I don't like new metal

Quote :

I think alot of the newer bands just seem to follow what ever is popular in metal instead of just evolving naturally.

Hasn't that always been the case though? For every Metallica, there was 3rd, 4th and 5th rate thrash bands. For every big hair band, there was plenty of knock-off no talent hacks that had big hair and pretty make-up. Going back to the start of rock n roll, whatever is popular is gonna have trend-hoppers. Some fade into obsurity, while others fall into "should've been bigger" category by music fanatics.

As for me, I'm kinda like detuned. Most "new" metal I like is stuff that sounds like "old" metal. But I'll give newer bands a shot. I like Trivium, even though they seem to be the popular whipping boys of late.

I like some of the new stuff today. I'm a fan of Slipknot (overrated, however), Killswitch, Trivium, As I Lay Dying, and other bands of that nature. But if I had to choose, the old stuff is always better.

Count me an as one of the elitist pig-schnobbs. I have an open mind for new stuff, and I do like some songs of the new Disturbed, Machine Head, etc.

- But Limp Bizkit, KoRn, etc. .....Screw what Eyesore says, THEY SUCK!

Mglaffas81 wrote:

Count me an as one of the elitist pig-schnobbs. I have an open mind for new stuff, and I do like some songs of the new Disturbed, Machine Head, etc.

- But Limp Bizkit, KoRn, etc. .....Screw what Eyesore says, THEY SUCK!

I like Korn. But I'm also not thrilled by much newer stuff. Some good bands like The Sword and Sevendust, but overall, meh.

Re-reading over these posts, it's hard not to notice that most of the responses that are opposed to the new metal of today are posted by guys (myself included) that are all in their mid-to-late 30's age range. While I'm not saying that good points aren't being brought up, doesn't it sound like we're a bunch of old farts complaining about "these kids today and that horrible racket they listen to. Music of our generation was so much better!"

:starwars: "Hey you kids, get off my lawn"!!

MetalGuy71 wrote:

"these kids today and that horrible racket they listen to. Music of our generation was so much better!"

But it's true.

Schbopo wrote:

MetalGuy71 wrote:

"these kids today and that horrible racket they listen to. Music of our generation was so much better!"

But it's true.

Certainly is. Do you how many times my father said it to me when I was growing up listening to my metal.

kmorg wrote:

It's not just the Avenged Sevenfolds or Lamb of god's out there I have something against. It's all the "fake"-metal bands like Trivium that really ralley's up my blood!

What makes a band like Trivium fake?

SAXON1500 wrote:

Speak up, Ken. Tell everyone how wrong they are [you know it's coming]. place "winking emoticon" here

You know I think it's wrong. It's all opinion, subjective. In general, there is no such thing as "fake" metal. Sure, some bands change styles with the wind, but they are few and far between.

Personally, I just think ignorance is bliss. I can honestly say I have not heard a note from most of the bands that have been brought up here. And I have no desire to. Thusly, I have nothing to complain about. There is not enough hours in a day to hear all the good music [or music I appreciate] to waste time even giving 99% of modern music a chance. But, then again, I guess that is what you guys are for....to tell me what not to waste my time with. So thanks!!

As long as the Hirax's, Ultimatums, AoB's, Warbringer's, Merciless Death's, and Gammacide's of the world stick around, I will be happy with the "new" music I hear.

But you like Kittie. So you clearly understand where I'm coming from. For every one person that dislikes a band, there are two or more that like them. Generally speaking, of course. There are terrible bands out there, for sure, but I'm always wary to call them anything but "not my thing." I though Trivium's "The Crusade" was a killer album, but their other albums don't do much for me. The screaming kills it. However, I don't feel like Trivium are fake in any way. I think there's integrity there in what they do.

I think these days people try to find reasons to justify why they dislike something. It's never that they just don't like it anymore. It's "they're poseurs" or "they're sellouts" or "they're fake, copycat metal," and so on. Why, as fans, do we even need to justify our tastes these days? Do you like it? Yes? No? Shouldn't that be it?

[quote="MetalGuy71"]

Quote :

I think alot of the newer bands just seem to follow what ever is popular in metal instead of just evolving naturally.

Hasn't that always been the case though? For every Metallica, there was 3rd, 4th and 5th rate thrash bands. For every big hair band, there was plenty of knock-off no talent hacks that had big hair and pretty make-up. Going back to the start of rock n roll, whatever is popular is gonna have trend-hoppers. Some fade into obsurity, while others fall into "should've been bigger" category by music fanatics.

And of course metalguy you are right, everytime a band makes it, suddenly its complete overkill with what seems like a thousand bands following in that same style, from Led Zeppelin, to the hair metal to Nirvana wanna be's, that was the case than and will always be the case.

I like alot of the newer bands, and I donot feel just because they are modern metal band or throw in some sub genre such as nu metal or metalcore or whatever, they should be automatically dismissed as crap. Music is either good or bad.

*engage rant sequence*

In reading most of the responses here, I'm seeing most people use examples of Trivium, Avenged Sevenfold, Slipknot, etc. as examples of "new" metal. This tells me that most of you are looking in the wrong places for "new" metal. Those bands are in the forefront popularity wise but certainly don't represent present day metal accurately at all, in my opinion. There are plenty of bands out there making original music that is just as good and in my opinion often better than metal of the past. Some others hold this idea as well but then follow up by pointing to these new wave of thrash / crossover bands. Thrash to me is a tired genre and this new wave of thrash sounds and looks awfully corny. I find it silly, unoriginal, and for lack of a better word 'lame'. But I digress.

I feel the better representatives of "new" metal, and true talent falls in the hands of bands such as Mastodon, Torche, Baroness, Burst, Bison b.c., Gojira, Kylesa, Minsk, Rwake, etc. Many of these bands stem from "Sludge metal" (although I don't like the term, I'll use it as I have no other term to use) based influences and that is where many of the truly talented, still developing bands are coming from. Sludge in many ways can be paralelled with the development of thrash in its early stages, where the bands become more progressive and in the case of Sludge, often more psychedelic in nature, touching ground with Post-Metal in some cases. As a bigger fan of newer metal than older metal, I cringe when I hear people blanket it with uncreative, no-talent, rehashers like Trivium and Avenged Sevenfold. So please do not associate or confuse these garbage bands with the truly talented bands that exist in "new" metal. Thank you.

*rant completed*

You make some good points TBF.

Now that Mastodon has started actually singing they are getting more listenable...and they are upping the progressive angle which is always a plus with me. I think they have good potential going forward. According to rumors their new album is supposed to be more "classic rock" sounding, I'm curious to hear what they come up with.

Baroness is one of those bands that I REALLY like the music...but the vocalist leaves me completely flat, I tend to listen to the instrumental tracks and skip the rest.

I'll have to check out some of the other bands you mentioned.

...and don't take anything us old farts say TOO seriously, we're just in mourning for our youth.

I'm taking an Eyesore approach to this stuff. If I don't like it I won't listen to it but I will not chastise bands for playing music they want to play ("not my thing" is a good term to use. Most modern bands bore me and I don't feel a lot of it that is called metal is really metal but I'm not going to make a case out of it. Hell, just look at all the bands some of us on HoM think is metal that others don't. Detuned's remark about Hammerfall is a good example, many of us believe they are metal but him and others here don't agree. Personal opinon is just too varied for all of us to agree on anything.

Trial by Fire wrote:

*engage rant sequence*

In reading most of the responses here, I'm seeing most people use examples of Trivium, Avenged Sevenfold, Slipknot, etc. as examples of "new" metal. This tells me that most of you are looking in the wrong places for "new" metal. Those bands are in the forefront popularity wise but certainly don't represent present day metal accurately at all, in my opinion. There are plenty of bands out there making original music that is just as good and in my opinion often better than metal of the past. Some others hold this idea as well but then follow up by pointing to these new wave of thrash / crossover bands. Thrash to me is a tired genre and this new wave of thrash sounds and looks awfully corny. I find it silly, unoriginal, and for lack of a better word 'lame'. But I digress.

I feel the better representatives of "new" metal, and true talent falls in the hands of bands such as Mastodon, Torche, Baroness, Burst, Bison b.c., Gojira, Kylesa, Minsk, Rwake, etc. Many of these bands stem from "Sludge metal" (although I don't like the term, I'll use it as I have no other term to use) based influences and that is where many of the truly talented, still developing bands are coming from. Sludge in many ways can be paralelled with the development of thrash in its early stages, where the bands become more progressive and in the case of Sludge, often more psychedelic in nature, touching ground with Post-Metal in some cases. As a bigger fan of newer metal than older metal, I cringe when I hear people blanket it with uncreative, no-talent, rehashers like Trivium and Avenged Sevenfold. So please do not associate or confuse these garbage bands with the truly talented bands that exist in "new" metal. Thank you.

*rant completed*

If you want me to take that *rant* seriously then I suggest you go back and look up what the term talented means. To say that Trivium and A7X have no talent is actually pretty funny. I much prefer A7X and Trivium who have at least some sense of how to write a song and a hook to bands like Gojira, Mastodon, Torche, Baroness, and Burst. Also define the term true talent for me? You are using bands that you like against bands that you dont like making your rant really subjective.

I agree that people look in the wrong places, but where is there resources to find these bands. I like a lot of new metal bands "new" meaning bands that have debut cds dating after 2000. But I will also agree that a lot of newer bands sound way too similar to each other.

Dont get me wrong I enjoy some of the bands you mentioned songs. But saying they have true talent makes no sense at all.

MetalRob, too often I think you mistake "technical skills" for talent (and taste). Mastodon & Baroness for example, are still developing in the songwriting department...but they do have attitude and some actual vibe to their material.

I'll take attitude, feel, passion and groove over lightspeed harmonic minor noodling any day of the week.

Trivium - I just watched one of their videos...started with a Queensryche-inspired riff, then morphed into Pantera-wannabe growling verse, followed by another "I wish I was Geoff Tate" chorus. It's "paint by numbers" metal, zero inspiration, technically proficient...but not an ounce of originality, passion or balls.

detuned wrote:

MetalRob, too often I think you mistake "technical skills" for talent (and taste). Mastodon & Baroness for example, are still developing in the songwriting department...but they do have attitude and some actual vibe to their material.

I'll take attitude, feel, passion and groove over lightspeed harmonic minor noodling any day of the week.

For me its all about groove and songwriting. If I cant remember the song then I really dont come back to it. I dont like too much wankery but I also dont like too much speed. I am in the same boat as you I would rather much hear a very emotional in the moment solo then total wankery. It seemed as though he was using bands that he liked against bands he didnt like and that made his rant less credible.

EDIT: When I listen to music I listen for something that makes me want to come back, I dont listen to judge the music. If they are unoriginal thats fine with me, as long as there is something in there that grabs my attention and stays in my head I will come back to it. Passion, Talent, Balls, or Originality really have nothing to do with it. There are just too many bands to be original these days.

Like I've said, we all hear things differently and there's nothing wrong with that.

To me passion is THE most important part of music, it's something that can't be easily measured or quantified, there are no classes at GIT that teach it...yet some people have it and many don't. Iommi has it, David Gilmour as well, John Coltrane, Jimi Hendrix, Pete Townshend, Bon Scott had it in spades, Lemmy has it, Billie Holiday could practically kill the listener with it, SRV, Jim Morrison, John Lennon, Henry Rollins, Miles Davis, Matt Pike....musically alot of these people have NOTHING in common...but they all have passion.

As one of my best friends puts it, these cats are REAL.

But again, that's just my perception of it.

Eyesore wrote:

What makes a band like Trivium fake?

Er...um... they're POSERS! They're not TR00! Yea, that'll work.

detuned wrote:

MetalRob, too often I think you mistake "technical skills" for talent (and taste). Mastodon & Baroness for example, are still developing in the songwriting department...but they do have attitude and some actual vibe to their material.

I'll take attitude, feel, passion and groove over lightspeed harmonic minor noodling any day of the week.

Talent and taste. Do we have a clearly defined answer for what those things are? You have no better concept of what those things are than anyone else in the world. Those two things have a different defintion to everyone, and each definition is true.

I think this says it all:

Quote :

You are using bands that you like against bands that you dont like making your rant really subjective.

Quote :

we're just in mourning for our youth.

Who's mourning? Not fans of:

Send More Paramedics
Municipal Waste
Fueled By Fire
Evile
Bonded By Blood
Eliminator
Zombie Apocalypse
Hyades

I am liking the stuff these guys are doing more than the bands I grew with that have reunited and chugged out new albums. I mean I am happy that Death Angel, Laaz Rockit, Meliah Rage, etc are making new music and it is decent. But the kids that are experiencing it for the first time around are FULLY ON!! And you can feel it. No intentional plagerism, completely in the 80's crossover state of mind and fashion, and making great albums with better technology.

So, for me, this new music is kicking ass and making me feel young again. And I salute them for it!

I see you have been following the Horrible Rainbow of Faggotry.

ooooohhhh.....so many pretty colors.