Controversial opinions on metal

[CiG]

Can't fucking stand Harvey Milk myself.

To be fair I've never heard a single song from any of those bands, but there's nothing about the description of sludge that intrigues me. Plus all the bands on the last page that people called sludge, that's what I'm at least PASSINGLY familiar with, maybe heard a song or two each. That's where my judgment of the genre comes from.

Knowing your taste in music I can understand why it's not your thing, but let me try to test that premise.

 

[Sirjack]

or www.metalsludge.tv

 

[morguelord]

I really appreciate the effort dude, but wow, that was abominable. I'd rather listen to my own shins being fed into a wood chipper.

EDIT: at least it wasn't as bad as Harvey Milk, holy shit that was the most pathetic, out of tune bullshit I've ever heard. At least MD had a mediocre riff playing instead of just turning on a fuzz pedal and cranking it until it shat out feedback. Too bad they played the ever loving piss out of that mediocre riff.

 

[CiG]

I'd rather listen to my own shins being fed into a wood chipper.

I fucking lol'd.

 

[no country for old wainds]

ehh it's an album experience, judging it based on like a minute's sample is like judging a death metal album by its intro. granted, if you like everything to be all in-tune and easy to swallow it's not gonna be your thing.

 

[no country for old wainds]

this meth drinker thing is awesome btw but i'm biased because COMBAT SHOCK!

 

[morguelord]

I listened to a full 6 minute song. And I don't like easily digestible music, raw brutal death is my game. This was one of my top albums of 2015:



I just didn't hear anything remotely interesting or played well. In reply to your comment, another controversial opinion of mine: if I could buy every album I own again, but without intros, interludes, or ambient sections, I would. Shit's garbage. Rare cases of samples and clips excluded.

 

[CiG]

Yeah sorry man, but Harvey Milk is boring shit. If people think bands like Harvey Milk, Isis and Neurosis is definitive of sludge metal, then no wonder many people consider sludge metal to be a sleep-inducing experience.

Even if you dislike sludge metal, no way are you being put into a coma by proper sludge metal, it's too rabid and savage. It's all this post-rock/post-metal/drone inspired shit that is giving sludge a bad name in my opinion.

Not that I care that much anymore, by this point I've basically grown out of my sludge metal obsession.

Fistula > all the rest, anyway.

Sludge should be played by dirtbag drug fiends, not trimmed beard, tucked in shirt college faggots.

/rant.

 

[no country for old wainds]

harvey milk are part of a totally different tradition to atmo-sludge though. the closest they get to post-rock is being a lot like a heavier slint at times, but their main influences other than that are the melvins (to the point of worship sometimes) and all that scuzzy DIY alt-rock stuff that began with the jesus lizard, flipper, shellac etc. they also worship zz top, hank williams, REM, they just do their own thing basically. if you handed them an isis CD i reckon they'd drunkenly piss all over it.

re: morgue, i don't think playing well needs to be a priority for a band making ugly despairing music, but then i don't rly care for most tech brutal death either so

 

[J.]

"atmosludge" is a fucking retarded genre name.

though im not a fan of traditional sludge (the proper sabbath meets black flag meets melvins type), I agree with CIG that Neurosis/Isis type bands should not be the defining listening experience for people delving into the genre.

"Sludge" is too restricting a term for a band like Neurosis. Associating Neurosis with a shittard band like Down is an insult to Neurosis.

That being said, Our Problem is a great record.

 

[CiG]

Associating Down with sludge metal is also rather dubious. Maybe at a stretch their debut could be.

 

[J.]

its the debut i refer to, yeah. and its more or less who is involved. fucking pantera, crowbar, and ehg. that whole southern nola thing

 

[morguelord]

I don't think playing..."well" is a necessary prerequisite. Right now I'm on a huge Colombian BDM kick and half the time they band members aren't even in the same time signature. I do like tight sounding shit though. There's just a difference between raw, disgusting stuff and things that just sound lazy and shitty, to me anyway. The former appeals to me, the latter does not. It doesn't sound ugly or emotive to me, just dumb.

I know my opinions are narrow and retarded, no need to tell me. That's why I suddenly joined this thread, 95% of my opinions on metal are controversial in one way or another.

 

[The Butt]

I'd rather listen to NOLA than anything Neurosis put out.

Also advance response to anyone that pulls the "2deep4u" argument (or any variant thereof), you're dumb, wrong, and can snack on a hearty nutritious bowl of deez nuts. Yada yada.

 

[CiG]

HC Neurosis > Down in my opinion.

 

[Pitiless Wanderer]

Mantar is classified as sludge and they're quite good, so I like that band. The only one though. I guess.

 

[The Butt]

HC Neurosis > Down in my opinion.

When it comes to Down I only like NOLA. But NOLA is a solid 8.5 - 9/10 for me, so I'd probably end up disagreeing.

 

[EspaDa]

NOLA is a quite uneven album, but still 7.5 or 8.

 

[Krow]

When it comes to Down I only like NOLA. But NOLA is a solid 8.5 - 9/10 for me, so I'd probably end up disagreeing.

I have to be in a moonshine and fried chicken sorta mood to listen to Down.

 

[morguelord]

Probably not very controversial around here, but as a huge slam death fan, the new trend of slamming deathcore and beatdown is absolute fucking cancer, perpetrated by a bunch of hardcore weenies that like to pretend they have moved into heavier music and telling everyone they listen to BDM, even though it's hypergay shit like Operation Cunt Destroyer or Vulvodynia, and will move onto another fad within half a decade. Fuck, completely off discussion I know, but clogging up my feed on FB and I can't bitch about it enough on there.