Why metal will never again be the dominant genre (reggae, Metalhead)

Seltzer · 04-11-2007, 12:36 PM

I hate the genre argument - sub sub genres are very useful and are only redundant to people who don't listen to enough of that type of music. Those people shouldn't complain about that which they are ignorant of. I'm not saying you're arguing against categorisation - I'm just using your case as an example.

People arguing against the use of subgenres or dismissing a genre out of ignorance (i.e. viking metal) is like an average Joe walking up to a PhD scholar whose field of interest is curing ovarian cancer and telling him his research is stupid/useless. A subsubgenre is specific in the sense that it isn't useful to the majority of people; it is useful to a specific group of listeners who listen to that genre. A scholar's research is obviously specialised and specific - PhD theses generally tailor to something specific and untapped. Funeral doom metal is of interest to people who listen to doom metal. Obviously ovarian cancer isn't going to directly affect males - yet you don't see males going up to doctors and telling them they're idiots for researching ovarian cancer. In the same way, people should complain about genres they know little about.

beat yr own KID · 04-11-2007, 01:08 PM

you know why metal will never be popular ever again?

COS IT'S NERDY

tdoc210 · 04-11-2007, 04:16 PM

Hardcore

almauro · 04-11-2007, 05:18 PM

The best way to realize what will bring metal back is to try to understand what went wrong with metal after thrash and grunge. Metal had monsters like Slayer, Pantera, Metallica, Sepultura, Nirvana, Soundgarden, AIC, Pearl Jam etc., one year, then they all seemed to fall one after the other in a very short period of time. One explanation is these bands were too monochromatic, failing to stray far from their sub-genres. Instead of taking creative chances and driving the music industry, the music industry drove them out with constantly changing musical tastes. In comparison to classic bands like the Stones, the Who, Zepplin, Deep Purple, who kept expanding their repertoire and stayed on top for decades, metal bands of the early 90's dried up on the vine after a couple of breakout CDS. Where exceptionally talented groups like Slayer and Pantera drove thrash into a wall, Zepplin and other scaled it by incorporating elements of many genres, including progressive, blues, folk, doom, metal.

Inuzuka Skysword · 04-11-2007, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by almauro

The best way to realize what will bring metal back is to try to understand what went wrong with metal after thrash and grunge. Metal had monsters like Slayer, Pantera, Metallica, Sepultura, Nirvana, Soundgarden, AIC, Pearl Jam etc., one year, then they all seemed to fall one after the other in a very short period of time. One explanation is these bands were too monochromatic, failing to stray far from their sub-genres. Instead of taking creative chances and driving the music industry, the music industry drove them out with constantly changing musical tastes. In comparison to classic bands like the Stones, the Who, Zepplin, Deep Purple, who kept expanding their repertoire and stayed on top for decades, metal bands of the early 90's dried up on the vine after a couple of breakout CDS. Where exceptionally talented groups like Slayer and Pantera drove thrash into a wall, Zepplin and other scaled it by incorporating elements of many genres, including progressive, blues, folk, doom, metal.

Well don't forget to blame the average music listener. After all THEY are the ones who caused it. MTV and VH1 also. They ruined music for all of us. And why wasn't Black Sabbath mentioned on that list and the Stones were. I don't really think the stones did that much.

Urban Hat€monger ? · 04-11-2007, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inuzuka Skysword

I don't really think the stones did that much.

You what?

How about the first band to bring ballsy R&B based rock music to a worldwide audience when the whole music industry was cashing in trying to find nice boys in clean suits to match the Beatles success.

Inuzuka Skysword · 04-11-2007, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger

You what?

How about the first band to bring ballsy R&B based rock music to a worldwide audience when the whole music industry was cashing in trying to find nice boys in clean suits to match the Beatles success.

Creating R@B based rock is something, but it is not enough for me to say they did more then Sabbath.

Muzak · 04-11-2007, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger

You what?

How about the first band to bring ballsy R&B based rock music to a worldwide audience when the whole music industry was cashing in trying to find nice boys in clean suits to match the Beatles success.

Black Sabbath made Metal. The Stones has nothing on that.

Voodoo Chile · 04-11-2007, 08:50 PM

I can handle genres and the broader subgenres, but this "Blackened Death Metal" type of **** is just ridiculous. Metal is metal. No, not every metal band sounds the same, but each band doesn't need their own subgenre for Christ sake. They're all fundamentally metal bands. The only thing many subgenres (or sub-subgenres) are useful for is finding bands that've ripped off the bands you already like, or happen to sound virtually identical to the bands you already like. If you want to listen to Slayer, go listen to Slayer. Why bother searching around for a bunch of bands that're just trying to sound like Slayer, or happen to sound nearly identical to Slayer? Doesn't make sense to me.

People don't always seem to realize that metal's pretty popular in contrast with many other styles of music. I mean, "real metal" has never been the dominant genre in the mainstream, and it probably never will. But a lot of metal songs are written in the standard verse-chorus-verse format, and are correspondingly quite accessible, despite not being outright "pop". And no offense to metal fans (I'm one of them), but to me, it's never really been as "rebellious" as people seem to think it's been. The quiet kid that plays the saxophone and listens to John Coltrane is more of an "outcast" than the loud, long-haired party animal wearing an Iron Maiden t-shirt, in my opinion. I know not all metal fans are like that, and life's certainly not one big tournament of pariahdom, but you know what I mean. Just saying.

sleepy jack · 04-11-2007, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Muzak

Black Sabbath made Metal. The Stones has nothing on that.

Too bad metal sucks.

04-11-2007, 12:36 PM	#21 (permalink)
Seltzer Fish in the percolator! Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Hobbit Land NZ Posts: 2,870	I hate the genre argument - sub sub genres are very useful and are only redundant to people who don't listen to enough of that type of music. Those people shouldn't complain about that which they are ignorant of. I'm not saying you're arguing against categorisation - I'm just using your case as an example. People arguing against the use of subgenres or dismissing a genre out of ignorance (i.e. viking metal) is like an average Joe walking up to a PhD scholar whose field of interest is curing ovarian cancer and telling him his research is stupid/useless. A subsubgenre is specific in the sense that it isn't useful to the majority of people; it is useful to a specific group of listeners who listen to that genre. A scholar's research is obviously specialised and specific - PhD theses generally tailor to something specific and untapped. Funeral doom metal is of interest to people who listen to doom metal. Obviously ovarian cancer isn't going to directly affect males - yet you don't see males going up to doctors and telling them they're idiots for researching ovarian cancer. In the same way, people should complain about genres they know little about. __________________ In the Court of King Crimson \| Last.fm \| RYM Last edited by Seltzer; 04-11-2007 at 12:54 PM.

04-11-2007, 01:08 PM	#22 (permalink)
beat yr own KID Music Addict Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Fort Washington MD Posts: 923	you know why metal will never be popular ever again? COS IT'S NERDY __________________ I was dead. This was hell. There were no demons, no hellfire or brimstone, just a deep, complete feeling of darkness and hopelessness. This was the never-ending void. Not at all how I had imagined it, but worse than I thought that it could have been.

04-11-2007, 04:16 PM	#23 (permalink)
tdoc210 ashes against the grain Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: new hampsha Posts: 2,617	Hardcore __________________ We went back there and they had come and hacked off every inoculated arm. There they were in a pile. A pile of little arms. And I remember... I... I... I cried. I wept like some grandmother. I wanted to tear my teeth out. I didn't know what I wanted to do. And I want to remember it. I never want to forget it. I never want to forget. And then I realized... like I was shot... like I was shot with a diamond... a diamond bullet right through my forehead. And I thought: My God... the genius of that.

04-11-2007, 05:18 PM	#24 (permalink)
almauro Way Out There Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 850	The best way to realize what will bring metal back is to try to understand what went wrong with metal after thrash and grunge. Metal had monsters like Slayer, Pantera, Metallica, Sepultura, Nirvana, Soundgarden, AIC, Pearl Jam etc., one year, then they all seemed to fall one after the other in a very short period of time. One explanation is these bands were too monochromatic, failing to stray far from their sub-genres. Instead of taking creative chances and driving the music industry, the music industry drove them out with constantly changing musical tastes. In comparison to classic bands like the Stones, the Who, Zepplin, Deep Purple, who kept expanding their repertoire and stayed on top for decades, metal bands of the early 90's dried up on the vine after a couple of breakout CDS. Where exceptionally talented groups like Slayer and Pantera drove thrash into a wall, Zepplin and other scaled it by incorporating elements of many genres, including progressive, blues, folk, doom, metal. __________________ rock n music blog

04-11-2007, 08:50 PM	#29 (permalink)
Voodoo Chile Groupie Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 45	I can handle genres and the broader subgenres, but this "Blackened Death Metal" type of **** is just ridiculous. Metal is metal. No, not every metal band sounds the same, but each band doesn't need their own subgenre for Christ sake. They're all fundamentally metal bands. The only thing many subgenres (or sub-subgenres) are useful for is finding bands that've ripped off the bands you already like, or happen to sound virtually identical to the bands you already like. If you want to listen to Slayer, go listen to Slayer. Why bother searching around for a bunch of bands that're just trying to sound like Slayer, or happen to sound nearly identical to Slayer? Doesn't make sense to me. People don't always seem to realize that metal's pretty popular in contrast with many other styles of music. I mean, "real metal" has never been the dominant genre in the mainstream, and it probably never will. But a lot of metal songs are written in the standard verse-chorus-verse format, and are correspondingly quite accessible, despite not being outright "pop". And no offense to metal fans (I'm one of them), but to me, it's never really been as "rebellious" as people seem to think it's been. The quiet kid that plays the saxophone and listens to John Coltrane is more of an "outcast" than the loud, long-haired party animal wearing an Iron Maiden t-shirt, in my opinion. I know not all metal fans are like that, and life's certainly not one big tournament of pariahdom, but you know what I mean. Just saying. __________________ Free your mind and your ass will follow. The kingdom of heaven is within.