Encyclopaedia Metallum: The Metal Archives
https://forum.metal-archives.com/

Modern metal bands out of touch with real metal?
https://forum.metal-archives.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=43612		 Page 3 of 6
Author:  Zetan [ Tue Oct 21, 2008 4:48 am ]
Post subject: 
I watched the interview DVD from Carcass - Reek of Putrefaction, re-issue. Jeff Walker stated that he hated the term Grindcore when it was first coined because he didn't aspire to the *core term, he did however grow to acknowledge and accept it.. Interestingly he also mentions that whatever Death Metal was, Carcass sure wasn't it.

I never bothered to over analyse every subgenre because I don't acknowledge every single little detail or trend as being a separate genre, I understand the distinction. I certainly don't argue the point with people who think they know better or with people who wouldn't know the difference between Slipknot and Spawn of Possesion.

Just because a band wields guitars and bangs drums doesn't automatically make them experts in the field.
Author:  adelphophagist213 [ Tue Oct 21, 2008 5:17 am ]
Post subject: 
RidiculeSwarm wrote:
awm wrote:
Man all classical music is is downtuned pianos and operatic vocals.


Downtuned pianos???

You have made my night.


ditto
Author:  Hybrid_Killer [ Tue Oct 21, 2008 8:52 am ]
Post subject: 
So wait, you met a bunch of guys (who, of course, conform tp the modern br00tal death metal stereotype that you love harping on about) at a party once who 'miscategorised' the old-school stuff that you're so keen to show that you like on this forum and that = all modern bands are 'out of touch'?

I can't believe such a weak anecdote actually created discussion.

Overreaction anyone?
Author:  ~Guest 126069 [ Tue Oct 21, 2008 10:51 am ]
Post subject: 
caspian wrote:
Also, I honestly have to wonder if these sort of stories:
Quote:
talk about how Iron Maiden and such aren't metal

are real. I've never heard anything like this in real life, or even as a second hand story from anyone in real life; it makes me wonder if people just post this kind of stuff on the internet so they can join the communal bitch fest/circle jerk.


Well, obviously I can't prove this to you, but I assure you, this is a common opinion amongst many people. And I'm not really bitching about it, I'm guessing all sub-cultures see things like this, but rather simply trying to contribute to the thread. I'm certainly not trying to impress some metalhead on a forum by talking about how ignorant mallcore kids are. If I wanted to really impress you guys, I'd post about my 16-inch penis.
Author:  Zetan [ Tue Oct 21, 2008 11:15 am ]
Post subject: 
Getting back to the original point.. Bands like Morbid Angel, Obituary and the like have long been labelled Death Metal and anybody arguing otherwise are either stupid or trying to redefine already defined genres.

I have a friend who states that Iron Maiden isn't Metal any longer because metal has moved on..Ummm, yeah.. oooook.
As rexxz pointed out:

Quote:
I didn't grow up listening to Elvis, but am I going to say he didn't play rock 'n roll? Of course not.
Author:  ~Guest 111864 [ Tue Oct 21, 2008 11:24 am ]
Post subject: 
Look, one guy from my class who considers him to be pure rocker and thinks that he knows much about metal as well stated that:

Slipknot is pure Satantic Death/Black metal
Black Sabbath isn't even close to metal
Korn is pure rockin' headbangin' heavy metal.

He even plays in Hard N' Heavy band, so idiots like the band from the thread are not rare.
Author:  LVB [ Tue Oct 21, 2008 11:45 am ]
Post subject: 
In the past I've heard fans of brutal death metal call anything less than brutal such as Dismember "thrash metal." This is especially annoying. I guess Suffocation was the first ever DM band then.
Author:  Unholy_Asar [ Tue Oct 21, 2008 12:09 pm ]
Post subject: 
Ok, so I hate these bands too. They don't respect the legacy of the older bands, and are only playing a very seperficial form of death metal, all revolving around tired, old jokes that mostly weren't even funny in the first place. These bands are posers and piss me off to no end, because they are a disgrace to metal.

This is no reason to turn on brutal death metal as a whole though, as there are actually good bands in the genre. What it takes to realize this, is to realize that brutal death metal and old shcool death metal shouldn't be considered the same. You can't possibly look for the same qualities in the genres, because you'll be really disappointed when you find that one of the genres greatly outdoes the other when it comes to these qualities. The other genre obviously has other qualities, but a lot of people on both sides of the spectrum are just too narrow minded to see this.

Brutal death metal and old school death metal are both parts of death metal, yet their very form is inherently different from one another. It's not the same music, so it cannot be judged by the same standards.

The very root of this problem is that people are wrongly using the same template to judge death metal and brutal death metal, and depending on what template you use, one genre is bound to seem lacking in the terms that you judge them by.

IMO, the two are separate genres and should be judged differently. Hell, the two shouldn't even be compared to eachother. It's like comparing apples and shoes!
Author:  Resident_Hazard [ Tue Oct 21, 2008 1:04 pm ]
Post subject: 
I'm listening to Diamond Head's ever-outstanding White Album/Lightning to the Nations and a thought occurred to me (which I somewhat addressed in the Now Playing thread) about modern Thrash...

Modern Thrash Metal bands, or those that claim or wish they were Thrash are missing the one thing that made "real" 80's Thrash: The Diamond Head influence. The riffs and style on Lightning to the Nations was borrowed, used, reused, stolen, or heavily incorporated into the signature sounds of nearly every great 80's Thrash Metal band and several others including Metallica, Megadeth, OverKill, Anthrax, Testament, Corrosion of Conformity, and on and on and on.

That's a generational divide missing in newer so-called Thrash bands (like you, Trivium) as they're more influenced by the modified sound of Metallica and Megadeth and OverKill and the like, rather than Diamond Head's original signature riffing.

Thrash without the Diamond Head/NWOBHM influence is Thrash without it's soul.
Author:  foz45139 [ Tue Oct 21, 2008 1:21 pm ]
Post subject: 
Hybrid_Killer wrote:
So wait, you met a bunch of guys (who, of course, conform tp the modern br00tal death metal stereotype that you love harping on about) at a party once who 'miscategorised' the old-school stuff that you're so keen to show that you like on this forum and that = all modern bands are 'out of touch'?


He didn't say that all modern bands are out of touch, he asked if we thought they were and gave us one example from his experience.
Author:  Mezentus [ Tue Oct 21, 2008 1:27 pm ]
Post subject: 
LindisfarneAnno793 wrote:
_Aargh wrote:
foz45139 wrote:
I think I recall an interview with Bring Me The Horizon that I stumbled upon, where they said that Pig Destroyer wasn't grindcore.

They said that about Napalm Death's "Scum" too.


Here's more info I just found:

Quote:
In issue #160 of Terrorizer magazine, Bring Me The Horizon was being interviewed, and were played the title track of Napalm Death's "Scum" during the Hard Of Hearing segment (where the band guesses the performers of the songs played for them by the interviewers). To quote what they said:

BMTH: "This isn't very good."

BMTH: "Is this Napalm Death? I don't really listen to this sort of thing."

Interviewer: "Are you a Grindcore fan?"

BMTH: "This isn't really Grindcore. Grindcore's changed a lot."


:|



Though, he has a point. Nowadays [mainstream] grindcore is considered to be Psyopus, SeeYouNextTuesday, JFAC [yes...even them], and the like of faggot bands. I'm running on blank right now of bands, but he does prove a point that grindcore has changed alot.

However, saying Napalm Death isn't grindcore...?!?
I very much dislike most grindcore but WHAT THE FUCK!?
Author:  agentsteel666 [ Tue Oct 21, 2008 2:17 pm ]
Post subject: 
It's pretty clear to me at least, that modern metal bands are in fact very out of touch with real metal. Old school metal will always reign as supreme, modern metal sucks balls.
Author:  Hybrid_Killer [ Tue Oct 21, 2008 5:22 pm ]
Post subject: 
foz45139 wrote:
Hybrid_Killer wrote:
So wait, you met a bunch of guys (who, of course, conform tp the modern br00tal death metal stereotype that you love harping on about) at a party once who 'miscategorised' the old-school stuff that you're so keen to show that you like on this forum and that = all modern bands are 'out of touch'?


He didn't say that all modern bands are out of touch, he asked if we thought they were and gave us one example from his experience.


To begin with its a weak anecdote at best. Its more a reflection of how retarded they (the band who I'm not convinced even exist) are and not modern bands at all. I don't get why people are accepting a statement that generated from the supposed ignorance of a few people and think its just to apply it to an entire era of music.
Author:  MapleKit [ Tue Oct 21, 2008 5:29 pm ]
Post subject: 
Hybrid_Killer wrote:
So wait, you met a bunch of guys (who, of course, conform tp the modern br00tal death metal stereotype that you love harping on about) at a party once who 'miscategorised' the old-school stuff that you're so keen to show that you like on this forum and that = all modern bands are 'out of touch'?

I can't believe such a weak anecdote actually created discussion.

Overreaction anyone?
The only over reaction i see is your response.
Author:  206 [ Tue Oct 21, 2008 5:30 pm ]
Post subject: 
Hybrid_Killer wrote:
I don't get why people are accepting a statement that generated from the supposed ignorance of a few people and think its just to apply it to an entire era of music.


Because we all know Maple Kit and make allowances for his momentary bouts of hyperbole :D
Author:  MapleKit [ Tue Oct 21, 2008 5:32 pm ]
Post subject: 
agentsteel666 wrote:
It's pretty clear to me at least, that modern metal bands are in fact very out of touch with real metal. Old school metal will always reign as supreme, modern metal sucks balls.
:D
Author:  MapleKit [ Tue Oct 21, 2008 5:34 pm ]
Post subject: 
I've also heard newcomers to death metal say that solos don't belong in death metal because they are from the 80's.
Author:  MapleKit [ Tue Oct 21, 2008 5:35 pm ]
Post subject: 
206 wrote:
Hybrid_Killer wrote:
I don't get why people are accepting a statement that generated from the supposed ignorance of a few people and think its just to apply it to an entire era of music.


Because we all know Maple Kit and make allowances for his momentary bouts of hyperbole :D
I never said i was perfect, I'm just an old drunk metalhead. :D
Author:  Deucalion [ Tue Oct 21, 2008 5:44 pm ]
Post subject: 
caspian wrote:
Also, I honestly have to wonder if these sort of stories:
Quote:
talk about how Iron Maiden and such aren't metal

are real. I've never heard anything like this in real life, or even as a second hand story from anyone in real life; it makes me wonder if people just post this kind of stuff on the internet so they can join the communal bitch fest/circle jerk.


No; it's true. Kids nowadays don't see Maiden as metal (at least in my experience). They pretty much think anything with screaming, a distorted guitar, and perhaps double bass is metal.
Author:  Dark_Gnat [ Tue Oct 21, 2008 5:45 pm ]
Post subject: 
Posers: The bane of all scenes.
Author:  MapleKit [ Tue Oct 21, 2008 5:46 pm ]
Post subject: 
I've heard people say iron maiden were rock.
Author:  foz45139 [ Tue Oct 21, 2008 6:06 pm ]
Post subject: 
MapleKit wrote:
I've heard people say iron maiden were rock.


Same with Priest and Sabbath, I should imagine.

Of course, they have never properly listened to these bands, otherwise they wouldn't say such stupid things.
Author:  the_bard_of_osyrhia [ Tue Oct 21, 2008 6:16 pm ]
Post subject: 
Deucalion wrote:
No; it's true. Kids nowadays don't see Maiden as metal (at least in my experience). They pretty much think anything with screaming, a distorted guitar, and perhaps double bass is metal.


Not all kids these days think that way though. I've never met a kid who thinks that Iron Maiden isn't metal. However, I do know some people who think that Korn is metal which it clearly isn't. Anyway, I think that some of the kids these days have no idea of what real metal is while others are firmly rooted in the traditions of metal.
Author:  neonchipmunk [ Tue Oct 21, 2008 6:46 pm ]
Post subject: 
It's generational. Am I the only old school thrash head that will admit to not liking Judas Priest and other NWOBHM bands when I first stared to listen to metal. It lacked the attitude and aggression that I liked in thrash. Of course I have come around since then.

It's something like that today with the younger kids. The traditional metal lacks whatever they are responding to in the modern metal.

Really it's no more silly than pretending that what they listen to ISN'T metal.

@maplekit: If 34 is your real age (close to mine) then I think you would be starting to get used to this kind of thing. Espescially if you have kids (I do).
Author:  thewitchfinder [ Tue Oct 21, 2008 6:51 pm ]
Post subject: 
Chaosmonger wrote:
Are they some of those jock meathead 'brootal' guys that started their metal fandom off with Dying Fetus and never looked back?


This is hilarious. I've noticed that the majority of Dying Fetus fans are jockhead, dimwit twats who found a new calling and appreciation in heavy metal after high school football to show off their tough guy imagery and sport their Pantera or Damageplan t-shirts.

Resident_Hazard wrote:
Modern Thrash Metal bands, or those that claim or wish they were Thrash are missing the one thing that made "real" 80's Thrash: The Diamond Head influence. The riffs and style on Lightning to the Nations was borrowed, used, reused, stolen, or heavily incorporated into the signature sounds of nearly every great 80's Thrash Metal band and several others including Metallica, Megadeth, OverKill, Anthrax, Testament, Corrosion of Conformity, and on and on and on.

That's a generational divide missing in newer so-called Thrash bands (like you, Trivium) as they're more influenced by the modified sound of Metallica and Megadeth and OverKill and the like, rather than Diamond Head's original signature riffing.

Thrash without the Diamond Head/NWOBHM influence is Thrash without it's soul.


I completely agree. Many newer fans view NWOBHM/traditional bands mockingly - listening to them only for novelty purposes which absolutely disgusts me. I think the problem with the majority of modern metal is the lack of interesting song writing or riffage instead focusing on being overtly and obnoxiously technical. Too many bands focus on their image, avoid the fine details of memorable and sensible composition instead creating a sound in the end that equates to a spastic mess of diarrhea shooting from an asshole.
Author:  MapleKit [ Tue Oct 21, 2008 6:54 pm ]
Post subject: 
neonchipmunk wrote:
It's generational. Am I the only old school thrash head that will admit to not liking Judas Priest and other NWOBHM bands when I first stared to listen to metal. It lacked the attitude and aggression that I liked in thrash. Of course I have come around since then.

It's something like that today with the younger kids. The traditional metal lacks whatever they are responding to in the modern metal.

Really it's no more silly than pretending that what they listen to ISN'T metal.

@maplekit: If 34 is your real age (close to mine) then I think you would be starting to get used to this kind of thing. Espescially if you have kids (I do).
I am getting used to it and yes I am old.
Author:  Kruel [ Tue Oct 21, 2008 6:55 pm ]
Post subject: 
foz45139 wrote:
MapleKit wrote:
I've heard people say iron maiden were rock.


Same with Priest and Sabbath, I should imagine.

Priest and Sabbath definitely were rock. Remember that rock and metal aren't mutually exclusive classifications.
Author:  awm [ Tue Oct 21, 2008 6:57 pm ]
Post subject: 
Alocer7138r wrote:
A lot of brutal death metal kids on soulseek seem to think old school death metal is not brutal enough and isn't real death metal. Ive heard people saying early death isn't death metal or early morbid angel. lol
Wait a minute... Morbid Angel put out something more 'metal' than Altars of Madness?
Author:  Kruel [ Tue Oct 21, 2008 7:00 pm ]
Post subject: 
They did put out something more brutal. He wasn't talking about metalness, but brutality.
Author:  MapleKit [ Tue Oct 21, 2008 7:05 pm ]
Post subject: 
Kruel wrote:
foz45139 wrote:
MapleKit wrote:
I've heard people say iron maiden were rock.


Same with Priest and Sabbath, I should imagine.

Priest and Sabbath definitely were rock. Remember that rock and metal aren't mutually exclusive classifications.
Priest are pure heavy metal to my ears.
Author:  Kruel [ Tue Oct 21, 2008 7:09 pm ]
Post subject: 
Even the 70s' stuff?
Author:  Apostate101 [ Tue Oct 21, 2008 7:15 pm ]
Post subject: 
Priest sounds like a guy with his balls in a vice grip trying to sing. if anything, all of this Hardcore derived shit should be questioned in terms of originality and legitimacy. Bring Me The Horizon is popular among the scene kids, which must mean that they suck. a lot. some Deathcore/Metalcore is ok, but most of it is mediocre. a lot of it is begginning to sound the same and they all write about similar shit.
Author:  Empyreal [ Tue Oct 21, 2008 7:17 pm ]
Post subject: 
Kruel wrote:
Even the 70s' stuff?

Stained Class, Sad Wings of Destiny...pure Heavy Metal.
Author:  MapleKit [ Tue Oct 21, 2008 7:23 pm ]
Post subject: 
Kruel wrote:
Even the 70s' stuff?
yeah
Author:  awm [ Tue Oct 21, 2008 7:26 pm ]
Post subject: 
Kruel wrote:
They did put out something more brutal. He wasn't talking about metalness, but brutality.
I don't even think that I could see this being true.
Author:  thewitchfinder [ Tue Oct 21, 2008 7:35 pm ]
Post subject: 
MapleKit wrote:
Kruel wrote:
Even the 70s' stuff?
yeah


Sad Wings of Destiny, while having some Queen-ish and blues influence, definitely screams heavy metal - partly in thanks to the after chorus in "Tyrant", the twinned leads all over the place, and Halford's falsettos. To each his own, I guess.
Author:  ~Guest 126069 [ Tue Oct 21, 2008 8:15 pm ]
Post subject: 
Kruel wrote:
Even the 70s' stuff?


Even the 80s stuff would have been a more appropriate response. That's when they really started incorporating rock elements, sans Rocka Rolla of course.
Author:  TheFlamingCorrupted [ Tue Oct 21, 2008 8:55 pm ]
Post subject: 
Lord_Sauron wrote:
Look, one guy from my class who considers him to be pure rocker and thinks that he knows much about metal as well stated that:

Slipknot is pure Satantic Death/Black metal
Black Sabbath isn't even close to metal
Korn is pure rockin' headbangin' heavy metal.


Tell him that he should not breed.

And I thought I was a metal newbie!
Author:  awm [ Tue Oct 21, 2008 10:28 pm ]
Post subject: 
Even if he likes those bands, who is to say anything? But why inaccurately categorize them with so willfully?
Author:  Kruel [ Tue Oct 21, 2008 10:35 pm ]
Post subject: 
Okay, I take back the "definitely" part. My brain is exploding with the question of "what is rock?"

awm wrote:
Kruel wrote:
They did put out something more brutal. He wasn't talking about metalness, but brutality.
I don't even think that I could see this being true.

Doesn't matter how you view it; in the mind of those "kids on soulseek," Covenant or the Tucker-era albums would certainly be viewed as the more brutal.
Page 3 of 6 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/