Controversial opinions on metal

I just woke up from a dream that I discovered some black metal band called something like Murkal, with a kinda silly 90s CGI cover art (I remember a lot of green and think it had some kind of original Fallout-style mutant with glowing radioactive shit in the background), and they had really fucking good riffs. So good that in the dream I started to post about them here and admit that some black metal has great riffs. The only thing I remember about the actual music is that their singer sounded just like the Terrahsphere singer only more harsh and with no clean singing, so I was probably just hearing dream-distorted thrash metal in my sleep. A shame black metal sucks in reality.

New controversial opinion: why do trad doom fans have such a low standard for originality? I just listened to the Blood Farmers' S/T on my commute a couple days ago, and while I'll admit the sound/performance was good and the leads/melodies a bit fresh for the style, there were all these little "happy" riff ideas that were straight out of various classic Sabbath songs. Like, they almost had a fresh thing going, but then they just had to go and pepper unfitting copied bits on top. Why do they do this?
 
The Hail Spirit Noir album with the red ghosty thing on the cover would be one of my go-tos for describing the poor state of contemporary "progressive" music.
 
HamburgerBoy said:
New controversial opinion: why do trad doom fans have such a low standard for originality? I just listened to the Blood Farmers' S/T on my commute a couple days ago, and while I'll admit the sound/performance was good and the leads/melodies a bit fresh for the style, there were all these little "happy" riff ideas that were straight out of various classic Sabbath songs. Like, they almost had a fresh thing going, but then they just had to go and pepper unfitting copied bits on top. Why do they do this?
Click to expand...

Simple, because Doom Metal doesn't draw fans for it's originality, it draws fans for other reasons like tradition and emotion.

What I don't understand is why people want every genre to be completely original and weird, there's room for both original and unoriginal.
I don't want to live in a world that's any other way.
 
But I've never heard an 80s Trouble song that made me think "Oh yeah, they were aping X there". I understand there are certain genre-trademarks/riffing styles that are naturally going to be reused over and over, but the tribute-culture behind trad doom gets obnoxious. Like, there's plenty of unoriginal obscure thrash out there, with riffs so generic they could be compared to a hundred other bands, but it's not like it's common for those bands to suddenly go "Hey, let's stick a little bit of the Raining Blood riff on the end of the verse there just because".
 
HamburgerBoy said:
New controversial opinion: why do trad doom fans have such a low standard for originality? I just listened to the Blood Farmers' S/T on my commute a couple days ago, and while I'll admit the sound/performance was good and the leads/melodies a bit fresh for the style, there were all these little "happy" riff ideas that were straight out of various classic Sabbath songs. Like, they almost had a fresh thing going, but then they just had to go and pepper unfitting copied bits on top. Why do they do this?
Click to expand...

it's a culture thing, but it's prevalent across metal to a point, trad doom is just the most blatant example. basically, a lot of old-school doomheads have a chip on their shoulder about the way the concept of 'doom' has been polluted by modern/commercial trends, and so they have a tendency to veer too far in the opposite direction, wearing generic old-school sounds like a badge of honour and eschewing anything a little bit different. it's almost become a rite of passage into the doom club to be stubbornly unoriginal; indeed, there was that 'circle of true doom' movement formed in the wake of rev biz to counter all the 'false' doom that had risen up during the '90s, and a certain amount of slightly blinkered elitism persists in some doom communities in my experience. reverend bizarre were such a game-changer at the time because they openly and defiantly stole Doom back for the old school - you'd think they were a rap band reclaiming the n word for all the worship that surrounded them.

see this quote from rev biz's albert witchfinder:
"That’s because in my vision the old school Heavy Metal was not meant to be too emotional or intellectual. This ideal had been strengthened by getting very tired with certain bands, who in an underlined manner, distanced themselves from the origins of Heavy Metal and the old bands – or never even had that background and knowledge – and wanted to be profiled as being more sophisticated and atmospheric and MATURE. I am of course now talking about the very rise of the modern mainstream “metal music”, and these “False Doom” and Dark Metal bands that seemed to be everywhere in the mid 90′s – whereas for me Heavy Metal had always been connected to my childhood experiences, and the awe and feeling I got from listening to Venom, Iron Maiden, and Motörhead, all of these important bands; a certain kind of innocence, and primitive thinking and feeling."

i have a lot of sympathy for this viewpoint, and the first rev biz is among my favourite albums ever. on the flipside, the second album panders too much to a swooning fanbase for my liking, less an outpouring of emotion and perspective than a showcase of Doom-ness, and that's something i'd prefer not to get a free pass from fans ahead of the occasional genuinely original doom that comes along without betraying tradition. i like to think there are more than enough discerning doom fans out there to ensure this isn't a really big issue though, and i've no problem with people digging the derivative stuff alongside the not so derivative, even if like you i do personally tend to switch off if they start aping certain classic bands too blatantly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Carpe Mortem
no country for old wainds said:
see this quote from rev biz's albert witchfinder:
"That’s because in my vision the old school Heavy Metal was not meant to be too emotional or intellectual. This ideal had been strengthened by getting very tired with certain bands, who in an underlined manner, distanced themselves from the origins of Heavy Metal and the old bands – or never even had that background and knowledge – and wanted to be profiled as being more sophisticated and atmospheric and MATURE. I am of course now talking about the very rise of the modern mainstream “metal music”, and these “False Doom” and Dark Metal bands that seemed to be everywhere in the mid 90′s – whereas for me Heavy Metal had always been connected to my childhood experiences, and the awe and feeling I got from listening to Venom, Iron Maiden, and Motörhead, all of these important bands; a certain kind of innocence, and primitive thinking and feeling."
Click to expand...

That's just an all-around philistine mentality to have. First of all, if "old school Heavy Metal was not meant to be too emotional or intellectual" , plenty of bands apparently didn't get the memo, what with Iron Maiden singing songs inspired by literature and history, or Ronnie James Dio, whose voice brimmed with emotion. Even if it were true - and he admits it's his opinion anyway - doom metal is not the same thing as heavy metal; it is a subgenre just like thrash, death, etc., even if it traces its origins back earlier. If all it's supposed to be is a slower variant of heavy metal, it shouldn't even count as one of the cardinal umbrella genres, especially among those who are overly parsimonious in the number of metal genres they are willing to vouchsafe the existence of. Or you could be more reasonable and allow that doom metal has several different stylistic subdivisions. This branching out didn't start in the 90's, but with Epicus Doomicus Metallicus, which originated the epic doom metal style by injecting doom metal with 80's bombast. Epic doom is not the same thing as trad doom; I know this because one member of a now defunct forum I used to frequent didn't much care for epic doom, and consequently expressed an annoyance with the tendency to lump it together with trad.

Secondly, I like how he mentions that "certain bands" don't know the roots of metal. That's a rather accusatory claim, so I guess it's best to keep it vague as to what bands you're actually talking about, lest you be required to back up that claim. Also accusatory is the idea that these certain bands "wanted to be profiled as being more sophisticated and atmospheric and MATURE.", as if it was a calculated PR move or something. You could just as well say that all those early death metal bands wanted to profiled as being more violent and aggressive and BRUTAL. But I supposed that's completely different, because, after all, the real reason the Peaceville Three and their descendants (some of whom technically aren't even doom, let alone "false doom") get maligned is because the music is seen as insufficiently manly. It goes back that first sentence; metal shouldn't be too "emotional", because feelings are gay.

While I like Reverend Bizarre, that is a mentality I can do without.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Carpe Mortem and JontRevolting
Maybe this isn't all that controversial, but I would be totally cool if Karl Sanders told Nile to fuck themselves and just dedicated himself wholly to his solo work. Maybe with a little more metal. Just pure instrumental Egyptian ritual thrash.

Heavy on the Egypt. Never really cared for Nile, I was told to check them out because I'm a bit of a buff on that particular culture and have just been completely disappointed by how not ancient their music sounds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NinjaSweater and CiG
I find the whole Egypt Nile thing incredibly boring, I do however wish that Antediluvian would continue with more of the pre biblical,Nephilim, Giants walking the earth theme. A perfect mix of sound and concept.
 
Not familiar, will check out on this day.

I think I can safely say that I haven't come across a single band that expertly meshes egyptian soundscapes with metal. Individual songs sometimes, but it's apparently not a very popular mythology or ambient addition. Shame.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JontRevolting
Secondly, I like how he mentions that "certain bands" don't know the roots of metal. That's a rather accusatory claim, so I guess it's best to keep it vague as to what bands you're actually talking about, lest you be required to back up that claim. Also accusatory is the idea that these certain bands "wanted to be profiled as being more sophisticated and atmospheric and MATURE.", as if it was a calculated PR move or something. You could just as well say that all those early death metal bands wanted to profiled as being more violent and aggressive and BRUTAL. But I supposed that's completely different, because, after all, the real reason the Peaceville Three and their descendants (some of whom technically aren't even doom, let alone "false doom") get maligned is because the music is seen as insufficiently manly. It goes back that first sentence; metal shouldn't be too "emotional", because feelings are gay.
Click to expand...

his final sentence clarifies he's not outright rejecting feelings at all, so i think you're probably selling him short (though he should've used a better word than 'emotional' in the sentence you quote, like sentimental or maudlin or something.) in fact, i think he's saying the opposite; that modern bands don't express authentic feeling, they're more detached and calculated and less in tune with the spirit that made metal so magical in the first place. i agree this applies to plenty of mainstream/critically acclaimed metal these days; i find a lot of the genre-bending quite pseudo-intellectual and empty of feeling or reason, and i definitely get that sense of a lot of modern metal trying really hard to sound mature, intelligent, experimental, different etc rather than actually being those things. it's not exclusive to modern metal of course, it's just become a lot more trendy as the genre's moved more and more into the public sphere.

i just think that those bands shouldn't put others off from making something different if they actually have the artistic chops to do so, nor should metalheads automatically reject such bands by association. i mean, my favourite metal album of the decade is by harvey milk, it's an incredibly unique, passionate doom record in its own way but has been completely ignored by old school doomheads, and i do wonder if that's not just because it's quite different and often grouped in with some of the shittier stuff that gets good reviews in mainstream metal/hipster mags. that's not to say it would be to all of their tastes or that you can't legitimately think they suck or w/e, but i know quite a few people in old school circles who wouldn't even give a band like that a chance due to their being of the wrong pedigree or whatever, and that's lame.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JontRevolting
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
681
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
554
General Metal Discussion
The Amazer
T
Top Bottom
Back