Metal in the 2000s

So? WHY DON'T YOU IGNORE THEM?

For the purpose of this thread.. It doesn't really bother me what bands say or think, it is just rather humorous how certain bands or fans let modern bands get under their skin, almost like they feel threatened by them.

I just don't feel the need to be apart of the crowd that will share the opinion that new modern bands are ruining metal or making it something it's not supposed to be. It's fine if bands want to innovate or add other elements to their music, i'm not going to think "hey this is bastardizing my precious genre"

Old school metal is not going to cease to exist anytime soon.
 
For MK? Cool.

Yeah, you read it I would assume? Cool. See this thread for further details. Long story short we're converting to a primarily physical based format and changing the name to The Heretic's Torch. The blog is on hiatus at the moment as we prepare to get the first issue out, which is almost done.

For further clarification for not only what I was agreeing to before but also what the article will be about, it was the second sentence I was echoing primarily, namely: "There seems to be an internal fight of how far you can push the foundations of the genre against those who wish to continue following the path forged from the earlier artists." It's not an us vs. then, good vs. bad type of thing at all, it's just a matter of some people such as myself seeing more and more bands today seemingly moving further and further away from the core of what we identify with in the genre, while on the other end there are more and more bands regressing toward a fixed point in which all is safe. There are positives and negatives to both sides. If I was so direly concerned with "true" metal and the sanctity of 80s metal aesthetics and things of that nature, I wouldn't listen to Agalloch, let alone be working on an interview with John Haughm right now, which I'm sure a lot of the eventual readers of The Heretic's Torch will find odd.
 
Well, what do you think are the positives of the current metal which has "lost its way" in regard/relation to what you identify with most?
 
If you read the line that I quoted above, you'll see that it doesn't say "lost its way" and that's not the message I want to get across.
 
Haha, well then perhaps I should clarify what I meant by "lost its way," and that was summed up pretty perfectly on No Country's post:

the most meaningful music situates itself firmly in a historical context yet relates itself to that context in a fresh way; this is becoming increasingly apparent in this decade. a lot of modern metal only does the former (cloning) or doesn't relate to it at all (gimmicky experimentation), neither of which are conducive to a listener's enjoyment.
 
One thing I was thinking about was what if bands like Slayer, just stayed a NWOBHM worship band? Then we wouldn't have excellent albums like Hell Awaits.
 
I believe every scene has had different changes and effects in the 2000s. Thrash has declined while death has risen imo.
 
also, this decade brought younger hipsters who swear by old school music but were obviously too young to hear it the first time. i think they might be the bigger issue than purists who have been around since the dawn of the scene...
~gR~

Actually, Hipsters tend to like the more modern sounding metal bands(Mastadon, Sunn O)), Wolves in the Throne Room, etc) then the bands that sound old school.
 
Actually, Hipsters tend to like the more modern sounding metal bands(Mastadon, Sunn O)), Wolves in the Throne Room, etc) then the bands that sound old school.

meh, i think there are hipsters on both sides. but the retro hipsters annoy me more. mostly because i am a sunn/wittr hipster...
~gR~
 
Well I still enjoy a bit of late 90s DM, like Gorgut's Obscura for example.


And I've found a few early 90s thrash gems.