Controversial opinions on metal

[The Ozzman]

It isn't as good as Skid Row's first two when it comes to that style though.

Holy shit...I agree with you?

 

[no country for old wainds]

Ya because it essentially is. I mean, if the preceding 4 records are metal albums, then what makes the Black Album metal in comparison to those records? They have virtually nothing in common musically.

you could use the same argument to claim dark angel isnt metal because it has virtually nothing in common with summoning.

 

[GuiltySpawn]

Ok. A very biased and close minded approach. Are you a digital or physical format guy?

Ridiculous. There's nothing closed-minded about having preferences. Closed minded would be if I dismiss something before giving it a chance. I've searched and explored all the various sub-genres of metal, looking for things to like and listen to. I always listen to something before slagging it off. I'm willing to get into new, different stuff if it appeals to me.

@no country for old wainds
I guess everyone just draws that line at a different point. I'm sure there are plenty of people who can accept growling but cannot accept pig squeals, for example. Would you say that's an accurate comparison? Can pig squealing be thought of as taking metal vocals to next level of extremity?

 

[no country for old wainds]

well exactly. i personally can't stand silencer's shrieky waily depressed ghost vocals for example, but i know people who like it. give me a dying pig over that shit any day.

 

[Omni]

Silencer is all sorts of stupid. The music is pretty generic and the vocals are too ridiculous.

 

[GuiltySpawn]

I don't like any of Bathory's early releases. I like their viking metal stuff though. I draw the line with black metal. I really love thrash and am I pretty big Venom fan, but I can't say I like the genre they inspired. It sounds more like noise than music to me. And the recording quality is seriously bad.

 

[RedStorm]

Silencer is not too bad, The vocals are just another thing to get used to.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

Ya because it essentially is. I mean, if the preceding 4 records are metal albums, then what makes the Black Album metal in comparison to those records? They have virtually nothing in common musically.

Saying the black album isn't metal is honestly one of the dumbest, most clueless thing i have EVER read on here. I'm pretty sure you'll look back at that statement and laugh a few years from now when you come to your senses.

 

[EternalMetal]

Ridiculous. There's nothing closed-minded about having preferences. Closed minded would be if I dismiss something before giving it a chance. I've searched and explored all the various sub-genres of metal, looking for things to like and listen to. I always listen to something before slagging it off. I'm willing to get into new, different stuff if it appeals to me.

Your traditionalist attitude toward the art of metal and the way in which you lumped all harsh vocals into one category and dismissed them can hardly be considered being open-minded. Respecting and understanding the merit of musical styles that you dont like is open-minded; judging them to be invalid because you dont like them isnt. I think you will notice that most people here have preferences for certain styles and aspects of metal, and some of them are just as close-minded as you when it comes to stuff they dont like. Its ok, I actually prefer it when people have judgmental opinions about music, but hell, some of the stuff you said to support your preferences was just flat out wrong and a result of confirmation bias.

 

[Baroque]

I honestly feel that in general, music started to get shitty after 1990.

You listed Sodom, Coroner, and Vio-lence. I'm a bit surprised to hear this opinion then. Technical thrash such as Coroner really peaked around 1990-1992. Coroner's Mental Vortex came out in 1991. 1992 is possibly my favorite year of tech thrash. Sodom's Tapping the Vein came out in 1992. There are a few good releases in 1993 as well (Coroner's Grin for example). 1994 is really when thrash metal died. There has been a resurgence in the past 10 years or so however. Have you checked out any of the new wave of thrash bands? If so, which ones because I have a bazillion recommendations. I did a massive research project on this stuff a year back.

I'm honestly surprised you can handle the vocals of some of these bands too since they're hardly traditional like you claim is best.

 

[Baroque]

Ya because it essentially is. I mean, if the preceding 4 records are metal albums, then what makes the Black Album metal in comparison to those records? They have virtually nothing in common musically.

A change of metal subgenres doesn't mean something isn't metal. This is like saying Black Sabbath has virtually nothing in common with black metal, so one of them isn't metal.

 

[GuiltySpawn]

Your traditionalist attitude toward the art of metal and the way in which you lumped all harsh vocals into one category and dismissed them can hardly be considered being open-minded. Respecting and understanding the merit of musical styles that you dont like is open-minded; judging them to be invalid because you dont like them isnt. I think you will notice that most people here have preferences for certain styles and aspects of metal, and some of them are just as close-minded as you when it comes to stuff they dont like. Its ok, I actually prefer it when people have judgmental opinions about music, but hell, some of the stuff you said to support your preferences was just flat out wrong and a result of confirmation bias.

I cannot accept the accusation that I'm closed minded. It doesn't mean I'm closed minded if I disrespect a style that I don't like, so long as I give fair, rational reasons. I'd like to know again, which things I said that were "flat out wrong" or biased. If I'm wrong, I'll own up and admit it, but I don't think I am, and I think you're just making assertions against me that are just as subjective and judgmental as mine.

You listed Sodom, Coroner, and Vio-lence. I'm a bit surprised to hear this opinion then. Technical thrash such as Coroner really peaked around 1990-1992. Coroner's Mental Vortex came out in 1991. 1992 is possibly my favorite year of tech thrash. Sodom's Tapping the Vein came out in 1992. There are a few good releases in 1993 as well (Coroner's Grin for example). 1994 is really when thrash metal died. There has been a resurgence in the past 10 years or so however. Have you checked out any of the new wave of thrash bands? If so, which ones because I have a bazillion recommendations. I did a massive research project on this stuff a year back.

I'm honestly surprised you can handle the vocals of some of these bands too since they're hardly traditional like you claim is best.

It's not an exact year, it's give or take. And I'm talking about the overall metal scene in general - of course there are some exceptions.

As for accepting thrash vocals...again, it's a matter of where you draw the line. Some of them are pretty harsh, but I like them. They're aggressive and they fit the style very well. The reason I can handle them much easier than death or black vocals is that they aren't nearly as distorted, have more clarity in the lyrics, and most of the time carry a melody. The difference is that thrash vocals are shouted, whereas death vocals are deeply growled in an annoying guttural fashion that just sounds retarded to me.

I used to think everything sucked after 1990, but then I discovered European Power metal and it changed my mind. I'd say that's being open minded enough. For some time I was unaware of bands like Hammerfall, Gamma Ray, Straovarius, or Blind Guardian. I gave them a chance, came to the decision that they were good, and ultimately included them among my playlist.

 

[no country for old wainds]

there's looooooooooooads of great '80s-styled stuff post-1990 even if you don't like the modern sub-genres tho

 

[RedStorm]

Are you still trying to defend yourself? Holy fuck dude....

 

[EternalMetal]

I cannot accept the accusation that I'm closed minded. It doesn't mean I'm closed minded if I disrespect a style that I don't like, so long as I give fair, rational reasons. I'd like to know again, which things I said that were "flat out wrong" or biased. If I'm wrong, I'll own up and admit it, but I don't think I am, and I think you're just making assertions against me that are just as subjective and judgmental as mine.

Dude, I could quote just about as many posts as youve had in the last 10 pages to prove my point, but most of them have been quoted and disputed in a very similar way to how I would respond now. If you are unsure how I feel, how about re-reading a bit and see how wainds, The Butt, and CIG have responded to some of the stuff you said.

A large part of your argument stemmed upon the idea of bands properly interpreting the influence of proto-metal from the late 60s and early 70s. Metal was an open book at this point, so why even try to encapsulate the meaning of metal by bands (and seriously, who other than Sabbath at this point?) that were just trying to push the limits of rock? The metal styles with extreme vocals that you are complaining about evolved a bit later on, mostly influenced by NWOBHM, thrash, and hardcore punk. You mentioned failed genres such as metalcore and deathcore as a way to find discordance in our own judgment and exploit it to mean that we were are as judgmental as you, and that alike we both draw the line but in a different place. What you are basically trying to say is that only metal from the mid 70s to early 80s is metal, and pretty much everyone but a couple of bands that fit your taste have all misinterpreted the original message of what constitutes metal (a claim distinction that none of us have tried to make). You may not be able to accept my accusation of you being close-minded, but im sure that anyone here would agree that you are being exactly that. I think that your problem is that you are trying to justify your viewpoint through metal history, and the evolution of the genre completely contradicts what you are trying to prove. Im ok with you not liking any sort of harsh vocals, but clearly they are as much part of metal as is any progressions made by guitar, bass, drums, production, etc. TL;DR - Your reasons arent fair or rational, and were completely biased against liking harsh vocals.

 

[Baroque]

It's not an exact year, it's give or take.

You gave an exact year before, you said 1990. So I was responding to that. You need to be more clear and say what you actually mean if you want proper responses.

Not all death vocals are deeply growled or trying to sound as harsh as possible. Check out early death bands like Death and Atheist for a quick example.

Also you didn't respond to my query about newer thrash bands.

 

[The Butt]

Last ten pages summed up, the tl;dr version:

• GuiltySpawn basically says in longer words that guttural vocals are "ruining metal".
• Everyone tells him he is wrong, and why.
• GuiltySpawn mentions that extreme metal, as a creative artform, should change to fit his views of what music should be like.
• Everyone tells him that is narrow-minded and fucking dumb, and why.
• GuiltySpawn goes on to say that extreme metal bands are an "invalid" interpretation of the classic metal those bands are influenced by, and that people who disagree simply "don't understand the history of the genre".
• Everyone tells him he is wrong, and why.

 

[GuiltySpawn]

Dude, I could quote just about as many posts as youve had in the last 10 pages to prove my point, but most of them have been quoted and disputed in a very similar way to how I would respond now. If you are unsure how I feel, how about re-reading a bit and see how wainds, The Butt, and CIG have responded to some of the stuff you said.

A large part of your argument stemmed upon the idea of bands properly interpreting the influence of proto-metal from the late 60s and early 70s. Metal was an open book at this point, so why even try to encapsulate the meaning of metal by bands (and seriously, who other than Sabbath at this point?) that were just trying to push the limits of rock? The metal styles with extreme vocals that you are complaining about evolved a bit later on, mostly influenced by NWOBHM, thrash, and hardcore punk. You mentioned failed genres such as metalcore and deathcore as a way to find discordance in our own judgment and exploit it to mean that we were are as judgmental as you, and that alike we both draw the line but in a different place. What you are basically trying to say is that only metal from the mid 70s to early 80s is metal, and pretty much everyone but a couple of bands that fit your taste have all misinterpreted the original message of what constitutes metal (a claim distinction that none of us have tried to make). You may not be able to accept my accusation of you being close-minded, but im sure that anyone here would agree that you are being exactly that. I think that your problem is that you are trying to justify your viewpoint through metal history, and the evolution of the genre completely contradicts what you are trying to prove. Im ok with you not liking any sort of harsh vocals, but clearly they are as much part of metal as is any progressions made by guitar, bass, drums, production, etc. TL;DR - Your reasons arent fair or rational, and were completely biased against liking harsh vocals.

I addressed their objections in a way that was satisfactory, so I would suggest you go back a re-read my responses yourself. So far, no one here has successfully or reasonably shown that I am wrong. There's been a lot of subjective assertions that have been made, trying to pass itself off as objective. Sorry, that doesn't cut it.

So to summarize:
You say I'm wrong for encapsulating the meaning of metal by turning to the sounds and styles of the bands that started the genre. You honestly think that's a reasonable claim? If you want to properly define a genre, what better way than to turn the bands that invented it? Again, it really comes off sounding like you're ignorant of the way that metal developed and originated from the beginning.

You say I'm wrong for drawing a distinction between traditional metal and extreme metal, and that I'm wrong for suggesting that this is much the like the distinction drawn between deathcore and death metal. Yet, many fans of death metal will do just this. They will claim that deathcore is not a proper evolution of the genre and isn't true metal. Again, I agree totally with this. This is not a wrong or unreasonable claim whatsoever. Hell, I hate deathcore way worse than death metal. So again, it comes down to where you draw the line. I draw the line between traditional metal and extreme metal, and I think the distinction in musical style is pretty damn clear.

I never claimed harsh vocals aren't a part of metal history. My claim is that they, along with their respective musical styles, are not proper interpretations of true heavy metal, which existed many years before they did. Just as deathcore is not a proper interpretation of death metal. I'm perfected entitled to that opinion, and if you're going to say it's wrong, you need to provide better reasons than what you have.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

 

[RedStorm]

I addressed their objections in a way that was satisfactory, so I would suggest you go back a re-read my responses yourself. So far, no one here has successfully or reasonably shown that I am wrong. There's been a lot of subjective assertions that have been made, trying to pass itself off as objective. Sorry, that doesn't cut it.

So to summarize:
You say I'm wrong for encapsulating the meaning of metal by turning to the sounds and styles of the bands that started the genre. You honestly think that's a reasonable claim? If you want to properly define a genre, what better way than to turn the bands that invented it? Again, it really comes off sounding like you're ignorant of the way that metal developed and originated from the beginning.

You say I'm wrong for drawing a distinction between traditional metal and extreme metal, and that I'm wrong for suggesting that this is much the like the distinction drawn between deathcore and death metal. Yet, many fans of death metal will do just this. They will claim that deathcore is not a proper evolution of the genre and isn't true metal. Again, I agree totally with this. This is not a wrong or unreasonable claim whatsoever. Hell, I hate deathcore way worse than death metal. So again, it comes down to where you draw the line. I draw the line between traditional metal and extreme metal, and I think the distinction in musical style is pretty damn clear.

I never claimed harsh vocals aren't a part of metal history. My claim is that they, along with their respective musical styles, are not proper interpretations of true heavy metal, which existed many years before they did. Just as deathcore is not a proper interpretation of death metal. I'm perfected entitled to that opinion, and if you're going to say it's wrong, you need to provide better reasons than what you have.

I understand what you mean, we all do, but it doesn't fucking matter.