Chinese Whispers
Member
- Jan 6, 2009
- 570
- 0
- 16
It reminded me of Morbid Angel.
A while ago someone said it was close to Megadeth's 'Symphony Of Destruction'/
Boy it is a derivative riff, hehe.
Does Opeth represent for the new generations what Metallica did to the old-school's?
- Thread starter Kamel
- Start date
It reminded me of Morbid Angel.
A while ago someone said it was close to Megadeth's 'Symphony Of Destruction'/
Boy it is a derivative riff, hehe.
if i had to compare CDs going from awsome and dropping off to complete shit, i'd say in flames. their amazing melo death on jester and whoracle had some of the best songs ever wrotted! <---joke spelling) Then came colony (good but not THEM all the way) then the pure bullshit? either way im sure we can fine similar happenings in many other band's albums but ultimately its not worth thinking about. it'll be impossible to find a band that will have the same affect metallica did. The only chance would be if Devin Townsend's music took off so me how : P
ehhh clayman is pretty bad. i vaguely recall a few good listens but only so many times. i haven't gone back ina while. i found 4 that i ilked on reroute to remain also but i probably couldnt listen to them a nymore. but you get my point ... soundtrack to your escape = st anger
I actually prefer STYE over R2R. For some reasons I like that album.
Whoracle is the best hands down with The jester race on close second IMO. I know TJR is more popular but Whoracle man...dayum!!!
Whoracle is the best hands down with The jester race on close second IMO. I know TJR is more popular but Whoracle man...dayum!!!
About LOG & the Metallica comparison :
Their first 3/4 albums cannot be compared with Metallica's first three/four in any shape or form : classic, anthemic songs, revolutionnary music, overall quality etc
The glass ceiling that growls are : it s not because you like or bear growls that you are some what superior in your musical tastes.
You dig or you don't and I don't see growls being mainstream accepted anytime soon.
Even the biggest metal band of the new generation that is Slipknot has growls but also a fantastic singer in Corey Taylor.
LOG couldn't pull off a Black album even if they decided to, with Randy Blyth they just can't.
Only Slipknot can do that with Corey Taylor (whether you like him or not, the guy can sing).
Outside of US, LOG is regarded as another Pantera, metalcore band wannabe in a gigantic pool of bands.
Metallica were huge in Europe, Master era, before the USA proving they had a worldwide appeal.
I am sorry but LOG, I don't see it, at all.
The only band that was on a Metallica path was Pantera but we all know how tragically it all ended.
Slipknot is huge nowadays but I don't see them getting bigger and becoming Metallica/Maiden size.
After the Slipknot explosion, I don't see any band whith a slightest chance at becoming the next Metallica.
Nu Metal is dead, metalcore has gazillion clone bands and now everybody listens to its own niche of music, Opeth fits the bill perfectly, while puking on how bad the mainstream is.
Quality music and mainstream's love affair ended in the 90's.
Sad but True.
Their first 3/4 albums cannot be compared with Metallica's first three/four in any shape or form : classic, anthemic songs, revolutionnary music, overall quality etc
The glass ceiling that growls are : it s not because you like or bear growls that you are some what superior in your musical tastes.
You dig or you don't and I don't see growls being mainstream accepted anytime soon.
Even the biggest metal band of the new generation that is Slipknot has growls but also a fantastic singer in Corey Taylor.
LOG couldn't pull off a Black album even if they decided to, with Randy Blyth they just can't.
Only Slipknot can do that with Corey Taylor (whether you like him or not, the guy can sing).
Outside of US, LOG is regarded as another Pantera, metalcore band wannabe in a gigantic pool of bands.
Metallica were huge in Europe, Master era, before the USA proving they had a worldwide appeal.
I am sorry but LOG, I don't see it, at all.
The only band that was on a Metallica path was Pantera but we all know how tragically it all ended.
Slipknot is huge nowadays but I don't see them getting bigger and becoming Metallica/Maiden size.
After the Slipknot explosion, I don't see any band whith a slightest chance at becoming the next Metallica.
Nu Metal is dead, metalcore has gazillion clone bands and now everybody listens to its own niche of music, Opeth fits the bill perfectly, while puking on how bad the mainstream is.
Quality music and mainstream's love affair ended in the 90's.
Sad but True.
kickass line
so according to you LOG(Lamb of God) transformed to LOB(Lame over-rated Bitches) as time passed on
Risquit
Member
The metal field wasn't nearly as crowded in 1982-83 as it is today. So that blast of fresh air that was Metallica on the Metal Massacre album, Kill 'Em All, and Ride the Lightning may never be duplicated. They stole the crown from Judas Priest and Iron Maiden, IMO.
I will say on a personal level though, that Opeth kind of gave me that same feeling I had when I was a 15 year old longhair listening to "Motorbreath" on the radio the first time (it was a high school station near my house). That, "who the fuck is THIS band?!" moment. Only this time I was in my late 30s.
But for the new generation, no--there's too much out there and too much time gone by for Opeth to represent the same way that Metallica did.
I will say on a personal level though, that Opeth kind of gave me that same feeling I had when I was a 15 year old longhair listening to "Motorbreath" on the radio the first time (it was a high school station near my house). That, "who the fuck is THIS band?!" moment. Only this time I was in my late 30s.
But for the new generation, no--there's too much out there and too much time gone by for Opeth to represent the same way that Metallica did.
Iki-ilkkuja
Member
^ True. Although metal is more popular than ever these days, generally speaking metal music has experienced a certain regression. Nothing truly significant has happened within a decade or so.
The 2000's have brought no real contribution to the music, if yo allow me say so; Compared to the nineties, the 80's and the marvelous 70's...
Nasty-Fire
Discursion
The 2000 have brought no real contribution but there's still a significant change, I sincerly believe. But it's relative... sure it's nothing compared to the decades you mentionned. The easy access to informations is one of the factors.
The 2000s are awesome because you have so much music (yes, shittier ones too) to choose from. From those of the times that are considered golden to todays music. I like having so many options.
Jasonic
Doom On!
2000'S are full of bands living off last three decades' music. there are some exceptions of course; Porcupine Tree, Katatonia...no, wait...they belong to the 90's.
2000's has some really great music, the only thing about that music is that it's not revolutionary, it's just a bit better than its 90's counterparts were. BTW, great observation on that "love affair" between mainstream and quality music, a great way to sum it all up, popularity ceased to have any relation to quality at some point.
specifically in the metal field, negura bunget and deathspell omega aren't living off the last three decades of music for anything. neither are darkspace or coldworld tbh.
{-sapob-}
Member
- Dec 17, 2008
- 730
- 0
- 16
Chinese Whispers
Member
- Jan 6, 2009
- 570
- 0
- 16
Yeah, I'm not quite sure about people saying that metal wasn't what it was 10, 20 or 30 years ago, or that it is living off the last three decades.
People said the same thing about the 90s when it was going (and it was until years later that a lot of the now 'influential' albums were aknowledged, with the exception of nu-metal funnily enough, which of course is now so taboo we best not mention it).
The 80s were a different kettle of fish - metal was at its commercial peak and was really only just starting to form its own unique identity - people say it began in the 70s, but to be honest, it was just a way of describing the more new, heavier rock bands, like Van Halen and Kiss were considered heavy metal in the 70s but few would class them today because they do not hit into that indentity that was formed in the 80s.
Because metal formed this identity - granted that has evolved but only slightly - in the 80s, a lot will be compared back to those 'glory years'.
But a lot has happened in the last decade. Think of the whole post-metal/instrum-metal movement - who did take influence from 90s Neurosis, yes - but can pretty much be traced back to the work Isis was doing in early-00s - and it is a genre that has certainly become more atmospheric in its approach and continues to move further away from its sludge origins.
A lot of admittedly less viable drone and noise acts have also emerged and taken that sub-genre in new and interesting directions. Of course this is music that has less to do with the more traditional leanings of music and is also probably unlikely to gain the kind of commercial success that the more 'trad' proprieters of metal are always going to receive (mainly because they have a cross-generational appeal, for example the thrash revival or even the development of, say, death metal)
Also, as much as I dislike the term, 'prog metal' has certainly changed a lot from simply being power metal bands with concepts or long songs. To think that a band like Enslaved would have evolved to where they are since their beginnings in BM to what they have done over the last decade is almost unfathomable.
I think a lot of people are trying to measure whether metal is still vibrant and creative in waiting for a big movement like thrash or black metal to happen but the truth is I think in this globalised world it won't happen. Think about it - thrash is associated with San Fran (and later on the Teutonic Thrash of Germany/Switzerland), and black metal with Norway. These were very localised movements, and this simply will not happen in a globalized world. There just isn't the isolation to develop a localized sound like that. As soon as a band is created, there is a demo up on myspace.
This all isn't inherently a bad thing, but it is far easy to stand back and say that all is rubbish and derivative now, when the decades before have had, well, decades of analysis in hindsight and diamonds in the rough have been unearthed that just weren't popular at the time but have emerged into something much larger (funnily enough, a lot of people forget that when metalcore emerged, it was hugely popular because it was laying to waste nu-metal with real metal only to become the nu-whipping boy).
Anyway, it'd be good to hear others thoughts on this kind of thing. Hopefully some of that stuff I just wrote makes SOME sense!?!?!
People said the same thing about the 90s when it was going (and it was until years later that a lot of the now 'influential' albums were aknowledged, with the exception of nu-metal funnily enough, which of course is now so taboo we best not mention it).
The 80s were a different kettle of fish - metal was at its commercial peak and was really only just starting to form its own unique identity - people say it began in the 70s, but to be honest, it was just a way of describing the more new, heavier rock bands, like Van Halen and Kiss were considered heavy metal in the 70s but few would class them today because they do not hit into that indentity that was formed in the 80s.
Because metal formed this identity - granted that has evolved but only slightly - in the 80s, a lot will be compared back to those 'glory years'.
But a lot has happened in the last decade. Think of the whole post-metal/instrum-metal movement - who did take influence from 90s Neurosis, yes - but can pretty much be traced back to the work Isis was doing in early-00s - and it is a genre that has certainly become more atmospheric in its approach and continues to move further away from its sludge origins.
A lot of admittedly less viable drone and noise acts have also emerged and taken that sub-genre in new and interesting directions. Of course this is music that has less to do with the more traditional leanings of music and is also probably unlikely to gain the kind of commercial success that the more 'trad' proprieters of metal are always going to receive (mainly because they have a cross-generational appeal, for example the thrash revival or even the development of, say, death metal)
Also, as much as I dislike the term, 'prog metal' has certainly changed a lot from simply being power metal bands with concepts or long songs. To think that a band like Enslaved would have evolved to where they are since their beginnings in BM to what they have done over the last decade is almost unfathomable.
I think a lot of people are trying to measure whether metal is still vibrant and creative in waiting for a big movement like thrash or black metal to happen but the truth is I think in this globalised world it won't happen. Think about it - thrash is associated with San Fran (and later on the Teutonic Thrash of Germany/Switzerland), and black metal with Norway. These were very localised movements, and this simply will not happen in a globalized world. There just isn't the isolation to develop a localized sound like that. As soon as a band is created, there is a demo up on myspace.
This all isn't inherently a bad thing, but it is far easy to stand back and say that all is rubbish and derivative now, when the decades before have had, well, decades of analysis in hindsight and diamonds in the rough have been unearthed that just weren't popular at the time but have emerged into something much larger (funnily enough, a lot of people forget that when metalcore emerged, it was hugely popular because it was laying to waste nu-metal with real metal only to become the nu-whipping boy).
Anyway, it'd be good to hear others thoughts on this kind of thing. Hopefully some of that stuff I just wrote makes SOME sense!?!?!
Definitely I lost it....I don't really know what metal is about nowadays...I realised after reading your post
