Kveldulfr wrote: Many bands that 'lighten up' a bit and/or incorporated clean vocals have released even better stuff than their most aggressive material, like Enslaved. Even Morbid Angel incorpored clean vocals in one of their best albums effectively: Covenant.
That same argument can be used to say they are one dimensional. They don't know how to make anything else but their not-so-original brand or metalcore, doesn't?
Also, what I've heard from LoG (which is 3 albums and single songs off the rest), they aren't away from the "chug-n-breakdown" tag you mentioned. it's not the same than the slam thing, but you get the idea, right? they DO chug a lot and use breakdowns, c'mon.
It's not an isolated thing: here in Southamerica most of decent bands plays in front of a relentless crowd. Intense live shows are not a really good way to validate an artist' quality: I'm sure teenagers go apeshit with Justin Bieber, Ricky Martin, Simple Plan, Blink 182... Turkish pop singer Tarkan plays in front of crazy crowds too everytime. About the problems between them: it's just an adult thing. Not every metal band is childish as Metallica and again, it's not a point to redeem them in any musical way, which is what matters.
So, it's not possible to dislike the band cause people dislike the genre or cause, they're not good for many in the first place? You can say they are figureheads, but who cares? it's like complaining cause Katy Perry sells more records than, say, Incantation... just childish people would get pissed off that fact.
Metalcore is a way easier to digest form of metal, with simple and standard structures, ear candy chugga chugga riffs and 'aggressive' stage presence. Some metal fans likes things more complex, more aggressive, with more atmosphere, with better lyrics, with more intimidating vocals, or simply something with good/awesome riffing and soloing, etc.
Clean vocals have certainly been incorporated in renowned and successful music, I was pointing out that the band is often dismissed on trivial points when they do most of what the underground as a whole tends to ask for. As with most metal riffing, there's quite a bit of chugging, but the band didn't start adding more and more breakdowns, they have stayed with the groove-verse-groove-verse-breakdown-x type of structure. They do take advantage of forms that are conducive to their style, more of a complement than a supplement IMO. They also have one of the most charismatic screamers of a band that isn't straight-up extreme metal.
I don't know where you're coming from calling their style not-so-original - especially at the time of their first two albums (99/00), they were standouts, and they renewed that in 03/04 with their next two. They were a much more aggressive band than the big bands from MA (KSE/SF), they didn't have the post-MDM vibe of European metalcore or American "Gothencore" stuff, and they were certainly a different generation from 90s groove metal bands that were much more derivative of Pantera - they weren't stripped down shoutcore like the "Walk" wannabes. There's a southern/sludge feel, and it's constantly aggressive and/or hostile, but it has much catchier grooves than Ozzfest-style nu-metal. It's not really like breakdown-oriented hardcore, quite removed from tough guy hardcore (see: Punishment [PA]), not chaotic and technical like Converge. They carved out a sizable niche, and while there are many imitators, it's not really accurate to describe them as primarily derivative and unoriginal.
Kveldulfr wrote: Inoffensive to me at least. They don't do nothing to me and they don't fill any of my needs: thrash is already a superior genre in terms of violence and for heavy metal, there are thousands of better bands which provide better vocals, better riffs, better solos, better lyrics, better performance, etc.
Safe? it's the same view of the one dimensional thing, they don't even try to make something slightly different and they copy themselves a lot, they play their formula and that's all. About it:
Fanboyism much? it's ok, but posters are making some decent points too and Metalcore isn't exactly the best the metal genre has to offer.
By similar logic, isn't death metal better than thrash metal? More violent and aggressive!
Style is a matter of preference, but the era is also something to consider. A lot of "thrash" bands were putting out awful groove stuff around the time Lamb of God were rising. They were a league above God Hates Us All and St. Anger for their time. It's pretty damn hard to top all-time classics, but few bands have been putting out good thrash in the last 15 years or so. Sign of the times, I guess.
Do they play it safe? That's one way to put it, the second half of their career has been pretty stale, though it has probably seen the peak of their commercial success primarily due to it taking so long to be exposed to a mainstream audience. Many bands have had achieved commercial success after their peak in quality, this is another one of them.
I don't think you're using "inoffensive" in the way that it is commonly used.
|
I just think people take some expressions too literally, take "one dimensional" as we've seen here. I'd say Pantera is such a band, even though I like four albums from them (90-96) and although there are some stylistic differences between them. It's just that they never deviate much from the original formula that much. BT, just to wrap it up, have grindcore roots which is noticeable on their early albums, whereas groove era Pantera always has the same base formula. That was my point actually and why I agree with Emp on his earlier statement.
