Controversial opinions on metal
- Thread starter The Ozzman
- Start date
ZosKiaCvltvs
The Burning Darkness...
- Oct 6, 2009
- 98
- 0
- 6
I wouldn't say it's bad, but it does seem a bit of a waste of time.
Here's my controversial(?) opinion. The worst thing about hardcore/deathcore kids isn't the music they listen to and create, but their whole attitude towards the metal community. I have had the misfortune of being forced to gig with a deathcore band, and the whole time they were absolute cocks. They forced my band to drag all our equipment along, saying they couldn't bring any, then showed up with about £3000's worth of amps. They rip into the metal bands like anyone else, then complain when they aren't accepted by them. I'm not sure if this is just the scene here, but in general I find the actual people behind the music to be far more objectionable than the music itself. Anyone else had any run-ins with these faggots?
That being said, deathcore is still shit.
@Challenge Everything:
Credibility wouldn't matter, if people would judge opinions or arguments based on their logical / rational merit, rather than who they came from. Thus, woopdy doo I gots no credibility...
Credibility wouldn't matter, if people would judge opinions or arguments based on their logical / rational merit, rather than who they came from. Thus, woopdy doo I gots no credibility...
ZosKiaCvltvs
The Burning Darkness...
- Oct 6, 2009
- 98
- 0
- 6
Maybe I'm not explaining my point well enough. I'm not saying that nu-metal itself helped progress anything (except for possibly introducing people to metal that would not have gotten into it otherwise - the whole gateway band thing). Instead, I'm trying to make a point against people who are opposed to trying new things with metal and letting it evolve. Whether that is mixing rap and metal, hardcore and metal, or just adding melody to death metal, it doesn't matter. It's just the attitude that anything that deviates from the original "formula" is no good or that it is destroying metal, I don't agree with. And that's why I mentioned advocating nu-metal, not because I really dig it or think that it's been monumental for metal (although some stuff is enjoyable). Furthermore, I don't believe that it hurt metal either.
V.V.V.V.V.
Houses Ov Mercury
VelociBrad
Spawn of Possession
There are plenty of bands who deviated from the tried and true formula of old school death metal and did a fantastic job. I don't really know any of these people you seem to think are "destroying metal" though.
Just to use an example, Elvenefris is nothing like the "original formula" of death metal. It's a very different animal and it actually has a pretty big following and a lot of praise directed towards it. Why don't you advocate something like this? or a band/album that does something very different within the context of metal, instead of nu-metal?
Saparmurat_Niyazov
Member
I think you just had a run in with a bunch of douchebags. I wouldn't say that no one else in the 'core scenes are megalomaniacal cunts like those guys seem to be, but most of them are fairly well-mannered. Yeah, they act stupid, but they mean well enough.
Mentok
ಠ_à²
- Dec 12, 2007
- 1,325
- 0
- 36
I hear a lot of hate for the 'core kids but I'm stuck in an area surrounded by Nickleback wanna-bes and rap retards (not hip/hop, which I enjoy, but rap radio fanatics who think lil wayne is the climax of lyricism). So I usually find it to be a breath of fresh air when I find anyone interested in ANY type of extreme music...be it Morbid Angel or Whitechapel.
I may be exaggerating a bit, but the opinion came from the sentiment I pick up from people, usually while they're bashing a band or form of metal, that X stinks because it's just an adulterated form of a more original, thus better, Y. Like the basis of their argument for why something is bad is that it is screwing up something originally good. And that leads me to believe that they're a "purist" of sorts or at least have elitist tendencies, which I think are counterproductive. Also, I never mentioned anyone that is "destroying metal", just that some people may think of certain newer metal as destructive.
I mentioned nu metal for shock value, since I think alot of people dislike it. I advocate anyone trying something different or new, regardless of how it turns out.
skeptik
Member
- Feb 7, 2003
- 24,413
- 71
- 48
In what way are "purist" or "elitist" tendencies counterproductive? The "elitist" branch of metal that I assume you are referring to demonstrates an internal evolution that is coming along just fine without the need to branch out into rap or country. The advocation of "trying something different or new, regardless of how it turns out" sounds like just a waste of time and a crowding of the airwaves to me. How about trying something different or new with a focus and a purpose? It's rare for a band to move into a new territory and immediately produce something viable. Change almost always comes incrementally and its roots largely can be easily traced. This is the way that the foundational elements of metal, generally speaking, have come about, through Black Sabbath, Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, Metallica, Slayer, Bathory, Celtic Frost, Possessed, Mayhem, Burzum, At the Gates, Demilich, etc. Small, incremental steps have been the cornerstone for the advancement of the genre as a living form of art since it was first recognized as an individual movement separate from others. The more noteworthy bands of the past decade and up to now, such as Ignivomous, Darkspace, Averse Sefira, Warning, Dead Congregation, Teitanblood, etc., are doing the same things today, though on a lesser scale, that the bands from the early-mid 80s were doing to give birth to extreme metal. The change was smaller and less dramatic, especially aesthetically, than it may appear.
Eligos
Problem Yet to be Solved
I dunno, dude. It's hard to top The Tenth Sublevel of Suicide and Paysage d'Hiver's self-titled. But I do love Ultima Thulee.
If everyone thought that metal had reached it's highest form and anything done on top of that would be worse (which is what purist/elitist ideas seem to imply), nothing new would ever come out. And metal may die out, or at the least become very stale.
I didn't want to confine the idea to just mixing different styles of music, but rather introducing new ideas/sounds or even rearranging existing elements within the music. Such as something simple like using different effects (wah pedal, flanger, etc...) or not just using the verse chorus bridge format.
Also, I think the purpose of trying new things is apparent: Either to express one's own inner vision (which may deviate from contemporary peers) or simply because he/she is bored with the status quo. And as always, not everything is going to be good simply because it's different, but that shouldn't preclude anyone from trying.
Other than that, I don't really disagree with you.
mutantllama
Active Member
Dak
mentat
Here's a controversial opinion: If you have heard one Meshuggah album you have heard them all. Overall a very boring, repetitive band.
TheInsane
Member
I like Meshuggah but always prefered their mid-tempo and more epic stuff while most seem to realy praise ObZen for example because of a return to more straigh and a more rocking sound. I dont dislike ObZen though its just not as nice as Catch 33 or Nothing to my ears
Dak
mentat
Combustion is a really good track, but overall their discography just sounds like the same thing over and over, with occasional breaks for some catchiness.
V.V.V.V.V.
Houses Ov Mercury
Similar threads
