Ran across this thread during a search and I'm totally bringing it back from the dead
So, personally, I HATE(that's right, with capital letters) the extent to which the genre of metal has been subdivided at this point. I think it really speaks volumes to the mentality that a lot of metal fans have in regards to their musical taste being better than everyone elses'. I also think it shows just how close some metal fans are to the trend hopping pop fans that they say ruin music. Look at how it's now cool to like bands like Judas Priest and Iron Maiden. Metal fans would have beat the crap out of someone who said that 10 yrs ago.
I have a fairly wide range of musical tastes but I mainly enjoy metal. That's right, just metal. I range from bands that have been mentioned such as Korn to Machine Head to Katatonia to Tool to Lamb of God. I've got tons of obscure shit but I'm not afraid to admit that I like stuff that's popular too. I'll even admit to liking stuff that isn't widely considered "good." Limp Bizkit? Hell, I'll admit that after the first album, Durst ran out of lyrical ideas and it was all downhill. But dammit if some of those songs aren't fun to listen to. I'm not saying that there's not standard for good music and bad music. I'm just saying that a lot of people are blurring that line to boost their self esteem. Korn's first album was outstanding, Tool's last album was weak. Metallica's newest has less to offer than Limp Bizkit's first. Deftone's last 2 albums sucked, Machine Head's last 2 have been nearly godlike.
Now, I'm kind of going off on a tangent but what I'm getting back to is the term "nu metal." I think that term, at this point is just a catch all for bands that aren't "in" anymore. Many of them really have very little in common. Korn, for example, is closer to Tool than they are to Limp Bizkit but people won't admit that or call Tool nu metal because Tool is still okay to like. However, a band like Rage Against the Machine is much much closer to Limp Bizkit, however, one is nu metal while the other isn't, because Rage is still "hip."
Guitar solos, you say? Well, Nine Inch Nails doesn't have any guitar solos, is Reznor nu metal? I think most people would agree the answer is a resounding no. But he uses electronics, which makes him industrial. Okay, how about Filter, Stabbing Westward, Static X?
This is obviously well beyond just turning into a rant. It's something that bugs me more and more about people that listen to at least some of the same music I do. People that, I can only hope, would one day be hearing music that I make. The closed mindedness and putting the scene before the music has just gotten to a breaking point with me. There's no logic to it. It's a popularity contest, pure and simple.
Metal is metal, stop telling your brothers and sisters that they aren't allowed to enjoy their music without ridicule.
So, personally, I HATE(that's right, with capital letters) the extent to which the genre of metal has been subdivided at this point. I think it really speaks volumes to the mentality that a lot of metal fans have in regards to their musical taste being better than everyone elses'. I also think it shows just how close some metal fans are to the trend hopping pop fans that they say ruin music. Look at how it's now cool to like bands like Judas Priest and Iron Maiden. Metal fans would have beat the crap out of someone who said that 10 yrs ago.
I have a fairly wide range of musical tastes but I mainly enjoy metal. That's right, just metal. I range from bands that have been mentioned such as Korn to Machine Head to Katatonia to Tool to Lamb of God. I've got tons of obscure shit but I'm not afraid to admit that I like stuff that's popular too. I'll even admit to liking stuff that isn't widely considered "good." Limp Bizkit? Hell, I'll admit that after the first album, Durst ran out of lyrical ideas and it was all downhill. But dammit if some of those songs aren't fun to listen to. I'm not saying that there's not standard for good music and bad music. I'm just saying that a lot of people are blurring that line to boost their self esteem. Korn's first album was outstanding, Tool's last album was weak. Metallica's newest has less to offer than Limp Bizkit's first. Deftone's last 2 albums sucked, Machine Head's last 2 have been nearly godlike.
Now, I'm kind of going off on a tangent but what I'm getting back to is the term "nu metal." I think that term, at this point is just a catch all for bands that aren't "in" anymore. Many of them really have very little in common. Korn, for example, is closer to Tool than they are to Limp Bizkit but people won't admit that or call Tool nu metal because Tool is still okay to like. However, a band like Rage Against the Machine is much much closer to Limp Bizkit, however, one is nu metal while the other isn't, because Rage is still "hip."
Guitar solos, you say? Well, Nine Inch Nails doesn't have any guitar solos, is Reznor nu metal? I think most people would agree the answer is a resounding no. But he uses electronics, which makes him industrial. Okay, how about Filter, Stabbing Westward, Static X?
This is obviously well beyond just turning into a rant. It's something that bugs me more and more about people that listen to at least some of the same music I do. People that, I can only hope, would one day be hearing music that I make. The closed mindedness and putting the scene before the music has just gotten to a breaking point with me. There's no logic to it. It's a popularity contest, pure and simple.
Metal is metal, stop telling your brothers and sisters that they aren't allowed to enjoy their music without ridicule.
