The next Slayer album

sam wrote:

detuned wrote:

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

SLAYER doesn't have to break any new ground...they only have to be SLAYER...

Exactly.

just how is should be!

Sometimes staying the same like AC/DC is the right thing to do and what the fans want. Slayer isn't a prog rock band.

Troublezone wrote:

sam wrote:

detuned wrote:

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

SLAYER doesn't have to break any new ground...they only have to be SLAYER...

Exactly.

just how is should be!

Sometimes staying the same like AC/DC is the right thing to do and what the fans want. Slayer isn't a prog rock band.

My point...and sometimes when a band stays the same, ie "do what they do", they sound "generic" or "stale" because we simply know what to expect already...it's not the band in this case, it's the listener...

Uh ... no. That is not what makes a band "generic" and "stale" in my estimation. Case in point, I don't feel that way at all about the new MEGADETH song and it really doesn't break any new ground. It's about the quality of the writing.

I don't expect metal bands to create brand new genres with every album they release.

Quote :

in my estimation

Everything hinges on personal taste...my statement is just my opinion...

Quote :

It's about the quality of the writing.

Which is judged by individual listeners and their personal tastes...

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Which is judged by individual listeners and their personal tastes...

So are you this relativistic about every aspect of art? Acting, musical performance, etc .... there is no objective measure of quality in these areas?

I wonder why anyone bothers to take music or acting lessons in that case.

Temple of Blood wrote:

Uh ... no. That is not what makes a band "generic" and "stale" in my estimation. Case in point, I don't feel that way at all about the new MEGADETH song and it really doesn't break any new ground. It's about the quality of the writing.

i find latter day Megadeth totally boring & Slayer still interesting. which really proves Shawn's point. good/bad song writing is a matter of personal opinion.

Some people consider Michael Bay to be a great film maker too. And they are wrong.

Temple of Blood wrote:

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Which is judged by individual listeners and their personal tastes...

So are you this relativistic about every aspect of art? Acting, musical performance, etc .... there is no objective measure of quality in these areas?

I wonder why anyone bothers to take music or acting lessons in that case.

People take lessons to either A- acheive a self-imposed level of quality or B- acheive a level of quality dictated by someone else.

I mean, there is plenty of stuff I find boring and useless...and other people find the same stuff enjoyable and important...I learned a long time ago to not pretend that there is some invisible standard by which to separate good & bad.

Now, that said, technical proficiency can be scaled...it's obvious when someone is not quite as skillful in thier execution as someone else may be on drums/guitar/whatever...these kinds of things come with time and practice...but the results of the output is still up to the listener to deem "enjoyable" or "boring"..."good" or "bad". Which is one reason when I give something a poor review, I'll say something like "I can hear that the band is full of good musicians, it just comes across boring to me..." as opposed to "the songwriting is just plain bad"...

For people like you and me (who actually do write songs), the temptation is there to judge other bands' output not only by what we already like to listen to, but also by our own definition of "quality"...I've done it plenty of times..."if I don't like it, then it must be of low quality"...I just learned, for myself, that this is not always the case. It bugs me even more when music fans who've never picked up an instrument suddenly become "armchair songwriters" making comments like "the songwriting is bad" or "the don't have quality songs" or other some such nonsense when in reality the most they can realistically say is "I don't like the songwriting" or "it's boring to me". People pretending to be privvy to some "ultimate standard of musical quality" really bug me, personally...especially when there is not a musical bone in their body. Ultimately, it's all a simple case of "I like it" or "I don't like it".

There are local bands around here that get hyped and built up as "awesome" and whatever, but when I hear them I'm like "meh"...doesn't mean they suck...it just means I don't like it...now the reason I don't like it may be that I think they don't play/execute very well (sloppy, inexperienced), and maybe they don't, or it may be that they play well and I just don't like the songs they wrote...either way, I just don't like it.

Ultimately, the older I get, I fall deeply into the "you either like it or you don't" camp...

Thanks for elaborating on your position. I respectfully disagree however and don't really have time to type out a ton of stuff.

Temple of Blood wrote:

Thanks for elaborating on your position. I respectfully disagree however and don't really have time to type out a ton of stuff.

Fair enough. I do have a question, though...

Suppose someone reviewed TEMPLE OF BLOOD and said "This band does not write good songs...they are generic and boring..."...what would you say to them?

I've had reviews like that.

The first thing I'd say would be, "Tell me what you think the 10 of the best metal songs are." I wanna see where they're coming from first.

Temple of Blood wrote:

I've had reviews like that.

The first thing I'd say would be, "Tell me what you think the 10 of the best metal songs are." I wanna see where they're coming from first.

You're thinking too hard...haha! You don't need to know a reviewers musical history to properly judge whether they gave you a correct or incorrect review...reviews are only opinions.

"About the new Slayer album, I was just gonna say...Ok, nevermind. I can wait till you guys are done here."

Temple of Blood wrote:

Some people consider Michael Bay to be a great film maker too. And they are wrong.

Holy smurf poo, I actually agree with you. For once.

Dream Theater are top notch musicians but overall i find them super boring. I think the new Megadeth song is mediocre. Being good musicians doesn't always translate to good music...

Okay, at some point this thread was actually about:

Troublezone wrote:

Dream Theater are top notch musicians but overall i find them super boring. I think the new Megadeth song is mediocre. Being good musicians doesn't always translate to good music...

The bold parts illustrate my point...personal taste.

"Good music" is in the ear of the listener...

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Troublezone wrote:

Dream Theater are top notch musicians but overall i find them super boring. I think the new Megadeth song is mediocre. Being good musicians doesn't always translate to good music...

The bold parts illustrate my point...personal taste.

"Good music" is in the ear of the listener...

I agree with you, but since opinions are running rampant...

I think you're all wrong.

SpectreFate wrote:

I think you're all wrong.

Care to elaborate?

Troublezone wrote:

SpectreFate wrote:

I think you're all wrong.

Care to elaborate?

You're all not wrong on this subject SPECifically, just in general. I am always right. About everything. 'cept complete sentences.

You sure have aged a lot since last year. Happy early 70th b-day!

something to add to the equation...

one of the first "christian" bands I was in had this bass player who mostly rode the top open E string and on occasion would follow the guitar players at the end of a progression. Really basic, simple, borong type stuff. Anyways, onstage the guy was all over the place. Jumping, spinning, the whole circus acrobat routine. Well... he went off to college and we got this dude with more degrees than a thermometer. He was like
an octopuss playing the bass. But once he posted up onstage, He was there like feet in cement shoes. My point is this... After one show at The Waters Club, a person comes up to me and says " what happened to your old bass player? He was awesome. I liked him better than the new guy"

James B. wrote:

something to add to the equation...

one of the first "christian" bands I was in had this bass player who mostly rode the top open E string and on occasion would follow the guitar players at the end of a progression. Really basic, simple, borong type stuff. Anyways, onstage the guy was all over the place. Jumping, spinning, the whole circus acrobat routine. Well... he went off to college and we got this dude with more degrees than a thermometer. He was like
an octopuss playing the bass. But once he posted up onstage, He was there like feet in cement shoes. My point is this... After one show at The Waters Club, a person comes up to me and says " what happened to your old bass player? He was awesome. I liked him better than the new guy"

I hear ya man. If a band still has loads of heart, I probably wouldnt care all that much if the next album turns out moderately sketchy musically. I think Slayer still has heart, and for that I know as long as that is true their albums will rule.