The Corroseum forum (new design under construction)

Running Wild - Pile Of Skulls,Blazon Stone,Black Hand Inn,Masquerade
Accept - Objection Overruled
Attack - The Secret Palce,Seven Years In The Past
Manowar - The Thriumph Of Steel
Exciter - Kill After Kill,Dark Command
Megadeth - Rust In Peace,Countdown To Exctinction
Power Crue - The sign of rage
Grave Gigger - The Reaper,Heart Of Darkness,Symphonies Of Death
Gehennah - King Of The Sidewalk,No fuckin' Christmass,Decibel Rebel
Annihilator - King Of The Kill,Never Never Land

to list a few.No,the 00's can't top the 90ies

mordred wrote:

Avenger wrote:Obviously, getting signed as a metal band back in 1986 was easier based on the fact that metal as a genre was marketable on a way larger scale, but how do you explain the countless bands that I listen to from that same period that never got passed the demo stage?

There's a number of possible explanations. Maybe they sucked. Maybe they broke up too early and thus never came in question for a deal. Or maybe they were fucking great but no label thought their material was gonna sell. What does this have to do with anything?

Avenger wrote:In fact, Sword (once again used as an example) were offered numerous contracts from many different smaller labels, way earlier in their career, which they respectively turned down while awaiting a major label contract deal with better and or world wide distribution.

Your point being? That they wanted the best deal they could possibly get? Wow, I could never have thought of that myself.

Avenger wrote:Still to this day there are metal only record labels and those that specialize in releasing only the unpopular and obscure.

Yes. Too bad they are working for deaf ears because some people think real metal has been dead since 1993 and every new release must automatically be shite just because it's new.

Avenger wrote:In this day and age bands have way more opportunity then ever before to put their material out (regardless the format) to be heard by a potential fan base, so really your argument is bullshit.

No, my point is perfectly sane. Yours though is nonexistant, or at best, shit.

Avenger wrote:And not that it matters but in regards to your third paragraph, I find your point irrelevant. Judging the "greatness" or "crappiness" of a band is entirely opinion based and regardless, I'd still much rather listen to what you claim to be “Accept clones on Scratch Records” such as Angel Dust or Tyrant while they at least existed in the same era, rather then those of the modern day, three generations down the line.

You are straying away from the point here, either on purpose or just because you are plain stupid.
Here are some key points for you:

1. Clones are useless. If they are good at what they're doing they may suffice as momentarily entertainment, but in the long run they are watered down blueprints and thus boring.

2. The same goes for clones new and old alike. Your opinion that a 1985 Accept clone is more passable than a 2005 one just because they cloned the same thing two decades earlier just goes to prove how full of shit you are.

3. I am not trying to promote modern day Accept clones here. As I said, clones are essentially a waste of time.

4. To any sane metalhead it should be more rewarding to enjoy present day true metal bands like Doomsword, Hour of 13, or Slough Feg, that are doing their own thing, instead of snatching yet another 1984 LP from a band that was only ripping off Saxon anyway.

5. Real metal ain't dead. Especially not if you consider all these clones "real metal". There's still plenty of them and they still sound the same. But that's not my idea of real metal.

All right, enough of this beating around the bush bullshit...

What this all boils down to your contradiction.

How the hell can you claim that "clones are essentially a waste of time" yet attempt to promote modern day metal?

Especially, granted that you are using the term "true" which is in reference to a specific kind of sound, that, oh wait, has been done a million times in the past by a million bands down the line.

If it works, run with it, that's what sub-genre's are.

Can we end the hypocrisy now please?

Sorry Avenger, but the things you say don't make any sense to me.
How can real metal be dead? You obviously know nothing about metal today. Absolutely NOTHING.
Of course there are new poser bands and trendy metal hipster losers, but there's a lot of other bands like the ones that have been mentioned before (Gates Of Slumber, Slough Feg, ...). You can find more good new bands of you step outside of the heavy metal scene and enter the death/thrash/black metal scenes.

Give up your snobbish attitude please, really, it's embarrassing.

tomas wrote:Sorry Avenger, but the things you say don't make any sense to me.
How can real metal be dead? You obviously know nothing about metal today. Absolutely NOTHING.
Of course there are new poser bands and trendy metal hipster losers, but there's a lot of other bands like the ones that have been mentioned before (Gates Of Slumber, Slough Feg, ...). You can find more good new bands of you step outside of the heavy metal scene and enter the death/thrash/black metal scenes.

Give up your snobbish attitude please, really, it's embarrassing.

The only thing embarrassing is your assumption that I think ALL new bands are the same. This isn't nearly the case, but rather that if I'm going to dig in to my pockets and actually pay for an album; I'm going to make it worthwhile with something from the glory years.

Never once did I claim that every single new(er) band is crap.

Oh, and even though I listen to at least a little from every sub-genre, black and death have never appealed to me nor ever will due mostly in part to the vocal style so from that perspective you aren't doing a very good job of convincing me.

You are also failing to realize that until mordred took it upon himself to call users such as myself "posers" for our taste, I never had a problem with people expressing their opinions and could really care less what era of metal are favourites to others.

I expressed my opinion on the topic at hand (which is after all the idea behind a forum), was later attacked for it and then retaliated. As far as I'm concerned I'm surprised that more users didn’t stand up for themselves.

Avenger wrote:I expressed my opinion on the topic at hand (which is after all the idea behind a forum), was later attacked for it and then retaliated.

I wasn't intending to make another post on this thread, but this ''poser'' thing sounded quite annoying and arrogant to me that's why i re-entered the discussion. No problem at all with me if someone thinks that the 00's are as exciting as the 80's, however calling anyone else who doesn't share the same opinion a ''poser", no, i can't take it in any case. Maybe it was initially written in a humorous way, i personally didn't get that impression. Written word doesn't help that much to understand such things.

As far as I'm concerned I'm surprised that more users didn’t stand up for themselves.

That's something i've wondered myself too many times before on many other threads. That ''silence'' of others, i can't explain it. Does EVERYONE else agree with what's written and so posting his opinion will make no difference? Or is it pure laziness? Or is it that most people don't care for what's being discussed? A little more participation on such cases can do absolutely no harm to the development of the discussion. But maybe it is me who's asking for too much...

I agree with users like Fucking Åmål and Tomas this is becoming way too much like an argument between atheists and hardcore Christians why not settle for the most logical anwser: Metal is generally much better in the 80's but that doesn't mean it's dead today or there aren't still some good bands; even if the number of these bands isn't that big.

Nightlock wrote:I agree with users like Fucking Åmål and Tomas this is becoming way too much like an argument between atheists and hardcore Christians why not settle for the most logical anwser: Metal is generally much better in the 80's but that doesn't mean it's dead today or there aren't still some good bands; even if the number of these bands isn't that big.

When I used the term: "dead" that in no way meant that there aren't a select few modern bands that are decent. I was implying that the genre as a whole is no where near as great as it used to be. There will always be a few hidden gems along the way, but there is no where near the same quantity of quality bands that existed in the 80's nor will there ever be in any of our life spans I'm sure.

My opinion, for what it's worth:
There are a couple of more positive ways to look at it.
For all us old timers (or newbies to the scene who are as enthralled by the "golden age" as we are), there are infinitely more ways for us to hear older bands who slipped through the cracks back then than ever before, so some of these old groups may actually get some reward from the work they put in back in the day, from reissues, reformations & the like.
Modern bands don't seem to be having too much trouble finding a market for their "product", as there is and will always be a young audience for rebellious loud music.
It's not really meant for us anyeay is it?
It's made and marketed with the youth in mind, not the young at heart.
If some of those kids then look into the music's history they will then encounter the classics of the past, and if they like those, will dig a little deeper.
Wouldn't it be great to think that vapid pish like Limp Bizkit or Papa Roach could act as a "gateway drug", which might then lead some to discover eventually the mastery of Cirith Ungol?
That thought would likely be enough to make Fred Durst's hair fall out...oh, wait...
Trust me, these kids are educating themselves too. Our band's guitar player runs his own rehearsal/recording studio and a lot of thes kids who rehearse down there are in "Metal" bands, and yes, a lot of the stuff they play is nonsense which is totally derivative of whatever is currently "hip".
But when you get talking to them, you find out that they know about Randy Rhoads, classic Metallica, Maiden & Slayer, Sabbath and the like, and when i ask them why their music doesn't reflect that, the answer i get most often is that "we're not good enough to play that type of stuff yet, we're just starting out".
So they do appreciate the quality & difficulty of the classics, but they play the stuff they play because they're thrilled that they CAN play that.
I dunno about you guys but i find that really encouraging.
And yes, i always try to tip them off about some other bands they should investigate, most of the time they come back & and say they're into it, and who else can they check out.
Sorry, i'm getting off topic here slightly.
In summing up: there's plenty of ways for us to find more "old gold" if we don't like a lot of what's out there now, so many happy years of unearthing buried treasure lie ahead, but there's a bright future for the scene in the new generation too.

ION BRITTON wrote:

Avenger wrote:As far as I'm concerned I'm surprised that more users didn’t stand up for themselves.

That's something i've wondered myself too many times before on many other threads. That ''silence'' of others, i can't explain it. Does EVERYONE else agree with what's written and so posting his opinion will make no difference? Or is it pure laziness? Or is it that most people don't care for what's being discussed? A little more participation on such cases can do absolutely no harm to the development of the discussion. But maybe it is me who's asking for too much...

Personally, I didn't "stand up for myself" because childish arguing on the internet just makes me rapidly lose interest in whatever's being discussed. I really could not care less if some guy I've never met thinks I'm not a real metalhead because I don't like as many current bands as he does. Besides, when someone makes such a bizzare statement as "Atlantean Codex sounds nothing like Manowar," how do you even respond to that?

Please tell me what is so bizarre about that statement? All I can say is it is the truth.

DMR wrote: Besides, when someone makes such a bizzare statement as "Atlantean Codex sounds nothing like Manowar," how do you even respond to that?

Actually when someone like Avenger makes at polarized statement like "Real Metal has been dead since 1993" it is so easy to laugh in the face of something like that and make fun of their comment, they leave themselves side open to get blasted. The follow up comments were equally as funny.

doomedplanet wrote:Actually when someone like Avenger makes at polarized statement like "Real Metal has been dead since 1993" it is so easy to laugh in the face of something like that and make fun of their comment, they leave themselves side open to get blasted.

Sigh, the bias of a record label that releases new material.

I think that if you actually read my posts in this thread in their entirety, you would actually know how that comment was truly directed.

bigfootkit wrote:My opinion, for what it's worth:
There are a couple of more positive ways to look at it.
For all us old timers (or newbies to the scene who are as enthralled by the "golden age" as we are), there are infinitely more ways for us to hear older bands who slipped through the cracks back then than ever before, so some of these old groups may actually get some reward from the work they put in back in the day, from reissues, reformations & the like.
Modern bands don't seem to be having too much trouble finding a market for their "product", as there is and will always be a young audience for rebellious loud music.
It's not really meant for us anyeay is it?
It's made and marketed with the youth in mind, not the young at heart.
If some of those kids then look into the music's history they will then encounter the classics of the past, and if they like those, will dig a little deeper.
Wouldn't it be great to think that vapid pish like Limp Bizkit or Papa Roach could act as a "gateway drug", which might then lead some to discover eventually the mastery of Cirith Ungol?
That thought would likely be enough to make Fred Durst's hair fall out...oh, wait...
Trust me, these kids are educating themselves too. Our band's guitar player runs his own rehearsal/recording studio and a lot of thes kids who rehearse down there are in "Metal" bands, and yes, a lot of the stuff they play is nonsense which is totally derivative of whatever is currently "hip".
But when you get talking to them, you find out that they know about Randy Rhoads, classic Metallica, Maiden & Slayer, Sabbath and the like, and when i ask them why their music doesn't reflect that, the answer i get most often is that "we're not good enough to play that type of stuff yet, we're just starting out".
So they do appreciate the quality & difficulty of the classics, but they play the stuff they play because they're thrilled that they CAN play that.
I dunno about you guys but i find that really encouraging.
And yes, i always try to tip them off about some other bands they should investigate, most of the time they come back & and say they're into it, and who else can they check out.
Sorry, i'm getting off topic here slightly.
In summing up: there's plenty of ways for us to find more "old gold" if we don't like a lot of what's out there now, so many happy years of unearthing buried treasure lie ahead, but there's a bright future for the scene in the new generation too.

Glad to hear that. Regarding the (from time to time) rather ferocious debate, I found both parties having their own right, not to mention that both will remain firmly on theirs own (obstinate as they seem to be). They are right each on its own side, but only on its own. It was proven long ago that Metal (as most of other things) is rather impossible to be dealt with objectively. Simply because every Metalhead views it her/ his own way. (That's why many long time members haven't really join debate.) I hope that it is so, after all creed instinct seems to be less present within the Metal hordes, hence hordes and not the masses.

So if Avenger claims Metal to be dead since 1993 its OK with me too. Mordred opposing him and trying to persuade him contra, it's OK with me too. Each has his own standards to measure the subject. I have my own set, of course. And mine sez: 1. things could alway be better than present, but they could also be worse, so in the end I have to be pretty satisfied, the way 80's turned out and 90's turned out. The 00's have not turned out yet, for they are still turning out (or maybe in, who knows). 2. there should be as many bands as possible adding value to the "existing cumulative sum", no matter what calendars say. 3. clones are not necessarily a bad thing, esp. when they are clones of original but neglected bands of the past. 4. There will be always more killer albums out than money on my bank account. 5. Metal will (probably) die the instant the last supposed Metalhead will lose interest in it, or more probably, the last memory of it will wither away. As far are recorded material exists in any form it would only be hibernated at best, but still not dead. There could be more points, here are those I found at disposal.

However, looking from one extreme it could be said that Metal wasn't any "deader" in 1993 than in 1995 or in 1999 or in 2007/8, from the other it would be equally hard to say that it was more alive in 1993 than it is in 2008. This is always a question of subjective standards. I personally will probably find killer album or two in every decade despite the fact that I'm not becoming any younger, but that's another story.

Oh yes I read them and that is why the comment, they have been really amusing.

This "bias of a record label" just proves you know nothing of the variety of music on my label and that 70% of the stuff I released is from before your dead-date. But I wouldn't expect you to since to you metal is dead.

Avenger wrote: Sigh, the bias of a record label that releases new material.

I think that if you actually read my posts in this thread in their entirety, you would actually know how that comment was truly directed.

doomedplanet wrote:Please tell me what is so bizarre about that statement? All I can say is it is the truth.

DMR wrote: Besides, when someone makes such a bizzare statement as "Atlantean Codex sounds nothing like Manowar," how do you even respond to that?

No, it's not the truth. Atlantean Kodex sounds a lot like Manowar. They even name Manowar as one of their primary influences. If you think they take that Manowar influence and put their own spin on it to come up with an original sound, that's your opinion and I won't argue with it. But to say they sound NOTHING alike is completely wrong.

Avenger wrote:What this all boils down to your contradiction.

How the hell can you claim that "clones are essentially a waste of time" yet attempt to promote modern day metal?

There is no contradiction. I can do that because there is a vast wealth of metal bands today that are not clones but doing their own thing. Had you had the slightest clue what you are talking about you would have known this, and it would have been easier to take you seriously.

DMR wrote:Besides, when someone makes such a bizzare statement as "Atlantean Codex sounds nothing like Manowar," how do you even respond to that?

It's not bizarre, it's true. At least to a certain extent. It IS obvious that Atlantean Kodex have listened to Manowar and have been influence by them. But it is equally obvious that they have also listened to Primordial, Doomsword, Solstice, and viking era Bathory, and are influenced by them too. Those are all bands that did not yet exist when Manowar defined their sound, so one can not say that Atlantean Kodex only sounds like Manowar, because it is simply not true. They have built their own sound from a variety of influences of which Manowar is only one. A fine example of how true metal keeps developing even to this day.