Controversial opinions on metal

I'm going to venture some uninformed blather for the sake of discussion and suggest that Accept might possibly be better at Judas Priest's game, or at least as good. I've only heard Breaker so far, but it's pretty damned excellent.
 
I don't really know how to approach the 'improve on the formula' type comments.. - while I understand them from a solely musical perspective, I can't highlight them in my own perception at ALL because I'm foremost concerned with the songwriting and if it moves me. If the band manages to do it and sound just like another band while doing it, or sounding like a totally different band, or sounding just slightly different, it makes no difference to me. Putting the former sort of comments at the forefront of an opinion makes it seem like some kind of freaking realism art piece is being analyzed in a museum somewhere, instead of music.

There's bands I like better than Priest and Maiden as a whole, and both Priest and Maiden have songs I like more than many songs by many bands. Their hype, their longevity, and their place in history make no difference to me, and I can't be influenced by such things if I'm going to attempt an honest MUSICALLY based opinion.

But to each their own.
 
I saw Judas Priest last weekend. I went to see Testament and Megadeth (although I missed Testament because they started 30 minutes before the time it was said to start at my ticket - fuck!).

I was never a fan of Priset and they couldnt convince me otherwise. Sure, they were tight as hell and Halford still sounded good but man their songs are boring. I tried to listen to them abit to get ready for the show but I couldnt even get through their classic albums. They are nothing for me.

They are often compared to Iron Maiden and while I never really listen to Im at home I sure as hell appreciate them alot more. And they deliver it live. So yeah, to me its easy, I definately prefer IM but if I can choose Id rather listen to something else at home.
 
I saw Judas Priest last weekend. I went to see Testament and Megadeth (although I missed Testament because they started 30 minutes before the time it was said to start at my ticket - fuck!).

I was never a fan of Priset and they couldnt convince me otherwise. Sure, they were tight as hell and Halford still sounded good but man their songs are boring. I tried to listen to them abit to get ready for the show but I couldnt even get through their classic albums. They are nothing for me.

They are often compared to Iron Maiden and while I never really listen to Im at home I sure as hell appreciate them alot more. And they deliver it live. So yeah, to me its easy, I definately prefer IM but if I can choose Id rather listen to something else at home.

i was at that show and tbh i cant understand how you find Priest songs boring, especially considering that the mojaority of the songs played sound so better better live than on album.

but to each his own.
 
I'm going to venture some uninformed blather for the sake of discussion and suggest that Accept might possibly be better at Judas Priest's game, or at least as good. I've only heard Breaker so far, but it's pretty damned excellent.

Accept are good but imo they don't have any albums as good as the Defenders, Stained Class, Sad Wings or even Sin After Sin.

Their song Metal Heart is kick ass though, and the Dimmu Borgir version utterly fails to better it.

Before I got heavily into metal I would get pissed off if someone said ah these old legend bands are ok but people have done the same thing better. I was thinking they meant more trend fag bands had done something different with a bigger budget but now I've heard stuff like Hibria I understand them, even if I still disagree.

Hibria's lyrics aren't as good as Judas Priest's though, and are a much lesser band in general.
 
I don't really know how to approach the 'improve on the formula' type comments.. - while I understand them from a solely musical perspective, I can't highlight them in my own perception at ALL because I'm foremost concerned with the songwriting and if it moves me. If the band manages to do it and sound just like another band while doing it, or sounding like a totally different band, or sounding just slightly different, it makes no difference to me. Putting the former sort of comments at the forefront of an opinion makes it seem like some kind of freaking realism art piece is being analyzed in a museum somewhere, instead of music.

There's bands I like better than Priest and Maiden as a whole, and both Priest and Maiden have songs I like more than many songs by many bands. Their hype, their longevity, and their place in history make no difference to me, and I can't be influenced by such things if I'm going to attempt an honest MUSICALLY based opinion.

But to each their own.

for me the problem is one of redundancy; if a band straight up rips off judas priest (i.e. to the point where it constantly reminds you of priest songs) but isn't as good, its only function is gonna be to make you want to listen to priest instead.

in general i'm not sure there's anything 'musically honest' about claiming to listen to music in a vacuum. i for one will never listen to another heavy metal album without priest and sabbath and manilla road staining my perception; whether new stuff 'moves' me is always gonna be inextricably related to how it stands out in the shadow of such bands, whether it touches places left untouched (or some of the same places more forcefully) etc.
 
i was at that show and tbh i cant understand how you find Priest songs boring, especially considering that the mojaority of the songs played sound so better better live than on album.

but to each his own.

A matter of taste really. Judas Priest was mostly boring old man rock to me. The best stuff on the show was the song that sounded the least like them. It was a slow, heavy track. It might have had "death" in the title. Otherwise boring music. But I always had a problem with simplistic "rock style" metal from or inspired by the 70'ies/early 80'ies.
 
Judas Priest's 70's albums aren't simplistic "rock style" metal, and the fact that you appreciate Iron Maiden but hold that opinion of Judas Priest is incredibly weird. The song you're thinking of is called "Beyond the Realms of Death" and is, no surprise, from the 1970's. Their music from the 1980's is much more simplistic and rock-oriented, but definitely not their earlier albums.
 
A matter of taste really. Judas Priest was mostly boring old man rock to me. The best stuff on the show was the song that sounded the least like them. It was a slow, heavy track. It might have had "death" in the title. Otherwise boring music. But I always had a problem with simplistic "rock style" metal from or inspired by the 70'ies/early 80'ies.

You give me the impression of a person that never really listened to a 70's Priest album.
 
I was never a fan of Priset and they couldnt convince me otherwise. Sure, they were tight as hell and Halford still sounded good but man their songs are boring. I tried to listen to them abit to get ready for the show but I couldnt even get through their classic albums. They are nothing for me.
Agreed to everything but i thought they were horrible live.
 
it's solid, but I don't really have that much of a desire to listen to them all that often. same with IM, I'll listen to them 3-4 times a year.
 
some good songs on the new album, but overall tarja fit with the band better.

The poet and the pendulum is a great song though.

Anette has a different approach on the songs. I personally couldn't actually transpose myself into what Nightwish used to play before, even though compositionally, instrumentally and thematically, I loved their tracks. It's just that I couldn't find myself in them in a direct way. Now, Anette practically puts them all on the field of reality, makes them more accessible or worldly, if you like.

Note that I'm not talking from the "how professional one is" aspect, though. Tarja is a really good singer, she's got a pretty darn cool voice, it's just that Anette brings a different level emotionally.