Unfaithfully Metalhead
Member
- Jun 25, 2004
- 4,142
- 6
- 38
The era did made a changing impact on the music, whether it was good or bad is debatable. Imo it was bad but i still like the earlier bands of Nirvana, Alice in Chains, STP, SP, etc..I was talking about the style, the way the music is played when I said changing impact. I was talking about the era not any particular band and they all had some decent tunes. Easier to take today then it was at the time.
Like I said you really do not get it if you think that is what the definition of "extreme" is to us... it has nothing to do with the words you described (aweful, wicked, sick, raunchy, crude). Most of those words describe glam/hair metal to me and they are by no means extreme music. To me and I think to most extreme music is just a way to describe different genres of metal that do not fall into the mainstream. The "Underground" if you may. It has nothing to do with whom can be sicker or more shocking then the next band.The extreme thing, thats just the way I feel, I feel classical is extreme music, I think Symphony X is extreme music, I think Dream Theater is extreme music, which it all is, it is at an extreme in the art of music. I was only relaying that hyjacking the word extreme to only be placed on music based on the soul basis of "aweful", "wicked", "sick", "raunchy", "crude" I find amusing. When I think of extreme sports I think of those that physically and mentally excel at their sport. For instance a downhill racer (ski) goes like hell at extreme skill, just a hair separating disaster, the way extreme has been applied to music is the equalivant to a skier that runs straight into the tree.... "oh, that was really sick, Im into that".
You definition of extreme sports as such is also way off base.Anyways i am not into "extreme" music or metal because that is really "sick". I rarely know the lyrical content of any song. And if you cannot hear melodic runs and such in a extreme song then you are not opening your ears. I see you in two lights. First like in the movie 6th Sense. You only see what you want to see like the dead people in the movie. And 2nd, I equal you like the general population who defines all metal as noise without really listening to it. I remember back in the day when Ozzy's first 2 solo albums came out when the general population said it was just noise... the metal music he played as well as his contemporaries like Judas Priest, Maiden etc. That is how i see you... like a general population of the metal community. Old School, older generation that refuses to open his hears and mind to something new & defines it as what it isn't. In other words you do not get it and never will.
Extremely redundant can be said about any music or genre including the ones you like.When I said I didnt get it-it was that I didnt get the attraction, not that there was something there stumping me, in fact I found alot of the music from that time extremely dull, extremely elementary and extremely redundant especially when it was band after band song after song.
Again you don't get it and never will. It has nothing to do with competing. The Punk Rockers did not say all of a sudden i can't play like Satriani so i will do the opposite. The Punks just wanted to get back to basics rock of the 3 chord variety and such.No it was far from heavier than what I was accustomed to, just noisier by technique and also by intent. Its common and admitted knowledge that much of it was anti technique, I used to call it the anti Satriani age of guitar players. When you cant compete I guess you go the other way, its what punk rockers did too, its all "anti" based stuff. I always figured if you didnt like the current rock scene go make better rock, but some go play in the mudpuddle and feel important by being dirty. From a musical stand point that is how I hear it.
As for the extreme metal musicians. You are sadly mistaken if you think they were/are anti technique. Most if not all can play the Satriani style of guitar and most grew up on it as far as guitar music. As well as Malsteen and the others. They know how to sweep arpeggios, play in different modes, two handed tapping etc. Again you are not listening to the music at all. You just listen to a few seconds and turn it off.Alot of the rhythms are difficult to play as well. I am not saying all of that music is good but not all is bad like you say. All music genres have their bad and good. You are just judging based on a very few and not exploring the genres' at all. I would burn you a CD of the very best of extreme music that may be light on your ears and be to your tastes in guitar but that would be a waste of time since you have the whole genre judged and sounding the same. Like I said you overanalyze music and do not just enjoy it as much.
That seems to happen alot with Youtube clips on this site. Look them up on Youtube and get back to us about them. The songs by the Smashing Pumpkins are:Your vids dont load, I tried them earlier.
1. Today
2. Disarm
3. 1979 (my fave one)
4. Tonight, Tonight
Garth Brooks?Im stumbling to think of the name of that highly touted male country singer that to me had a gawd aweful voice and questionable pitch Not a big fan so names and such excape me. Country, you can have it.
I don't like just the past but i certainly do not like what is being called Country nowadays. It's equalivant to me as when the so called Hair/Glam metal bands were being called metal. It just wasn't so.BTW isnt liking only the "old" country.... living in the past ?