Controversial opinions on metal

That didn't actually turn up much of anything, but given his performance in recent years I'm willing to accept that Dyer's Eve may be fiddled with. In light of that, I now understand the hate.
That said, I don't give a shit. I only care about the sounds that reach my ears, and those are pretty good.

Most metal drummers use many many takes to get their tracks recorded. Its not like the guy sits there, plays it perfectly and leaves. There is alot of cutting and pasting involved. Pretty common really and hardly proves that Lars is a bad drummer. In any case that song rips so who gives a shit?
 
Most metal drummers use many many takes to get their tracks recorded. Its not like the guy sits there, plays it perfectly and leaves. There is alot of cutting and pasting involved. Pretty common really and hardly proves that Lars is a bad drummer. In any case that song rips so who gives a shit?

That is pretty much what I'm saying. The end product is all I care about. I don't care if a band used a drum machine or a live drummer as long as it sounds good; it's just that drum machines usually don't sound good.
 
Allow me to posit some completely boring and scarcely elaborated opinions.

-- I'm a huge Pantera fan and I would not consider CFH to be thrash. Since day one that album has always sounded a lot more like trad metal. I mean, really, does it sound more like Slayer or Motorhead? CFH is slower paced, less aggressive, and more groovy (in a classic rock sense) than thrash. Reminds me a lot of Deep Purple tbh. Pantera's earlier material is the closest to thrash if you ask me. Their later material gets much more aggressive and faster and I'd say there's tons of thrash influence but it doesn't sound like thrash to me. CFH is far too laid back to be thrash, srsly.

-- Ildjarn is a great band. Some of his stuff is pretty accessible and much of it is not.

-- I agree with whoever said that thing about Dream Theater. Thrash metal damn well better be amateur because if it's not then it barely even qualifies as thrash in my book. Then again, I prefer all of my music to be amateur so I guess it doesn't have anything to do with identifying thrash.
 
This is sort of a guilty pleasure but I'll take a shot at the thread.

For all it's simplicity and having far superior bands in it's sub-genre, The Sword still is a decent band which isn't all that bad.
 
His drum "solos" consist of hitting random stuff on his set as fast as he can, and his drum lines are equally uncreative.
 
"false?"

people who refer to metal in terms of "true" or "false" are retards

.

HamburgerBoy, let me get this straight. Lamb of God is your idea of "true" metal and the Norwegian black metal scene is what you consider "false." Only this forum would generate such an assbackward idea of elitism.
 
-- I'm a huge Pantera fan and I would not consider CFH to be thrash. Since day one that album has always sounded a lot more like trad metal. I mean, really, does it sound more like Slayer or Motorhead? CFH is slower paced, less aggressive, and more groovy (in a classic rock sense) than thrash. Reminds me a lot of Deep Purple tbh. Pantera's earlier material is the closest to thrash if you ask me. Their later material gets much more aggressive and faster and I'd say there's tons of thrash influence but it doesn't sound like thrash to me. CFH is far too laid back to be thrash, srsly.

Even when I enjoyed Pantera I never considered them thrash. I can see perhaps a thrash influence but they were more on the side of groove/heavy than thrash.
 
.

HamburgerBoy, let me get this straight. Lamb of God is your idea of "true" metal and the Norwegian black metal scene is what you consider "false." Only this forum would generate such an assbackward idea of elitism.

His point was that some guy living in his moms basement with a keyboard and guitar and a mic is not that "metal".
 
Well Black Metal has been around since the early 80's and its relationship to Heavy and Thrash metal are obvious. So I really don't see how you can say that it 'deviates so far from metal's origins'.

Early 80's black metal is heavy or thrash metal. Early 90's black metal (which is what the sub-genre is now best known for) deviates a fuckton further than mid-tempo and down-tuned thrash (aka "groove metal") does.

I was actually talking about your lame guitar pro analogy, but whatever. All the albums you mentioned have hilariously immature and amateurish moments. Thrash metal was still in diapers at that point. I don't see why you think Show No Mercy is so much worse.

I can't think of anything on the albums I mentioned that's as jarringly written as the bad moments of Show No Mercy. Metal Church's Merciless Onslaught has that one riff where it sounds sort of like they heard a thrash riff once through a foggy mystical portal and tried to copy it, but otherwise I can't think of any, and that one is still very ignorable.

.

HamburgerBoy, let me get this straight. Lamb of God is your idea of "true" metal and the Norwegian black metal scene is what you consider "false." Only this forum would generate such an assbackward idea of elitism.

Come on, you're the one that said "Cowboys from Hell has some moments reminiscent of heavy metal". I generally don't care much about what does or does not constitute as metal; I just don't see how Pantera (who, post-glam, are clearly 100% metal) is somehow less metal despite being clearly derived from good old wholesome traditional and thrash metal, while second-wave black metal jumped quickly into symphonic/dark ambient/whatever experimentations.