Controversial opinions on metal

[The Ozzman]

Its certainty up there. I love all their albums but the vibe they captured on Streetcleaner is a once in a lifetime type of sound. So oppressive. "NOW FEEL THIS". Fucking felt.

I bought this album this weekend. It is so dark and heavy and despondent. I love it.

 

[EchoForever]

There's also the fact that "heaviness" means different things to different people. For example some find brutal death metal to be heavy while I don't really.

personally i feel heaviness as weight, like being submerged in thick oil
only certain bands can portray that feeling

Also my opinion on Slayer isn't that extreme but it's not far off.

how far

 

[MrTagoMago]

personally i feel heaviness as weight, like being submerged in thick oil
only certain bands can portray that feeling




how far

I like the first two albums and ep but after that I don't care for anything. As far as originality I think they were just apart of the natural evolution of metal. Basically the next step from Venom.

Also I liked that song you posted up until the vocals started in.

 

[CiG]

I find Vol. 4 to be heavier than everything mentioned so far. I think that's probably a controversial opinion.

 

[MrTagoMago]

I find Vol. 4 to be heavier than everything mentioned so far. I think that's probably a controversial opinion.

Well could you explain your reasoning as to why?

 

[EternalMetal]

There's also the fact that "heaviness" means different things to different people. For example some find brutal death metal to be heavy while I don't really.

The idea of heaviness definitely does create a lot of controversy. I have noticed that there are generally two approaches to this that ive noticed. One of them being the heaviness of the music as a concept, with a nod towards the historical creation and use of the term to describe the sound of bands like Sabbath, Deep Purple, Judas Priest, etc. The second approach being more of a literal interpretation of heavy, that seems more fixated on the sound with regards to tone and 'headbangability'. Ive noticed that people who stand by the first definition are either older or more traditional-minded metalheads, whereas the second definition describes the next generation of metalheads who probably grew up in the 90s or later and have a hard time calling stuff like early Judas Priest 'heavy' when there is stuff like Pantera.

To be quite honest, I relate with the younger generation intuitively more so than I do the guy from the 60/70s going, 'damn, now THAT'S heavy, man'. I understand the 'heaviness' of sabbathian riffs and other classic metal, but to me heavy is something even heavier and more brutal than that. Asphyx is heavy as fuck to me, far more than something like Sabbath or some other doom/trad band. Though unlike some I dont necessarily equate 'heavy' to good, so im not trying to make a judgment call here (so dont tell me I have shit taste cause I hate trad metal or anything that is completely off the mark). That song that @EchoForever posted is also really heavy to me. Sabbath Vol 4? Not so much.

 

[CiG]

I mostly associate heaviness with the total package, whereas I notice people in here mostly scoff at me for bringing up production.

 

[Phylactery]

I'll agree about Asphyx, especially their slower songs, I do find those to be heavy. There's plenty of slow/mid-paced death metal that I consider to be heavy, it's just the hyperspeed blasting stuff that I don't think is heavy, it's more brutal and extreme and pummeling.

I definitely think a lot of doom is heavy with those slow, crushing riffs. For example I think a lot of Epicus Doomicus Metalicus is heavy as fuck, but that may also be due its oppressive atmosphere. But Nightfall is far less oppressive and I still find some of the riffs in "The Well of Souls" for example to be fucking crushing.

The only genre I don't really get people calling heavy is the vast majority of black metal. No idea what's heavy about hammering tremolo melodies on high frequencies. Extreme and abrasive? Sure. But heavy? Not to me anyway.

 

[MrTagoMago]

Ok question. Would this be considered heavy?

 

[CiG]

That band is psychologically heavy.

 

[Slayed Necros]

As far as heaviness goes, not much can compete with the savagery of Order From Chaos for me.



Devastating.

 

[H.P. Lovecraft]

Pantera are pretty much as terrible as most of those bands on that link.

Eh, I've always had a soft spot for them, even their later stuff. But I doubt anyone would contest that their first few power/trad releases were anything short of exceedingly good.

 

[EternalMetal]

I mostly associate heaviness with the total package, whereas I notice people in here mostly scoff at me for bringing up production.

No, bring up production more, it's definitely an important part of the art of recorded metal albums and is really understated. Though it is funny you mention production in the heaviness argument, because that seems to be one of the more important aspects that modern metalheads look at when saying something is heavy. Like Pantera's Walk is heavier than Sabbath's Iron Man, because the production has more impact and is more in your face (or is heavier).

 

[Phylactery]

Eh, I've always had a soft spot for them, even their later stuff. But I doubt anyone would contest that their first few power/trad releases were anything short of exceedingly good.

I'm not very familiar with their early power metal stuff, but even if it was among the best metal ever, they'd still deserve all the hate they get for what they did from Cowboys from Hell and onwards imo.

 

[CiG]

No, bring up production more, it's definitely an important part of the art of recorded metal albums and is really understated. Though it is funny you mention production in the heaviness argument, because that seems to be one of the more important aspects that modern metalheads look at when saying something is heavy. Like Pantera's Walk is heavier than Sabbath's Iron Man, because the production has more impact and is more in your face (or is heavier).

"Walk" is overproduced garbage. Very bad example of production in my opinion.

I don't see you bring up production more than me though.

 

[H.P. Lovecraft]

I'm not very familiar with their early power metal stuff, but even if it was among the best metal ever, they'd still deserve all the hate they get for Cowboys from Hell and onwards imo.

You should check it out, it's this cool glam metal, power metal, and trad metal fusion and I really like it. Their first four albums or something were like that. I understand the hate they get for Cowboys and all the sucessive albums, believe me, I do. There's few people who dread new 90's metal subgenres like myself, but for whatever reason, I just really dig Pantera's brand of groove metal, particularly with Dimebag's fretwork.

 

[MrTagoMago]

Some people say Public Castration is a good idea the heaviest album ever.

 

[EternalMetal]

"Walk" is overproduced garbage. Very bad example of production in my opinion.

Perhaps I should have mentioned something like Mudvayne's Dig then as a better comparison? Admittedly I havent heard Walk in quite a while, and after listening to it id have to agree that the production isnt really the crucial part in it's heaviness. I dont particularly like the song, but it has a lot of what younger metalheads would consider to be heavy.

I don't see you bring up production more than me though.

I dont think I bring anything up as much as you, lol. Production is an important aspect in all of my metal favorites though, and I dont think it can be an understated part of recorded music. I dont think ive ever scoffed at you for bringing it up though, but I remember a few instances that I may have disagreed with you.

 

[Elric of Melniboné]

I find the loud, in-your-face production and mixing of many big budget albums from the 1990s onward to be very offputting. It doesn't make them feel heavy to me.

 

[MrTagoMago]

If you prefer raw production quality with your extreme music it means you're tryin too hard to be Kvlt or so I've heard.