Deftones - Koi No Yokan

Though since when can someone only comment on something aimed directly at them?

never said that at all.

I guess I don't care about how relevant something is to the mainstream, and I would never use that as a basis to defend a band I liked.

Are you implying that I use relevance in the mainstream as a defense, because if so, this justifies my earlier point about why I'm not sure why you're responding to posts not directed at you as if they were. Because you completely missed the point. If not, sorry for the misinterpretation.

That being said, you did bring up an interesting point. I don't think I typically use mainstream relevance to actually defend music, but I do think in some cases it is a fair defense. 90% of the time though, I just defend music I like for being music. To be honest, I had no idea how Deftones would go over on here, but I figured that since alot of Mastodon and Dillinger fans have been hip to Deftones lately, and that the band has been repositioning itself away from the whole nu metal thing for a few years now, and is actually putting out cool/interesting music for the first time (imo) in a long time, I did figure it would be worth a shot to see what you guys thought of the new one. So there's my "sincere" Deftones defense for this thread, haha.
 
I was the one that brought up Chevelle, simply stating that I'd tend to lump the Deftones in the same type of music as them.

By the way, everyone on here knows I have exquisite taste in music! :D

~Brian~

LOL. But of course, when I refer it to "awful music", I mean it to me and nothing else. Aural beauty is in the ear of the beholder... :lol:
 
I think my biggest problem with Chevelle is that they sound way way too much like Tool but without all the cool riffs and arrangements that make Tool special. So it's like what's the point? But for people who hate Tool's long songs and "pretentious" image, I can get Chevelle's appeal.
 
AS is DEFINITIVELY the last person on this board who should scold anyone for responding to anything not directed at that person.

And there's nothing wrong with elitism. Having standards or taste is nothing to be ashamed of. Accepting or tolerating shit should bring no pride to anyone.

this is an opinion. thank you for your opinion.

I agree it's just music....but seriously?????

I love the latest Smashing Pumpkins disc.
Billy Corgan plays power chords on a Fender stratocaster.
That does not mean I can justify discussing the album on a metal forum.

Get it?

No I don't, because we talk about Alice in Chains, Pearl Jam, and Whitesnake (all great bands) on here all the time.
 
No I don't, because we talk about Alice in Chains, Pearl Jam, and Whitesnake (all great bands) on here all the time.

The reason we don't talk about Smashing Pumpkins is simple... we're waiting until the subject dies down, so that we can then bring them back up and piss off Jason for not giving him "internet credit". :lol:
 
I think my biggest problem with Chevelle is that they sound way way too much like Tool but without all the cool riffs and arrangements that make Tool special. So it's like what's the point? But for people who hate Tool's long songs and "pretentious" image, I can get Chevelle's appeal.

My problem with Chevelle is that they have one pretty good song, and every album contains 12 versions of the same song.

As far as this nonsense about relevance, it's just that: nonsense. Deftones just played a packed show here in town that sold out a couple weeks in advance....Nightwish played the same venue and I guarantee you it wasn't anywhere close to being sold out. Yes, demand is one part of relevance. Also, a lot of heavy music (and I'll say it....METAL) fans consider Deftones to be a great band that keeps getting better and better. I'm one of them. Honestly, they are far more "relevant" and interesting than half the copycat bands discussed here. To argue otherwise is just jealousy and elitism. And btw, elitism is pretty rich coming from people that like Sabaton.*

And another "btw": Deftones very clearly emerged from the '90s nu-metal scene (that's nu-metal), and the band-members roots are in metal, and to deny that the bands sound contains many elements of metal (and instead to put them in a broad "alternative" context that just invites the mention of Gin Blossoms and The Lemonheads) is silliness.

*Nothing against Sabaton; I could have picked any of 100 bands people slobber over here and my point would stand. And I like many of those 100 bands myself. I'm just sayin'. :devil:
 
Are you implying that I use relevance in the mainstream as a defense, because if so, this justifies my earlier point about why I'm not sure why you're responding to posts not directed at you as if they were. Because you completely missed the point. If not, sorry for the misinterpretation.

Sorry - I should have clarified. That comment was not at all directed at anyone specific. It was an offshoot of Matt bringing up the whole Deftones in the Top 40 discussion. As asked before, "what is the definition of relevance"? I guess before even defining it, one would have to first specify "relevant to what / where / whom"?

For me in terms of how rock music will stand the test of time, I would NEVER consider anything "Relevant" based on album sales. If that were the case, we should still be discussing the influence of Fred Dursts' vocal delivery on hard rock vocalists today. It was relevant to mainstream culture, and to a SMALL degree I will agree (sadly, but better late than never) that a band such as LB were a gateway band for some........
 
For me in terms of how rock music will stand the test of time, I would NEVER consider anything "Relevant" based on album sales. If that were the case, we should still be discussing the influence of Fred Dursts' vocal delivery on hard rock vocalists today. It was relevant to mainstream culture, and to a SMALL degree I will agree (sadly, but better late than never) that a band such as LB were a gateway band for some........

What we were saying in terms of album sales, is that that's an objective way to measure relevance. I'll call a cutting edge band like Xibalba or Twitching Tongues relevant because they are doing something completely different by combining old school 90's hc sensibilities with 90's death metal sensibilities in a way that hasn't been doing before (in other words, without sounding like Dying Fetus or old Despised Icon), and therefore creating a sound that is relatively fresh and exciting right now. However, that's a subjective measure and it's a matter of opinion, holding no actual fact behind it. I would never call a band irrelevant simply on the metric of not liking it. I don't like Amaranthe for example, and I've said I never really thought much would come their way simply because there are so many bands that sound like them (and I was wrong), but I'd never call them irrelevant. Conversely, I'd call Fred Durst irrelevant for sure, because fewer and fewer people are caring about him or his music.
 
The only thing 'cutting edge' about Twitching Tongues is that they're pushing the boundaries of just how horrendously bad a band can be and still get eaten up by the hc crowd because of who's in the band. Whoever came up with the bright idea of mixing Life of Agony and Seether should be banned from music.
 
I know not of these bands you speak of........... LOL

Yeah, though this is a metal forum. Who cares about anything "objective" LOL
I get your point though.