The road to Death metal

Anyone else notice all the crappy Deathcore bands are slowly becoming standard death metal? Impending doom basically became death metal on their second album, Annotations of an Autopsy (who was possibly every single generic aspect of "core" music wrapped in one) let out a fairly decent death metal release and even White Chapel are losing a good amount of their "core" elements.

I can happily say,I think this abomination of a genre we know as deathcore is finally dying out.

But metalcore can't become thrash.

i like deathcore & death metal.

mc666 wrote:

i like deathcore & death metal.

Very few Deathcore bands I can really listen to. Not bad because of the music,but most bands lack originality or just end up as one big chugging mess with a never ending breakdown.

for every deathcore band that puts out a release trying (with varying degrees of success---see job for a cowboy) to be death metal, 50 bands composed of 13 year olds pick up where the other bands left off. i do think that deathcore is a gateway to "actual metal" for some people, and thats cool, but i dont see deathcore going silently into the good night.

rawr! wrote:

for every deathcore band that puts out a release trying (with varying degrees of success---see job for a cowboy) to be death metal, 50 bands composed of 13 year olds pick up where the other bands left off. i do think that deathcore is a gateway to "actual metal" for some people, and thats cool, but i dont see deathcore going silently into the good night.

You have a point. Metalcore was my gateway into metal when I was younger. But even if there are a ton of more deathcore bands coming when one becomes death metal, I can at least be happy the band brings their fans with them.

Only Annotations of an Autopsy have since released an EP that can barely even be classified as Deathcore let alone Death Metal.

I'm not too familiar with either metalcore or deathcore. I know of a few metalcore bands like Bleeding Through and Lamb of God, I like LoG a lot but I have not really ventured much into the genre.

Some of the other metalcore bands I heard tend to sound alike, with those same breakdown riffs that seem to resemble Pantera's Walk or 5 Minutes Alone, yet nowhere near as tight or as entertaining. What I dislike the most are the screeching raspy vocals most metalcore bands employ.

I only found out about metalcore around 2008, that's when I started listening to LoG. Before that I didn't know the genre existed, I had heard about some bands mixing hardcore with metal - like Hatebreed but I didn't know that mix of styles had spawned a new genre. I'm not even sure if a band like Hatebreed is metalcore. In any case, it did not leave a lasting impression on me to check out more bands in that style.

The reason I like LoG is because it has more in common with older metal bands than the run of the mill metalcore stuff I heard to date.

I guess for every new generation of music fans there will be something new and fresh to get into at the time they start listening to music. At the time I got into metal in the mid 90s it was bands like Pantera, Machine Head and Fear Factory that were considered the next big thing in heavy metal.

Alex Dee Rokket wrote:

At the time I got into metal in the mid 90s it was bands like Pantera, Machine Head and Fear Factory that were considered the next big thing in heavy metal.

Yeah, those were dark and shameful times for metal...

stormspell wrote:

Alex Dee Rokket wrote:

At the time I got into metal in the mid 90s it was bands like Pantera, Machine Head and Fear Factory that were considered the next big thing in heavy metal.

Yeah, those were dark and shameful times for metal...

I would not necessarily say so; nothing those bands did brought any shame to metal imo. Sure Machine Head may have eventually gone in a 'nu-metal' direction but for most part those 3 bands were very solid at the time during the mid 90s, at least I liked them and I liked them alongside older 80s metal bands.

What I consider shameful for those times was the various metal bands from the 80s changing their sound to something they were not in order to stay relevant (all the usual suspects).

stormspell wrote:

Alex Dee Rokket wrote:

At the time I got into metal in the mid 90s it was bands like Pantera, Machine Head and Fear Factory that were considered the next big thing in heavy metal.

Yeah, those were dark and shameful times for metal...

mc666 wrote:

i like deathcore & death metal.

Same here. White Chapel is great, so is Impending Doom.

Alex Dee Rokket wrote:

stormspell wrote:

Alex Dee Rokket wrote:

At the time I got into metal in the mid 90s it was bands like Pantera, Machine Head and Fear Factory that were considered the next big thing in heavy metal.

Yeah, those were dark and shameful times for metal...

I would not necessarily say so; nothing those bands did brought any shame to metal imo.

EVERYTHING those bands did brought shame to metal, imo.

Sorry, i can't stand Pantera, Fear Factory and Machine Head.

dark avenger wrote:

Alex Dee Rokket wrote:

stormspell wrote:

Alex Dee Rokket wrote:

At the time I got into metal in the mid 90s it was bands like Pantera, Machine Head and Fear Factory that were considered the next big thing in heavy metal.

Yeah, those were dark and shameful times for metal...

I would not necessarily say so; nothing those bands did brought any shame to metal imo.

EVERYTHING those bands did brought shame to metal, imo.

Sorry, i can't stand Pantera, Fear Factory and Machine Head.

Come on, that's a bit extreme. The first Fear Factory album is a death metal classic and Cowboys From Hell at least was a great metal album (metal fans have no reson to not like Cemetary Gates IMO). Their later works may have been shameful (not so much IMO, because I do like Demanufacture and Vulgar Display Of Power-and some Far Beyond Driven) but their earlier material brought no shame to metal whatsoever.

Why not just say you don't like a band or a subgenre rather than bringing a concept such as shame which has nothing to do with creative expression.

I won't waste my time with having an argument about this but suffice to say that conservative mentalities about metal being some indefeasible pre-ordained entity hurts the genre more than helping it in any way.

Nothing has brought shame to metal, not even Mayhem, Burzum and the like. Metal is based on freedom of expression, you may either like that form of expression or you may not but there is no rule or objective standard by which any metal band should be held.

nuff said

Alex Dee Rokket wrote:

Why not just say you don't like a band or a subgenre rather than bringing a concept such as shame which has nothing to do with creative expression.

I won't waste my time with having an argument about this but suffice to say that conservative mentalities about metal being some indefeasible pre-ordained entity hurts the genre more than helping it in any way.

Nothing has brought shame to metal, not even Mayhem, Burzum and the like. Metal is based on freedom of expression, you may either like that form of expression or you may not but there is no rule or objective standard by which any metal band should be held.

nuff said

Alex Dee Rokket wrote:

What I consider shameful for those times was the various metal bands from the 80s changing their sound to something they were not in order to stay relevant (all the usual suspects).

Well, Robb Flynn swapped Vio-lence for MH changing the sound big time. PANTERA went from glam through power/thrash metal to end up angry/nu/groovy/whatever. Fear Factory's debut was quite decent death metal before plunging into the modern trend. So there you have it - 3 bands shamefully changing their sound to stay relevant.

For me Pantera and MH single-handedly killed the extreme metal as we knew it, coz they were the front runners into the angry/groovy direction and influenced tons of bands to follow, both old and new. I'll always blame 'em for that.

stormspell wrote:

Alex Dee Rokket wrote:

What I consider shameful for those times was the various metal bands from the 80s changing their sound to something they were not in order to stay relevant (all the usual suspects).

Well, Robb Flynn swapped Vio-lence for MH changing the sound big time. PANTERA went from glam through power/thrash metal to end up angry/nu/groovy/whatever. Fear Factory's debut was quite decent death metal before plunging into the modern trend. So there you have it - 3 bands shamefully changing their sound to stay relevant.

For me Pantera and MH single-handedly killed the extreme metal as we knew it, coz they were the front runners into the angry/groovy direction and influenced tons of bands to follow, both old and new. I'll always blame 'em for that.

I disagree again.

In relation to Pantera's glam years and them changing to something else - the first three albums were recorded with essentially a different line-up (sans Phil) and secondly, the direction the band had at the time was completely different: they were for better or worse a straight forward 80s metal band playing in the style inspired by bands like Priest, early 80s Leppard and the like.

The band changed when Phil Anselmo arrived and recorded Power Metal, which takes the band gradually towards thrashier / heavier territory. It was also during the Power Metal tour that Dimebag and Kerry King formed a close bond and out that came the inspiration to write heavier material. So as you keep going on about 'shameful changes' - did you consider this? or are simply considering their post-CBF material as being the change to keep up with the times.

Also I gotta ask, what exactly were Pantera keeping up with anyway? The post-CBF material resembles imo a groove-based thrash sound minus the speed inspired (whether directly or indirectly) by bands such as Exhorder, Overkill (circa Years of Decay), Demolition Hammer (minus the speed), Dark Angel (minus the technicality aspect), and of course Sabbath.

Regarding Machine Head: now this baffles me, how did this band bring any 'shame' to metal with their debut. I'd understand if Vio-Lence had changed to the style of Machine Head's Burn My Eyes but that was not the case. This is a completely different band that happens to have been formed by one of the members in Vio-Lence. If Chuck Billy had formed a solo band that was altogether different from Testament, would that bring any shame to metal? Heck, what about Bruce Dickinson, did he bring any shame to metal? You get the drift.

I will agree that Machine Head changed in the late 90s to keep up with changing trends in metal. I will also agree that Machine Head were not the most inventive metal bands, at the time they started, especially as Burn My Eyes seems to follow a similar pattern of Pantera's Vulgar / Far Beyond Driven albums. Otherwise, the existence of Machine Head brought no shame to metal whatsoever, it is your choice whether you like them or not but to say that metal has some standard by which all bands are to abide is just short-sighted and doesn't take into account the diversity of styles and the multi-faceted character of metal.

Fear Factory - again I don't see the argument there either. Soul of a New Machine wasn't necessarily death metal. The band was dubbed as industrial-metal, whether that term is appropriate or not is for the listener to ponder on. However, this band was different from the rest, they drew on a wide number of influences and I would say were quite unique in their approach. They didn't always release top notch albums, for example I find both Obsolete and Digimortal to be quite lacking but they've bounced back with stronger material over the last 3 albums.


As for your statement that Pantera and MH "single-handedly killed the extreme metal as we knew it"...

1. Neither Pantera, Machine Head or Fear Factory for that matter were extreme metal. They were heavier than what mainstream was accustomed to hearing but extreme metal, no chance.

2. Extreme metal was alive and well and thriving alongside those three bands during the mid-90s. Death, Morbid Angel, Deicide, Cannibal Corpse were the real front runners of extreme metal and all had top selling albums during the mid-90s period. All those bands also had some form of mainstream recognition albeit more reduced than the likes of Pantera etc.

Alex Dee Rokket wrote:

Why not just say you don't like a band or a subgenre rather than bringing a concept such as shame which has nothing to do with creative expression.

I won't waste my time with having an argument about this but suffice to say that conservative mentalities about metal being some indefeasible pre-ordained entity hurts the genre more than helping it in any way.

Nothing has brought shame to metal, not even Mayhem, Burzum and the like. Metal is based on freedom of expression, you may either like that form of expression or you may not but there is no rule or objective standard by which any metal band should be held.

nuff said

well, while i think metal has elements of free expression and saying screw the man and societal norms and all that, there are intersubjective boundaries as to what define metal that many knowledgeable people can agree upon. trying to change what metal is defined as can sometimes deny metals existence as a valid/established genre of music altogether, in terms of using the label. genres of music---what is considered included---are generally structurally coherent and internally consistent, therefore accepting some alterations of form while rejecting others has basis in the original formulation of the sound. it might be called "conservative", but another word might be "logical".

rawr! wrote:

Alex Dee Rokket wrote:

Why not just say you don't like a band or a subgenre rather than bringing a concept such as shame which has nothing to do with creative expression.

I won't waste my time with having an argument about this but suffice to say that conservative mentalities about metal being some indefeasible pre-ordained entity hurts the genre more than helping it in any way.

Nothing has brought shame to metal, not even Mayhem, Burzum and the like. Metal is based on freedom of expression, you may either like that form of expression or you may not but there is no rule or objective standard by which any metal band should be held.

nuff said

well, while i think metal has elements of free expression and saying screw the man and societal norms and all that, there are intersubjective boundaries as to what define metal that many knowledgeable people can agree upon. trying to change what metal is defined as can sometimes deny metals existence as a valid/established genre of music altogether, in terms of using the label. genres of music---what is considered included---are generally structurally coherent and internally consistent, therefore accepting some alterations of form while rejecting others has basis in the original formulation of the sound. it might be called "conservative", but another word might be "logical".

I find it difficult to come to terms with there being any particular objective standards for what metal is or isn't - at least not in today's scene. Take a band like Turisas or even latter day Therion for that matter, by the standards of traditional 80s metal neither would qualify as heavy metal groups (and would most likely not even exist as part of that scene) yet by today's standards one is known as folk-metal the other is known as symphonic-metal and even those tags are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Given the diversity we currently have, I don't believe there is one ingredient more potent than another that embodies the metal sound.

I think within every sub-genre there may be a certain standard by which every band is held, however even those are mostly subjective and are not hard and fast rules. Yet paradoxically, with all the diversity we have nowadays, you can still point with some degree of conviction that a band is metal - perhaps not because they sound like another band, or say an all-time influential one, but just in the way the composition as a whole sounds.

just to be clear, i never took issue with your absolutely correct statement that there can be no objective standard for metal. really, theres no objective standard for anything: all we have is what we subjectively experience and then agree upon with one another. the more ways in which something is perceived to be accurate by people that matter, the more "truthful" something is said to be. i suppose there are an ever-growing number of conceptions of metal that reside, or have existed, in the minds of millions of living and long since gone individuals, and naturally there are correlations and conflicts. im proposing there is a correct way to approach the matter---a way to connect peoples experiences and beliefs that creates a coherent concert of ideas that define what metal is and isnt, can and cannot be in the future. i suppose its a lot like saying morality exists, except its closer to establishing humanity as a distinct species knowing we coexisted and interbred with a number of now extinct genetically similar hominims and still retain our history with them in our DNA.

of course its arbitrary to take metal and map out ways it can branch off while remaining true to its ideals, which may themselves evolve, while leaving off the possibility of other avenues that dont reflect such ideals, but every term in existence is arbitrarily limiting.....its what theyre for. so, its possible to get to the bottom of whether or not a certain selection of music is metal within a group of people if enough individuals within that group can see the underlying patterns that create "metal" from "a random band with downtuned, fastpaced chugging riffs, aggressive vocals, and blastbeats" or so on. if something cant be correctly judged as metal, the term kinda loses its usefulness. there is the understanding between people that definitions and understandings are flexible, but that doesnt mean that, at the end of the day, there isnt a culturally significant/preferred method for determining genre. all definitions are inherently a collaborative effort and its all about taking sides; i just figure ill promote something constructive to good music.

Alright, replace "extreme metal" with thrash if this would help. What I'm saying is, Pantera and MH basically invented the groove metal, which became the next "big thing" embraced by the industry, and as a result plenty of thrash bands like Forbidden, Accuser, Sepultura, Kreator, Overkill, etc. had to adopt it to keep their record deals.

Pantera and MH were among the bands which started the groove and by far the most influential, so I blame them. Nothing personal you understand.

I wholeheartedly agree with this.

stormspell wrote:

Alright, replace "extreme metal" with thrash if this would help. What I'm saying is, Pantera and MH basically invented the groove metal, which became the next "big thing" embraced by the industry, and as a result plenty of thrash bands like Forbidden, Accuser, Sepultura, Kreator, Overkill, etc. had to adopt it to keep their record deals.

Pantera and MH were among the bands which started the groove and by far the most influential, so I blame them. Nothing personal you understand.

I see your point about Pantera and Machine Head influencing the groove-based metal but it is debatable to what extent they influenced the bands you mentioned. For example, Overkill were doing the whole groove-based metal style since the Years of Decay (not all the songs but there were some notable moments which were all about groove). Arguably Pantera may have been a motivator for Overkill to further their groove-sound but I'm more of the opinion they were influenced by Sabbath than Pantera.

You didn't mention them, but Anthrax were also doing the whole groove-metal thing (in part at least) on Persistence of Time. Forbidden already had some groove-based riffs even as early as Twisted Into Form.

What about Metallica on Justice For All? Songs like Harvester of Sorrow or Frayed Ends of Sanity both have chuggy riffing. This was well before Pantera was even known outside a few club joints in the states.

My point is, that while Pantera and Machine Head were influential to metal, their influence was more on the bands that came out after 1995 than the metal bands from the 80s. Pantera was certainly not the only band to toy around with groove-based riffs and songs and weren't as innovating for that as some hold them to be - they popularized the groove-based style but weren't its pioneers.

Again, it's one thing to not like groove-based riffing and songs, it's another to objectively claim one band ruined it for all to justify why metal changed.