The debut has a genuine air of violence, and sounds totally unhinged, they never approached that level of white knuckle intensity again. So for me, that is the most interesting and unique they ever were.

That said, the second album is more refined, but still heavy as fuck, so I can see why it appeals more to some people.

One Kill Wonder and the last album are decent listens too. Everything in between was a load of old arse.

Listening to Exit Wounds now. I enjoyed it when it was released but haven't really listened to it since. It's certainly better than anything released between it and ...Made Me Do It (and the At The Gates reunion album, for that matter - that was a real letdown).

The ATG album was dull as fuck. They were absolutely incredible on the reunion shows, but they should have called it a day after that.

That sums it up nicely.

The second album is more routine and safe and disappointed the hell out of me at first. I thought it was a completely different band.

I like One Kill Wonder, Revolver and at least half of The Dead Eye. Their other albums have their moments, but they are terribly uneven.

I heard ...Made Me Do It first - though I'd heard one song from the debut plus a demo version of another (on Earache samplers) and they sounded like shameless Slayer ripoffs at the time, something the debut album carries to a degree - so it's always been my go-to album for them. Still my favourite, that one-two of Dark Intentions and Bury Your Dead is one of the best album openings I've ever heard. Still very Slayer reminiscent, but the album goes its own way after that. More 'safe', granted but a step towards their own sound, be it for better or worse.

I thought it was the opposite: a step towards the middle. The overly familiar. But I grew to like it with time, although it never had the impact of their debut for me. Seemed more one dimensional, but there are some great songs on it.

Anyway, I recall telling everyone on here who would listen that Exit Wounds was solid. Glad I'm not the only one that thinks that. I took a risk and blind bought it which was silly given how I did the same with their previous two albums and later regretted it.

Overall, The Haunted have suffered from the same syndome as Soulfly. Neither band really lived up to the hype or the expectations based on past performance. Despite their longevity, they are both becoming elaborate footnotes in the genre if they aren't there already.

And yes, the ATG reunion album was a bit bland really.

Nah. The Haunted were a genuinely exciting proposition at the time.

Soulfly always sounded like shit to me. Everything from their songwriting and production, to the image and artwork reeked of gimmickry and cheapness. Lowest common denominator shite, no better than the average groove metal or nu-metal act, they just happened to feature someone who once showed serious promise.

And they were absolutely laughable when I saw them live, Max came across as a total fucking muppet (they certainly got the whole "spiritual heir to Ozzy" thing right, if you are talking about a once great frontman becoming a retarded self parody) they made a balls of their own mediocre material, and they butchered the Seps tracks. Cavalera Conspiracy weren't much better sadly.

But then, I though Max Cavalera was on a serious decline post Arise.

Obviously Chaos Ad was more inline with the thinking of the time, and it is still an album I enjoy for the most part, but IMO they sacrificed much of their unique character in the process of taking on those influences.

The Sepultura of 93 were a shadow of the band seen on Under Siege, who were one of the few acts to come close to prime era Slayer for sheer intensity and classic riff after motherfucking riff.

To me, Soulfly were just the next step in stupefying dullness and naff world music hippie posturing after Roots.

All that said, I met him before Ozzfest, and he was a lovely bloke, so that along with his early work means I still have some fondness and respect for the man.

But frankly, I thought Nailbomb were far more exciting.

Correct. Shame they only managed one album. Or perhaps not, considering how Soulfly turned out. NP:

Wretch: I'm not talking about opinions, more about perception/expectation on a general level. There were high hopes for Soulfly. And an argument can easily be made that Chaos.AD was the most original and distinctive album Seps ever did.

I must confess that I enjoy most of Soulfly's output, but they haven't released anything I'd consider essential. Perhaps a more accurate comparison might be Six Feet Under?

The Haunted's debut remains one of the greatest metal albums of its time in my view. Along with SOAD, it was certainly the best debut of 98.

The first three SFU albums are essential, as is Bringer Of Blood. The "Graveyard Classics" albums wouldn't get the steam from my piss though.

Soulfly were indeed hailed as the next big thing, with K! reckoning the s/t was 'everything exciting about metal in 1998' - so I suppose that was half-baked tribal jams alongside pointless guest appearences on songs which were like a watered down version of "Roots". It was about the second or third albums that people realised maybe they weren't going to be world-beaters after all. Also, the last time I saw Soulfly (2014), Max looked like he didn't want to be there and seemed strangely animated. The fact that his kids are now in the band must indicate either him or Gloria are utter cunts to work with as no-one seems to stick around for long...

As for The Haunted - the first three albums and the last one are all you need. Possibly rEvolver too.

Six Feet Under have never been anywhere near essential. The first album might have been OK with a decent vocalist, the music itself is alright if unspectacular. As it is it's hovering just below average. Now, they're a joke.

I liked Soulfly's debut, but the praise heaped on it by some was completely ridiculous. There were a few critics that were more cautious in their praise, recognising that it was merely an extension of the Roots experience and a complete leap into nu-metal territory (just before that term was coined).

You are correct that by the time 3 showed up most people's expectations for the band had well and truly subsided. For the next 3 albums the praise was along the lines of 'this is more focused and unified sounding than the last one', and even though Dark Ages was extremely well received, their moment had passed.

As for Haunted, to me only their debut is really essential, but you can't really go wrong with their first 4.

Much as I like the debut, as well as most of Warpath, Maximum Violence and Bringer Of Blood, I don't know how essential they are in terms of death metal releases.

Even if you are talking about albums by the founder members, there are maybe ten or eleven albums they have done outside of the band that I would rate higher than any SFU release.

That said, I personally would take them over pretty much any of the highly rated brutal/tech death acts post 93 or so, and a good amount of the more retro types doing the rounds in recent times too.

Barnes vocals have been weak as pish for decades now though, a laughable mix of mouth farting and hissing.

And yes, Graveyard Classics are shite. I did really like the version of Kiss 'War Machine' they did on Maximum Violence though, that was crackin.

Never actually heard it. Ima downlaod it today.

Wow! The metal scene must be in a really bad way if we're genuinely debating the merits of Six Feet Under, Soulfly & The Haunted.

Like I mentioned before, not that big (or familiar) on The Haunted, but a lot of people I respect seem to hold, at the very least, their debut in high esteem (for the late-90s/post-prime thrash). Comparing them to Soulfly, despite the fact that both groups featured members from prior bands that were highly influential (Cavalera & the Björler bros), is rough.

Soulfly's reputation in their early days was built primarily on Cavalera's relative fame, and them playing a style that was far more palatable for the time. They did have some bright spots (2005's "Dark Ages" - though it felt a little bit return-to-their/his-roots [ ] for its own good) admittedly. I'm pretty willing to take post-Max Sepultura over Cavalera's post-Seps work.

Six Feet Under I've never really had any time for. Definitely not my cup of tea, and even at their best they are rather generic sounding to me (though I am definitely no expert on their catalogue, so happy to be proved wrong). And that's not even touching those "Graveyard Classic" releases. Ugh!

There are a lot worse bands currently being lauded in metal generally - or discussed on here for that matter - than The Haunted, or even SFU.

Soulfly can get fucked obviously.

Strength in Numbers is a 3 fister.

It's closer in tone to Made Me Do It than the debut. There's an added Arch Enemy type of flavour possibly from the new axeman. The faster songs seem to be the ones that work best ("Brute force", "Tighten the noose"). Overall it's not too long and there's nothing really awful on it (apart from "This is the end" maybe). The guitar squeals (presumably the new guy) do absolutely nothing at best but at worst actively spoil some songs ("Monuments", "Spark", the title track).

I saw some glowing reviews for it but 3 is tops.

Yup.