HAVE WE HEARD IT ALL

You may want to excise "movies" from that list of media that have evolved. Seems like 9/10 of everything coming out is a reboot, a sequel or a reimagining of something else. Say whatever you want about rock music, but you won't see a band just putting out "Rust in Peace Reimagined." Hell, who am I kidding - if they took the Michael Bay approach, they'd just CG explosions on the cover art and call it "Rust in Peace" with a different font..

AC/DC have evolved more in the last 20 years than movies.

Vexer6 wrote:

I do enjoy some modern bands like Nickelback, Korn, Hinder, Saliva, Halestorm, Limp Bizkit, Linkin Park, Flyleaf, Avenged Sevenfold, Disturbed, etc, but for the most part I think 80s rock/metal bands are just plain better then most stuff today.  

I have heard all of those bands and never want to hear them again.

I'd rather listen to Uriah Heep or Blue Oyster Cult.

Quote :

Say whatever you want about rock music, but you won't see a band just putting out "Rust in Peace Reimagined.

Eh, I wouldn't say that. Re-recording the old hits, endless remasters and remixing, deluxe, super-deluxe and super-duper deluxe packages of old material. The music business re-hashes the past just as much as movies. The bands themselves might not be as guilty, but the music industry is as out of fresh ideas as the movie industry.

Runicen wrote:

You may want to excise "movies" from that list of media that have evolved.  Seems like 9/10 of everything coming out is a reboot, a sequel or a reimagining of something else.  Say whatever you want about rock music, but you won't see a band just putting out "Rust in Peace Reimagined."  Hell, who am I kidding - if they took the Michael Bay approach, they'd just CG explosions on the cover art and call it "Rust in Peace" with a different font..

AC/DC have evolved more in the last 20 years than movies.  

Correction.  You're talking about major studio films.  Not "movies" in general.  Lots of great independent and foreign films still being made, in fact the past few years have been great as long as you (mostly) skip the multiplex and head to the arthouse theater instead.

The major movie studios aren't "out of fresh ideas", they just won't finance them. Only sure-fire, guaranteed built-in-audience films get released by the major studios. Thus, sequels, remakes and reboots.

S.D. wrote:

The major movie studios aren't "out of fresh ideas", they just won't finance them.  Only sure-fire, guaranteed built-in-audience films get released by the major studios.  Thus, sequels, remakes and reboots.

That sounds like "out of fresh ideas" to me. "Why risk trying something new when we can go with what we've been doing." It's semantics, but the ideology is the same.

You could say the same of the music industry with your logic. A big label won't finance something risky, but a small independent label might take a chance.

S.D. wrote:

Runicen wrote:

You may want to excise "movies" from that list of media that have evolved.  Seems like 9/10 of everything coming out is a reboot, a sequel or a reimagining of something else.  Say whatever you want about rock music, but you won't see a band just putting out "Rust in Peace Reimagined."  Hell, who am I kidding - if they took the Michael Bay approach, they'd just CG explosions on the cover art and call it "Rust in Peace" with a different font..

AC/DC have evolved more in the last 20 years than movies.  

Correction.  You're talking about major studio films.  Not "movies" in general.  Lots of great independent and foreign films still being made, in fact the past few years have been great as long as you (mostly) skip the multiplex and head to the arthouse theater instead.

The major movie studios aren't "out of fresh ideas", they just won't finance them.  Only sure-fire, guaranteed built-in-audience films get released by the major studios.  Thus, sequels, remakes and reboots.  

It's also why Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, etc, keep getting remastered, reissued...catalog sells.

Runicen wrote:

AC/DC have evolved more in the last 20 years than movies.  

You need some kind of prize for that quote! 

MetalGuy71 wrote:

S.D. wrote:

The major movie studios aren't "out of fresh ideas", they just won't finance them.  Only sure-fire, guaranteed built-in-audience films get released by the major studios.  Thus, sequels, remakes and reboots.

That sounds like "out of fresh ideas" to me. "Why risk trying something new when we can go with what we've been doing." It's semantics, but the ideology is the same.

You could say the same of the music industry with your logic. A big label won't finance something risky, but a small independent label might take a chance.

If you're going to invest $200 million into producing a film and another $100 million promoting it, the stockholders prefer as little risk as possible.  Studios pass on good scripts all the time because they are an "unknown entity".  The only way you can get an original screenplay made is if you either have a) a big star interested in it or b) a big box-office proven director or producer backing it.

Hell, Martin Scorsese can't even get movies made any longer, he had to privately finance The Wolf Of Wall Street because none of the studios would invest in it.  

It's just fear, none of the major studios really exist any longer, they are all just divisions of huge corporate conglomerates and there are always more powerful people above them pulling the strings.  

They aren't interested in financing a small $20 million film that might potentially make $60 million in the theater.  That's too small for the corporate overlords to notice.  They want films that will pull in a minimum of $500 million worldwide.  To reach that level of audience you have to make fairly generic films in proven money-making genres that don't overly tax the intelligence of the multiplex crowd.  It also helps if they have really simplistic, easy-to-translate dialogue.

...and you're correct the major labels are the exact same story. I honestly can't remember the last time I bought an album released by a major label...maybe Pink Floyd's The Endless River...but prior to that? No idea.

S.D. wrote:

If you're going to invest $200 million into producing a film and another $100 million promoting it, the stockholders prefer as little risk as possible.  Studios pass on good scripts all the time because they are an "unknown entity".  The only way you can get an original screenplay made is if you either have a) a big star interested in it or b) a big box-office proven director or producer backing it.

Hell, Martin Scorsese can't even get movies made any longer, he had to privately finance The Wolf Of Wall Street because none of the studios would invest in it.  

It's just fear, none of the major studios really exist any longer, they are all just divisions of huge corporate conglomerates and there are always more powerful people above them pulling the strings.  

They aren't interested in financing a small $20 million film that might potentially make $60 million in the theater.  That's too small for the corporate overlords to notice.  They want films that will pull in a minimum of $500 million worldwide.  To reach that level of audience you have to make fairly generic films in proven money-making genres that don't overly tax the intelligence of the multiplex crowd.  It also helps if they have really simplistic, easy-to-translate dialogue.

More's the pity when you consider some of the cinematic classics (that even a troglodyte like me who rarely watches movies would recognize) were put together on shoe-string budgets AND that in the era of CG, it's entirely possible to put together some solid work at minimal cost. Small short-term gains are being chosen over huge long-term gains. Kind of emphasizes everything wrong with the entrenched corporations. They've fossilized to almost nothing except poor judgment and mountains of cash.

S.D. wrote:

...and you're correct the major labels are the exact same story.  I honestly can't remember the last time I bought an album released by a major label...maybe Pink Floyd's The Endless River...but prior to that?  No idea.

You'd probably be surprised. I think it was Electronic Musician who published a listing of the "family trees" of record labels. This was nearly a decade ago now and most of the "indie" labels at the time were explicitly on the list as being owned by Sony or BMG or whoever - even if three or four tiers down the line.

Getting back to the point, I like ragging on the movies industry, but I'd be as happy as anyone else to see them just get back to the business of making good, NEW movies on a regular basis instead of the odd gem that manages to squeak into the mainstream (I'm not a serious enough movie person to go hunting for the independents, if we're being honest).

Whatever you can say about mainstream music, with the remastering and repackaging, you still don't have NEW bands just doing eternal tribute albums to older legacy bands and albums. That's still low-rent Cleopatra Records b.s. and hasn't really gained traction as far as I've seen over the past decades. In the movie world, new directors and actors are re-making old, existing movies that were hits in their time. I'm not really sure we've got a DIRECT analog for that in the musical world since we've moved on from the torch singers and Brill building. Now, if you want to split hairs, we haven't heard anything new since Robert Johnson.

Since Robert Johnson? Duke Ellington, Charlie Christian, Thelonious Monk, Miles Davis, Gil Evans, Charles Mingus, John Coltrane, Ornette Coleman...

I wanted to say, "I thought we were talking about 'hearing something new in rock/metal,'" and then I realized that Davis would belong on that list too.

Bah! You win on a technicality!

And, just so it's said, I stand by my original statement that there are endless mixes and permutations (hence, infinite possibilities for new things to hear), but I had to get my dig in on the "it's all blues anyway" bandwagon.

I think one of the primary issues with metal evolving...is the fanbase. We've got decades of history now of bands trying new things and then getting MOUNTAINS of crap from whining, blinder-wearing fans who freak the F*ck out if bands try something new. So, when innovation is an almost abhorrent concept you end up with groups playing it safe and just constantly re-treading the same shit over and over and newer bands coming up feel the pressure to fit neatly into these little tiny subgenre boxes that are "acceptable" in metal.

Is that really a problem isolated to metal though? It seems more like it's a cultural shift from where we were in the 60s/70s and even the 80s/90s. We've moved into nostalgia worship instead of going, "What's the next thing going to be?"

I don't think I've read anything - whether book or interview - by anyone in the prog scene that hasn't complained about how closed audiences are to the new stuff and how they just want to hear the same stuff from 30 years ago played EXACTLY as it was on the record. Metal audiences may be more vocal about it, but I don't think metal's really that much more dogmatic about it.

Hell, if you think about it, Devin Townsend released Casualties of Cool last year to some pretty big acclaim and healthy sales figures. Not bad for the guy who got known for Strapping Young Lad. If that doesn't prove there's some flexibility in the metal scene, I don't know what would.

Why would anyone think metal fans are more closed-minded than fans of any other genre of music?

But I think if you're listening to stuff like Devin Townsend you're probably already a little more accepting than your average "YO! SLAYER! METALLICA! MEGADETH! DUUUUUUUUUUDE!" kind of fan.

I think other genres like Country, Blues and Hip/Hop are kind of rigid as well, at least in regards to what you can get away with and still be accepted in your genre.

Witchfinder wrote:

Why would anyone think metal fans are more closed-minded than fans of any other genre of music?

Pardon me, I should have said "a sadly large percentage of the fanbase". Not everyone of course. In fact, this particular board is MUCH more diverse and accepting than a lot of other places I've encountered over the years.

I said nothing about metal being more or less closed-minded than other genres of music, that was your addition.

Runicen wrote:

You may want to excise "movies" from that list of media that have evolved.  Seems like 9/10 of everything coming out is a reboot, a sequel or a reimagining of something else.  Say whatever you want about rock music, but you won't see a band just putting out "Rust in Peace Reimagined."  Hell, who am I kidding - if they took the Michael Bay approach, they'd just CG explosions on the cover art and call it "Rust in Peace" with a different font..

AC/DC have evolved more in the last 20 years than movies.  

I meant evolved more in terms of technology used, nevertheless not everything coming out is a sequel/reboot/remake, and it's not like that's a new trend anyways, sequels and remakes have been around for decades and obviously they're not going to go away anytime soon, so there's really no use complaining about it IMO, and personally I like a lot of remakes/sequels/reboots so I really don't have a problem with them existing at all.

There have been times where bands have been accused of putting out the same album because it so closely mimics the sounds of previous albums(I know i've heard that complaint leveled at Linkin Park's Meteora)

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Vexer6 wrote:

I do enjoy some modern bands like Nickelback, Korn, Hinder, Saliva, Halestorm, Limp Bizkit, Linkin Park, Flyleaf, Avenged Sevenfold, Disturbed, etc, but for the most part I think 80s rock/metal bands are just plain better then most stuff today.  

I have heard all of those bands and never want to hear them again.

I'd rather listen to Uriah Heep or Blue Oyster Cult.

As would I, but I still like them nonetheless.

S.D. wrote:

Witchfinder wrote:

Why would anyone think metal fans are more closed-minded than fans of any other genre of music?

Pardon me, I should have said "a sadly large percentage of the fanbase".  Not everyone of course.  In fact, this particular board is MUCH more diverse and accepting than a lot of other places I've encountered over the years.

I said nothing about metal being more or less closed-minded than other genres of music, that was your addition.  

Can you give me some examples of metal bands that did this and their respective albums that were rejected?  Would Turbo or Diabolus In Musica count, or are those merely albums that reflected a shift to a then more current, popular sound?  Is Painkiller adventurous or a disingenuous aping of more current bands?  How about Motley Crue, Generation Swine, Load, St. Anger, Cryptic Writings, or Risk?  I would assume Coroner's Grin would be on this list, although was that rejected because of content or timing or something entirely different like poor distribution?  

Is this really a question of fans being close-minded, or fans not agreeing with your particular tastes?  

For instance, as you have stated on multiple occasions, you don't like Pantera.  They were certainly a band that stretched boundaries and innovated within metal.  Does your not liking them make you closed minded or do they just not appeal to your particular tastes?

Is innovation a necessary component of musical enjoyment?

WF is on fire with his opinions. And I would LOVE to hear responses.

UNCLE SAXON'S KICKASS CDS wrote:

WF is on fire with his opinions.  And I would LOVE to hear responses.

SD and I never agree on anything (other than Orange Goblin), but he's always willing to mix it up and makes good points. I consider him a good sparring partner. He probably considers me an annoying jerk.

I liked Pantera briefly circa Cowboys From Hell/Vulgar Display era but it had no staying power for me. I haven't had any desire to listen to that stuff for 20 years. Doesn't mean I don't give them credit, I just personally have no interest in it any longer. The downside of their innovation I saw was more of that posturing tough-guy bullshit that became prevalent during the 90s.

You really need examples? You've already listed some and there were countless others throughout the 80s and early 90s you'd hear people bitching about incessently.

I remember when Celtic Frost released Into The Pandemonium and that just really bent the brains of people that had been listening to Morbid Tales and To Mega Therion. Female vocals? French lyrics? Drum machines? Tom's whiny "Mesmerized" vocal style? Etc. I was the only one of my friends that liked that album, everyone else I knew hated it. Then they followed it up with Cold Lake and got even more backlash...before retreating back a little bit on the following record. I think Vanity/Nemesis was an attempt to undo some of the damage they had done to their momentum.

I've met many intelligent, open-minded metal fans over the years that also enjoy many different styles of music and are open to new experiences. I've also met many of the opposite persuasion...and avoid them whenever possible.

There are closed-minded people in all genres. I've met jazz fans who ONLY listen to jazz and hate everything else. They are JUST as annoying.

The 3 CF albums you mentioned after TMT were as irritating as ALL of your jazz friends combined.

MetalGuy71 wrote:

Runicen wrote:

 

Most of the big moves in rock and metal have involved cross pollination.  Throw jazz and classical into rock?  It's progressive rock.  Throw rap into metal?  Hell, that was most of the late '90s/early '00s.  You got things like Paul Simon's Graceland and the Talking Heads by mixing African tribal music with rock and folk.  I don't think we're done mixing stuff up and some mixes are going to be fresh and amazing and some are going to be dead ends.

Wasn't Korn's last album supposed to combine dub step? I'm not even sure what dub step is exactly, but it's apparently popular with the kids. Korn took their nu-metal style and mashed it with dub step. Did it work? I have no idea. But it proves that folks are willing to try something new and experiment with new sounds.

Dubstep is kind of cool-sounding. It's basically techno, but in slow-motion. It's odd. Not really my thing at all, but I can appreciate the uniqueness of it. Speaking of dubstep, try this on:



This dude is brilliant. At its core, he plays instrumental prog-rock/metal, but he's a younger dude and mixes in styles one wouldn't expect, like dubstep (jump to 1:40). That's not the best example of dubstep, but the song fit the topic.

So yeah, I don't think we've heard it all. We might have heard all the parts individually, but the styles that can be combined are endless and the younger musicians will start piecing them all together to create styles that most of us old farts hate. Haha.

Has anyone heard Sons of Texas? They're like Pantera meets Nickelback meets modern All That Remains. All in one song, you know. It's a weird combination. Some of you are grimacing just reading that. Haha.

"Grin" was rejected because it was simply a boring listen.  Some good tunes/parts, fine.  But nowhere near as entertaining as their previous albums.

VOIVOD, ANACRUSIS, PRONG, and DEPRESSIVE AGE on the other hand didn't follow many typical metal conventions and made great albums that were embraced (as much as they were heard).

I think the "open-minded" angle is often really just making excuses for lousy, boring music.

I can see what SD is talking about at times though, when I see metal fans embrace JUDAS PRIEST's new album but hate Nostradamus.