"The New Heavy Metal Movement"...

Avenger · Post by **Avenger** » Mon Jul 12, 2010 9:27 pm

Who the fuck cares if a band is "original"? I think that in this day and age it's nearly impossible to do something that hasn’t been done before. And where does it say that Metal is about being innovative?

If we are talking about Enforcer for example, I don't think that this band is bad or ”not true" or whatever, but I find them bland simply due to lack of interest. If this is based on the fact that they are a modern day band, then so be it. Ignorant? Perhaps, but I'd rather listen to bands that copied eachother back in 1986 then a reincarnation of the same music in 2010. I just find that old bands grab my attention far more successfully.

lunaboy · Post by **lunaboy** » Mon Jul 12, 2010 10:23 pm

Useless discusion.Old/New/Original/Unoriginal/CopyCats/Posers... Who's care.If I like the music it does not matter when it's created .1980 or 2010.Its just personal thing of taste.

Dodens Grav · Post by **Dodens Grav** » Tue Jul 13, 2010 4:24 am

No offense, but this sentiment:

Avenger wrote:I find them bland...based on the fact that they are a modern day band...I'd rather listen to bands that copied eachother back in 1986 then a reincarnation of the same music in 2010.

is a few degrees more idiotic than this:

Avenger wrote:Who the fuck cares if a band is "original"...where does it say that Metal is about being innovative?

Professor Black · Post by **Professor Black** » Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:33 am

Does the band write good songs that I can enjoy in the moment? Do I enjoy humming and singing parts of them in my head after the fact? Is there a drum pattern that seems to lock in with my mood? Do the drums have a natural sound? Are there guitar solos? Do the guitar solos enter in ways that I find dramatic? How do the rhythm guitars and drums interact musically? Are they really locked in? Does the singer project a certain character or persona based on the narrative trajectory of the lyrics, rather than keeping everything kind of similar throughout? Does (s)he maybe hang on a certain word, or give a little ad lib here and there, in a way that helps keep my attention? Can I hear the bass guitar, and is it helping to drive the song? Are there any subtle flourishes of the bass to add some tension to the riffs, particularly around points of transitions? Is the guitar tone suitably heavy for the band's overall style of riffing, without being overpowering? Does the song have a good chorus? Is it arranged well enough to have a beginning, middle, and ending? Are the transitions between the parts confident and sensible? If there's any humor or profanity in the lyrics, is it appropriate? Am I comfortable with the way sex and violence are portrayed? Do the lyrics contribute to the musical atmosphere? Is the imagery familiar enough, or exotic enough? Regardless of whether I have heard other bands that sound like this, what makes this band unique? Does the music sound spontaneous? Do the musicians sound prepared? Does the production contribute to the atmosphere of the songs? Does it allow them the right amount of space and detail? Do I want to play the album again now? Later today? Tomorrow? Does the music evoke any visual images, and are they cool? Excellent? Exhilarating? If I never heard this song again, could I remember any of it forever?

That kind of stuff and whether it's on Earache are my main criteria.

Avenger · Post by **Avenger** » Tue Jul 13, 2010 7:37 am

Dodens Grav wrote:No offense, but this sentiment:

Avenger wrote:I find them bland...based on the fact that they are a modern day band...I'd rather listen to bands that copied eachother back in 1986 then a reincarnation of the same music in 2010.
is a few degrees more idiotic than this:

Avenger wrote:Who the fuck cares if a band is "original"...where does it say that Metal is about being innovative?

No offense, but you are a tool.

How about not editing my quotes as to have peices of different sentences run together?

And great supporting argument to your claims by the way.

Don't you have a Miskatonic forum to raid? Oh wait, it died...

ION BRITTON · Post by **ION BRITTON** » Tue Jul 13, 2010 12:30 pm

Of course at the end of the day everything comes down to each one's personal taste, but I don't see a problem discussing a few things about the bands' attitude, music style, imagery etc. Not all are of equal importance to everyone here, but I don't think we are making a completely ''useless'' discussion either.

Cargonaut · Post by **Cargonaut** » Tue Jul 13, 2010 12:43 pm

Wouldn't it be boring if it was only about the music? I love discussing why Celtic Frost should be considered black metal or Enforcers aren't posers and stuff like that. It doesn't take anything from the music, but it adds to the lifestyle of heavy metal!

Dodens Grav · Post by **Dodens Grav** » Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:52 pm

Avenger wrote:
Dodens Grav wrote:No offense, but this sentiment:

Avenger wrote:I find them bland...based on the fact that they are a modern day band...I'd rather listen to bands that copied eachother back in 1986 then a reincarnation of the same music in 2010.
is a few degrees more idiotic than this:

Avenger wrote:Who the fuck cares if a band is "original"...where does it say that Metal is about being innovative?
No offense, but you are a tool.

How about not editing my quotes as to have peices of different sentences run together?

And great supporting argument to your claims by the way.

Don't you have a Miskatonic forum to raid? Oh wait, it died...

I didn't "edit" your quotes, I used ellipses to extract the non-essential words and phrases. I didn't change your meaning at all. You said, clearly, that the time in which a piece of music was recorded is more important to you than whether or not the piece of music is derivative. These are your words: "I'd rather listen to bands that copied eachother back in 1986 then a reincarnation of the same music in 2010." I seriously can't see how anyone could think that's not stupid. What was unoriginal in 1986 is equally as unoriginal in 2010, so exalting one over the other is nonsensical and, in your own words, ignorant. The only reason that I pointed it out was because you were attacking people who praised originality and then provided a poor argument of your own. Of course originality is not an essential ingredient in creating good music, but would you not agree that the vast majority of the best bands in metal had some degree of originality to them? Like, say, Black Sabbath, Judas Priest, Cirith Ungol, Manilla Road, Fates Warning, etc?

Anyway, I don't know what your Miskatonic forum comment was about, but I was banned from that forum essentially because I didn't think the guy who killed the guy from Destructor should be killed.

Avenger · Post by **Avenger** » Tue Jul 13, 2010 11:02 pm

Dodens Grav wrote:
Avenger wrote:
Dodens Grav wrote:No offense, but this sentiment:

is a few degrees more idiotic than this:

No offense, but you are a tool.

How about not editing my quotes as to have peices of different sentences run together?

And great supporting argument to your claims by the way.

Don't you have a Miskatonic forum to raid? Oh wait, it died...
I didn't "edit" your quotes, I used ellipses to extract the non-essential words and phrases. I didn't change your meaning at all. You said, clearly, that the time in which a piece of music was recorded is more important to you than whether or not the piece of music is derivative. These are your words: "I'd rather listen to bands that copied eachother back in 1986 then a reincarnation of the same music in 2010." I seriously can't see how anyone could think that's not stupid. What was unoriginal in 1986 is equally as unoriginal in 2010, so exalting one over the other is nonsensical and, in your own words, ignorant. The only reason that I pointed it out was because you were attacking people who praised originality and then provided a poor argument of your own. Of course originality is not an essential ingredient in creating good music, but would you not agree that the vast majority of the best bands in metal had some degree of originality to them? Like, say, Black Sabbath, Judas Priest, Cirith Ungol, Manilla Road, Fates Warning, etc?

Anyway, I don't know what your Miskatonic forum comment was about, but I was banned from that forum essentially because I didn't think the guy who killed the guy from Destructor should be killed.

Whose to say that it's a poor argument? Nearly all Metal released after '83/'84 was derivative to some extent. And yes, you did change the meaning of my post by editing out certain parts of text, mainly, that I said that I didn't think Enforcer were BAD, but rather that I just find them boring because of the period in time that they released they're material which doesn't spark much interest to me. Now you can't tell me that the scene back in the 80's was less interesting then the one today. We are talking about literally a difference between thousands of bands back then and the maybe few hundred active ones of today. That's not to say that quantity equals quality but at the same time you had a whole lot more to choose from.

The miskatonic comment was in reference to the same kind of dumb shit that I heard you used to pull over there before you were banned, hence, calling someone "idiotic" without any reasoning. I don't really care for the exact reasons nor to add to the argument that you claim caused your banishment but childish name-calling without any justification to boot, is as you put it, "a poor argument" and "I seriously can't see how anyone could think that's not stupid".

Dodens Grav · Post by **Dodens Grav** » Wed Jul 14, 2010 1:07 am

Anybody should be qualified enough to say that it's stupid to judge the quality of music solely based on the year in which it was released. This is not far short of fetishism. It's just nostalgia for the 80s. Your line of thinking, "Band A is superior to Band B because Band A is from the 80s and Band B is from the 00s and the 80s is superior," is a very very bad argument with no merit. Even conceding that the overwhelming majority of classic albums are from the 80s, they are classic because of their quality and not because of the period in which they were recorded.

Also, there are a lot more active bands today than in the 80s...by far. Just go to metal archives, go to advanced search, and type in 1985. There are 1490 releases in the database. Even assuming that there are actually 3 times as many releases from 1985 than are listed on metal archives, putting it at about 4500, typing in the year 2005 reveals 14265 releases...significantly more. So the "quantity versus quality" argument actually works in favor of the 80s.

Regarding the Miskatonic comment, again, if I called anybody an idiot, it was both deserved and I sure as hell justified it, and I did so here as well. And those two posters, UP THE HAMMERS and DOWN THE NAILS, are fucking idiots. And that METAL FROM ABOVE guy. I didn't "pull" anything. I just wasn't part of the inner circle clique. I spoke about metal as an artform and an intellectual platform and that's apparently taboo there.

I really don't think stating that judging bands based on the year they released their albums is more stupid than judging bands based on how original or derivative they are needs much explaining. Can a third party please jump in on this? Surely I'm not the only one here who realizes that saying an 80s album is better than a 00s album because the latter is from the 80s is a dumb thing to say.

Avenger · Post by **Avenger** » Wed Jul 14, 2010 2:21 am

Dodens Grav wrote:Anybody should be qualified enough to say that it's stupid to judge the quality of music solely based on the year in which it was released. This is not far short of fetishism. It's just nostalgia for the 80s. Your line of thinking, "Band A is superior to Band B because Band A is from the 80s and Band B is from the 00s and the 80s is superior," is a very very bad argument with no merit. Even conceding that the overwhelming majority of classic albums are from the 80s, they are classic because of their quality and not because of the period in which they were recorded.

Also, there are a lot more active bands today than in the 80s...by far. Just go to metal archives, go to advanced search, and type in 1985. There are 1490 releases in the database. Even assuming that there are actually 3 times as many releases from 1985 than are listed on metal archives, putting it at about 4500, typing in the year 2005 reveals 14265 releases...significantly more. So the "quantity versus quality" argument actually works in favor of the 80s.

Regarding the Miskatonic comment, again, if I called anybody an idiot, it was both deserved and I sure as hell justified it, and I did so here as well. And those two posters, UP THE HAMMERS and DOWN THE NAILS, are fucking idiots. And that METAL FROM ABOVE guy. I didn't "pull" anything. I just wasn't part of the inner circle clique. I spoke about metal as an artform and an intellectual platform and that's apparently taboo there.

I really don't think stating that judging bands based on the year they released their albums is more stupid than judging bands based on how original or derivative they are needs much explaining. Can a third party please jump in on this? Surely I'm not the only one here who realizes that saying an 80s album is better than a 00s album because the latter is from the 80s is a dumb thing to say.

I guess if you can't edit my posts to suite your argument then you might as well put words in my mouth, right? I never said X band from 1985 was better then X band from 2010. I said, simply, that X band from 1985 HOLDS MY INTEREST far greater then X band from 2010. This has nothing to do with any band being better or more superior then another. I would just rather focus my time/energy/money into a band from the early days rather then one from the later. Call it nostalgia, fetishism, or whatever, but that's the truth and you seem to have a hard time understanding that. Secondly, you are wrong regarding the terms of a “classic” album. The term “classic” is actually defined as something that is 20+ years old. Once again, this has nothing to do with quality or superiority; but the term does have a definition.

Regarding your Metal Archives comment, you are failing to realize that at least 80% of those bands that have one of the 14265 releases from 2005 versus the 4500 releases from 1985 are shitty black/death/noise/folk/grindcore, etc. bands that have zero relevance to this site/forum and are therefore irrelevant to the argument. On top of that, I’m talking about the 80’s as a WHOLE, not just one specific year. Also, how many of them are actually still ACTIVE? After all, that's what I said, so once again, you are trying to formulate an argument against one that you are claiming I made that really doesn't exist. This site focuses on purely “Metal of olde”, the exact years, a matter of opinion, but “olde” would reference only the sub-genres that existed in the early days and those do not include the vast majority of albums that were released from the mid 90’s on.

On a final note, I think it's pretty funny how every person that you have argued with is apparently a "fucking idiot". You must be of so much higher intelligence then all of us because you can attempt to intellectualize Metal to be more then just music and then point the finger at those that don’t agree and call them petty names.

All hail the Metal Professor of Steel!

Dodens Grav · Post by **Dodens Grav** » Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:01 am

Metal IS more than just music and anybody who thinks otherwise is downgrading it, first and foremost. Secondly, I distinctly note a Master's Hammer logo in the background of this site, as well as Parabellum, so I think I'm good there as well. Finally, you're right that 'classic' does have a definition, but it's unfortunately not the one that you suggest. A classic is defined as something that possesses the quality of timelessness and epitomizes the area in which it is regarded as a classic, so it doesn't matter when it was released. A classic for 2010 could've been released in 2006 (Watching from a Distance). I'm sure you're also familiar with the term "modern classic" as well. I'm sure there was a sense in 1983 that Melissa was something special.

Anyway, you yourself said that your irrational fondness for 80s bands over 00s bands is ignorant, so what exactly is the problem? On the other hand, I apologize for mistaking your fondness for some bands over others for your judgement of superiority. I myself generally prefer the bands that I judge to be superior to others (regardless of the year their album was released). I would be interested in conducting an experiment by which I randomly take bands from the 80s and bands from the 00s who sound like they're from the 80s and strip them of all identifiers and see if we don't come up with some interesting results.

For future reference, by the way, black, death, and 'folk' or 'viking' metal existed in the 80s, or "the early days" of "ye olde metall", so by your classification, they would merit discussion on this forum. And there HAS been discussion of those genres here. There has been discussion of grindcore as well, though noise is a different matter.

Now on to the "quality versus quantity" discussion again. I'm merely using 1985 and 2005 as representatives of their respective decades as a whole. I think both years are fairly representative of a median output for their decades, wouldn't you agree? Again going back to metal archives' advanced search, you will yield more results for 'heavy metal,' 'power metal,' 'speed metal,' and 'thrash metal' for the year 2005 than you will 1985, in every one of those categories. So again I suggest to you, there are still more bands in the 'modern' era that fall under the lighter end of the spectrum than there were in 1985. But honestly, this isn't even an important point and I think we both can agree with that. The 80s had both less and better bands, even in the 'traditional' genres, than are present today. Hopefully we can agree on that now?

On your final note, I assure you that I've 'argued' or debated with far more than the 4 people known to you, if you choose to classify this as one of those arguments. The only ones I think are idiots are the ones I mentioned (note that I didn't mention you). The trends that these three people had in common were an unwillingness to listen to anybody else's arguments without lacing a response with profanity and not even addressing the argument put forth, attacking people for listening to 'extreme' metal genres for no other reason than for the fact that they listen to music they don't like, and having a completely belligerent outlook on just about everything. If you think I go around flippantly throwing about insults, then you are evidently not familiar with the people that I mentioned, but I'm sure they're known to others who post here who can at least account for the way that they carry themselves online even if they disagree wholeheartedly with my evaluation. The vast majority of people that I have debated with on various issues on here and on other boards have been relatively civil and level headed and displayed the ability to induce logic and reasoning into their arguments, so unfortunately they don't stick out as well in my memory.

My final comment on this entire subject will be this: The conversation for about the last page or whatever didn't need to happen and serves no purpose, not to mention derails the thread, and I'm sorry for having sparked it, though it wasn't my intention to do so. I just meant to point out something that I saw as somewhat hypocritical to a degree, naming your questioning of why somebody would have a problem with unoriginal bands when you have a problem with contemporary bands, a trait that I find has less value and merit. I was hoping first that you would see things my way and, failing that, that you would take it light-heartedly and brush it off, and I should have pointed out that no ill-intent went into my comment earlier on, but it's already carried on well beyond the length of its deserved shelf life, so here's to the death of a worthless argument I in which I wish I was not a participant.

MEXDefenderOfSteel · Post by **MEXDefenderOfSteel** » Wed Jul 14, 2010 8:12 am

the whole deal makes me wanna listen to Master´s Hammer,dont know why

FuneralCircle · Post by **FuneralCircle** » Wed Jul 14, 2010 8:29 am

MEXDefenderOfSteel wrote:the whole deal makes me wanna listen to Master´s Hammer,dont know why

I won't lie, I read the first part of his post and put on Ritual. hahaha!!!

Seriously though, you guys should have taken that argument to the PMs a long time ago... Sad to see you guys go at so vehemently against one another. We're talking about contrived heavy metal here!! Listen to me or die, you fuckheads!!

ION BRITTON · Post by **ION BRITTON** » Wed Jul 14, 2010 11:51 am

Dodens Grav wrote:I'm sorry for having sparked it, though it wasn't my intention to do so

Experience says that when someone is called an idiot, with or without justification, the next thing that will happen is a thread derailment.
Although the argument is still at a civil level I suggest you both stay on topic and leave the rest for the PMs.