King_Matt

I never understood the Limp Bizkit hype at all. They just sound like complete **** with annoying guitars, synthesizer effects, and not to mention a white "rapper" trying to earn street cred when he is just being laughed at.

No really, I'm not kidding. I dislike them that much.

chipper

it's impossible for me to believe that any human will dislike their sound. the single layer of chester's snoring is better than the best days of 90% of mainstream bands.

i would usually back up my statement with at least one support but since you didn't make any, i have no problem leaving it at that.

__________________

real love letters to exes

Janszoon

They are terrible though.

__________________
A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man

Time & Place

25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die

last.fm

hip hop bunny hop

1) Quality isn't relative.

2) Better than 90% of mainstream music isn't setting a high bar.

3) Why should one limit a comparison to mainstream music?

Linkin Park are crap. Utter crap. Their music is extremely predictable. The supposed genre blending is nothing more than applying base aesthetics from the most popular genres at the given moment and applying them to the loud soft dynamic that was worn out by the mid 90s. Continued affection for them is born out of a stubborn refusal to admit that one could have, in the past, listened to crap music and/or a general ignorance of music.

Really, genuinelly, horrible band, who are crass in the extreme.

Deathhawk

Nu metal always seemed like a weird genre to me: it wasn't so much a genre as it was people grouping bands they don't like into a single genre. Linkin Park and Slipknot, for instance, are completely different genres of music but got grouped together for some reason.

I liked bands on the lighter end of the spectrum I guess (Linkin Park, Limp Bizkit, Korn) never really got into the music on the heavier side of things though. (Slipknot, Disturbed, System of a Down)

Unknown Soldier

They could easily be described as progressive metal as well, its a largely a matter of interpretation. Alternative metal, experimental metal and extreme metal are three examples of metal styles, that are at times hard to define, due to the amount of influences that they draw on.

Hahaha had to laugh.........bless you!!! How much metal music or music in general, have you actually listened to?

I`d hardly call Korn`s early stuff, the lighter end of the spectrum!

King_Matt

I'd say they're just progressive rock. They're really not heavy enough to be considered metal.

Deathhawk

Eh, I guess I can see where you're comming from but in a genre that also includes Slipknot, Mushroomhead and Mudvayne I'd consider Korn pretty light.

Unknown Soldier

There are a lot of metal acts out there, that could be considered not being heavy enough to be called metal. Or other groups such as Opeth, Anathema and Tiamat to name just a few, who have gone through phases of releasing material that wasn`t even metal.

I think Tool have enough elements in their sound to be called metal. The debate which type.

Howard the Duck

of nu-metal I like:-

Slipknot's Iowa, KORN's Freak on a Leash, Linkin Park's Hybrid Theory, Limp Bizkit's Significant Other, Faith No More's Angel Dust and most P.O.D.