Why Goatsblood and Watchmaker are more metal than Zyklon and Arch Enemy . . .

[Nate The Great]

This is my opinion on what makes metal not only good, but worth of the term "metal".

Metal originated as a form of rebellion toward both the popular rock bands and society in general. I won't trace specific bands, but I'm sure everybody would agree that was Black Sabbath's intent. If you don't think Black Sabbath was the frist real metal band, you're retarded. Anyway, as time progressed certain bands would come along and do something to rebel against popular forms of metal (and probably society . . . metal usually rebels against society as a general rule). Metallica and Slayer (for example) rebelled against the ever-so-popular hair bands of the 80's. Morbid Angel, Suffocation, Death, etc. rebelled against the growing popularity of thrash. They were also trying to take metal to new levels of extremity. Mayhem and Darkthrone were rebelling against the growing popularity of American death metal. They wanted to prove that Deicide was all talk, in essence.

As far as I'm concerned, the most "metal" bands around today are the bands like Today is the Day, Isis, Phantomsmasher, Watchmaker, Goatsblood, etc. These bands are doing everything in their power to push metal and extremity in new directions. They are rebelling against the weak and predictable approach that bands like Arch Enemy and Zyklon are taking with their music. I'm not saying that Arch Enemy and Zyklon aren't metal. They just don't represent what metal was originally meant to be.

Now just beacuse somebody does something different doesn't make them more metal than the next band. Whether not the differentness of a band is good is up to opinion . . . just like whether a band is "metal" or not.

 

[J.]

Arch Enemy are about as metal as Ace of Base.

The new Zyklon is a huge dissapointment.

 

[Black Winter Day]

the way i see it, there is plenty out there for everyone (in metal especially) from Rhapsody to something like Goatsblood or Phantomsmasher. it's all about going for what you like. i myself, like both extremes (and plenty of stuff outside metal). when i listen to a cd, i DO think about how original something is. that's why i don't listen to all these melodic death/power metal clones. they simply aren't doing anything new. that's the only thing i dislike about metal -- most of it is derived from many other sources.

 

[JayKeeley]

I'm not sure if I would disagree with any of that. Well said.

Of course, I also appreciate the disclaimer of the "differentness of a band is good is up to opinion", because just *how* metal a band is doesn't even affect my opinion on whether it is worthy or not.

Music is raw and primitive - some people *incorrectly* like bands just because of what they stand for, regardless of whether they like the music or not. I think we talked about this in the NSBM thread.

 

[NAD]

I agree, and I do think bands that you mentioned (the ones I've heard that is) do their part to push the rebellious aspect, perhaps even creating an underground within the underground.

But I don't need rationale to listen to what I want, included Goatsblood. I like a bit of Arch Enemy too, pop with growls or not.

 

[Black Winter Day]

Arch Enemy are about as metal as Ace of Base.

she's going to get you
all that she wants is another baby, she'll be gone tomorrow boy
all that she wants is another baby, yeah

**doooo, do do do dooooooooo, do do do do**

 

[neal]

If you don't think Black Sabbath was the frist real metal band, you're retarded.

that still doesnt make them good.
-neal

 

[NAD]

No, their ultimate supremacy in all things metal makes them good.

 

[Erik]

No, their ultimate supremacy in all things metal makes them good.

your livin in the fuckin past.
-neal