Controversial opinions on metal

[Onder]

What kills me about Black Sabbath is that people act like seven of their albums are in the top 20 metal albums of all time. There's no fucking way. I'm fine giving the first two their due but all the rest are no where near the quality.

I get tired of this shit. This is old guy waving his cane at the younger fellows who've invaded his territory syndrome, complete with a Korn reference. Korn has been around for TWENTY fucking years by the way. They aren't some new popular face in metal any more and its goddamn tiring to see people even bringing them up at this point.

ITT I have to agree with something Krow said. It's harsh to say and hard to process for the "traditional metal onlyz" but most of Black Sabbath's discography is pretty boring. I just disagree with the camp that says "everything Black Sabbath has ever released is amazing".

- Well if you ask for more opinions: Venom is to extreme metal what Black Sabbath is for trad metal. Both bands are undeniably fucking essential.
- I don't see why people into metal dislike The Beatles. Is it because they're not serious and dark and trve?

 

[Onder]

Saying something has to be listened to "in context" is basically conceding that it's not that great, but was much better when there was less to compare it to. It's like telling someone they have to think driving a Model T is the ultimate experience because at the time there weren't other cars.

You can call a band crucial, you can say that they're a critical band to experience and learn about to understand how the genre was formed and shaped, you can say that without a band then none of the other music would exist... but none of that means that it's especially good OUTSIDE of its time and place.

Even taken out of context, Sabbath albums still stand up strong to today's stuff. Hell, bands are still ripping off their riffs. Sure, they make it sound heavier so everyone thinks it supercoolbro, but whatever.

I don't see how "context" means comparing the band to other bands of that time or even present bands. I think it's the opposite really. Trying to understand what the music meant back then, the culture, etc.

 

[CF87]

I've explained why I don't hold Venom in high esteem enough times that "wrong" should suffice.

Welcome to Hell.

 

[Der Morgenstern]

Black Sabbath released amazing songs, but is there a Sabbath album I can sit through without getting bored? No.

 

[SomeGuyDude]

I don't see how "context" means comparing the band to other bands of that time or even present bands. I think it's the opposite really. Trying to understand what the music meant back then, the culture, etc.

What it means is that you're saying the music, on its own, isn't especially impressive, but external factors are what are important.

Now, don't get me wrong. Sometimes context IS important because it can change how you listen to something. Burzum is a good example. Play it for someone and they go "oh god it sounds like shit," then you explain what he was going for and why it was done, now it's a different experience.

The context for Sabbath is basically "no one else was doing this". That's kinda it. The context is that they were the originals. Which is fine, sure, but it doesn't make the music any more enjoyable unless you have an emotional connection to it. It's total bullshit to say anyone has to like any bands in order to be a "real metalhead" or whatever.

It's 2014, there are kids getting into metal now whose parents consider Black Sabbath what THEIR parents listened to. We've got a generation coming up for whom Ozzy is literally "grandpa music". And you know what? If you're used to the incredibly abrasive kind of metal that's around now then the bluesy, riffy, laid-back kind of metal that Sabbath made will sound antiquated. Even modern stoner-doom is heavier and harsher, with "throwback" bands like Orchid and Witchcraft still being more rollicking.

No one has to like any band to be part of the metal circles. At this point it's like saying in order to like rock you have to like rockabilly and doo-wop bands, or in order to be a film fan you have to jerk off over old copies of Dr Caligari and Nosferatu.

 

[Kara-Shehr]

Born Again, Headless Cross, and Dehumanizer > you

I resent that remark sir. How dare you compare me to an album. How dare you.

 

[Kara-Shehr]

Forbidden has some awesome riffs on it by the way...

 

[Manic Ferocity]

What it means is that you're saying the music, on its own, isn't especially impressive, but external factors are what are important.

Now, don't get me wrong. Sometimes context IS important because it can change how you listen to something. Burzum is a good example. Play it for someone and they go "oh god it sounds like shit," then you explain what he was going for and why it was done, now it's a different experience.

The context for Sabbath is basically "no one else was doing this". That's kinda it. The context is that they were the originals. Which is fine, sure, but it doesn't make the music any more enjoyable unless you have an emotional connection to it. It's total bullshit to say anyone has to like any bands in order to be a "real metalhead" or whatever.

It's 2014, there are kids getting into metal now whose parents consider Black Sabbath what THEIR parents listened to. We've got a generation coming up for whom Ozzy is literally "grandpa music". And you know what? If you're used to the incredibly abrasive kind of metal that's around now then the bluesy, riffy, laid-back kind of metal that Sabbath made will sound antiquated. Even modern stoner-doom is heavier and harsher, with "throwback" bands like Orchid and Witchcraft still being more rollicking.

No one has to like any band to be part of the metal circles. At this point it's like saying in order to like rock you have to like rockabilly and doo-wop bands, or in order to be a film fan you have to jerk off over old copies of Dr Caligari and Nosferatu.

The major innovators in metal are typically the creme of the crop in their respective sub-genres, and in metal in general. Regardless, I'm detecting hipster revisionist devil's advocate in your opinions on metal, as well as hippie, self-righteous, "love everybody" common sense that doesn't need to be stated. Learn to take opinions with a grain of salt.

Unless someone listens to strictly black/death metal, I think it's really weird when metal fans don't like Black Sabbath.

 

[SomeGuyDude]

The major innovators in metal are typically the creme of the crop in their respective sub-genres, and in metal in general. Regardless, I'm detecting hipster revisionist devil's advocate in your opinions on metal, as well as hippie, self-righteous, "love everybody" common sense that doesn't need to be stated. Learn to take opinions with a grain of salt.

Unless someone listens to strictly black/death metal, I think it's really weird when metal fans don't like Black Sabbath.

Not always true. In fact I'd argue it's often not true. The innovators get the ball rolling, but it's later perfected by others. People latch onto the innovators just because they were first, they affix emotional attachment to it and it's total horseshit. Black Sabbath isn't the best metal band, Dr Caligari isn't the greatest horror movie, Beowulf isn't the best English language epic poem, the Model T isn't the best car and the Honeymooners isn't the best sitcom.

But no, keep on yapping about me being a hipster/hippie despite none of that even remotely applying.

 

[Krow]

Someone doesn't like good tunes.

You are the king of worshipping traditional metal with bad vocals.

 

[Manic Ferocity]

You sound ridiculous claiming that you know why someone likes or prefers a band. I have no problem admitting that Black Sabbath are among the very best when it comes to metal and that has nothing to do with them having been the first. As I stated before, that doesn't always apply to other genres for me (not a big fan of the Sex Pistols, for example). It's just a coincidence that innovative, and highly acclaimed classics in metal are among the elite in the genre a lot of the time.

Every time I come to this forum, there is someone breaking down, and over-analyzing why a classic metal album or band isn't good. It's music taste. You sound ridiculous when you come at it progressively like this and I think that a lot of people here are doing it just to stand out and have a controversial opinion (since you are the new and improved generation of metalhead, apparently uke. It's pretty annoying.

 

[SomeGuyDude]

You sound ridiculous claiming that you know why someone likes or prefers a band. I have no problem admitting that Black Sabbath are among the very best when it comes to metal and that has nothing to do with them having been the first. As I stated before, that doesn't always apply to other genres for me (not a big fan of the Sex Pistols, for example). It's just a coincidence that innovative, and highly acclaimed classics in metal are among the elite in the genre a lot of the time.

Every time I come to this forum, there is someone breaking down, and over-analyzing why a classic metal album or band isn't good. It's music taste. You sound ridiculous when you come at it progressively like this and I think that a lot of people here are doing it just to stand out and have a controversial opinion (since you are the new and improved generation of metalhead, apparently uke. It's hipster pedestal sitting revisionist nonsense and it's pretty annoying.

LOL yeah that's me. The new and improved generation who was listening to Sabbath and Zep tapes in the late 80's with my stepdad. Damn me and my new and improved status!!!

EDIT: by the way, let's say for the sake of argument that I *was* some teenager who only got into metal in the past 5 years or something. Wouldn't that just prove my point further? If these classic albums are truly timeless classics and not locked into their legendary status by virtue of when they came out (rather than their pure quality) wouldn't even brand new listeners hear them and know that they're the best? Wouldn't everyone getting into the genre immediately flock to Sabbath, Motorhead, Slayer, Venom, and Death?

 

[Manic Ferocity]

Yeah, but now Electric Wizard is all like, so much heavier and like, makes Black Sabbath sound all old and outdated, right?

EDIT: I'm 24 so that obviously nullifies that logic. I did immediately flock to Sabbath, Motorhead, Slayer, and Venom (Death a little later on). You're pretty good at generalizing for someone who feels the need to state the obvious and self-righteously announce that it's not ok to hate someone for disliking a band.

But since we're generalizing, what kind of modern metal fans are you referring to? A lot of people are just into heavy music as a phase. I would argue that people of any age who truly start to love this music and are actually interested in investing time into exploring its entire scope and history would likely flock to the classics as a starting point.

 

[Kara-Shehr]

Yeah pretty much.

 

[SomeGuyDude]

Yeah, but now Electric Wizard is all like, so much heavier and like, makes Black Sabbath sound all old and outdated, right?

Well they're certainly HEAVIER, but whether or not they're BETTER is personal preference. I'd wager a lot of people think EW and their ilk took the slow trudge idea and went too far with it (and I can understand that). Calling Sabbath "heavy" in this day and age is like playing Nosferatu for someone and being surprised when they aren't terrified by it (and keep in mind I fucking LOVE the original Nosferatu). And yeah, Sabbath sounds pretty dated.

If you really wanna tell me THIS doesn't absolutely SCREAM "the 70s", go for it.



The point is though, some people REALLY LIKE that sound. And that's why we have bands like Graveyard, Kadaver, Witchcraft, and Orchid. It's considered retro or throwback and some people think it's stupid that they're doing it, but hey. Point is that over the years, the sound has been built upon, it's evolved in some ways, devolved in others.

FFS Sabbath THEMSELVES evolved and changed over the years. They didn't just keep making War Pigs. There's a reason for that.

 

[SomeGuyDude]

Yeah, but now Electric Wizard is all like, so much heavier and like, makes Black Sabbath sound all old and outdated, right?

EDIT: I'm 24 so that obviously nullifies that logic. I did immediately flock to Sabbath, Motorhead, Slayer, and Venom (Death a little later on). You're pretty good at generalizing for someone who feels the need to state the obvious and self-righteously announce that it's not ok to hate someone for disliking a band.

But since we're generalizing, what kind of modern metal fans are you referring to? A lot of people are just into heavy music as a phase.

Okay so you're younger than me, so maybe that nullifies YOUR logic of me being some new kid hipster.

And I'm sorry, but I refuse to believe that you would have clung to those bands based on the albums themselves, without knowing their place in the timeline. If you tossed all those albums in a pile, new and old with no sorting and no understanding of who made what when, the odds of anyone selecting ONLY the originals is astronomically low.

 

[Manic Ferocity]

Okay so you're younger than me, so maybe that nullifies YOUR logic of me being some new kid hipster.

One of the most annoying things about talking music with people my age is that the bands I listen to are considered "too old" and therefore not worth listening to. That's exactly what you sound like. Are you going to stop listening to the modern bands you like now in 20 years? I seriously don't get why people are like this about music.

And I'm sorry, but I refuse to believe that you would have clung to those bands based on the albums themselves, without knowing their place in the timeline. If you tossed all those albums in a pile, new and old with no sorting and no understanding of who made what when, the odds of anyone selecting ONLY the originals is astronomically low.

I said that I prefer the classics most of the time and that doesn't mean that there aren't exceptions. For example, I don't rank Metallica and especially Megadeth very highly when it comes to thrash metal. At least not anymore.

 

[SomeGuyDude]

One of the most annoying things about talking music with people my age is that the bands I listen to are considered "too old" and therefore not worth listening to. That's exactly what you sound like. Are you going to stop listening to the modern bands you like now in 20 years? I seriously don't get why people are like this about music.

Of course not, and to suggest this means you're missing my point. First, here's a little comic.

I listen to a fuckload of old music. My point is not, and has never been, that old = bad or new = better. My point was the opposite, that music's place in the timeline doesn't inherently give it good OR bad qualities, and it's kinda important to try and remove the "when" when talking about best albums. "Most important" is a WILDLY different argument. I'll take to the grave that Black Sabbath's s/t is the most important album in metal history. End of story. I just don't think it's the best to listen to.

People have this weird thing where if someone likes a new artist more than an old one they're just objectively wrong. Like "but how can you say they're better than SABBATH?!?" Of course you can say that, and it's fucking stupid to act like just because Sabbath did it first it means no one's done it better since then, same as with anything. It's a sad state of affairs to believe that in every aspect of the creative world there's the originator of a style and it's a decline from there.

I am, however, HIGHLY suspect by anyone who thinks the first bands who did a sound in ALL the genres are ALSO the best. Just like I fucking hate anyone who makes a list of the best albums in a given sound and they're all from the past five years. The "best" is strewn all over the timeline. Some from back then, some from now, and a whole lot that hasn't been released yet.

It's why I think "now" is ALWAYS the best time to be a music listener, because you have access to all the old stuff as well as the incredible albums that are just now arriving.

 

[Manic Ferocity]

Ok, well I actually agree with you on that. I still think Black Sabbath is among the best metal has to offer. It's hard to determine what the "first" from other sub-genres of metal actually were, anyway. As much as I love Venom, I don't think they are the best black metal band out there, but there are still plenty of bona-fide black metal classics that I consider favorites (De Mysteriis Dom Sathanas, Hvis Lyset Tar Oss, etc.). That was my point, really. I don't find that as much with new stuff. I've found a lot of great death metal albums over the years but none of them quite match up to, say, The Red in the Sky is Ours.

 

[SomeGuyDude]

Ok, well I actually agree with you on that. I still think Black Sabbath is among the best metal has to offer. It's hard to determine what the "first" from other sub-genres of metal actually were, anyway. As much as I love Venom, I don't think they are the best black metal band out there, but there are still plenty of bona-fide black metal classics that I consider favorites (De Mysteriis Dom Sathanas, Hvis Lyset Tar Oss, etc.). That was my point, really. I don't find that as much with new stuff. I've found a lot of great death metal albums over the years but none of them quite match up to, say, The Red in the Sky is Ours.

Oh man, I could go forever about how Burzum's "four albums in one year" burst has yet to be replicated. Just some magic in there. But there are also albums coming out currently that I think are better than old Darkthrone, and it always bugs me that you got people saying that's "wrong". Too many people affix grand mythos to the "originators" that prevents them from being able to admit that, yes, people made better music later.

Like I said, I'm skeptical of anyone whose tastes run categorically on EITHER end of the timeline. If I ask someone to tell me their top 10 metal albums and they're all either in the last ten years or the 70s and early 80s I think I'm dealing with someone who's not willing to just judge music on its own merits.