Best and worst era of metal?

ZombieHavoc wrote:

Boris2008 wrote:

I can't quite get my head around these are they or are they not metal debates. I have my opinions but I don't really care. A great band is a great band, whether they are metal or not is irrelevant to me.

Well, what else are we supposed to talk about?

As long as stuff is just in fun (which obviously was not the original poster's intent, but obviously the regular posters on this board can converse and discuss without issue), then why not discuss what is metal and what is not, or what is the best era, or what album was the best by whoever?

It's better than threads that are 7 pages full of videos, and is the reason I come to a message board like this, other than the rare once in a while when I learn about an insanely excellent band I've never encountered before.

Not me! I love love the threads with loads of videos as I hate being financially secure so this this forum helps me to get rid of all of my cash as quickly as possible!   

I don't mind the are they metal debates, i just can't understand the value system that people put on it. If I say that (for instance) I don't think that Aerosmith are metal, I'm not saying that they are not a great band (unlike a lot of you guys, I really like the commercial later stuff), just that it's not my idea of metal. Similarly I find those who say that all Nu Metal is not metal equally strange, you may hate it, some of it may be utter tripe (lookin' at you Limp Bizkit & Korn) but it's defo metal, no doubt. But some people seem to have a strict 'If I like it, It's metal, If I hate it, it isn't' policy. Maybe it's because I love so much stuff that can never be considered metal, and dislike a lot of stuff that definitely is that I don't see being 'meta'l as an inherently good or bad thing

Witchfinder wrote:

TheGreatDuck wrote:

Witchfinder wrote:

TheGreatDuck wrote:

I do, however it's still incorrect. And I'd wager that even if you asked some random guy about grunge today, his first association would be the early '90s rock/metal movement from Seattle rather than dirt or soil. It's a homonym.

Incorrect?  According to what?  The International Style Guide for Pedantic Discussions on Music Message Boards?

Grammar.

No.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Musical_and_literary_genres

Wikipedia wrote:

Names of musical or literary genres do not require capitalization at all, unless the genre name contains a proper name such as the name of a place. For example:

Incorrect: They are a Psychedelic Rock band.
Correct: They are a psychedelic rock band.

Incorrect: Asimov is widely considered a master of the Science-Fiction genre.
Correct: Asimov is widely considered a master of the science-fiction genre.

Radio formats such as adult contemporary or classic rock are also not capitalized.

http://www.potsdam.edu/academics/Crane/MusicTheory/Capitalization.cfm

Quote :

Use lower case for…

Genre names, except when they refer to a specific title:

sonata

symphony

string quartet

chanson

suite

http://writing2.richmond.edu/writing/wweb/music/dosdonts.html

Don't capitalize genres (use opera, symphony, jazz-- not Opera, Symphony, Jazz). Remember this rule by thinking about genres in literature: you wouldn't capitalize Novel, Short Story, or Poem, either. wrote:

http://web.mit.edu/comdor/editguide/style-matters/capitalization.html

Do not capitalize types of music She loves jazz and blues singers. wrote:

Boris2008 wrote:

ZombieHavoc wrote:

Boris2008 wrote:

I can't quite get my head around these are they or are they not metal debates. I have my opinions but I don't really care. A great band is a great band, whether they are metal or not is irrelevant to me.

Well, what else are we supposed to talk about?

As long as stuff is just in fun (which obviously was not the original poster's intent, but obviously the regular posters on this board can converse and discuss without issue), then why not discuss what is metal and what is not, or what is the best era, or what album was the best by whoever?

It's better than threads that are 7 pages full of videos, and is the reason I come to a message board like this, other than the rare once in a while when I learn about an insanely excellent band I've never encountered before.

Not me! I love love the threads with loads of videos as I hate being financially secure so this this forum helps me to get rid of all of my cash as quickly as possible!   

I don't mind the are they metal debates, i just can't understand the value system that people put on it. If I say that (for instance) I don't think that Aerosmith are metal, I'm not saying that they are not a great band (unlike a lot of you guys, I really like the commercial later stuff), just that it's not my idea of metal. Similarly I find those who say that all Nu Metal is not metal equally strange, you may hate it, some of it may be utter tripe (lookin' at you Limp Bizkit & Korn) but it's defo metal, no doubt. But some people seem to have a strict 'If I like it, It's metal, If I hate it, it isn't' policy. Maybe it's because I love so much stuff that can never be considered metal, and dislike a lot of stuff that definitely is that I don't see being 'meta'l as an inherently good or bad thing

Nu metal isn't metal, nevermind how good or bad it may be. It takes more than just loud guitars to be metal. Nu metal has more in common hardcore and alternative rock than metal.

I think many of us here like a lot that is not metal--just look at the recent hauls thread. Tons of stuff that is not metal in the least.

I don't *think* anyone is trying to claim that if they like it, it's metal and if they don't, it's not?

I like The Cars quite a bit. Not metal. I do not like Limp Bizkit. Also not metal. Nu metal may have metal in its name...but as we proved with the term 'grunge', the labels can be pretty meaningless to what the music actually is.

One thing that did irk me in my youth is when people would attempt to classify bands like Korn or Limp Bizkit as hardcore. Ridiculous.

I learned something today - style guides apply to internet message boards posts.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pedantic

ZombieHavoc wrote:

I think many of us here like a lot that is not metal--just look at the recent hauls thread. Tons of stuff that is not metal in the least.

I don't *think* anyone is trying to claim that if they like it, it's metal and if they don't, it's not?

I like The Cars quite a bit. Not metal. I do not like Limp Bizkit. Also not metal. Nu metal may have metal in its name...but as we proved with the term 'grunge', the labels can be pretty meaningless to what the music actually is.

One thing that did irk me in my youth is when people would attempt to classify bands like Korn or Limp Bizkit as hardcore. Ridiculous.

Hardcore like metal is an evolving term, I don't really know what hardcore is any more, even on a recent thread on here about hardcore, most of it sounded like crossover to my ears. I get that people might think that Limp Bizkit are way too rap orientated to be metal, but System of a Down are totally metal and were also classed as Nu Metal. I did mostly hate the genre though.

Boris2008 wrote:

ZombieHavoc wrote:

I think many of us here like a lot that is not metal--just look at the recent hauls thread. Tons of stuff that is not metal in the least.

I don't *think* anyone is trying to claim that if they like it, it's metal and if they don't, it's not?

I like The Cars quite a bit. Not metal. I do not like Limp Bizkit. Also not metal. Nu metal may have metal in its name...but as we proved with the term 'grunge', the labels can be pretty meaningless to what the music actually is.

One thing that did irk me in my youth is when people would attempt to classify bands like Korn or Limp Bizkit as hardcore. Ridiculous.

Hardcore like metal is an evolving term, I don't really know what hardcore is any more, even on a recent thread on here about hardcore, most of it sounded like crossover to my ears.  I get that people might think that Limp Bizkit are way too rap orientated to be metal, but System of a Down are totally metal and were also classed as Nu Metal. I did mostly hate the genre though.

Is it possible that Nu Metal is on a continuum from "More Metal" to "This Ain't Metal At All?"

TheGreatDuck wrote:

Witchfinder wrote:

TheGreatDuck wrote:

Witchfinder wrote:

TheGreatDuck wrote:

I do, however it's still incorrect. And I'd wager that even if you asked some random guy about grunge today, his first association would be the early '90s rock/metal movement from Seattle rather than dirt or soil. It's a homonym.

Incorrect?  According to what?  The International Style Guide for Pedantic Discussions on Music Message Boards?

Grammar.

No.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Musical_and_literary_genres

Wikipedia wrote:

Names of musical or literary genres do not require capitalization at all, unless the genre name contains a proper name such as the name of a place. For example:

   Incorrect: They are a Psychedelic Rock band.
   Correct: They are a psychedelic rock band.

   Incorrect: Asimov is widely considered a master of the Science-Fiction genre.
   Correct: Asimov is widely considered a master of the science-fiction genre.

Radio formats such as adult contemporary or classic rock are also not capitalized.

http://www.potsdam.edu/academics/Crane/MusicTheory/Capitalization.cfm

Quote :

Use lower case for…

Genre names, except when they refer to a specific title:

sonata

symphony

string quartet

chanson

suite

http://writing2.richmond.edu/writing/wweb/music/dosdonts.html



http://web.mit.edu/comdor/editguide/style-matters/capitalization.html

Boris2008 wrote:

ZombieHavoc wrote:

Boris2008 wrote:

I can't quite get my head around these are they or are they not metal debates. I have my opinions but I don't really care. A great band is a great band, whether they are metal or not is irrelevant to me.

Well, what else are we supposed to talk about?

As long as stuff is just in fun (which obviously was not the original poster's intent, but obviously the regular posters on this board can converse and discuss without issue), then why not discuss what is metal and what is not, or what is the best era, or what album was the best by whoever?

It's better than threads that are 7 pages full of videos, and is the reason I come to a message board like this, other than the rare once in a while when I learn about an insanely excellent band I've never encountered before.

Not me! I love love the threads with loads of videos as I hate being financially secure so this this forum helps me to get rid of all of my cash as quickly as possible!   

I don't mind the are they metal debates, i just can't understand the value system that people put on it. If I say that (for instance) I don't think that Aerosmith are metal, I'm not saying that they are not a great band (unlike a lot of you guys, I really like the commercial later stuff), just that it's not my idea of metal. Similarly I find those who say that all Nu Metal is not metal equally strange, you may hate it, some of it may be utter tripe (lookin' at you Limp Bizkit & Korn) but it's defo metal, no doubt. But some people seem to have a strict 'If I like it, It's metal, If I hate it, it isn't' policy. Maybe it's because I love so much stuff that can never be considered metal, and dislike a lot of stuff that definitely is that I don't see being 'meta'l as an inherently good or bad thing

Nu metal isn't metal, nevermind how good or bad it may be. It takes more than just loud guitars to be metal. Nu metal has more in common hardcore and alternative rock than metal.

Go on then! What exactly does it take if not loud guitars? Define metal once and for all. (and Nu Metal does not have a f**king thing in common with hardcore   )

I'm so old I still consider heavy metal and hard rock to be the same thing.   

Lovecraft wrote:

I'm so old I still consider heavy metal and hard rock to be the same thing.   

I don't get the difference either, don't feel bad. lol

I hold to two ultimate genres: stuff that rocks, stuff that sucks.

Boris, you're right, they are punk, but Kurt went all over the wall with each album. Sometimes he was Neil Young, then he was Velvet Underground, then he was Kyuss lite (yes, duck, there were many moments of stoner rock, even if it did lack a bottom end). But I'd agree with the primary punk influence.

Also should be mentioned that STP's Core is f*cking metal up and down. That disc was a scorcher.

corplhicks wrote:

Boris, you're right, they are punk, but Kurt went all over the wall with each album. Sometimes he was Neil Young, then he was Velvet Underground, then he was Kyuss lite (yes, duck, there were many moments of stoner rock, even if it did lack a bottom end). But I'd agree with the primary punk influence.

Also should be mentioned that STP's Core is f*cking metal up and down. That disc was a scorcher.

I don't think STP were ever really a Grunge band. I think they were a straight up rock band that gut lumped in with that genre.

Witchfinder wrote:

corplhicks wrote:

Boris, you're right, they are punk, but Kurt went all over the wall with each album. Sometimes he was Neil Young, then he was Velvet Underground, then he was Kyuss lite (yes, duck, there were many moments of stoner rock, even if it did lack a bottom end). But I'd agree with the primary punk influence.

Also should be mentioned that STP's Core is f*cking metal up and down. That disc was a scorcher.

I don't think STP were ever really a Grunge band.  I think they were a straight up rock band that gut lumped in with that genre.  

And got progressively worse with each release as far as I'm concerned. But Core is fantastic (except for the goofy Wet My Bed).

007 wrote:

Witchfinder wrote:

corplhicks wrote:

Boris, you're right, they are punk, but Kurt went all over the wall with each album. Sometimes he was Neil Young, then he was Velvet Underground, then he was Kyuss lite (yes, duck, there were many moments of stoner rock, even if it did lack a bottom end). But I'd agree with the primary punk influence.

Also should be mentioned that STP's Core is f*cking metal up and down. That disc was a scorcher.

I don't think STP were ever really a Grunge band.  I think they were a straight up rock band that gut lumped in with that genre.  

And got progressively worse with each release as far as I'm concerned. But Core is fantastic (except for the goofy Wet My Bed).

Also true!

I think the genre labeling confusion for a lot of Grunge bands can be summed up in these videos for Alice In Chains. Two videos of the same song - an early version when they were being marketed as a Metal band (note the leather jackets and fog machines) and a later version when they were being marketed as a Grunge band:





Totally killer song with a crushing riff and Jerry Cantrell's usual tasteful soloing.

Basically anything rock-oriented that wasnt metal (and as we've seen, even some of them got lumped into it) got thrown into the "alternative rock" category, including power-pop acts (Weezer), punk (Rancid), ska (Mighty Mighty Bosstones), funk-rock (Red Hot Chili Peppers), and even stuff that defies classification (Radiohead).

STP started out as a funk rock band named Mighty Joe Young.




And a VERY different early version of this song.

I kinda dig it!

I think this stuff is from 1990.... just two years before they would release Core. Same band lineup, as well.

And AIC sounded like this(with the guitarist who would form My Sister's Machine) when they were known as Alice N' Chains:








And the Sweet Alice Demo from 1988(with Jerry Cantrell now in the band):

1 - Suffragette City(twice)
2 - Bleed the Freak
3 - Social Parasite
4 - We Die Young
5 - Chemical Addiction
6 - Sunshine
7 - King of the Kats
8 - The Real Thing
9 - Killing Yourself
10 - Sea of Sorrow
11 - I Can't Remember
12 - Queen of the Rodeo

Still sounds Metal to me.

I know they had a song that had a hair metal-ish riff on their debut, but can't remember its name now.

To me, there are roughly only two eras of metal; "years of creation" from beginning till early 90s, when all the main genres were created, tons of classics recorded and metal progressed as a whole, and "years of re-creation", from late 90s onwards, with reunions, classic metal revivals, and new outfits of metal music (heavy guitars + something, be it harmonica, techno, rap etc.). Of course not everything is so black and white, but in general I strongly prefer older stuff.

When nirvana came out. They were labeled thrash metal around here.

that was the ultimate blasphemy!!!

Wait, what!?
    

Boris2008 wrote:

Hardcore like metal is an evolving term, I don't really know what hardcore is any more, even on a recent thread on here about hardcore, most of it sounded like crossover to my ears.

Hardcore is definitely evolving, but ultimately whatever bands you may have once liked, there are probably still tons of bands playing in that style. There are still and always will be bands sounding like the Cro-Mags or sounding like Slapshot or sounding like Youth of Today or sounding like Black Flag.

Fat Freddy wrote:

Quote :

Interesting once Nirvana hit it big, suddenly they were no longer metal bands, thou most of those artist had a sizeable fanbase of metal fans.

Kurt Cobain was once quoted as saying Nirvana were not metal,but he could see how their sound might appeal to a metal audience.

I also seem to remember that he once said that he felt Nirvana sounded like the Bay City Rollers after an assault by Black Sabbath.

Let's do the math here - 4 guys in Black Sabbath and we can assume each guy has 2 balls each, so that's a total of 8 balls. Because it's Sabbath, you square the total, because... metal. So, you're looking at 64 balls assaulting the Bay City Rollers' (whom I'm too lazy to look up) 10 balls, so 64 x 10 = 640 balls.

So, hence: Nirvana has 640 balls. Nirvana has balls. Nirvana is metal.

Any questions from the class?   

So what happened to the person who started this thread? Troll  

 < Ugh, you like Phil Collins, you are not metal! Ugh! Ugh! You call Aerosmith metal! You are a poser! You know nothing about metal! Ugh! Ugh!