Slayer Posted December 9, 2003 Author Report Posted December 9, 2003 EDIT: And hold on just a damn second Slayer. You listed your doom likings and stated Anathema, but noting it was only older Anathema you like? Tell me you cannot possibly think The Silent Enigma or Serenades is better than Eternity or Judgement? Please tell me? Didn't see this until after I posted, so I'll respond separately I love TSE and Serenades. Eternity is allright. Judgement is bleh... I'd be hardpressed to even call them a metal band anymore by this point, which they've proven in subsequent releases
Red Hot Thumbtack In The Eye Posted December 9, 2003 Report Posted December 9, 2003 First, I see purism and elitism as the same essentially, to lay the groundwork for the rest of the post. And I'm a whole 'nother cat altogether. Your POV doesn't sound like the purists' viewpoint at all. I think you just argued for why CoB is a BM band, really. No, for me, COB can never be a black metal band because they don't have that feeling. "The Feeling" being something that no one will ever be able to properly describe other than to say...you just know It's unscientific and biased but it is a quintessential truth. For me. From my experience, the BM-purist is the one who demands the exact type of music I described: Lacking technicality (i.e. just super-fast riffing for the most part, some keyboards) and satanic content. It is for those very reasons why I've heard the same type of people not include CoB as a BM band. Tangent: what most people don't understand is that the style of riffing in Black metal, even at it's most primal (eg: De Mysteriis Dom Sathanas by Mayhem) is still much harder to do than wanking out on some technical scaling madness like Laiho does. / Tangent I don't represent the typical purists, as you describe them. I decided a while ago that I'm not gonna play that game so I could still be ok to enjoy Cradle Of Filth cd's while still being a Black Metal Kid. I'm far too open minded to shut myself out of these 'grey area' bands. Now I'm going to go listen to "Towards Dead End" and thrash my room to hell. Back tonight with some comparisons maybe.
Red Hot Thumbtack In The Eye Posted December 9, 2003 Report Posted December 9, 2003 Didn't see this until after I posted, so I'll respond separately Ditto I love TSE and Serenades. Eternity is allright. Judgement is bleh... I'd be hardpressed to even call them a metal band anymore by this point, which they've proven in subsequent releases Funny, I would call TSE and Serenades blah while Eternity is awesome and Judgement is the single high water mark against which all music of any integrity should be eternally measured. I truly believe it will never be topped..by anything. Damn you doom elistists.....
Corey_Lazarus Posted December 9, 2003 Report Posted December 9, 2003 I consider CoB to be more of a power/death hybrid than anything else, actually.
Slayer Posted December 9, 2003 Author Report Posted December 9, 2003 Funny, I would call TSE and Serenades blah while Eternity is awesome and Judgement is the single high water mark against which all music of any integrity should be eternally measured. I truly believe it will never be topped..by anything. With TSE and Serenades, I love the crunchy slow guitars and growly vocals, pretty much Now, I don't think there's anything wrong with a band wanting to change its sound in principle, after all, I don't want the same album rehashed again and again (one reason why I dislike most power metal), but Anathema just changed into something I couldn't listen to anymore. I've gotten used to this though, since it's become a big trend by quite a few Euro-doom metal bands to lighten their sound and start adding electrono/techno stuff (which I am not against) but then misusing it (which I am). To me it almost always seems like these bands lose something in that change (Paradise Lost is one of the few that has pulled it off the whole way) Plus the Anathema singer's clean voice is too high for me to consider "doomy". Male doom singers to me should be in the low range (Arron Stainthorpe, Messiah Marcolin, Nick Holmes). These are all my opinions though. Your mileage may vary
Steviekick Posted December 13, 2003 Report Posted December 13, 2003 I found another comparison... Murderdolls->Albert Both would have been huge during the 1980s, and they show their influence of someone who was quite popular during that time (Motley Crue/Vader). As far as internet fans, either someone really likes them or could completely do without them. Both of them are offshoots of a really lame group (Slipknot/T&A), and have one major flaw that prevents them from being completely over in the mainstream (too much profanity in lyrics/the backhair).
Brocklock Posted December 13, 2003 Report Posted December 13, 2003 Their not really metal, but their harder than some of the bands mentioned. Who would Faith No More be? I think an underrated worker that never got the respect he deserved, but I can't think of a name.
Corey_Lazarus Posted December 13, 2003 Report Posted December 13, 2003 I think Faith No More would be somebody that pioneered a style most wouldn't consider "wrestling"...Onita?
Steviekick Posted December 13, 2003 Report Posted December 13, 2003 I actually read an article that called Faith No More funk metal.
The Metal Maniac Posted December 13, 2003 Report Posted December 13, 2003 I've heard more recent Suicidal Tendencies called the same.
Brocklock Posted December 13, 2003 Report Posted December 13, 2003 The only band that I would call funk metal is Infectious Grooves.
The Metal Maniac Posted December 13, 2003 Report Posted December 13, 2003 Well, considering that Infectious Grooves and later Suicidal Tendencies are basically the same band...
Corey_Lazarus Posted December 13, 2003 Report Posted December 13, 2003 The problem is that they share many of the same traits as metal, but also many traits of non-metal bands, and thus cannot be FULLY metal. Oh, and if you wanan check out a grind/folk/funk/punk/rock/metal band, check out Sound Like The Hu-Man. The tunes on the site aren't as polished as they are on the album, but they're actually really, REALLY good tunes. "Essay" and "Twilight" are very good, as are "True Folkin' Metal" and "One Night Only." Of course, this is my buddy Steve-O's band, so I'm biased, but check 'em out, ya bastards!
Brocklock Posted January 3, 2004 Report Posted January 3, 2004 (edited) I've been thinking lately who would Vader be? Vader - Brutal, Style and always underrated becuase of a reason. His being that he was over 400 pounds. I can't think of anyone right now. Edited January 3, 2004 by Brocklock
Red Baron Posted January 3, 2004 Report Posted January 3, 2004 I've been thinking lately who would Vader be? Vader - Brutal, Style and always underrated becuase of a reason. His being that he was over 400 pounds. I can't think of anyone right now. Vader---->Celtic Frost?? I'm just going on a limb here
AndrewTS Posted January 3, 2004 Report Posted January 3, 2004 (edited) You sure about the death metal thing? I'd somewhat disagree with that--of course, I dislike it, so maybe that's why. I'm in the minority on that I suppose. Metallica = HHH -- wow, I see the parallels. Most of the others seem to click well. Especially... Hulk Hogan -> Ozzy Osbourne Both need to retire for good, and probably never will. Ric Flair -> Iron Maiden They've always been great, save for a short period of time, and probably always will be to some extent. Even their bad work is still better than 80% of most others' work, and you can understand some of their negative sides. Hogan and Ozzy have lots of similarities as well, however, a lot of the IMC still admires his old work but the IWC, while recognizing the importance of Hogan in the 80's, would pass on most Hogan matches unless it was a genuinely good one. What's the equivalent to Randy Rhoads, then? Or the IMC's equivalent of Vince, if there are such animals? Ric Flair -> Iron Maiden They've always been great, save for a short period of time, and probably always will be to some extent. Even their bad work is still better than 80% of most others' work, and you can understand some of their negative sides. Hmmm--you know what, didn't Metallica tour with Iron Maiden during the early 90's, and Metallica (probably Lars mainly) got really pissy about Maiden playing last instead of them? I know nothing recent comes to mind, but I seem to recall that. Sting=Metallica, they both suck now but for the first 5 years they could pass. They came back with a new look, different fans and a different style. Both groups of fans will always be dreamers and say that their style was innovative I still prefer the HHH=Metallica one, but note Metallica's "new look" during the Load album thing. Edited January 3, 2004 by AndrewTS
The Metal Maniac Posted January 4, 2004 Report Posted January 4, 2004 Hmmm--you know what, didn't Metallica tour with Iron Maiden during the early 90's, and Metallica (probably Lars mainly) got really pissy about Maiden playing last instead of them? While that wouldn't surprise me, I would like to point out that recently, Bruce pretty much said "Metallica can TRY to follow an Iron Maiden show, if they like" or something to that extent. He's also verbally ripped them up on stage for their stance on Napster. So it wouldn't surprise me if something like that did happen; doesn't seem like they're fond of each other.
Corey_Lazarus Posted January 4, 2004 Report Posted January 4, 2004 If it comes down to choosing Maiden or Metallica...bye bye 'tallica. And trust me, AndrewTS, Ozzy is VERY hated by much of the IMC. While he may be a large figurehead of the old scene, everybody knows there were better bands than him around then, and aside from a handful of songs, his work is greatly overrated and poor.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now