I don't like new metal

Quote :

see you have been following the Horrible Rainbow of Faggotry.

I call it, "Watching Eyesore speak".....

Eyesore wrote:

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?

BULLSEYE. It can never be I just dont like the music or I dont like that stlyle of music. When someone says "They're Poseurs" or "They're fake" I usually end the coversation right there. That is not a reason to dislike a band. Why Trivium or Bullet for my Valentine are used more then others is beyond me. They play a style of music they like and isnt that what musicians do? Trivium is heavily influenced by Metallica and you can hear it in a lot of songs. But it seems as though most Metallica fans say they're copy cats and unoriginal.

The singer of Trivium once said "If anyone is wondering why the screaming is gone it's because the four
of us were never into bands that scream and we don't like any of the
current bands that scream, so we asked ourselves why we're doing it.
This time around I wanted to be a better singer because that's what we
wanted to hear, so we dropped the screaming and did a lot of vocal
training and vocal work." Is this being fake, is this being a poseur? Playing the music you love is what its all about IMO.

Eyesore wrote:

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

Wheres my royalty check?


Also, while Im not a fan of the "new" form of metal, theres still good bands coming out as Sax pointed out. The only thing that gets me about that is you see some these kids online commenting about how untroo it is to play in the vein of the older styles like that, which I dont get at all.

Quote :

When someone says "They're Poseurs" or "They're fake"

Axl Rose is not fake - He's a REAL poseur!

Eyesore wrote:

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.

Eyesore,
You're correct.

Rob,
Sorry if I came off like a jerk, it wasn't intended that way.

SAXON1500 wrote:

Quote :

see you have been following the Horrible Rainbow of Faggotry.

I call it, "Watching Eyesore speak".....

I take it I'm not on your cool list anymore?

Eyesore wrote:

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?

Did you see the ""'s?

OK, let me see if I can explain. With "fake" I obviously mean not-the-real-deal. These newer bands lack the historic past of metal. They think metal started when Metallica released the black album, and that Pantera is the most inventive metal band ever. They are the ones trying to rewrite metal history, not only completly ignoring the 70's, but also much of the 80's! The metal I grew up with was linked back to the late 60's, and the bands were directly influenced by the sources of the genre. As said, it was a vast music genre, incorporating everything from Rainbow to Venom, the prog-scene to the hard core scene, and everything was somehow linked. But the new bands seems to be missing this. It's not much variety and they all sound the same.

I'm not even taling about nu-metal or metalcore here. I'm talking about the bands that people today call heavy metal. Of course there stil exists real metal bands. But for all the Enforcer's and Municipal Waste's out there you have 5 Pantera wanna-be's! And those are the band that the kids are checking into. I think we will see a change in the metal definition. Heck, like ult and I have discussed so many times before, it has already happened.

I have also thought about the "these-kids-of-today" mindset, seeing that I am turning 35 this year, maybe I have finally grown up? But then again, I listen to msuci on an everyday basis that is 10 times as "bad-ass", tuff and heavy than 99% of these newer bands. So that doesn't exactly make much sense. I just think the metal climate is changeing, and my generation have no say in it any longer.

I'm sort of glad though, as now I can consentrate more on catching up with the past more than follow new bands!

I think its safe to say we enjoy listening to music that we know and grew up with more then newer bands we are less familiar with.

DETUNED no hard feelings here, just 2 rockaholics voicing opinions.

Eyesore wrote:

SAXON1500 wrote:

Quote :

see you have been following the Horrible Rainbow of Faggotry.

I call it, "Watching Eyesore speak".....

I take it I'm not on your cool list anymore?

What? Are ya kiddin' me? You take up the whole first page!

It seems there's two camps.....the one kmorg described, so called young 'uns who need to enrol in "Metal History" classes at their local campus and then your crusty curmudgeon who get's misty eyed for a bygone era.

Thing is neither are here nor there, the best heavy music get's made by those outside.....

A handful of years in their early 90's has shamed pretty much the whole last 30 years of heavy metal/hard rock imo.....

Bands like Last Crack, King's X, Soundgarden, Warrior Soul, Love/Hate, Paw, Trouble, Nymphs, Alice In Chains, Kyuss, Sons Of Freedom, Jane's Addiction, Galactic Cowboys, Faith No More, Saigon Kick and many many more. These are not your stock standard "Heavy Metal" bands but i think they do this "Heavy Metal" music the best, alot of bands today could learn from that little time period and the ideas and ethic behind those bands (not necessarily the sounds).........mix it up, be a weirdo, create your own identity and not to try and peg yourself in a little tiny sub-genre.

Mind you that's my tastes and those ideas probably wouldn't suit the denim n' leather tastes of many here.......but i think sometimes you gotta sit back and ask yourself why Thin Lizzy worked or King's X or any other band that crafted their own unique sound.

rattpoison, as I've said before, you are wise beyond your years. Great post.

MetalRob331 wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

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?

BULLSEYE. It can never be I just dont like the music or I dont like that stlyle of music. When someone says "They're Poseurs" or "They're fake" I usually end the coversation right there. That is not a reason to dislike a band. Why Trivium or Bullet for my Valentine are used more then others is beyond me. They play a style of music they like and isnt that what musicians do? Trivium is heavily influenced by Metallica and you can hear it in a lot of songs. But it seems as though most Metallica fans say they're copy cats and unoriginal.

Here's my take on it from my own perspective. I noticed that while I've bought a fair amount of newer stuff recently, it's mostly "new stuff that sounds like the old stuff". Retrograde rock as I call it. I don't do this because I don't like newer styles of music, but rather because I prefer and can relate more to "traditional" sounding rock. But I have to blame myself for this as much as the music itself for this, because collecting music takes both effort and money, and I prefer to focus these resources on my priorities musicwise. I admit I'm too lazy and cheap to keep up. This doesn't make the music I choose not to follow inferior though. I think it's human nature to want to settle into a comfort zone at a certain point. I'm ok with that but I don't want to take it too far because that leads to stagnation. I'm trying for a happy medium in which the priorities are my favorite types of music first, and then a few newer sounding bands that I might happen to enjoy. The easiest way to think of myself is a a "collector" of 20th century music, and a casual fan of 21st century music. I do personally feel that the pioneering bands of heavy rock were the most creative (not talentwise, but because they lived in the time of great creative opportunity- the were inventors). But I can't prove it and I don't try to justify my listening and buying choices with that rationale.

kmorg wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

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?

Did you see the ""'s?

OK, let me see if I can explain. With "fake" I obviously mean not-the-real-deal. These newer bands lack the historic past of metal. They think metal started when Metallica released the black album, and that Pantera is the most inventive metal band ever. They are the ones trying to rewrite metal history, not only completly ignoring the 70's, but also much of the 80's! The metal I grew up with was linked back to the late 60's, and the bands were directly influenced by the sources of the genre. As said, it was a vast music genre, incorporating everything from Rainbow to Venom, the prog-scene to the hard core scene, and everything was somehow linked. But the new bands seems to be missing this. It's not much variety and they all sound the same.

I'm not even taling about nu-metal or metalcore here. I'm talking about the bands that people today call heavy metal. Of course there stil exists real metal bands. But for all the Enforcer's and Municipal Waste's out there you have 5 Pantera wanna-be's! And those are the band that the kids are checking into. I think we will see a change in the metal definition. Heck, like ult and I have discussed so many times before, it has already happened.

I have also thought about the "these-kids-of-today" mindset, seeing that I am turning 35 this year, maybe I have finally grown up? But then again, I listen to msuci on an everyday basis that is 10 times as "bad-ass", tuff and heavy than 99% of these newer bands. So that doesn't exactly make much sense. I just think the metal climate is changeing, and my generation have no say in it any longer.

I'm sort of glad though, as now I can consentrate more on catching up with the past more than follow new bands!

Why is it a requirement that new bands acknowledge the past? I'm 33 and am just now getting into stuff that came out in the 70s. Kids live in the now. Did metal start with the black album? Of course not. But to them? Maybe their metal did. I know damn well that all of us here didn't immediately reach back into the 60s when we began listening to music.

What about writers? Poe is a classic writer. I don't dig him. In fact, I don't dig most "classic" writers. To me, classic writers are King and Koontz. They're my classic writers. Poe and Lovecraft are theirs. I also don't like old "classic" movies. Not my thing, I can't get into them.

Is that wrong? Do I have to like these bands/writers/movies to be "real." The historic past is THE PAST. It doesn't matter, and it doesn't make a new thrash band any less real if they don't like early Metallica. Is everyone here a Beatles fan?

I think it is simply a lack of definition for these bands now. They have no distinct sound much anymore. They all sound very similar, have 2 different types of singers, one normal another cookie monster and mix it up. Musically you hear the talent in these bands, but they continue to sound the same song after song. I hear talent even if it isnt my style of metal I like. I think the singers are killing what could possibly be more talented music. They all sound the same, no Bruce Dickinsons or Halfords, just groggling and growls or screaming.

We have so many eras to go by and each decade brought something different that we all embrace and can cling to that was good. I think somewhere in the 90's and esp. 2000 on up there was a new genre of music that birthed that I never got into. Now they are what is the big thing to teens today, and it has spawned a new era that is beyond me.

I guess it isnt so much picking sides on if you like the new metal today or not, I think it is the substance. We are approaching an end to a large era of music probably in the next decade. Like it or not (here is a majorly depressing thought), but bands from the 60/70/80's will be going away. I mean Ronnie James Dio will be 77 in 10 years, Iron Maiden, Rush, Judas Priest, Whitesnake, Saxon, will all be retired. When some of those greats are gone, what do we have left to look forward to? I certainly dont think bands like Bullet for my Valentine (or simlar bands) have anything that will be able to provide us with 30+ years of fortune to still look forward to. The Metal Era many of us love will someday be gone, and we can only hope that there is some real talent out there that can stand on the Stages that we have been priviledge to embrace in our lives.

That was pretty depressing, Mez....wow.
My generation sucks

Schbopo wrote:

That was pretty depressing, Mez....wow.
My generation sucks

I know man, I'm sorry, I needed some Kleenex when I typed it. I am officially depressed for the night now.

I got into music when I was 13 and I immeditaly started exploring the roots of the genre that I loved the most and I am glad I did. Music is going to constantly evolve and change but it is not created in vaccum, it all came from somewhere. Most people that I know who love music no matter the genre whether they are 13 or 65 have a apprection of the history and backround of the bands they love.

A kid who into Slipknot and may have been their first band, not all but a huge number of them will trace their roots back to Metallica than to new wave of British Metal and so on.

If you have a true love of music and it is not backround music to do your dishes by than you will trace it back, you may not always like it but you will at least explore the rich musical legacy of metal/hard rock.

manny wrote:

I got into music when I was 13 and I immeditaly started exploring the roots of the genre that I loved the most and I am glad I did. Music is going to constantly evolve and change but it is not created in vaccum, it all came from somewhere. Most people that I know who love music no matter the genre whether they are 13 or 65 have a apprection of the history and backround of the bands they love.

A kid who into Slipknot and may have been their first band, not all but a huge number of them will trace their roots back to Metallica than to new wave of British Metal and so on.

If you have a true love of music and it is not backround music to do your dishes by than you will trace it back, you may not always like it but you will at least explore the rich musical legacy of metal/hard rock.

Perfectly put, that's exactly what i do. Alot of people like pointing out the differences between music but i like pointing out the common threads in music. The first band i really got into was Guns N' Roses and that led me in all different directions......it's not many steps from Guns N' Roses to say the Shangri-Las if you know what i mean!

Eyesore wrote:

I know damn well that all of us here didn't immediately reach back into the 60s when we began listening to music.

What about writers? Poe is a classic writer. I don't dig him. In fact, I don't dig most "classic" writers. To me, classic writers are King and Koontz. They're my classic writers. Poe and Lovecraft are theirs. I also don't like old "classic" movies. Not my thing, I can't get into them.

Is that wrong? Do I have to like these bands/writers/movies to be "real." The historic past is THE PAST. It doesn't matter, and it doesn't make a new thrash band any less real if they don't like early Metallica. Is everyone here a Beatles fan?

1. I damn well did start with music from the 60's, my first records were 45's including The Rolling Stones, The Doors, Steppenwolf, The Beach Boys, The Beatles, Janis Joplin, etc.

2. Writers. Stephen King was also one of my favorite authors, my first book of his was Salem's Lot which I bought right after watching the mini-series on TV. I then read Danse Macabre when it came out where he revealed all of his literary & film influences...which got me reading Lovecraft, Robert Bloch, Richard Matheson, etc. Lovecraft then led me to a host of other writers including M.R. James, Algernon Blackwood, Lord Dunsany, etc. Then when I went back and read Stephen King it gave me a much broader understanding of where his style and structure were coming from. If I had decided to write a horror novel after only reading as far back as Stephen King...that's a pretty small pallette to choose from.

3. In my opinion (and it's only an opinion), 80% of the best movies Hollywood ever made came out prior to 1970. I spent about a decade studying classic films ranging from about 1929-1969...of course that's extreme for most people, but it gave me a much deeper appreciation of CURRENT cinema having been exposed to where it came from...unfortunately I also learned that most current Hollywood product is scavenging ideas from films that were made 60 years ago and aren't doing a very good job of it.

4. The Past most definitely does matter, you can't have a true understanding of the present without it. Sure, you don't HAVE to like music or films or books that came out before you were born...but it sure does provide a more three dimensional aspect to the arts and the world we live in.

DenimAndLeather wrote:

The wannabe pantera sound that none of the bands are even good at is sickening.

Even when i do like a band, the vocalist ruins it for me 99 percent of the time.

exactly. I am just stuck in my ways with the "old" metal.

mez wrote:

Schbopo wrote:

That was pretty depressing, Mez....wow.
My generation sucks

I know man, I'm sorry, I needed some Kleenex when I typed it. I am officially depressed for the night now.

I'm not depessed. While the music scene in America is grown stale, many European and Asian bands carry the metal banner. There are tons of young bands out there who appreaciate the rock past and bring that influence into their music. They may not reach the popularity of the greats but good rock and metal survives despite the trends. While newer bands who are experiencing fame may fall out of the spotlight soon and fade away, those who don't get the fame, who play music becuase they like it and are happy doing it part time will survive. So be of good cheer, while metal/hard rock may not experience the popularity it has in the past, it is far from dying.

I personally think metal is more alive than it has ever been. Maybe not in America, but historically non-Americans make the best rock music anyway.

SpectreFate wrote:

...but historically non-Americans make the best rock music anyway.

Spec is my hero.

detuned wrote:

4. The Past most definitely does matter, you can't have a true understanding of the present without it. Sure, you don't HAVE to like music or films or books that came out before you were born...but it sure does provide a more three dimensional aspect to the arts and the world we live in.

What I meant was that it's not a prerequisite for any new band to delve deeper into the past. It's not. Why can't their classics be bands from the 90s? And how can anyone say they're being fake if in the same breath they're saying the kids disregard the "classics"? If a young teen is playing metal, and has never heard that early stuff, how can he possibly be "fake"? Maybe we know better, that he's not original, but does he? And is it really his fault?

I feel that the issue is not with the younger generation not giving the older stuff a chance, but the older generation not giving the new stuff a chance. The world of today is vastly different than it was just 10 years ago. The 80s were not that different from the 70s. Things didn't change that fast back then, so a kid born in the 90s is going to have a far more difficult time appreciating something from the 80s than kids born in the 80s did appreciating things from the 70s.

When we were growing up, our elders didn't get it. It's always been that way. But our generation now is a hundred times worse than our parents ever were.

To illustrate further...

The world of the 80s child:



The world of the 90s child:



The world of today's child:



How can anyone expect the kid playing that game on the bottom to somehow even care about the game at the top?

And new Grave Digger is coming out and Saxon just dropped so all is well.