you simply don't understand or care about what was going on when it was made. It's fine if you don't, but everybody who understands and likes that stuff knows why the album rates highly.

I never say anywhere in my review that "Reign in Blood" is not a classic album, for I do believe that it is a classic album and an important one in metal history, but that doesn't mean that it resonates with me personally as a listener (thus the 5-star rating). In fact, I spend some of the review praising many elements of the album: King's speedy playing, Lombardo's outstanding drumming, and Rubin's expert production; however, as impressive as all those elements are, it just doesn't save the album for me. I even go out of my way to preface my statements with phrases like "for me" or "personally."

My criticisms of the album are based on facts, that almost all the commenters in this thread have agreed with these facts. Those facts are that 1) the songs are short and often times not fully developed, 2) there is no diversity on the album, 3) there is a lack of melody and harmony, and 4) Tom's vocals don't resonate with me, and his voice often struggles to keep up with the pace of the music. With these facts stated, I fully understand that it for these exact reasons that so many people love this album, and they are the same reasons that it is considered a classic and one of the most important metal albums ever recorded, but that still doesn't mean that it has to work for me.

Lastly to say that... "you simply don't understand or care about what was going on when it was made"... is an unfair statement. Just because I don't rate the album as a 10-star album doesn't mean that I don't understand or care. If that were the case, I would not have reviewed the album to start with it. And for the record, I have owned the album since the early 90's, and I listened to it countless times when I bought it, and I listened to it countless more times before writing this review, as I do with all my reviews.

All in all, I'm not denying that "Reign In Blood" deserves its place in metal history as a classic, I'm simply saying that it doesn't resonate with me personally, and as evidence of this. Here is my last paragraph from my original review:

"Ultimately, “Reign in Blood” was a let down for me for because everything is sacrificed for speed, and as impressive as the speed of their playing might be, there’s certainly more to music than just speed; however, with that being said, I think the album is worth hearing as a document of one of the fastest metal albums ever recorded."

:beer:

First of all, my response wasn't just to your review but also to everybody who doesn't rate Reign In Blood highly. But since you took it that way, I'll focus only on you now.

You're right. Maybe I was too harsh or just didn't read carefully enough. And you're also correct that the four facts above are part of why the album is great. But I'll criticize your conclusion by saying that the album features a lot more than just speedy playing and that the facts other than your four are facts that you missed or failed to mention. But hey, like you said, it's your subjective review so no big deal.

Well, yes, I should have phrased that better. I should have said something like...
My opinion is that people who dislike Reign in Blood and who were not members of the record buying public during the advent of thrash may be incapable of liking the album (or as you would say "incapable of having it resonate with them") because they didn't experience it in the same way that it was experienced by those who were.

But we don't all have the luxury of having been scuzzy pre-teen metalheads when Reign In Blood was unleashed.

actually I was

but Megadeth seemed to resonate with me more then (and maybe now also)