Dude, I know I am feeding the trolls, but whatever... not much else going on.

Basically, everything you said is fucking stupid. Stupid in more ways than I can possibly count.

1. Why would any artist want to steal "Metal-Aesthetics?" Think about how fucking stupid that fucking concept is. Is it for money? Or fame? That shit doesn't really fly. And what about deafheaven is "aesthetically" metal? They don't dress like the average metalfag basement dwelling idiots who posts on metal forums, and everything from their lyrics to their song titles to their album art are anything but traditionally "aesthetic" metal choices. So if it doesn't look like a duck, then it must SOUND like a fucking duck to be mistaken. Which means their songwriting must have some inherently metallic structure.

2. What the fuck is mainstream about deafheaven? Even if they were in fact not Metal, they would still be ANY FUCKING THING IN THE WORLD OTHER THAN MAINSTREAM. I don't hear a lot of fucking deafheaven tracks on Top 40 radio stations. Non-Metal = Mainstream, which is the kind of stupid fucking cunt dribble coming from your mouth which gets you rightly labeled as an idiot. Merzbow and Siege... totally fucking mainstream. Iron Maiden? Now that shit is trve as fuck!

3. " Will people still defend them, or will such bands be relegated to the same comparative obscurity as the post-black boom of the late '90s, the post-rock sludge of the early '00s, and the "progressive" groove metal trend that Exodus hopped on to in the mid '90s?" This fucking statement is basically completely wrong, factually. It shows you don't actually know a single fucking thing.

4. Who count's as an interloper? What is the criteria for being an interloper? Is there a club? Do they wear Stars of David? Are they all born with a birth mark which looks like the HotTopic logo? Or are they just people who disagree with you... since you know you are legit, right?

Not to call you out on the content, but seriously.

Show me where I was trolling you. Do you even know what trolling is? I was talking about how views of a band change over time, which is in fact the thread topic. My point was that people mocked Atheist in the '90s for different reasons than people mock Deafheaven now.

Who said anything about stealing? I said that Deafheaven used metal aesthetics (i.e. the surface aspects of black metal immediately recognizable to mainstream-ish listeners) to make nonmetal music. As to why they would do this, you would have to ask the band themselves. I didn't mention anything about money or fame, so stop putting words in my mouth.

Explained above.

That first part is barely worth dignifying with a response. Why are you so insecure about your liking metal that you have to bring up blind stereotypes like that?

Just because it uses black metal tropes doesn't mean it is inherently metallic in structure. If you were to take a pop-punk song and change the major bar chords to minor, turn up the distortion, and scream over it, would that make it structurally metallic. No, because it would still be composed like pop-punk. It would just have surface-level black metal aesthetics. The way that Deafheaven does loud-soft alternations, the kinds of chords they use, and the way the songs all show that they are closer in spirit to post-rock and the fringe edge of '90s progressive hardcore.

Post-rock comes out of early emo like Fugazi and Rites of Spring, who may not have sold as many albums as someone contemporaneous like Madonna, but who still had a much more mainstream sound than the early hardcore that birthed them, as well as the early extreme metal going on at the time.

I'm not sure what Merzbow and Siege have to do with Deafheaven or Atheist.

How can it be factually wrong if it is a prediction about things that have not happened yet? We won't know how people think about Deafheaven five years from now until those five years have elapsed.

If you haven't noticed, Force of Habit isn't exactly the most well-thought-of Exodus album. When most people talk about liking Overkill, they talk about the Feel the Fire through Horrorscope period or the post-Immortalis stuff. I've seen stuff from the time where the groove-inflected albums were released where both the bands and the fans defended the direction of the music as more open-minded and progressive compared to their '80s stuff, but now that the years have passed, those albums have mostly been buried by time and dust.

A similar sea-change happened with post-black stuff like later DHG, the second Fleurety album, later Manes, the middle era Vintersorg albums, the later Emperor albums (which I personally enjoy, but I acknowledge that they are fundamentally different from their early stuff in spirit, style, and intent), and others of that ilk. About the only post-black (not post-rock-influenced black metal, but post-black as it was defined during those times) stuff I hear getting a substantial amount of discussion is Arcturus and Borknagar.

Neurosis and Isis are generally seen as the godfathers of the progressive sludge movement, but when was the last time you ever heard someone mention Burst? How often do people still talk about Cult of Luna? Sure, this style still has fans, but it has lost the omnipresence it had in the early aughts.

I'm pretty sure I defined the word "interloper" in a musical context in my previous posts. If you take the dictionary definition and apply it in a musical context, it should be fairly obvious what an interloper is.

Great, Nazi accusations. That definitely doesn't make you look crazy or anything. Also, nice Hot Topic reference. Way to bring the internet back to 2002.

No, interlopers are what I defined them as in my previous posts. Rather, my opinion of what constitutes an interloper in a metal context is defined in my previous posts. I didn't think that I would need to make that distinction, but I'm guessing that if I didn't, you'd probably whine about it.

I dont know if this is a good example, but I'd like to think people changed their views on Kalmah as soon as COB started sucking shit. Not to say their new album was bad. Kalmah was always mentioned as a "COB clone" but then they were the go to band when COB started moving towards the Blooddrunk shit.

I have to side with thetruthseker regarding the whole Deafheaven debate.
It is really not about their musical quality. It is just a discussion about how metal they are. Everyone who keeps on mentioning them as a full on metal band also never seem to be fans of REAL screamo.
I am a fan of real screamo and real black metal and to me they are closer to bands like Circle takes the square or Saetia than Master's hammer or Barathrum.
Does this instantly stop them from being metal? No not really because a lot of early screamo got a suprisingly large overlap with black metal to begin with. Even to the point where i am a bit weirded out that there has not been much crossover at all untill now.



You are a bit wrong here, what might be a bit passe in the US doesnt have to be in the much bigger european "market". There is not much old post-black left but bands like Solefald still draw attention for sure. The Post-sludge thing is still big as well but has morphed a bit soundwise. It has actually become more like Cult of Luna/Amenra than the Isis sound now.

Whats up your ass?

METAL!

This topic reminds me of how Rolling Stone magazine operates, and why I hate their publication. They used to shit on what were great bands because they weren't "hip" enough, and NOW they take all that back. Led Zeppelin is an infamous example, according to my father.
We also had a topic for Pantera here awhile back, and it also reminds me of this topic. While the older metalheads overall look upon them favorably, new kidz simply don't get it and call it trash that lead to bad copycats. I agree with that last part, of course.