A theory on the lack of great new bands...

Nothing is wrong wtih grunge. Lots of good music from that era.

Video killed the radio star.

Kids have always created bands and rushed out their music. Garage rock, punk, whatever.

What defines a 'great' band?

Lots of shredding kids out there. But we don't need more pure shredding bands. That has been covered and done with. And its damn boring to here all these new 'guitar heros'.

There's 'great' new bands out there. But we have to wait a while to see who they are. They aren't in metal.
 
My theory: We are becoming old farts.

Exactly!
This, and the fact that we always need something to bitch about.....
"there's not enough new bands......"
"these new bands sound too much like old bands"
"why don't the old bands keep their sound fresh and update a little....."
"hey, why did this veteran band change it up so much.....I don't like them anymore".
We're never satisfied.
 
IMO, I don't see a lack of great new bands out there. Souljourners are a bunch of young talented guys form the US. Anaxes is an extremely talented band. I could name at least a dozen of the top of my head. They're just not getting the notoriety bands used to get.
 
IMO, I don't see a lack of great new bands out there. Souljourners are a bunch of young talented guys form the US. Anaxes is an extremely talented band. I could name at least a dozen of the top of my head. They're just not getting the notoriety bands used to get.

Great bands don't sound like other great bands.
 
Exactly!
This, and the fact that we always need something to bitch about.....
"there's not enough new bands......"
"these new bands sound too much like old bands"
"why don't the old bands keep their sound fresh and update a little....."
"hey, why did this veteran band change it up so much.....I don't like them anymore".
We're never satisfied.

Lots of truth in this post...
 
There might be some truth to this Zod, but I still argue that it isn't Nirvana or those bands' fault. The problem was it was new at the time and they were shoved down our throats and the labels didn't want metal bands anymore. Simple as that.

I agree with Jason and Bob too. There's just an influx of new bands out there, so it's tough to distinguish who's good and who's bad. Honestly, because of that and how easy it is, there are just way too many bad bands out there and I think that's part of why people get soured by the new metal that comes out nowadays.
 
I love how everyone says Grunge killed music. Really?
Yes... really.

As with anything, you can typically point to a myriad of factors. With this shift, you can certainly point to Metal losing it's edge, becoming a parody of itself, etc. Without Grunge, Metal would have likely faded slowly. But Grunge struck an immediate death blow. It ushered in a new era seemingly over night. It made Metal uncool and the mainstream abandoned it. Granted, mainstream acceptance isn't the measuring stick of everything musical. However, it made the whole lifestyle, image and sound of Metal seem dated and out of touch. Once Grunge hit, Metal had about as much cache as Disco did during the 80s.

So yeah, you can probably come up with a half dozen solid reasons as to why Metal virtually disappeared in the 90s. But they would all be secondary and tertiary causes at best.
 
Yes... really.

As with anything, you can typically point to a myriad of factors. With this shift, you can certainly point to Metal losing it's edge, becoming a parody of itself, etc. Without Grunge, Metal would have likely faded slowly. But Grunge struck an immediate death blow. It ushered in a new era seemingly over night. It made Metal uncool and the mainstream abandoned it. Granted, mainstream acceptance isn't the measuring stick of everything musical. However, it made the whole lifestyle, image and sound of Metal seem dated and out of touch. Once Grunge hit, Metal had about as much cache as Disco did during the 80s.

So yeah, you can probably come up with a half dozen solid reasons as to why Metal virtually disappeared in the 90s. But they would all be secondary and tertiary causes at best.

I couldn't disagree more. When grunge came around it kept the young music scene alive and vibrant, it kept the guitar in rock and it made a heck of a lot of youngster dream about becoming a musician and actually doing something about it - kind of the main elements of what metal is all about, huh?

So, the "rock or metal based on looks" (glam/hair/whatever you want to call it) didn't fit with the "we look ugly in our lumberjack shirts rock or metal" image that grunge portrayed, but then again, looks comes and goes with each decade. The death metal bands still kept playing, the prog metal bands still kept playing, the power metal bands still kept playing, etc ...

METAL never died - and grunge definitely is not to blame - all that happened was that trends based on looks (which, sorry to say, is what the kids want, and thus will always make up the largest selling portion of any scene) changed.

c.
 
Yep...what Claus said.
Grunge killed "hair bands", not metal. At the time, there were so many crappy-ass, dime-a-dozen hair bands, that a change had to come.....much like how punk came in at a time when arena rock was over blown and kinda boring. Grunge and punk both lasted about the same amount of time....just long enough to reset the public mindset. I HATED grunge, but quite honestly, I hated most of the hair band crap that was out at the time too. Real "metal" has never been the mainstream, so I don't think grunge killed it....it's always been more of an underground niche.
 
while i don't usually weigh in on much (i can never seem to remember my password to this place)...this topic has gotten me kind of interested and i'll throw in my two cents for perspective...and remember i'm not talking about prog or traditional metal but mostly about this new wave of metal where everyone and his brother seem to be influenced by korn, lamb of god, etc...

i agree with the explosion of bands via myspace etc...it also seems like a lot of bands today have missed a few things along the way...

songwriting as a craft seems to be going the way of the dodo...i have run into many people in bands who think that stringing together 5 riffs equals a song as long as they are cool riffs...the problem with this is so many guitar players are looking to gain notoriety by writing extremely busy riffs that leaves not much room for vocals or melodies...but they don't care or see the songs as a whole as long as they think the guitar riffs they are playing are cool...

the meaning of heavy has changed drastically throughout the years as well...these days it means down-tuned and complicated (see my point about songwriting above)...to me, as a songwriter/composer/whatever the hell you wanna call me, a song can be extremely heavy without any of that...to me heavy is an emotional state...and one that through good songwriting you can achieve instead of the barely controlled rage that most of these new bands are after...which leads me to another point below...

since when did music become so one dimensional in terms of emotions?...i personally on a daily basis feel happy, sad, angry, depressed, etc and so on...and i feel most people do...but the pseudo-rebellion against any emotion if it's not anger really seems kinda juvenile to me...after listening to three or four songs of downtuned angry stuff i find myself ready to listen to something else...why?...because it gets monotonous...one of the reasons i like nevermore's new album so much is that it has the heavy stuff but also many moods like on the day you built the wall, she comes in colors, etc...now i realize that hair metal and plenty of other genres that have passed sometimes overused emotions to forge their sound...but i dont remember it ever being so monotonous sounding before with so many bands chasing the same sound...and that leads to...

originality...or a lack thereof...even when i was beginning to write...i never wanted to be the next anything...be it guns and roses (although i would have loved their bank account...lol), judas priest, dio, or anything...i wanted to be different which led me to develop a different way of thinking...i bought recording equipment and set about learning how to write and record complete songs...this gave me an insight into what the bass, drums and all the other instruments were doing to build songs...regardless of the style it opened up my one dimensional "it's all about the guitar" mindset to something larger...it also led to the beginnings of my side project torquestra which became my musical playground to investigate if i could write many different types of music from rock to classical to anything else my warped little brain could think of...but i digress...the fact is that so many newer bands out there today seem to only chase another band's sounds resulting in a glut of sound-a-like bands...and seriously...how many versions of disturbed, sevendust or lamb of god do we need?...in my humble opinion the answer should be one of each..although the general musician public tends to disagree with me...

lastly...the coolness factor of being in a band...many people put this above the actual work and time that needs to go in to create a unique sound...at times it almost seems the mindset is to "get something together as quickly as possible and throw it out on the net so we can tell people we're in a band"...in the end it is much easier for people to latch onto "what's hot now" than take the chance and try to forge new ground...and every genre has had this problem...remember how many changed their sounds to be more like guns and roses when they came out?...how about when grunge came out?...a lot of metal bands in atlanta started sounding more like alice in chains if i recall correctly...

in the music industry, just like any other, you're gonna end up with a few leaders and a lot of followers trying to cash in by following in the footsteps of something that came before and was successful...that's really just the way it is...sorry if this dragged on too long...d.m.
 
METAL never died...
Dio, Maiden and Priest all went from selling out arenas to struggling to fill clubs. If that's not dying, I don't know what is.

all that happened was that trends based on looks (which, sorry to say, is what the kids want, and thus will always make up the largest selling portion of any scene) changed.
The distinction you're offering sounds like semantics. If everyone is following one trend, and they all abandon that trend for another trend, than isn't it fair to suggest that the new trend killed the old trend?

We can agree to disagree. However, I see a very strong and direct correlation between the rise of Grunge and the downfall of Metal.
 
lastly...the coolness factor of being in a band...many people put this above the actual work and time that needs to go in to create a unique sound...at times it almost seems the mindset is to "get something together as quickly as possible and throw it out on the net so we can tell people we're in a band"...in the end it is much easier for people to latch onto "what's hot now" than take the chance and try to forge new ground...and every genre has had this problem...remember how many changed their sounds to be more like guns and roses when they came out?...how about when grunge came out?...a lot of metal bands in atlanta started sounding more like alice in chains if i recall correctly...

So true...

even when i was beginning to write...i never wanted to be the next anything...

I can totally see your point. But, there is also the side of a band not trying to be "the next something" but that just wants to play a certain style of music because they love it...they may play/write Heavy Metal because they love doing it, but they're not so delusional as to try to be the new Judas Priest, like they could ever be replaced.

That ties in to why you WANT to be in a band...is it the "coolness factor" you mentioned? Do you want to make money doing it? Are you doing it because you love it? Are you trying to make some sort of deep, artistic statement? These are not mutually exclusive, but it does affect what you play and why.
 
Dio, Maiden and Priest all went from selling out arenas to struggling to fill clubs. If that's not dying, I don't know what is.

What???? Sorry Zod, but you are REALLY off base on this one....

Maybe in the 80's you were only into mainstream metal, so the rise of grunge may have had more of a direct impact to you.

Metal never died. Sure, mainstream metal took a blow, but that was primarily hair bands, or once classic bands that tried to play in that arena (which did include Maiden, Ozzy, Priest, etc).

Grunge was around for a LONG time before it hit the mainstream. Not saying this for cool factors, but I had Nirvana's Bleach when it came out. They were popular in the underground college rock / punk scene.

It was the mainstream that tagged it "Grunge"

But Nirvana and Soundgarden were household names LONG before they hit MTV, much like most knew of METALLICA before they made the "One" video.

It wasn't just what was happening in the mainstream either.
Even in the underground, many long running bands went more inactive in the early 90s (IE - Jag Panzer, Manilla Road, Metal Church) or were changing sound (IE - Kreator).

Death metal was on the rise and some took to it as others didn't.

I got out of metal in the late 80's / early 90s, but it had nothing to do with grunge or what was going on in the mainstream.

As I said, and I dont mean this as an insult, but maybe you were only into more mainstream stuff in that era so maybe you feel more impacted by it.
 
Dio, Maiden and Priest all went from selling out arenas to struggling to fill clubs. If that's not dying, I don't know what is.

In the US. :)

Also wasn't Guns N Roses like the biggest band ever selling out stadiums in the early 90s? Didn't Metallica reach their height in popularity in the early 90s as well? Heck even Megadeth had their highest charting album with Countdown to Extinction which reached #2.

Quite frankly if it wasn't for Nirvana I would of never became a metal head because that's what I listened to in the early 90s thinking it was "Metal" cause I didn't know any better.
 
Nice post, Zod. I personally had never heard this hypothesis before, and boy is it refreshing to hear a theory that you can't immediately disprove with half-a-second of thought! It's a bit of an unproven assumption that there is an actual lack of great new bands, but if we assume that's true, that I can see your hypothesis playing a role (among other contributors) in the explanation.

Also wasn't Guns N Roses like the biggest band ever selling out stadiums in the early 90s? Didn't Metallica reach their height in popularity in the early 90s as well? Heck even Megadeth had their highest charting album with Countdown to Extinction which reached #2.

"Smells Like Teen Spirit" in 1991 was merely the opening shot that would start the downfall of metal in popular consciousness. It took a good 5-7 years for metal to fade, not hitting its nadir until the 1996-1998 period. And yes, this is somewhat U.S.-specific. The shift in focus wasn't nearly as stark in Europe and perhaps other parts of the world, and it's those seeds of metal stored safely in the European bomb shelters that allowed metal to be repopulated in the U.S., once the rising Internet had restored the possibility of growth in our soil.

Neil
 
Zod - that is not "dying"...that's "downsizing". Doing from 15,000 to 1,000 is not dead...it just means you're having to restructure.

Dio, Maiden and Priest, your specific examples, didn't place their identity in MTV airplay and teen-magazine attention that bands like White Lion & Warrant did...they placed their identity in the hands of their fans.

Yeah, there were fewer fans showing up or buying records, but there are several factors/reasons for that:

From 1992-1998, the 15 year olds who bought Holy Diver were suddenly the 24-30 year olds who had jobs, bills and other things to contend with and spend money on. Then there's the "true fan" va the "fad fan". The kids who went to see Dio on the Holy Diver tour in the arena when they were 15, then turned around at 28 and said "I used to like Dio...I outgrew it" made up the majority of that arena audience at the time. Now, the guy who was at the arena in 1983 AND at the clun in 1997 is the core fan...the true fan...he would have gone to see Dio in a club in 1983 if he had to...fans like THIS are the reason Metal has stayed alive through every musical fad and fashion statement.
 
Zod - that is not "dying"...that's "downsizing". Doing from 15,000 to 1,000 is not dead...it just means you're having to restructure.

Dio, Maiden and Priest, your specific examples, didn't place their identity in MTV airplay and teen-magazine attention that bands like White Lion & Warrant did...they placed their identity in the hands of their fans.

Yeah, there were fewer fans showing up or buying records, but there are several factors/reasons for that:

From 1992-1998, the 15 year olds who bought Holy Diver were suddenly the 24-30 year olds who had jobs, bills and other things to contend with and spend money on. Then there's the "true fan" va the "fad fan". The kids who went to see Dio on the Holy Diver tour in the arena when they were 15, then turned around at 28 and said "I used to like Dio...I outgrew it" made up the majority of that arena audience at the time. Now, the guy who was at the arena in 1983 AND at the clun in 1997 is the core fan...the true fan...he would have gone to see Dio in a club in 1983 if he had to...fans like THIS are the reason Metal has stayed alive through every musical fad and fashion statement.

Truer words are hard to find. Amen.