"Not Metal" section, fuck me people are stupid.

*puts on raging metal fans voice against the tyranny of it all*
"THOSE BANDS DESECRATING MY PRECIOUS METAL (they say as they are probably masturbating over an iron maiden cover) WE CAN'T ASSOCIATE THEM WITH OUR """GOOD""" METAL BECAUSE THEY CLEARLY ARE SHIT SO THEY CAN'T BE METAL CAUSE THAT WOULD PUT METALS FLAWLESS REPUTATION UNDER QUESTION"

"OH LOOK A POPULAR "METAL" BAND THAT MEANS I CAN'T LIKE THEM BECAUSE METAL IS SO DARK AND EDGY AND MY MYSTIQUE AND COOLNESS WOULD GO DOWN."

"METAL WITH ALTERNATIVE OR EXPERIMENTAL ELEMENTS?!?!?!?! SATAN LAUGHS IN YOUR FACE. THAT'S NOT METAL. HOW DARE ANYONE TRY TO PUSH THE BOUNDARIES OF METAL!!?!?! I DEMAND ALL BANDS MUST DETUNE THEIR STRINGS DOWN TWENTY FIVE OCTAVES AND MAKE UNINTELLIGIBLE PIG NOISES INTO THE MICROPHONE BECAUSE THAT IS METAL."

This is what they fucking retards are actually like. Take no regard for music history, no regard for what hundreds of critics say about these "not metal bands". They are a disgrace to people who play and listen to music.

Not to mention that one can quickly just go:

"Deftones are an American alternative metal band from Sacramento, California"

Well that was quickly debunked.

Cameron wrote:

Alowishus wrote: "Not Metal" section, fuck me people are stupid. *puts on raging metal fans voice against the tyranny of it all* "THOSE BANDS DESECRATING MY PRECIOUS METAL (they say as they are probably masturbating over an iron maiden cover) WE CAN'T ASSOCIATE THEM WITH OUR """GOOD""" METAL BECAUSE THEY CLEARLY ARE SHIT SO THEY CAN'T BE METAL CAUSE THAT WOULD PUT METALS FLAWLESS REPUTATION UNDER QUESTION" "OH LOOK A POPULAR "METAL" BAND THAT MEANS I CAN'T LIKE THEM BECAUSE METAL IS SO DARK AND EDGY AND MY MYSTIQUE AND COOLNESS WOULD GO DOWN." "METAL WITH ALTERNATIVE OR EXPERIMENTAL ELEMENTS?!?!?!?! SATAN LAUGHS IN YOUR FACE. THAT'S NOT METAL. HOW DARE ANYONE TRY TO PUSH THE BOUNDARIES OF METAL!!?!?! I DEMAND ALL BANDS MUST DETUNE THEIR STRINGS DOWN TWENTY FIVE OCTAVES AND MAKE UNINTELLIGIBLE PIG NOISES INTO THE MICROPHONE BECAUSE THAT IS METAL." This is what they fucking retards are actually like. Take no regard for music history, no regard for what hundreds of critics say about these "not metal bands". They are a disgrace to people who play and listen to music. Not to mention that one can quickly just go: "Deftones are an American alternative metal band from Sacramento, California" Well that was quickly debunked. I didn't mention that those bands aren't metal because they're "popular" or because I don't enjoy them or whatever, I mentioned that they aren't metal because they aren't metal. Take Marilyn Manson, for example; yes, his music involves a lot of guitars, but is his music really not electronic enough to be considered metal? I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but an album like Mechanical Animals is way too synthy to really be metal.

Huh? Dude i wasn't even replying to you, don't take it to heart i ain't shitting on you or anyone in particular. I was just saying in general.

His music may be electronic but it has electronic elements hence why he is alternative metal or nu metal. Both of which are still metal genres as they are subgenres of metal itself. At least that's what i think.

I don't disagree with you that he has electronic elements, i've seen him live i know he does but he is generally thought of as a metal act and not an electronic one.

"Alternative metal is a genre of alternative rock and heavy metal that gained popularity in the early 1990s. Most notably, alternative metal bands are characterized by heavy guitar riffs and experimental approaches to heavy music."

Under that definition Marilyn Manson fits and is therefore metal.

Indeed other "not metal" bands fit into that exact categorisation. Linkin Parks Meteora and Hybrid Theory are definitely metal.

A lot of people associate Deftones with the one song Back to School (a lot that i know) and think they are some sort of "rap rock" band which entirely isn't the case at all. Someone please explain to me how this isn't metal:


All Slipknots albums are clearly metal as well as Korn (apart from maybe their dubstep one). Then all the other bands as well.

For the most part i would say that metal fans who hate those bands or hate nu metal most likely hate them because they

1. hate electronic music
2. hate rapping

They are two common complaints i hear from the people who say they hate those genres. I'm not saying they can't dislike them, that would be absurd but to then claim oh because i dislike them band x or genre x can't be metal is just fucking ludicrous.

Okay.

Guns N Roses are now a new genre i've invented called Shit Rock.

[SPOILER:4a70a12dee] I jest but i disagree. It cannot be subjective because then nothing is classifiable. It defies the whole point of even having genres like i just did above. It would like me going to a biologist and telling them the taxonomy system is wrong and just make up something on the spot.[/SPOILER:4a70a12dee]

JRA wrote:

SoldierHawk wrote: On a related note, heeey...what's wrong with Slipknot?! I like those guys! The production jobs on their albums are atrocious, too much jumpdafuckup groove and not enough actual riffs. Plus, they kind of look like a dimestore ICP.

1. Production on their albums means nothing.

2. Too much groove? So i presume Groove Metal bands like Pantera aren't actually metal?

The conclusion i've reached is the table is terrible.

JRA wrote:

Alowishus wrote: JRA wrote: SoldierHawk wrote: On a related note, heeey...what's wrong with Slipknot?! I like those guys! The production jobs on their albums are atrocious, too much jumpdafuckup groove and not enough actual riffs. Plus, they kind of look like a dimestore ICP. 1. Production on their albums means nothing. 2. Too much groove? So i presume Groove Metal bands like Pantera aren't actually metal? The conclusion i've reached is the table is terrible. Production means a lot even for lo-fi albums. if there's too much going on or the wrong instruments are too loud it ruins the whole experience.

The only reason i mentioned that is because they didn't write the songs like that.
The fact that the songs are mixed poorly or whatever has nothing particularly to do with them. It's how the album was made. I mean sure they could have said they were okay with it but i think you'll know what i mean.

If you said the songs were written poorly in that there is too much going on then that's cool but i don't think you can really fault a band due to the production especially if they didn't produce it.

Blackout wrote:

Yeah but that's a weird point, as someone who was in a band and sat through seemingly endless arguments about tones and pedals and effects and tuning while we worked on a demo I have a hard time imagining ANY band having an [i]you know what? Fuck the production, it sounds good enough![/img]... bands like that usually don't make it past dinking around in the garage stage. . I'd reckon there's just a variety of musical tastes out there, which could account for the various types of production you hear, some appealing and others not so much.com

Well maybe they thought it sounded good? I don't really think there's a problem with it. It sounds to me like it's a subtle way of saying the songs are crap.

If the production on the albums are so bad, then listen to them live to determine if the sound quality is any better there.

Though i still think it's a lame excuse.

To really understand how i am thinking about this. Imagine a band is making their first album, they've had songs sitting about for years and people like them. Then when they record them on an album, the production quality is said to be shit by those people and then the people now hate the songs.

It is a weird point but it has nothing to do with the songwriting in particular. You can't then just turn around and say a song is shit because the production is shit. If said band performed those songs for years before hand what's the difference? They are still the same songs.

That's really how i am approaching it and that's why i think production is a non-issue. Sure you can dislike their production on their albums but it doesn't make them shit songwriters, poor musicians or the songs themselves bad.

EDIT: Like imagine they found (probably impossible but think hypothetically) some ridiculously old recording of Beethoven performing a concert. The production of the recording would be a piece of shit but he's still regarded as one of the best composers of all time. Hopefully this clear on what i'm saying.