Controversial opinions on metal

SomeGuyDude said:
No arguments here. But then again, I don't think I ever REALLY liked Slayer beyond their image and the fact that, when I found them, they were the heaviest thing I was aware of.

In fact I'm gonna call that a general statement: Slayer really isn't that great. They were incredibly loud and evil when they first emerged, but unlike their thrash contemporaries didn't write particularly good "riffs" and the music itself was less the focus than the fact that it was fast and dripping with blood and pentagrams.

25 years later, listening to albums from Metallica/Megadeth (maybe Anthrax but ew) and you can sit back and enjoy the riffs and the songs on their own merits, but once you've been exposed to music that's angrier, louder, and far more evil than anything Slayer ever came out with and suddenly Reign in Blood or Seasons in the Abyss lose their appeal.
Click to expand...

Interesting...sort of agree with you but I still think Reign in Blood shits on many contemporary albums for sheer power production and songwriting in combination - they just seemed to get it all right at once (probably helped with Rick Rubin producing).
 
Thread cleaned up before it turns into a panties-in-a-wad fight for the next couple days.

Let's remember, it's an "opinion" thread - so at least respect each others' opinions (agree or not) or zip it.
 
Slayer is just slayer. They aren't my favorite band or anything but everything up to and including seasons is fun every once and a while.

Random observation made from multiple listens: I can't stand Witchfinder General. I really feel like they're the worst of the old, old doom bands. Love on smack is a cool song I guess...
 
Yeah I'm also not too fond of Witchfinder General, at least not compared to the other OS doom bands, mostly because of the vocals. But their albums are still pretty solid...
"No Stayer" and "Music" are just terrible though, imo.
 
Never got into Witchfinder General either. Every single doom metal band that was around at their time was superior. I can still stand them, but I basically only listen to them when somebody faps over their excellence so that I can see if I've gained any appreciation of them. And their doominess is overstated regardless; a lot of the Sabbath-isms in their sound take from the faster and more upbeat side anyways.
 
Overwatch said:
I am Matthew Hopkins, Witchfinder.
Click to expand...



Destitute and surely deranged
I now drift from town to town
Maddened with my lust for revenge
In the bottle my sorrows drowned
I search the name of Hopkins
When our paths cross, I'll take away his life
I'll bash his fucking skull in and scalp him with my knife
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
HamburgerBoy said:
Define "explicitly". I've seen many people online mention them in the same breath as any other trad doom band of the early/mid 80's.
Click to expand...

explicitly
ex·plic·it   [ik-splis-it]
adjective
1. fully and clearly expressed or demonstrated; leaving nothing merely implied; unequivocal: explicit instructions; an explicit act of violence; explicit language.
2. clearly developed or formulated: explicit knowledge; explicit belief.
3. definite and unreserved in expression; outspoken: He was quite explicit as to what he expected us to do for him.
4. described or shown in realistic detail: explicit sexual scenes.
5. having sexual acts or nudity clearly depicted: explicit movies; explicit books.
 
I've always heard Witchfinder General spoken of as a doom metal band.

Wikipedia:

"Witchfinder General was a doom metal band from Stourbridge, England. They were part of the New Wave of British Heavy Metal scene and have been cited as a major influence on the doom metal genre."

http://www.metal-archives.com/bands/Witchfinder_General/299

Metal Archives lists them as "NWOBHM, Doom Metal"
 
King Richard said:
explicitly
ex·plic·it   [ik-splis-it]
adjective
1. fully and clearly expressed or demonstrated; leaving nothing merely implied; unequivocal: explicit instructions; an explicit act of violence; explicit language.
2. clearly developed or formulated: explicit knowledge; explicit belief.
3. definite and unreserved in expression; outspoken: He was quite explicit as to what he expected us to do for him.
4. described or shown in realistic detail: explicit sexual scenes.
5. having sexual acts or nudity clearly depicted: explicit movies; explicit books.
Click to expand...

In context, please. What does it mean to be a doom metal band explicitly vs a doom metal band implicitly?

By definitions #1 and #2, I would interpret his post as meaning "They were never explicitly a "doom metal" band because they lack the tangible musical qualities that make a band doom metal." If that's what he meant, then I don't see the problem because I basically already said that in my post.

By definition #3, I would interpret his post as meaning "They were never explicitly a "doom metal" band because they never defined themselves as doom metal." If that's what he meant, then I don't see how that is relevant when I'm fairly certain that others from that time did not define themselves as doom metal either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ender Rises
  • Locked
Top 10 things you'll never hear on this forum.
Replies
105
Views
2K
General Metal Discussion
no country for old wainds
N
S
  • Locked
Asking 4 opinions
Replies
0
Views
261
General Metal Discussion
slipknot_avatar_666
S
genocide roach
what an atrocity the grammy's are
Replies
32
Views
680
General Metal Discussion
ffanatic
F
Hammer of Might
Stupid comments you've heard about metal??
Replies
28
Views
940
General Metal Discussion
Hammer of Might
H
S
What metal ubergroup had the best return to their roots- Metallica or Megadeth?
Replies
17
Views
553
General Metal Discussion
The Amazer
T
Top Bottom
Back