By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
disolitude on 06 May 2009
Edit Thread
Cactus said:
disolitude said:
amp316 said:

Your listing for the pioneers is so wrong on many levels. Only Black Sabbath should be there along with others like Iron Butterfly and Deep Purple which you didn't list. Iron Maiden, Metallica, Iron Maiden, etc. should be in a group 2 that doesn't exist on your list before your "transitional period" which consists of junk like Korn. My favorite metal would be from the Black Sabbath period and from the 2nd period after that which you include in the "pioneers". I also like some early death metal like Obituary and Cannibal Corpse. Everything from Korn on is crap.

Calling everything post Korn crap is very close minded. I don't know if you are a musician or not...but if you listen to some of these modern bands and you hear of what they are doing musically, you wouldn't be calling them crap. It takes a lot of creativity to put a disco beat in to a metal riff...like Korn did on got the life, or to construct some of the downtuned riffs with high pitched harmonics that slipknot does.

I made 3 groupse because metal was on the rise since its birth in late 60's...hence group 1. Sure you had different genres of metal...but they mostly all shared the same fanbase.  

Then in the early 90s it started to lose its self. New influnces were necessary to keep it alive and relevant...hence the transitional period. The fans of this music are very different from fans of old school metal.

Then post 2000 the old sound returned with the new influences provided by bands like Korn...hence group 3.

 

I realize that you must really like these new "metal" bands, but pretty much everything you said here is based on your own opinion. I agree with amp and stickball when they say that your Group 1 should be at least 2-3 different groups, since bunching up the metal scene from the 60's to the 80's is undervaluing the impact that many bands within this period had on different genres of metal going forward.

I think that problem here is that you're projecting more of a mainstream focus with your posts. In my opinion, many of the bands that you listed are not "keeping it alive and relevant" since it will ALWAYS be alive and revelent in the massive entity that is the underground metal scene, even if these bands fail to keep it in the mainstream.

 

 

First of all I don't want to make it seem like I have nu-metal bias. I have spent many years listening to classic metal and can play songs like Bark at the moon, enter sandman, Symphny of destruction, Shout at the devil and many others perfectly with the guitar...note for note.

Last bunch of concerts I've been to in 2008 and 2009 are Iron Maiden, Gigantour 3 with megadeth inflames and childern of bodom, Ozzy and rob zombie, Slipknot, Lamb of god with Children of bodom...and I have pre-ordered tickets for the metallica tour this fall. I listen to all kinds of metal.

I think the problem is that a lot of the so called old school metalheads are very close minded to the new bands.

I made this thread because I think the new bands have caught up with the "old guard" in terms of songwriting, agression and talent. In no way do I think they are better...but I do think they deserve the respect from metalheads.

You won't see too many people at a slipknot show saying "metallica sucks"...but a lot of metallica fans will shit on everything that is not metallica.

As far as groups, while I agree that the innovators in the late 60s could have their own group...but I wanted to keep it simple. And you must agree that a lot of those early bands have the same shared fanbase as the metal bands up until the late 80s.