Controversial opinions on metal

There is a huge difference between listening to underground music and being a true metal head. You happen to have better taste than most people who listen to "metal," but that's about it.

Not saying you're not a metal head, but your posts do seem a bit childish, and if you're trying to look underground and "true metal," the most successful and most listened to underground band is probably not the one you want to list.

This guy seems to have pretty high standards, maybe even higher than ObscureInfinity's?
 
If preferring Slayer and Judas Priest over 99% of underground metal makes me un-metal then so be it but I don't think anyone that knows anything about metal is dumb enough to think that.
 
If preferring Slayer and Judas Priest over 99% of underground metal makes me un-metal then so be it but I don't think anyone that knows anything about metal is dumb enough to think that.

In that case you must draw a distinction between the noobs who think Painkiller is the best shit ever and those "true metalheads" who prefer Stained Class. Same goes for Slayer with Reign in Blood/Hell Awaits.
 
I think it's almost a trend among veteran metalheads that they have to prefer the "classic" material of a band, in most cases the first album or first two albums, then dismiss their later discography. It's almost become a rule of thumb when checking out new bands to assume the earlier, or first material is superior.

I'm not questioning this principle, I just find it interesting to think about, in some pseudo-sociological sense.
 
In that case you must draw a distinction between the noobs who think Painkiller is the best shit ever and those "true metalheads" who prefer Stained Class. Same goes for Slayer with Reign in Blood/Hell Awaits.

I don't think that thinking that Painkiller is their best is a noob opinion? :S That's just me though.
 
Judas Priest ftw.
Honestly, anything they did from Rocka Rolla to Painkiller was pure gold, Except for Point Of Entry, Turbo, and Maybe Ram It Down, which were all still good albums in their own right.
 
It's something that happens quite often, Zeph. I find myself preferring bands early stuff quite a large % of the time when it comes to metal. I genuinely think it's better, of course, but that's just how it goes.
 
I mean, I like a lot of Priest... but a lot of the "golden era" (Stained Class, British Steel, etc) never really stuck with me. Sorry? :S

I do love Sad Wings and Rocka Rolla (as much as Painkiller) though. Screaming For Vengeance is pretty bitchin' too.
 
I think the other phenomenon is that preferences are too chronologically bound. There arises the assumption that since Album X of Style Y was released in 1989 while Album Z of Style Y was in 2008, the former is more likely superior.
 
I think it's almost a trend among veteran metalheads that they have to prefer the "classic" material of a band, in most cases the first album or first two albums, then dismiss their later discography. It's almost become a rule of thumb when checking out new bands to assume the earlier, or first material is superior.

I'm not questioning this principle, I just find it interesting to think about, in some pseudo-sociological sense.

It depends on what you consider classic. I was referring to Judas Priest and Slayer because they are two of my favorite bands of all time. I can't say that albums by Metallica, Megadeth, or even Iron Maiden rank above some underground albums that I love.
 
LOL

Ram It Down is alright, but definitely shouldn't be anywhere near a person's top Priest albums.



At least I'm not a power bottom, schnookums
To be honest,I just love pretty much everything Priest has put out.
And RID is on there mostly because of the title track, Hard as Iron, and Blood Red Skies.