Controversial opinions on metal
- Thread starter The Ozzman
- Start date
Krow
Garbage Connoisseur
J.
Old Fart
This nailed it. Almost every time I read "Black Sabbath sucks" or "BS is overrated" its coming from some kid that discovered metal a few years ago and bases everything he listens to on a brutality rating compared to that classic, legendary Origin album or some other shit music.
It must be looked at in the proper context. I have a hard time believing anyone that truly loves metal (ie, not a hipster), does not like Sabbath. Fuck your opinion argument. If you don't like Sabbath, either A) You're a hipster or B) You haven't properly listened to the albums and are basing your opinion on N.I.B, Paranoid, and Iron Man when your shitty radio station decides to play them.
All Sabbath albums have something worth listening to, even Technical Ecstasy and Never Say Die. Headless Cross, Born Again, Eternal Idol are awesome 80's metal. The 90's albums are all solid (Forbidden less so), so it baffles me when people say this band sucks.
I'm unfamiliar with PF, except for some radio listening, so I can't comment. See what I did there?
The Beatles have some great stuff: Sgt Peppers, Yellow Submarine, Magical Mystery Tour....basically when they stopped writing music for groupies and discovered drugs.
Satanstoenail
My Larpstyle determines my Derpstyle
SomeGuyDude
My name is sorrow.
- Apr 26, 2011
- 2,159
- 1
- 36
Saying something has to be listened to "in context" is basically conceding that it's not that great, but was much better when there was less to compare it to. It's like telling someone they have to think driving a Model T is the ultimate experience because at the time there weren't other cars.
You can call a band crucial, you can say that they're a critical band to experience and learn about to understand how the genre was formed and shaped, you can say that without a band then none of the other music would exist... but none of that means that it's especially good OUTSIDE of its time and place.
Some albums are good no matter when you play them (to me, Paranoid qualifies, so does White Album, since w're talking BS and Beatles), but to suggest that in the 44 years since Black Sabbath dropped their s/t no one has done it better is foolishness. First does not mean best. It means first.
Keep in mind, I cut my teeth on Sabbath, Zeppelin, Skynard, Aerosmith, and the Stones. My stepdad had a suitcase full of cassettes and those are what I heard when I was a wee lad. I knew the words to Iron Man and Hangman Jury before I knew the words to Old MacDonald. So I'm not a kid who discovered metal in 2008. In fact, I was listening to all that old stuff for quite a while before I discovered MODERN metal.
J.
Old Fart
Good points, all. I never said Sabbath was the best ever. Just that for some kid that found his way to Nile via Korn a couple years ago saying Sabbath is overrated based on his limited experience is quite simply.....fucking retarded. And to say that doesn't happen (on this board) is naivete beyond words.
Context should be taken into consideration. Especially when people are saying dumb shit like Sabbath sounds like hard rock. Well yeah, compared to Nile, sure it does. That was the heaviest stuff back then (along with Deep Purple, etc), and should be looked upon in context of that time.
Even taken out of context, Sabbath albums still stand up strong to today's stuff. Hell, bands are still ripping off their riffs. Sure, they make it sound heavier so everyone thinks it supercoolbro, but whatever.
Oblivious Maximus
I am the worm
Forbidden might not be the best of the Martin albums but its a good album nonetheless that deservers better than it gets. I think a lot of people just blindly bash it based on its disastrous reputation without actually having listened to the entire album. For the longest time I didn't really like it either but it finally clicked with me after I put it on for something different after not having heard it for years. Its not like it sounds all that different from the rest of the Martin era. People are quick to bring up Ice T's verse on "The Illusion of Power"... that lasts a whopping 14 seconds. Granted it does sound a bit out of place but seriously its 14 fucking seconds. The production too is nowhere near as bad as its made out to be. Not bad at all in fact. Here's where I get called a Sabbath sycophant or whatever but so it goes.
Manic Ferocity
Active Member
- Nov 5, 2006
- 5,280
- 559
- 113
This forum is in dire need of more posts like this.
I will say that I don't think context necessarily matters when it comes to classifying a band as "metal". Black Sabbath were clearly doing something different than their hard rock contemporaries. I can agree that AC/DC and Rush aren't metal but you seriously have to be a vehement revisionist moron to classify Black Sabbath as anything but metal.
That being said, I don't really have anything to discuss with a "metal fan" who doesn't like Black Sabbath. I do find The Beatles and Pink Floyd to be overrated but I'm also not in love with the sound and development of rock music the way I am with metal.
First doesn't always mean best when it comes to other genres of music but metal simply doesn't get much better than Black Sabbath.
J.
Old Fart
i like the album. Rusty Angels is a great song. And yes, detractors love to bring up Ice-T. it's just not a big deal.
the martin albums are some of the best. Cross Purposes is great. People always forget about Tyr, but its a monster.
Still, Born Again is in my top three Sab albums. Wish Gillan would have stayed for maybe one more
crimsonfloyd
Active Member
Exactly. Influential or original are not equivocal with great (see Venom as exhibit #1). Of course, in practice, original and influential artists have a tenancy to be really damn good.
Manic Ferocity
Active Member
- Nov 5, 2006
- 5,280
- 559
- 113
crimsonfloyd
Active Member
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,849
- 113
Krow
Garbage Connoisseur
I get tired of this shit. This is old guy waving his cane at the younger fellows who've invaded his territory syndrome, complete with a Korn reference. Korn has been around for TWENTY fucking years by the way. They aren't some new popular face in metal any more and its goddamn tiring to see people even bringing them up at this point.
crimsonfloyd
Active Member
Can't even comment cuz I've never listened to AWWS. After fulfilling the chore of familiarizing myself with their first two albums, I was done with Venom.
romanticism
New Metal Member
- Jan 8, 2014
- 250
- 1
- 0
Any opinion is valid with the accompaniment of a valid defense, and I know that of all the posters here, you're one of the few capable of a cohesive argument. Let's let that capability shine. Ofc, I've heard your defense of "Venom blows", and I still personally feel it's got a logical hole here and there, but whatever. However, The Beatles are not overrated and you have yet to convince us otherwise.
Note: With the pronoun "us", I refer to those who both keep context in mind and who bother to acquaint themselves with the fields in question. Obviously you won't have to do any convincing to the people who claim the Beatles are overrated without ever actually listening to any music before 1970.
romanticism
New Metal Member
- Jan 8, 2014
- 250
- 1
- 0
Also, although I'd prefer not to enrage my bro TNB with an actual opinion on the musical quality of Megadeth once again, I will say that Megadeth seems to be one of the more rare cases of an old musical act that was quite fresh and original in a way, but didn't really influence any of the music I like, to my knowledge. What are some major metal bands that claim Megadeth as an influence anyway? Seriously curious here, no jabs intended.
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,849
- 113
crimsonfloyd
Active Member
I've explained why I don't hold Venom in high esteem enough times that "wrong" should suffice.
As for the Beatles, they're just overrated. It's impossible to not be when you're as heavily praised as they are. They get praised for everything and everyone acts as if they're the deepest, most profound, innovative band ever. Heck, I've heard numerous people claim that they invented metal! And techno! They get credit for everything under the sun. And yes, they're responsible for a ton innovation (especially in the evolution of the album format and production techniques) but people tend to mindlessly pile on the accolades, which makes them overrated. Then any mainstream publication seems obliged to put at least 4 Beatles albums in their top 10 albums in the history of popular music, which in turn makes every lazy twit who wants to seem deep turn into a Beatlemaniac.
And on a personal level, they possess the quality I most hate in art: superficiality posing as depth. It's all supposed to be so meaningful and yet it's really quite surface lyrically, conceptually, and emotionally.
As for the Beatles, they're just overrated. It's impossible to not be when you're as heavily praised as they are. They get praised for everything and everyone acts as if they're the deepest, most profound, innovative band ever. Heck, I've heard numerous people claim that they invented metal! And techno! They get credit for everything under the sun. And yes, they're responsible for a ton innovation (especially in the evolution of the album format and production techniques) but people tend to mindlessly pile on the accolades, which makes them overrated. Then any mainstream publication seems obliged to put at least 4 Beatles albums in their top 10 albums in the history of popular music, which in turn makes every lazy twit who wants to seem deep turn into a Beatlemaniac.
And on a personal level, they possess the quality I most hate in art: superficiality posing as depth. It's all supposed to be so meaningful and yet it's really quite surface lyrically, conceptually, and emotionally.
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,849
- 113
Similar threads
