Worst Metal Band Ever?

**Janszoon** · 01-07-2011, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Conan

You also have to think about his tone. His dry guitar sound is pretty much the "standard" stock metal sound you hear and I was sure he developed it. But I don't really know, I'm arguing for a band I've never even listened to.

Well it certainly didn't seem very unique at the time, that's all I can say.

Necromancer · 01-07-2011, 11:48 PM

(Anvil). I do have respect for Anvil for hanging in there, and some have commented, that Anvil never sold out, is the reason they never got a contract. As far as I see it, no major label wanted to sign them. But I'm no expert on Anvil.
I like their metal guitar (a little), reminds me slightly of Judas Priest's early style (vaguely). But the style of vocals seem cheesy/cartoonist. The single Metal On Metal, is OK I guess.

crash_override · 01-08-2011, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Conan

You also have to think about his tone. His dry guitar sound is pretty much the "standard" stock metal sound you hear and I was sure he developed it. But I don't really know, I'm arguing for a band I've never even listened to.

Not only the guitar sound, but Phil's vocals also became the standard for metal vocals at the time. Vinny Paul also showed that power could be just as effective as speed when it came to being a great metal drummer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

Well it certainly didn't seem very unique at the time, that's all I can say.

I agree that they went through as rough and forgettable of a developing stage as any metal band in history went through, but in the end, Pantera found their niche. They were able to take a growing and emerging sound, in Thrash Metal, and put their own spin on it. At a time where metal bands were mostly trying to play and grunt as fast and hard as they could, Pantera showed the world you didn't have to play 100 mph to be heavy. They brought a groove and melody back into metal, and without sacrificing an ounce of heaviness or badass-ness in the process.

Kick on 1 & 3, Snare on 2 & 4. A bunch of crunchy ass riffs and basslines, some guttural vocals and a shit ton of badass image made Pantera one of the most heavy, yet accessible metal bands of their time.

I like them, always have, probably always will. I actually owe it to this thread for sparking an interest in them. Now I'm going back and re-visiting all my old Pantera. Thanks Janszoon.

**Janszoon** · 01-08-2011, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crash_override

I agree that they went through as rough and forgettable of a developing stage as any metal band in history went through, but in the end, Pantera found their niche. They were able to take a growing and emerging sound, in Thrash Metal, and put their own spin on it. At a time where metal bands were mostly trying to play and grunt as fast and hard as they could, Pantera showed the world you didn't have to play 100 mph to be heavy. They brought a groove and melody back into metal, and without sacrificing an ounce of heaviness or badass-ness in the process.

I apologize for playing the age card here, but since I actually remember the state of metal in early 90s quite clearly and you most likely don't, I'd like to point out that Thrash was not "a growing and emerging sound" at the time of Pantera's stylistic revamp, it was actually a style that was on it's way out, and groove and melody were already well entrenched concepts in metal by this time as well.

crash_override · 01-08-2011, 12:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

I apologize for playing the age card here, but since I actually remember the state of metal in early 90s quite clearly and you most likely don't, I'd like to point out that Thrash was not "a growing and emerging sound" at the time of Pantera's stylistic revamp, it was actually a style that was on it's way out, and groove and melody were already well entrenched concepts in metal by this time as well.

I don't mind you pulling the age card here, in fact I value the opinion of someone who was old enough to remember some of these things as they were happening. Like any argument, this one boils down to "to each his own" and all that. Considering that's the only thing in my post you felt the need to nit-pick, I feel like I'm in pretty good footing with my argument. Their effect on the genre cannot be denied.

They may not be in the elite metal bands (they probably are, but for argument sake), but Pantera certainly shouldn't be mentioned when speaking of the worst bands in metal history. That's borderline disrespectful.

**Janszoon** · 01-08-2011, 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crash_override

Their effect on the genre cannot be denied.

What effect? I just pointed out that the stakes to metal history that you're claiming for them are not things that they were responsible for. What's left?

Quote:

Originally Posted by crash_override

They may not be in the elite metal bands (they probably are, but for argument sake), but Pantera certainly shouldn't be mentioned when speaking of the worst bands in metal history. That's borderline disrespectful.

^And this is why I describe their fans as rabid. The thing is, I don't think they've done any worthwhile enough to be worthy of this kind of praise.

crash_override · 01-08-2011, 02:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

What effect? I just pointed out that the stakes to metal history that you're claiming for them are not things that they were responsible for. What's left?

^And this is why I describe their fans as rabid. The thing is, I don't think they've done any worthwhile enough to be worthy of this kind of praise.

Pantera is the single most important metal band of the 1990's. Yes there where bands doing similar things before, but Pantera took it to the next level and perfected the art. Maybe the age gap between us is something that is actually hindering your view on the band. I can't think of any band that defines the 90's era of metal more than Pantera does. If you could provide a band more influential to the genre, yet as accessible at the same time, I'm all ears.

In my personal opinion, if you take Pantera out of the picture, then metal from the 1990's and beyond would not only suffer, but be completely wiped out in a popular sense. While the argument can be made that Pantera lacks in innovation, they more than make up with it by being extremely accessible and relate-able to the metal fan base.

Maybe I just like more bands that were influenced by Pantera than you, who knows. All I can say is I obviously have a lot more respect for this band than you do, which is fine. At the end of the day, Pantera has more than enough positive opinions held about them amongst the knowledgeable metalhead public to more than counteract your negative one.

sleepy jack · 01-08-2011, 02:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

What effect? I just pointed out that the stakes to metal history that you're claiming for them are not things that they were responsible for. What's left?

^And this is why I describe their fans as rabid. The thing is, I don't think they've done any worthwhile enough to be worthy of this kind of praise.

Come on dude, you're not even giving Dimebag and company a shot.

**Janszoon** · 01-08-2011, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crash_override

Pantera is the single most important metal band of the 1990's. Yes there where bands doing similar things before, but Pantera took it to the next level and perfected the art. Maybe the age gap between us is something that is actually hindering your view on the band. I can't think of any band that defines the 90's era of metal more than Pantera does. If you could provide a band more influential to the genre, yet as accessible at the same time, I'm all ears.

In my personal opinion, if you take Pantera out of the picture, then metal from the 1990's and beyond would not only suffer, but be completely wiped out in a popular sense. While the argument can be made that Pantera lacks in innovation, they more than make up with it by being extremely accessible and relate-able to the metal fan base.

Maybe I just like more bands that were influenced by Pantera than you, who knows. All I can say is I obviously have a lot more respect for this band than you do, which is fine. At the end of the day, Pantera has more than enough positive opinions held about them amongst the knowledgeable metalhead public to more than counteract your negative one.

Look at the bolded parts. Do you see what I'm saying now about Pantera's fans?

Anyway, it seems like the main thrust of your argument is that Pantera were a great band because they were "accessible". I'm sorry but I don't really see that as any kind of point in their favor. Does the fact that MC Hammer was accessible make him the single most important rapper of the 90s? No, of course not. Same is true of Pantera. They weren't doing anything innovative, they didn't bring anything exciting to the table and their influence on the genre was a negative one so who cares how popular they were?

**Janszoon** · 01-08-2011, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sleepy jack

Come on dude, you're not even giving Dimebag and company a shot.

It's been over 20 years man. How many shots do I have to give a band before I'm allowed to dislike them?

01-07-2011, 11:48 PM	#582 (permalink)
Necromancer Divination Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 2,655	Anvil (Anvil). I do have respect for Anvil for hanging in there, and some have commented, that Anvil never sold out, is the reason they never got a contract. As far as I see it, no major label wanted to sign them. But I'm no expert on Anvil. I like their metal guitar (a little), reminds me slightly of Judas Priest's early style (vaguely). But the style of vocals seem cheesy/cartoonist. The single Metal On Metal, is OK I guess.