Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Miscellaneous [BG]' started by Sultan Of Swing, May 31, 2002.
Do you think Heavy metal sold itself out in the nineties?
No. Metal sold itself out in the 70's and 80's.
I think it did, because if you compare the likes of Iron Maiden or Judas Priest to say Metallica or Megadeth, they'll be more similar than if you were to compare (old) Metallica to (new) Metallica or Van Halen to Staind or pre-Zakk Wylde Ozzy to Korn...Metal has sold out...
This is quite painful to say, coming from a Metal Head like me...but I'm not knocking the newer Metal, most of its good...
It's inevitable, so I don't bother thinking about it too much, there's still cool stuff around when you care to search for it...
I'm w/ JMX. If it has, then at least there's still good stuff out there, if you just look.
It did sell itself out in the 80's, without a doubt, not only did it sell out, but it oversaturated the hell out of all things "metalish".
Still, like JMX and Brendan said, its inevitable, but there's still good stuff to be found, you just have to put your ear to the ground.
with such as band as Nine Inch Nails,korn or Tool i think metal became intelligent in the 90's
thanx god Cobain came and killed stupid hair-heavy metal band and other"watch out you're gonna die,oh,oh,better hide!!" bands like Maiden or even metallica;
metal for beer drinkers is dead!!
Man, all this talk about bands and metal selling out is a load of bollocks!!!!
Metal, like every other music have evolved. I don't know why people cant see this. I don't know about bands like Led Zep or The Who, but I'm pretty sure no one said they sold out, they just became less popular as time went on, and then they went through a revival.
and about Metallica, man, they are nearing 40. I don't really think anyone expected them to be as famous as they are when Kill em All came out. I still don't expect that they should be playing music at a million miles per hour when they are 40 (only Slayer or Deicide would do that). That is why I like their new stuff, and I really dont care if people flame me for liking Load and Reload.
Hmmmm, what "metal" are you referring to? There's metal, as metalheads know it, and then there's metal as the masses know it. The difference is the commercialized genre known as metal is very simplistic and full of angst, and really has more in common with grunge than metal, and what is considered "true metal" is more or less very intricate, and for the most part just a revamped and heavier 80's-style metal. Note that I'm not talking about glam or hair bands here.
With all do respect, it sounds like you don't know much about metal from your post. Again, I'm not attacking you, but it seems like you really haven't listened to a lot of what is considered metal to make a good arguement.
Good point. When someone says "Metal" I think of thrash/speed (Metallica, Testament), Power (Helloween, Savatage) Death (SFU, Morbid Angel) Black, (Emporeror, Venom), Classic (Judas Priest, Scorpions) Doom (Moonspell, Candlemass) or NWOBM (Diamond Head, Witchfinder General) I really don't even consider Stoner (Kyuss, Sleep) "metal" but I still love stoner.
I don't consider "Nu-metal" to be real metal. I consider if to be a very agressive form of alternative music. Again, I'm not putting down nu-metal either cause there's a few Nu Metal bands I really dig.
I also don't consider the hair bands metal. Though some came very close to being metal. (early Motley Crue comes to mind) Again, not dissing the hair bands cause there's a ton of hair bands I love. (hides from the flames )
Then you had the bands that were on the fence. Bands who were heavier than the glam bands, but not quite as heavy as the thrash and power bands at the time. I'm thinking of bands like 21 Guns, Mudslick, Crown of Thorns, Gotthard ect.
Of course, I don't really care about labels at all when it comes to music. I could careless what you would call "metal". (a lot of metalheads cheese me off because they care so much about what is considered "metal") I was just stating my views of what's metal and how it could get confused by the average music listener who doesn't listen to heavier music.
I agree with Liquid. Much of what is known as 'nu-metal' would be more accurately classified as alternative.
I'm gonna have to agree with JMX here. I think its safe to say every genre will have its sellouts.
Speaking of metal, lately I've been getting into this band called Haste. They are pretty kick-a. Gotta love the 2 vocalist thing they got goin on. "confessions of a lesser known saint" and "the absentee" are awesome songs.
This is not flaming you, just expressing my opinions,
Sorry to take the wind from your sails, but Cobain was the leader of the grunge period...(I dislike grunge highly)...NIN is more techno than metal, and Tool is somewhat prog rock...Korn is Nu-Metal. And if you look at it from a musical aspect, Maiden and Metallica blow all of these out of the water, three fold.
Sorry, that's just my opinion.
Another vote for HASTE!!! Very cool! Good pick Badger!!
Who cares? Just listen to what you think sounds good. It doesn't really matter anymore anyway, as the borders between genres become slowly but surely blurred.
Sweet Christ! Would some of you lay off pigeon holing of bands into certain catogorires! No matter what genre you look into there is going to be crap, weed threw it and find the good stuff.