The classics are the classics because they set the general aesthetic standards for future artists to put their own unique twist on (for better or worse). I think you're stressing that the new metal listener discovers the "essence" of what the genre is about far too quickly, as really understanding the genre without the aid of others takes time and dedication. Because of this, I'll always recommend new listeners the superior classics first simply due to the fact that those artists were the pioneers in their respective field, and dedicated time spent evaluating and understanding the implications of seminal works like Hvis Lyset Tar Oss or Under A Funeral Moon will give the listener time to see how worthwhile modern artists took from the masters to make their own unique artistic statement (though this is pretty rare nowadays).

I don't see how people got into metal like it was some kind of fucking class. Hmmmm, I think this branch of music should be studied first.

I heard a band I liked, I started listening to them. I saw a band they toured with that I liked, I started listening to them. I found some other band through them, etc....I didn't start with the "classics"...but I did start out with some shitty popular stuff like LoG. I don't think most people go into this trying to "understand" metal. They listen to shit that sounds good and expand on that. Who thinks this shit ahead?

Haven't read the whole thread, but I'd just like to say that getting into metal through the classics is the BEST way. While it's true the classics aren't representative of the genres as wholes, it's the classics that spawned the genres, or at least heavily influenced them. They're not just popular amongst regular people, they're popular amongst the bands as well.

For example, if I got into heavy metal or power metal without having heard Iron Maiden, I'd have no idea when I was hearing Iron Maiden influence, and might ascribe it to the influence of some completely different band. Then, upon hearing Maiden, I'd either continue being utterly wrong or have to revamp my entire understanding of the genre.

Clearly metal doesn't begin and end with classics, but it most certainly begins with them.

Agreed. You can't start fucking without even knowing your own gender.

Uh...

I don't know if I agree Noktorn's point but I do see where he's coming from. You really do have to listen to obscure and at times shitty albums from genres as diverse as black and death metal to comprehend them. Someone who just listens to Mayhem and Marduk but has never heard of Vlad Tepes and Mystifier will have a slanted view of the genre and not be an insightful listener. I also hate all the recommend me threads and it's probably why I don't visit this forum that much. I got into metal by just reading reviews here, seeing what influenced my favorites, and just browsing around.

But in all fairness, it is unrealistic to recommend a newbie obscure works just so they will understand the genre they get into. I mean really do you think any one back in the 80s got into metal by listening to Cloven Hoof and Poison (the german one of course)? They got introduced through the classics of the time like Priest and Maiden and then gradually began picking up on the underground. The ladders way is the most effective way, you see what you like from the classics and then you progress deeper into the abyss, finding hidden gems and reconsidering some of those classics. No one seriously into music just sticks with a handful of "greats" and calls it a day.

A lot of people in this thread are stating that no one just listens to the major bands and ignores everything else, but through my experience in the Tampa metal scene, those people certainly do exist. There are people involved in that scene who do not listen to anything but Cannibal Corpse and Obituary and summarily dismiss any other bands. Probably not super salient to the initial point of the thread, but they do exist.

Well, those aren't the ones interested in the whole scene of heavy metal. They just care about one or two bands. You can't honestly use them as a reason to back up your argument. There is no helping those people.

This has been a stimulating read....



I can agree with this point. If you hear a classic band with the mindset that everything else should sound like said classic band, you are never going to enjoy discovering new music. It is like Dream Theater fans, for Dream Theater fans, everything that isn't Dream Theater isn't worth listening to because "progressive metal" has to abide by laws which Dream Theater created thousands of years ago when God came from the heavens and handed Petrucci the Ten Commandments of Progressive Metal. When someone has a view like this, which many people do have, a disservice is done to other progressive metal bands doing their own thing. In this case, someone who was "introduced" to progressive metal incorrectly will assume that all progressive metal sounds like Dream Theater and then they will never enjoy Fates Warning or Queensryche or Manilla Road or anything that could fit in that style or be considered progressive.

This becomes particularly detrimental in regards to production values in black metal. Someone who is told that Emperor is black metal may expect that all other black metal will meet the production standards of Emperor when in fact, that is rarely the case. In the black metal realm, production values are usually far worse than anything you would normally hear elsewhere but it's acceptable for the music to hide behind a so called guise of atmosphere (shitty production). This is a major aspect of the black metal underground and I think we can all agree that it is the underground bands and not the classic bands that provide the fuel to keep the genres burning. If people are being introduced to genres with a predisposed idea of what they should sound like, of what they mean and consist of, of what their themes are (fans of new trendy viking metal thinking all black metal is based on these kind of things), etc, they will never get what really makes metal's heart beat on.

For me, I would have to agree with Noktorn that people should be introduced to genres not by the classics but by all bands. Of course, it would be absurd to introduce someone to Thrash without introducing them to Megadeth and Slayer, but throw in some curve balls, introduce them to Sodom, Demolition Hammer, Morbid Saint. Ultimately, there is a common problem of people not wanting to sift through anything to get to the good stuff. People expect the best bands to be thrown in their face when in reality, the best bands are already in front of them and they just don't know how to decide on their own which ones are good and which are bad.

Everyone should listen to everything with a critical ear, an open mind, and the general attitude that maybe this will be something awesome that no one else knows about. Everything should be given a chance to stand on it's own. If there is anything we can all agree on its that it's usually the classic bands that end of sucking major balls first.

As an aside, I have never listened to Mayhem or Immortal for anything more than a passing glance.

trouble with genres such as thrash. They were once so huge if you were to make a list of classics, it would still be a bloody long list... I tried.... once... made cd's for my car with songs from what I consider classic thrash albums. One track per album... I stopped after three cd's.... Just too damn much!

This misconception is starting to get frustrating. For those who are interested in one or two bands and really don't care about anything else, these people aren't real metal enthusiasts. These people will always think the bands they listened to are the be all, end all of the entire genre. Like I said, these people cannot be helped. No matter what band you show them, no matter how many other, better bands you show them, it will always be, "yeah but ___ is better." Those people are ignorant and have no desire to discover anything else. Those are the three-band people. I call them "three band people" because that's as far as they'll go.

Whether you believe it or not, there are actually people who thing that heavy metal is a new and exciting genre. There are indeed people are willing to go as far in a subgenre as they want to go if it guarantees them finding new and exciting and different bands. It really doesn't matter what band you start them with, they will discover them eventually. The classic albums are still the best way to get into a subgenre. If they are willing to dig into a subgenre for something that's always new and different, they will always get to the all of the bands, especially if they are a new listener. It's the constant rush of finding something slightly different.

Let's stop making it sound like new heavy metal enthusiasts are dumb and ignorant. The real ones are not.

I'm pretty sure I said that people should be introduced to bands as a combination of classics and non-classic material. Show them what bands are classic, and show them what else a genre has to offer aside from what is understood to be.

Plus, I was agreeing more with Noktorn's assessment of how listening to only classic material can lead to a belief that "no band will be better than this classic band" mentality. Sure, people into metal will always keep searching, but I don't think that people who aren't "searchers" will do that if they feel they have already discovered the "best" of a genre. Some people, as enthusiastic about metal as they are, just don't have a searching mentality. Some people who aren't as enthusiastic do have that mentality.



With thrash, Noktorn's argument about the classics not really applying as a good summarization of a genre's sound, becomes muddy because thrash is a bit of a stale genre in terms of experimentation. Still, there are bands out there that don't fit the mold: Voivod, Watchtower, Anacrusis etc that wouldn't be similar to many classic albums.

Ultimately, I go by the belief that you should listen to everything you touch and get your hands on. It doesn't matter if it classic or not, you just... listen to it as usual.

As there is no consensus as to what "the classics" actually are, the point of the whole thread seems moot.

If each of us were asked to give a list of 10 "classics", I guarantee that the number of different albums listed would be larger than the number of lists. (I've tried this before on a different forum.)

I think there is a consensus as to what "the classics" are. That's the reason certain albums always come out on top in terms of the best ____ albums of all time lists. I think there are certain albums that just about everyone owns and definitely albums that everyone has heard.

Really? Because when MA does the "Best" lists, my list is usually very different from the "consensus" list. And judging by the individual lists in those threads, I'm the rule, not the exception. Sure, we may have some consensus on the Top 50 death metal albums, but if someone gets into death metal by listening to all 50, then he's done a pretty good job.

Yes, these is a consensus of a list that goes for the whole metal populace. Not just the forums.

And that list would be even more dubious.

Not in the least. Just because 20, 20-somethings on the board have a different taste of classic, doesn't mean they are the rule. They are the exception. This is the way it's been before the invention of the internet.

Before the internet, I think "the classics", in terms of pop culture, were mostly defined by what was played on radio. So, by that definition, I certainly agree "the classics" are not the indicators of "best of genre". However, in the internet age, I think "the classics" has taken on a whole different meaning, what with sites like MA and MySpace and others that give people unprecedented access to information. Most kids getting into metal these days probably figure out "the classics" from the internet - so they can much more quickly separate the wheat from the chaff.

My only point is that it has become much more difficult to actually reach consensus on what "the classics" actually are - and the internet has only muddied the waters by making folks aware of so much more. Not that I think there needs to be a consensus, mind you.