Controversial opinions on metal

[HamburgerBoy]

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.

 

[Internally Deformed]

Immolations close to a world below would like to have a word with you.

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.

 

[Internally Deformed]

I'd expand that to say the first decade. After that point is usually where things really begin to drop off.

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.

 

[Talos of Atmora]

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.

 

[Internally Deformed]

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.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

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.

 

[ProphetofHatred]

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.

 

[Serjeant Grumbles]

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.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

If that was true, punk bands of the 70s wouldn't be so shit.

 

[MrTagoMago]

If that was true, punk bands of the 70s wouldn't be so shit.

In the 70s the proto punk and post punk bands were better.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Well yeah Devo and Pere Ubu and stuff were the shizzle, true.

 

[MrTagoMago]

Would it be controversial here to say I think Remain in light is the greatest album of the 80s?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

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.

 

[MrTagoMago]

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.

As long as you know and understand then it's fine.

 

[Serjeant Grumbles]

If that was true, punk bands of the 70s wouldn't be so shit.

That would just mean that you don't like the original style of punk rock, as opposed to derivations of it such as hardcore punk, post-punk, etc., which are separate innovations.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

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.

 

[MrTagoMago]

Prog rock > punk rock

 

[Talos of Atmora]

Prog rock > punk rock

While I like some punk, I agree. There isn't a lot of variety to much punk music while with prog, there are so many more directions you can take creatively. There are some exceptions but still...

 

[HamburgerBoy]

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.

 

[Talos of Atmora]

I've brought up that stuff to other punk fans I've met before and they said that it "tarnishes the spirit of the music". That's why I defined it the way I did.