How much time does each metal genre have left before it becomes so stagnant it disapp

[Demilich]

Renaissance, Baroque, Impressionist art anymore. No composer tries to recreate baroque classical.

I'm pretty sure there are some who do, and do a fine job of it!

I say that no genre of metal will ever be completely exhausted. The people who say that this or that "is dead" are merely detractors, and the worst possible thing for any genre. These people should be shot, pissed on, and left in a gutter to rot. This ass-backward way of thinking isn't going to move music forward.

 

[Ayeka]

True, it does take a gifted mind, and there are some gifted minds that do create some excellent new music. But what gifted musician would take up thrash or death metal? He can do nothing. He can add nothing. WHy bother, unless he is a true genius?

He might take up Thrash or Death because he enjoys playing it?

I think you're trying to be cynical and anal for the sake of being cynical and anal. Like I said in the other thread, what's wrong with bands doing existing things REALLY WELL? It's not like every band that forms is obliged to create something revolutionary, they can just do their own thing, have their own particular style, twist, vibe, and that's what seperates all the bands who essentially play the same style of music. And you could say that about the so-called 'revolutionary' bands as well...

I'd say this would apply to every other genre of music too. Why are you only saying Metal is stagnent? By your reasoning you could probably say the same for everything else and say Music Is Stagnent

 

[Lies and Perfidy]

Innovation for its own sake is merely masturbation. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

[speed]

Innovation for its own sake? What, I suppose we should sit in thrash metal stagnation for a 10 years? And who says innovation is masturbation? How is Neurosis masturbation? Masturbation is a prog guitarist with a minute long solo within a prog song we have heard a thousand times before. Its totally unneeded.

But yes, I can see where you are coming from; most art these days is art for arts sake, becuase there is nothing left to do, and no new style at present other than shock and awe.

Anyway, the common thread between history and metal, is that metal has entered its final phase with the rather structure-less form-less doom and core bands--like impressionism, modern classical etc. After these bands, I dont know what is left of the genre. I am sure something new will appear to capture the hearts of angry males--if they didnt already jump on the gangsta rap wagon.

 

[JayKeeley]

Anyway, the common thread between history and metal, is that metal has entered its final phase with the rather structure-less form-less doom and core bands--like impressionism, modern classical etc. After these bands, I dont know what is left of the genre.

"metal has entered it's final phase"? Dude, it's 2005. People said metal was dead in 1990. There will always be something going on. But I feel like a scratched record right now...

I am sure something new will appear to capture the hearts of angry males--if they didnt already jump on the gangsta rap wagon.

What has being an 'angry male' got to do with anything? God forbid we start thinking that metal is aimed at an adolescent teen-angst market.

 

[JayKeeley]

Innovation for its own sake? What, I suppose we should sit in thrash metal stagnation for a 10 years?

Actually, that's a good example. The worst thing that could have happened to thrash is progression. What did you get from moving forward? Melodeath and Metalcore.

I GUARAN-FUCKING-TEE that there is nobody who can argue that modern thrash has progressed and improved upon thrash from the 80's. Evidence alone that some things just shouldn't progress.

 

[speed]

hehe, yeah the angry male was over the top. so you dont think metal is done? And yet you agree nothing new has been added. So, i suppose you are fine hearing variations on the same theme forever? I cant anymore. I just dont care other than doom and core; ive heard it all before.

But most metal genres are done though Mr Keeley, no money, no sales, no innovation, and nothing but a minority or cult of fans. Even nu-metal has pretty much hit the skids.
Oh well, its an argument I wasnt expecting many to get behind due to its divisive nature--especially on a metal forum. But its good that NAD agrees, and I think everyone somewhat feels the same way, they just love their genres so much they cannot accept it.

 

[JayKeeley]

Well, I'm 35 this year and I've been listening to metal since I was 14. Life is grand!!

EDIT: Plus, like I've said a billion times already, you could have made this same argument in 1990. Metal is still here....

 

[JayKeeley]

By the way, metal is in the blood. Who cares what the "album sales" are like?

 

[speed]

No i wouldnt have made the same argument in 1990, as Black and Death were just starting; thus one would have to know something was going to come from them. Now power metal and thrash I would have made that argument in 1990. And really what has changed since 1990 for thrash and power metal? No one but devoted fans listen to the genre anymore; and I cant name a new innovative thrash or power metal record post 1990. There have been plenty of new bands, but really the best one can say about them is how well they incorporated Dark Angel or Maiden influences into the their albums/

 

[JayKeeley]

Right. Nobody is disagreeing with that. People like metal for what it is/was, not for what it's going to be next. If more sub-genres emerge, then great. If not, no matter. That's exactly why the argument that a particular 'sub-genre' of metal is going to save the 'entire genre' is utterly false.

I fully advocate any advance made in metal, as long as it stays within the confines of metal. Otherwise, it's no longer metal, but a hybrid between two separate forms of music. Whether it still be considered metal or not is entirely subjective.

 

[Demilich]

YEEEAAAARRRGHH!!! GO KEELEY!!! HEAVY METAL CRUSADER!

 

[NAD]

People like metal for what it is/was, not for what it's going to be next.

*raises hand* Like I said before, the reason I got into extreme metal because it was new and interesting, if it stops being new and interesting, I'll stop buying the new albums.

Like I said before (somewhere), I'm not throwing away my old metal CDs or saying "fuck this music," but when I look for something innovative, which yes is very important to me, I'm not going to be lining up at the music store for the newest Judas Priest album. Notwithstanding nostalgia of course, since the last "return to form" Megadeth album rocked my socks. As with damn near everything, there is always an exception to the rule.

Right, here's a good example that nobody will agree with but might understand anyhow: Sepultura. I have been listening to them since they released Arise, and when Chaos AD came out, I wasn't screaming nu-metal or anything, I fucking LOVED where they took the music. Then Roots came out a few years later, and since it was a pretty big shift I was hesitant at first, but grew to loooooooove that one too. I never wanted them to go back to playing thrash and I'm glad they evolved (although I would like them to go back to playing quality music :Spin: ). Evolution isn't always a good thing, but there are only so many bands that can release the same album time and time again and make it work.

 

[lizard]

there's nothing wrong with loving something from the past.

in response to the angry thing - But I'll virtually guarantee you, that if I'm at the mall, and I see someone wearing an Emperor tee, it's going to be some 15 yr old with a bad case of acne and a tent in his pants because of all the teenage girls there that he's never gonna get.

 

[JayKeeley]

there's nothing wrong with loving something from the past.

in response to the angry thing - But I'll virtually guarantee you, that if I'm at the mall, and I see someone wearing an Emperor tee, it's going to be some 15 yr old with a bad case of acne and a tent in his pants because of all the teenage girls there that he's never gonna get.

You know, don't take this the wrong way, but I really wish you would post more on music discussions like this than all the ridiculous spam you throw at us.

 

[JayKeeley]

YEEEAAAARRRGHH!!! GO KEELEY!!! HEAVY METAL CRUSADER!

I am the Patriarch! Follow me to the land of unholy.

 

[lizard]

I've said it before and I'm really at the point of openly mocking what lots of metal has become (or not become as the case may be), the best of it is the most powerful music in the world, but the bottom two thirds is aiming for the lowest common denominator and needs copious amounts of beer to a) get you drunk enough to listen to it and b) wash down the bitter aftertaste when you're done.

kinda like eating spam

 

[Black Winter Day]

I agree more along the lines with JayKeeley. While I think NAD and speeds' arguments are perfectly valid, I think they are a bit exaggerated. The way I see it is this:

1) There are two "forms" of music: the progressive and the conservative.
2) What's progressive and pushes boundaries is almost guaranteed to be interesting, but not necessarily to be good. Nevertheless, it is this pushing of boundaries that I admire and, consequently, these are the bands that I listen to the most.
3) What's conservative is more reliant on pre-set styles MORE SO than the above (meaning: there is nothing that is "original" and "un-original", only degrees.)
4) These two schools are NOT in opposition with one another. Since when did we all become Hegel here? One line shoots off in the distance, the other remains more or less flat. Why should the two ever merge or conflict?
5) Both progression and conservatism are vastly important to metal.
6) Bands like Neurosis, DEP, Isis, OMG, etc. ARE representative of bands (of -core origins) that are pushing the bounds of metal. However, to say that these bands are "saving" metal is just taking a microscopic view.
7) As long as these two schools of music (and thought) exist, nothing, especially metal, needs "saving"! As I see it, it's a win-win situation.

Thus spake Zarathustra.

 

[lizard]

Emmanuel Kant was a real pissant
who was very rarely stable.
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
who could think you under the table.

David Hume could outconsume
Schoppenhauer and Hegel.
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
who was just as sloshed as Schlegel.

There's nothing Nietzche couldn't teach ya' 'bout the raisin' of the wrist.
Socrates himself was permanently pissed.

John Stuart Mill of his own free will,
after half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.
Plato they say, could stick it away,
half a crate of whiskey everyday.

Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle.
Hobbes was fond of his dram.
and Rene Descartes was a drunken fart;
I drink therefore I am.

But its Socrates himself who's particularly missed.
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed!

 

[Demilich]

I agree more along the lines with JayKeeley. While I think NAD and speeds' arguments are perfectly valid, I think they are a bit exaggerated. The way I see it is this:

1) There are two "forms" of music: the progressive and the conservative.
2) What's progressive and pushes boundaries is almost guaranteed to be interesting, but not necessarily to be good. Nevertheless, it is this pushing of boundaries that I admire and, consequently, these are the bands that I listen to the most.
3) What's conservative is more reliant on pre-set styles MORE SO than the above (meaning: there is nothing that is "original" and "un-original", only degrees.)
4) These two schools are NOT in opposition with one another. Since when did we all become Hegel here? One line shoots off in the distance, the other remains more or less flat. Why should the two ever merge or conflict?
5) Both progression and conservatism are vastly important to metal.
6) Bands like Neurosis, DEP, Isis, OMG, etc. ARE representative of bands (of -core origins) that are pushing the bounds of metal. However, to say that these bands are "saving" metal is just taking a microscopic view.
7) As long as these two schools of music (and thought) exist, nothing, especially metal, needs "saving"! As I see it, it's a win-win situation.

Thus spake Zarathustra.

Now THAT's an argument!