Controversial opinions on metal

I agree that it isn't necessarily true that the band responsible for creating a style or a genre is better than anyone else at it (Hellhammer for instance). It just so happens, in my experience at least, that they usually are. It isn't a coincidence for me that most of the best thrash albums were written within the first few years of thrash's existence, and likewise for death metal, despite the fact that there are probably far more bands now playing in either of those genres than at the time of their inception.

I'd expand that to say the first decade. After that point is usually where things really begin to drop off.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Internally Deformed
I've heard '96 agreed upon as the point at which both Black and Death Metal began to drop off, but obviously there are albums/bands that buck that trend.

I can see that. That being said, after a genre or subgenre starts to lose its "visionary" status and becomes more established, that's simply bound to happen.
 
I think there's something about the process of actually inventing a style which gives a songwriter a far better understanding of its mechanics than someone who's just heard the style and wants to create something similar. That, or there's just some kind of temporal creative energy field that accompanies a genre's beginnings and fades with time. The latter would explain why so many bands that were once great become almost unrecognisably bad in the space of 20 years or so, whereas filmakers or writers often continue to produce good work for twice that length of time.
 
I think it's mostly just money and a feeling of the audiences dwindling. Lots of bands broke up when Roadrunner, Metal Blade, etc started dropping thrash and death metal, and picking up groove and nu metal.
 
Close to a World Below is in itself pioneering because nothing else really sounds like that. Also it was released by a band that legitimately helped pioneer the OSDM sound with Dawn of Possession.
Well Failure of Gods is where the CTAWB "sound" really became whole but I didn't really think about that.
 
I think there's something about the process of actually inventing a style which gives a songwriter a far better understanding of its mechanics than someone who's just heard the style and wants to create something similar. That, or there's just some kind of temporal creative energy field that accompanies a genre's beginnings and fades with time. The latter would explain why so many bands that were once great become almost unrecognisably bad in the space of 20 years or so, whereas filmakers or writers often continue to produce good work for twice that length of time.

I'd say it's simply that pioneering a new style inherently requires more creativity than simply staying within an established genre. Therefore, the progenitors of a genre will naturally occupy the upper echelon in quality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Internally Deformed
I like the first three Oingo Boingo albums more than Remain in Light, even though I acknowledge that the latter is the patrish preference for people of superior taste.
 
I don't, but it's also objective fact that most of those bands managed maybe one lauded album cited as a pioneering work and then either broke up or released a lot of uninspired redundant shit.
 
It depends on how broadly you define punk. If you include everything that ultimately derived from post-punk and all the weird divergent experimental stuff I think you could argue that it has more variety than prog rock and metal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Satanstoenail