Originally posted by ezkcdude: There just aren't many relevant metal bands today. You still didn't give me a list of metal bands you're listening to that are worth my time...
Emperor, Sepultura, Megadeth, Testament, Dream Theater, Fates Warning, King's X, Queensryche, Voivod, Iron Maiden, Clutch, Porcupine Tree, King Diamond, Death, Opeth, Dimmu Borgir, Boris, Lacuna Coil, Blind Guardian, Iced Earth, Stratovarius, and I could go on ...
And who's to decide what's "relevant"? If you turn the other cheek to metal because "there aren't any good bands", then you are clearly a pretty ignorant, at least narrow-minded, little person.
Dude, half the bands you listed are from the 1980's. You call that relevant? The only band you listed that is still relevant is Boris. I liked Megadeth...20 years ago. You need to move on.
Wow, your argument is incredibly stupid and ignorant. You still have yet to define relevance in particular to this discussion. And if you did some research, you'd realize that out of all the bands I mentioned, only Death hasn't put out an album recently. Every other band listed has either had a major studio album released within the past few years (many were released this year, including Megadeth's United Abominations, Dream Theater's Systematic Chaos, Clutch's From Beale Street to Oblivion, Porcupine Tree's Fear of a Blank Planet, Iron Maiden's A Matter of Life and Death, and many others), and others have a future studio album planned (including Sepultura, Testament, King's X, Queensryche, Voivod, King Diamond, Opeth, Iced Earth, Stratovarius, and more).
Does a band that started 20 years ago really matter? Megadeth just put out a new album that has been getting pretty good reviews. Same for older guys like Iron Maiden (and they've been releasing albums fairly consistently). Get your facts right before you come into my thread and make yourself look stupid. "Dude."
This message has been edited. Last edited by: jasonn,
I certainly don't think that "stupid" is a "bad word", but we have to cool name-calling around here. Please try to attack the argument and not the person.
"Naked Woman, Naked Man Where did you get that nice sun tan?"
Posts: 12874 | Location: Behind the Orange Curtain | Registered: 14 May 2004
Originally posted by mark f: I certainly don't think that "stupid" is a "bad word", but we have to cool name-calling around here. Please try to attack the argument and not the person.
If your best examples of relevant metal bands got their start in the 1980's or early 1990's, then something is wrong with metal isn't it? Can you name a few metal bands that released their first album within the last 4 or 5 years? You're right about one thing: I don't have a good definition of relevance, but like pornography, I know it when I see it. Heck, I'm just wondering why you didn't list Dio as one of your relevant metal artists. Isn't he still around?
Posts: 855 | Location: Ain'T it stiLl obvious? | Registered: 22 August 2006
Despite the fact that I think Jasonn has terrible taste in metal - sorry - I definitely agree that Metacritic should post more reviews. The bands he listed - to my dismay - probably have a bigger following than many of the indie bands that get reviewed here. So, why are they not reviewed? I must admit now, there is no good reason. Just looking at the worst-ever reviewed albums on MC, you come up with Kevin Federline (WTF?), Limp Bizkit, POD, Nickelback, etc. If these get reviewed, how can they not review Megadeth, Opeth, and the other bands jasonn mentioned. I did just google some of the reviews for Megadeth's latest, and it certainly wouldn't be one of the lowest rated albums. (Yeah, that surprised me, too.)
However, if MC does add more metal, I would ask that they also include more death, black, and doom metal reviews. IMHO, that's where most of the talent, if any, is left in metal.
Posts: 855 | Location: Ain'T it stiLl obvious? | Registered: 22 August 2006
Originally posted by ezkcdude: There just aren't many relevant metal bands today. You still didn't give me a list of metal bands you're listening to that are worth my time...
Emperor, Sepultura, Megadeth, Testament, Dream Theater, Fates Warning, King's X, Queensryche, Voivod, Iron Maiden, Clutch, Porcupine Tree, King Diamond, Death, Opeth, Dimmu Borgir, Boris, Lacuna Coil, Blind Guardian, Iced Earth, Stratovarius, and I could go on ...
And who's to decide what's "relevant"? If you turn the other cheek to metal because "there aren't any good bands", then you are clearly a pretty ignorant, at least narrow-minded, little person.
Jasonn, props to your list. It's obvious that you know your metal. All those bands that you listen to remain great bands. Porcupine tree is one of my favs, although i'd classify them more a prog rock than metal.
I also think you proved your point that there are in fact plenty of relevant metal bands that deserve coverage on metacritic.
Fact is, metacritic is primarily inhabited by indie fan boys and indie music snobs. They are easily controlled and monitored, which is why the indie genre is so overwhelmingly represented here. What would happen if metacritic started to become over run with headbangers and those with non-conformist methods of expression?
Metal tends to be offensive to those who don't like metal. And after you've been around this place awhile you'll notice that you have to tiptoe around those who have the power and are easily offended. So metal kind of gets pushed to the side. Metal is rocks bastard child, while indie is rocks "chosen" son.
Originally posted by ezkcdude: If your best examples of relevant metal bands got their start in the 1980's or early 1990's, then something is wrong with metal isn't it? Can you name a few metal bands that released their first album within the last 4 or 5 years? You're right about one thing: I don't have a good definition of relevance, but like pornography, I know it when I see it. Heck, I'm just wondering why you didn't list Dio as one of your relevant metal artists. Isn't he still around?
Does it really matter? You mentioned that my list only considered one "relevant" (by your standards) metal band, Boris, but maybe you forgot that they've been around for over 15 years.
quote:
Originally posted by hudson: Jasonn, props to your list. It's obvious that you know your metal. All those bands that you listen to remain great bands. Porcupine tree is one of my favs, although i'd classify them more a prog rock than metal.
I also think you proved your point that there are in fact plenty of relevant metal bands that deserve coverage on metacritic.
Fact is, metacritic is primarily inhabited by indie fan boys and indie music snobs. They are easily controlled and monitored, which is why the indie genre is so overwhelmingly represented here. What would happen if metacritic started to become over run with headbangers and those with non-conformist methods of expression?
Metal tends to be offensive to those who don't like metal. And after you've been around this place awhile you'll notice that you have to tiptoe around those who have the power and are easily offended. So metal kind of gets pushed to the side. Metal is rocks bastard child, while indie is rocks "chosen" son.
Thanks. I agree Porcupine Tree isn't really metal, but their music is very hard to describe, let alone categorize into a single genre. But I think everyone can agree that they do have some heavier, metal songs and definitely are influenced by such music.
And I understand that reasoning behind Metacritic's exclusion of the metal genre, but I don't necessarily agree with it. However, I did get an e-mail back from the music editor today saying that at least one of Porcupine Tree's albums will be added by Monday at the latest (Fear of a Blank Planet). More may possibly be added, depending on what reviews can be found. Porcupine Tree is more ambient progressive rock than anything, but it's a step in the right direction.
quote:
Originally posted by brainofp: would Tool be considered metal? or is that more artsy-prog-hard rock-ish?
I guess you could argue that they are alternative metal (or even progressive metal in some cases). They are definitely art/progressive rock, though.
I definitely consider Tool to be metal, and extraordinary metal at that. Granted they fall under a certain subgenre of metal(as ezkcdude pointed out to me) but they are phenomenal, as you probably know.
And brainofp, I highly recommend any of the albums from Porcupine Tree. The most accesable, and probably their best album is "in absentia". Their other stuff like "signify" and "sky moves sideways" is a bit more experimental in the pink floyd sense; lots of long dreamy guitar, atmospheric sounds and such. "fear of a blank planet" is great too. Definitely some harder, metal riffs going on.
Originally posted by ezkcdude: There just aren't many relevant metal bands today. You still didn't give me a list of metal bands you're listening to that are worth my time...
Emperor, Sepultura, Megadeth, Testament, Dream Theater, Fates Warning, King's X, Queensryche, Voivod, Iron Maiden, Clutch, Porcupine Tree, King Diamond, Death, Opeth, Dimmu Borgir, Boris, Lacuna Coil, Blind Guardian, Iced Earth, Stratovarius, and I could go on ...
And who's to decide what's "relevant"? If you turn the other cheek to metal because "there aren't any good bands", then you are clearly a pretty ignorant, at least narrow-minded, little person.
Jasonn, props to your list. It's obvious that you know your metal. All those bands that you listen to remain great bands. Porcupine tree is one of my favs, although i'd classify them more a prog rock than metal.
Fact is, metacritic is primarily inhabited by indie fan boys and indie music snobs. They are easily controlled and monitored, which is why the indie genre is so overwhelmingly represented here. What would happen if metacritic started to become over run with headbangers and those with non-conformist methods of expression?
I knew about these bands before I'd even brushed against metal. So, he really knows good new metal? Nope, he proved ezk's point. Metal really is not too fresh; most metal I enjoy has gone more towards the avant-garde/experimental side of things.
And if you think the majority of this board are a bunch of "indie fan boys and indie music snobs" who are afraid of "headbangers and those with non-conformist methods of expression" then how can you explain many of the members knowledge on punk, post-punk, and experimental music? Have you listened to much noise? That stuff isn't that easy to get into and most "indie fanboys" haven't ever heard any.
I don't know what you listen to Hudson but I have a feeling that a lot of the bands that aren't new (an some that are) that are discussed on this board may go over your head and without research if you're so quick to make these assumptions.
Originally posted by Jglass: I knew about these bands before I'd even brushed against metal. So, he really knows good new metal? Nope, he proved ezk's point. Metal really is not too fresh; most metal I enjoy has gone more towards the avant-garde/experimental side of things.
And if you think the majority of this board are a bunch of "indie fan boys and indie music snobs" who are afraid of "headbangers and those with non-conformist methods of expression" then how can you explain many of the members knowledge on punk, post-punk, and experimental music? Have you listened to much noise? That stuff isn't that easy to get into and most "indie fanboys" haven't ever heard any.
I don't know what you listen to Hudson but I have a feeling that a lot of the bands that aren't new (an some that are) that are discussed on this board may go over your head and without research if you're so quick to make these assumptions.
Actually, that's more or less my (other) point. Newer metal (especially of the deathcore/grindcore/etc. variety) is quite terrible. There are a handful of promising performers that make metal proud, but it is definitely over-saturated with lack of talent.
jasonn, you listed Dimmu Borgir above. They are a prototypical example of the problem with metal as I see it. They, like most other decent metal (heavy, death, black, whatever) bands, sold out years ago. Their first album or two (Stormblast, For all Tid) was damn good, but they basically "nu-metalized" themselves over the years after that. Some of my other favorite bands suffered the same fate: Metallica, Carcass, Cathedral, and many others. Mastodon could be heading down the same road. The problem with metal bands, and good metal bands, in particular, is they just don't stay true. The other problem is that you have a bunch of folks, maybe yourself included, who actually like these bands after their sellout period and keep them going. Cradle of Filth, anyone?
Posts: 855 | Location: Ain'T it stiLl obvious? | Registered: 22 August 2006
Originally posted by ezkcdude: Mastodon could be heading down the same road.
In my mind they already have gone down that path. I can't stand Blood Mountain... but maybe they'll go back to Leviathan style or maybe even more raw like Remission? We can hope..
Originally posted by Jglass: And if you think the majority of this board are a bunch of "indie fan boys and indie music snobs" who are afraid of "headbangers and those with non-conformist methods of expression" then how can you explain many of the members knowledge on punk, post-punk, and experimental music? Have you listened to much noise? That stuff isn't that easy to get into and most "indie fanboys" haven't ever heard any.
I don't know what you listen to Hudson but I have a feeling that a lot of the bands that aren't new (an some that are) that are discussed on this board may go over your head and without research if you're so quick to make these assumptions.
I've been around metacritic forums for over 2 years, there's not that many regularly posting members and the ones that are, are mostly indie fan boys. Experimental, post punk, noise, that's all indie stuff.
Metacritic never changes, it's always the same people posting about the same indie bands. And when someone comes in a wants to post something new or different, they usually get chastised and ridiculed for not fitting into a certain mold.
Metacritic forums has a very deep rooted and small clique of people which includes the moderators that work very hard to make sure that metacritic stays the same. So I really dont' think there's room for new people with new perspectives and attitudes towards music.
Which could be one reason metal and blues gets neglected.
I've been around metacritic forums for over 2 years, there's not that many regularly posting members and the ones that are, are mostly indie fan boys. Experimental, post punk, noise, that's all indie stuff.
Metacritic never changes, it's always the same people posting about the same indie bands. And when someone comes in a wants to post something new or different, they usually get chastised and ridiculed for not fitting into a certain mold.
Metacritic forums has a very deep rooted and small clique of people which includes the moderators that work very hard to make sure that metacritic stays the same. So I really dont' think there's room for new people with new perspectives and attitudes towards music.
Which could be one reason metal and blues gets neglected.
Dude, if you feel the need to speak up about metal - do it.
Posts: 855 | Location: Ain'T it stiLl obvious? | Registered: 22 August 2006
I don't really think most metal has much artistic merit. It all pretty much seems to retread the same basic musical sound, themes, and structures. So maybe thats why its not reviewed on Metacritic. Also I'm sure there tons of forums on the web that discuss metal and tons of sites devoted to reviewing metal. Metacritic is just not one of them. I wouldn't go onto a metal forum and ask why there aren't any reviews of Spoon.
Originally posted by hudson: Which could be one reason metal and blues gets neglected.
Whhhaaaa??? How did the blues get dragged into this conversation? It might just by my shoddy memory, but I can't recall anyone ragging on Howlin' Wolf.
quote:
Metacritic forums has a very deep rooted and small clique of people which includes the moderators that work very hard to make sure that metacritic stays the same.
Hey mark f, goddamn you!!! Why are you keeping metal down???
Hudson, I'm going to be blunt. I don't have a clue what you're talking about. It seems as though you've defined indie so broadly as to mean "any band that people on metacritic like". You've implied that all "indie" music is conformist(including experimental, punk, and noise). You've suggested that anyone who likes something outside the mold gets chastised. I can understand maybe that genres are neglected, but you actually feel chastised for liking metal? When? Where? Who? I can remember you chastising My Chemical Romance. Funny how that's one of my most vivid memories of condescension towards a band on metacritic(for the record, I don't care for MCR either).
In my relatively brief amount of time here, I would say this: Most of the conversation about new music around here revolves around indie music. Obviously. That's the genre of choice. I'd love for it to be broader, but I don't see an intent to keep metal down. The problem is simply that the majority of the posters just don't like it very much, so posters tend to ignore it and comment on music they like. It's as simple as that. If you feel like you have something to say about it, SAY IT! You can tell from this thread that there are people who like metal. I like it some myself, but I don't know enough to comment much on it.
Ok, here's my last question. Why? Why do you feel the need to bash all of the posters at metacritic? If the people here bother you, leave. I'm all for constructive complaints, and maybe there's one to be had about the genre of metal and attitudes towards metal, but writing every single person off as a comformist indie fan boy? Give me a break. Don't post here if you feel that way. Feel comfortable that all of our tastes have come about from trying to fit in with a bunch of anonymous names on the internet. My what pathetic souls we are.
Anyways, you can probably ignore me. I'm drunk and rambling. Anyone else?
Posts: 707 | Location: DC | Registered: 05 January 2007
Believe me, I wish there was more good metal. The reason my enthusiasm for metal has waned over the past 10 years or so, since graduating college really, is that there hasn't been much new stuff. Sure, there have been new metal albums, but it's pretty much the same stuff you've heard all your life. Even with death metal, one of my favorite genres of yore, I just got to the point where "you've heard one blastbeat, you've heard'em all." For me, Indie music has really filled this void. Sigur Ros, Bjork, The New Pornographers, My Morning Jacket, The Shins - Radiohead! - these bands gave me new, new, new. And when they become stale - I move on to something else - and that usually comes from the seemingly endless supply of new good indie talent out there. Personally, I have nothing against the metal genre, but there just doesn't seem to be enough talent left to keep it going. To prove my point, one of my favorite webzine columns is the "Show No Mercy" piece from P4K that comes out all too infrequently. One of the bands he mentioned several months ago is "Wrath of the Weak" - kind of a mix of Burzum and My Bloody Valentine. Awesome! I have hope for metal - but I need to see the goods. Until then, like the Chairman says on Iron Chef, indie cuisine will reign supreme!
Posts: 855 | Location: Ain'T it stiLl obvious? | Registered: 22 August 2006
