Ever since I ventured into the world of metal, I discovered that there were quite a lot of albums that were universally accepted and praised. Albums that, in the ears of most listeners, are a staple of their respective metal sub-genre. Overkill's 'The Years of Decay' falls into this category of "holy cows". Like every other "holy cow", this album is considered to be untouchable. Sure, there are people who don't think that this album is as good as it is made out to be, just like every other classic metal album. But there's a lack of people who DISLIKE this album. I'm making a rough estimate here, but I think that only 1 in every 100 (probably a 1000!) people who listen to this album actually dislike it. I am one of the people who think that this album is severely over-rated and barely manages to make the grade as far as thrash metal is concerned. 'The Years of Decay' is actually the result of what happens when a band waters down their sound under the guise of being dynamic and forward thinking. A bit of an overstatement, maybe? Worry not, for I shall explain my reasons.

First of all, I'd like to get one thing clear. Thrash was dead by the time this album was released. The genre was saturated with bands trying to cash in on the sudden surge of interest in "real" metal and was also over-populated with crappy tech-thrash bands who couldn't write a single good song to save their lives. I'm not saying that EVERY thrash album that came out during this period was full of shit. Some bands released their magnum opuses during this phase. Megadeth, Kreator and Heathen are three such bands. If I were to put every good thrash album released during the 89-91 period on one side of a teeter-totter and every bad one on the other side, the good albums would have been heavily overpowered.

One of the main flaws of this album is that the riffage is just thrash. Just straightforward thrash without any particular variation, barring the doom-ish but still awful Skullcrusher. Now what made the first three Overkill albums so fucking brilliant, was that they were able to make riffs that blended NWOBHM sensibilities with thrash aesthetics. The riffs here are completely devoid of any emotion and just feel soulless. But let's not kid ourselves, people. Thrash was full of mediocre and recycled riffage from 89-91. Only a few thrash bands would let creativity seep into their riffs and therefore their overall sound during this period. The ones that would actually be creative would also make the best albums of their careers, showing that maturity and creativity together can be a quite formidable force.

There is an alarming lack of energy in this album, and it doesn't end with the guitar work. One thing I've noticed is that a lot of times it's the vocals that actually breathe life into an album and not just the riffs. In thrash metal, the quality doesn't exactly matter, in my opinion. Rather, it's the energy in the vocals that matters. And that's where 'The Years of Decay' falls flat on it's face. The first three Overkill albums were known for their ruthless (and surprisingly positive) energy which were helped further by the lively vocals of Bobby Blitz. Blitz favored a more "gritty" approach on 'The Years of Decay', an approach that would continue in Overkill's future albums. While this gritty approach would actually do wonders in the future, it didn't exactly work out on 'The Years of Decay'. His vocals here just sound dead, basically. His poor execution and lack of energy cause songs like 'I Hate' to suck elephant balls. The only song here where he actually delivers an efficient and aggressive performance is 'Elimination', which is unfortunately filled with lackluster riffs. Actually, I think that riff is the exact same one that Metallica used in 'Master of Puppets' (1986) three years before this album came out. Don't believe me? Listen to the starting of both these songs.

In the end, that's what this album actually is. A pale attempt by one of thrash metal's finest bands to join the bandwagon. It's no secret that the two albums that Metallica released in 1986 and 1988 spawned a whole new breed of imitators, which led to a lack of creativity and ultimately the demise of thrash. 'The Years of Decay' is aptly named in this regard. It came out during the years of decay in the thrash scene and it strives to do what everyone else was doing instead of doing what Overkill do best. 'Playing with Spiders / Skullkrusher' represents everything that is wrong with this album. Lack of energy, boring guitar work, uninspired vocals and a bad odor that reeks of over-ambition.

But despite the overwhelming negatives, there IS one thing about this album which gives me a raging and throbbing hard-on. That one positive about this album is the flawless production. Seriously, this is probably the best production to ever be on a thrash metal album. Every instrument is given room to breathe and the all seem to be in their own domain, doing their own thing, which is actually a striking contrast from the previous Overkill releases. Before, all the instruments seemed to be overlapping with each other which caused the vocals to get drowned on occasion. The guitars would cover the drums, the drums would mute the vocals and the list goes on. Overkill cleaned up their sloppy production and gave birth to a truly crushing sound that sounded at least five years ahead of it's time. The production is probably the only thing truly forward thinking about this album, and it saves this album from being a total disaster.

That's it, I guess. I've ran out of things to say and I don't feel like repeating the same sentences over and over again. I don't really get how this album can be so popular, but that's just me. This review was my own point of view and that's what reviews are; they present the writer's point of view. I won't recommend this album to anybody, but if anyone heard this album and was disappointed with it, he should give 'Horroscope' (1991) a listen. If 'The Years of Decay' was injected with some energy, and had the rocking riffage of their previous albums, 'Horroscope' would have been the result. But that's for another review!

Rating: 2 (out of 10) ratings explained

Reviewed by MegaHassan
02/01/2009 19:51