What was the first metal band you ever listened to? (pop, punk)

ProggyMan · 02-04-2008, 09:03 PM

1. Axl Rose is incredibly annoying as a person, lyricist, and singer.
2. They're annoying, generic Hair-Metal trash, with out any originality whatsoever.

Predator · 02-04-2008, 09:07 PM

And your tastes proggy?
Slash alone could make any band good. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean that they're bad.

Predator · 02-04-2008, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ProggyMan

1. Axl Rose is incredibly annoying as a person, lyricist, and singer.
2. They're annoying, generic Hair-Metal trash, with out any originality whatsoever.

You are basing this on what?

ProggyMan · 02-04-2008, 09:11 PM

What if everyone on the forum doesn't like them? And what if they've contributed absolutely nothing to music, except keeping the Hair-Metal trend going a few more years? Does that make them bad? Seriously, what constitutes an objectively bad band in your opinion?

Urban Hat€monger ? · 02-04-2008, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ProggyMan

2. They're annoying, generic Hair-Metal trash, with out any originality whatsoever.

One of the reasons for Appetite For Destruction's success was because they didn't sound like the rest of the hair metal sh*t that was around at the time.

ProggyMan · 02-04-2008, 09:17 PM

Doesn't disprove any of what you quoted. Wolfmother doesn't sound like many other bands today and they're generic.

Predator · 02-04-2008, 09:19 PM

Well, your what if has just been blown out. There are at least 2 of us that do like them.
Guns N Roses never fit the bill of "hair metal". Their album structure did not fit, they did not follow a standard blueprint. They included many different elements on later albums, taking chances that other bands were scared of. They didn't follow trends. Listen to their demo tapes and it doesn't fit hair metal. Look at GNR Lies, doesn't fit, strays to far from hair metal. They got their start in the 80's, that is the only common ground.

Urban Hat€monger ? · 02-04-2008, 09:19 PM

You didn't call them generic You said they were 'generic hair metal trash'

How can they be 'generic hair metal trash' if they were doing something different to all the other hair metal bands?

ProggyMan · 02-04-2008, 09:31 PM

Here we go with the 'at the time' arguement again. And if it makes you feel better, I'll say Pop-Metal that tried to diversify by doing power ballads. Happy?

Predator · 02-04-2008, 09:36 PM

F*ck "At the time arguments". I don't care about "At the time". They were better then, and are better now. What have you heard by them? Maybe Welcome to the Jungle? Paradise City? Try November Rain, Patience, Don't Cry, Coma, I could go on forever. Guns N Roses are one of the best bands ever. Their sound never fit in with hair metal. There was more than an urge to become famous.

02-04-2008, 09:07 PM	#42 (permalink)
Predator Whatever Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 344	And your tastes proggy? Slash alone could make any band good. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean that they're bad. __________________ Jack be nimble Jack be quick I be a lunatic The answer is hidden in plain view. [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

02-04-2008, 09:19 PM	#47 (permalink)
Predator Whatever Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 344	Well, your what if has just been blown out. There are at least 2 of us that do like them. Guns N Roses never fit the bill of "hair metal". Their album structure did not fit, they did not follow a standard blueprint. They included many different elements on later albums, taking chances that other bands were scared of. They didn't follow trends. Listen to their demo tapes and it doesn't fit hair metal. Look at GNR Lies, doesn't fit, strays to far from hair metal. They got their start in the 80's, that is the only common ground. __________________ Jack be nimble Jack be quick I be a lunatic The answer is hidden in plain view. [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

02-04-2008, 09:19 PM	#48 (permalink)
Urban Hat€monger ? The Sexual Intellectual Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Somewhere cooler than you Posts: 18,605	You didn't call them generic You said they were 'generic hair metal trash' How can they be 'generic hair metal trash' if they were doing something different to all the other hair metal bands? __________________ Urb's RYM Stuff Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave.

02-04-2008, 09:36 PM	#50 (permalink)
Predator Whatever Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 344	F*ck "At the time arguments". I don't care about "At the time". They were better then, and are better now. What have you heard by them? Maybe Welcome to the Jungle? Paradise City? Try November Rain, Patience, Don't Cry, Coma, I could go on forever. Guns N Roses are one of the best bands ever. Their sound never fit in with hair metal. There was more than an urge to become famous. __________________ Jack be nimble Jack be quick I be a lunatic The answer is hidden in plain view. [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

02-04-2008, 09:03 PM	#41 (permalink)
ProggyMan Reformed Jackass Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 3,964	1. Axl Rose is incredibly annoying as a person, lyricist, and singer. 2. They're annoying, generic Hair-Metal trash, with out any originality whatsoever.

02-04-2008, 09:11 PM	#44 (permalink)
ProggyMan Reformed Jackass Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 3,964	What if everyone on the forum doesn't like them? And what if they've contributed absolutely nothing to music, except keeping the Hair-Metal trend going a few more years? Does that make them bad? Seriously, what constitutes an objectively bad band in your opinion?

02-04-2008, 09:17 PM	#46 (permalink)
ProggyMan Reformed Jackass Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 3,964	Doesn't disprove any of what you quoted. Wolfmother doesn't sound like many other bands today and they're generic.

02-04-2008, 09:31 PM	#49 (permalink)
ProggyMan Reformed Jackass Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 3,964	Here we go with the 'at the time' arguement again. And if it makes you feel better, I'll say Pop-Metal that tried to diversify by doing power ballads. Happy?