Metal Reviews

Cream is swimming at the top. That's a law. If something is underground there is a reason that it is there. If it has merit it will surface by itself.
So there is a relaxed approach to underground music. Instead of hunting after all the latest insider tips ... just wait.

Then I wouldn't have heard The Postman Syndrome :(

or Zero Hour...

Floathing at the top of what? Similar bands in the genre? So what if a band is rather unique? What if the genre is underground? I had not known of Glitch had you not notified me of it. If I had applied the same logic to the genres, I'd be stuck in pop and rock, the top layer of cream (that expires first, I must say).

The underground has some of the best shit out there. Labels these days sign a lot of garbage, because it's safer that way, and won't take chances, generally, on groundbreaking music because the idiot masses don't know how to handle complex music.

Nor do I need shit magazines and FUSE TV to spoonfed me what I need to be listening to. If it wasn't for these same magazines and TV stations promoting the shit out of Metalcore garbage, Nu-Metal, and just plain suckiness, nobody with any taste at all would listen to it.

I think the original post was a joke. I just cant see someone who is into metal enough to post on a metal forum actually believing that.

i agree...

reminds of VH1's top 40 Metal tracks which i saw on tv the other day.. most of it was completely shit... they even tried to convince me that Marilyn Manson was responsible for bringing evil back to the metal genre in 96, at that Jonathan Davis was cool because he was a human beatbox on one of his albums.. and i'm not kidding you .. since when is lyrics about teenage problems evil, anyway?!?

It's not a joke, it's more a test of a quite strange idea.
It came to my mind when I was listening to the best album that I have heard in a particular genre. It was originally self-marketed but 3 years later the demand was too high. It surfaced because it's good.
That doesn't mean that everything that is generally accepted is good. It means that everything that is good will make it to the surface sooner or later.

It see the next question rising. What does good mean?
As a professional quality guy I say that something is good (quality) if it fulfills the demands and expectations of a selected target group.



Actually at the top of coffee.
If you are into pop and rock everything is already there. There are some labels which are specialised in underground rock from the 60s until today but I have never heard anything memorable from them. If you are into Glitch you are definitely someone who likes coffee more than cream. You can't apply any logic to such twisted people.

I drink my coffee black. I also prefer milk without any shit floating on top, it's sour for a reason.

What do you think of early Reich and Riley by the way? That is lately my Espresso. Pure.

I partially agree with that (Tool, The Dillinger Escape Plan, Converge, and the Mars Volta come to mind), although I don't think its a dead set law and some great stuff goes unknown, or at least doesn't rise to the top for various reasons (Neurosis, Arsis and The Postman Syndrome come to mind for that example).

I like that stuff, in particular Music for 18 musicians.
Go for La Monte Young next. It's chewing beans.

I'm tempted to try the latter to see if they are undeseveredly underground or if you are a twisted person.

- "It's not a joke, it's more a test of a quite strange idea.
It came to my mind when I was listening to the best album that I have heard in a particular genre. It was originally self-marketed but 3 years later the demand was too high. It surfaced because it's good.
That doesn't mean that everything that is generally accepted is good. It means that everything that is good will make it to the surface sooner or later."


So, does this mean that everything you listen to, since nobody would call their own tastes "bad", is rising to the top of popularity right now?

No, most of the stuff I listen to isn't good (unless I regard exclusively myself as the target group).

Riiiiiiiight. The majority of stuff I listen to hasn't risen anywhere. Therefore: no.

i'd also like to ask: what counts as underground, and what counts as mainstream? when do you tell the difference?

You can't rely on people that much. Par tof being a music fan is going and and hunting, and the underground is essential. Anyway, going along with your scenario, what, they reissue the first albums that you could have bought originally? What have you gained by waiting?

Sounds suspiciously lazy to me.

How can the cream top the milk if there is no gravity? In other words: if there is no interest in underground, how could the good underground ever rise?

About La Monte Young, I checked some and I just love that early 60s Dream Syndicate work!!

Shya.

If you like music beyond listening to the radio when you're in your car or something, you have to dig. I can't imagine just sitting around waiting for music to find it's way to me.

So, if enough other people start listening to the music you are listening to then will your music be considered good? Can music not be judged on its own merits?

Also, what if there is no target group that the music is geared for. When truly original bands came around that offer something different then what is contained in the standard genre borderlines, said band is bringing something new to the table, which has no built in fan-base. Sometimes, music is made for the actual art, and therefore isnt marketed specifically at a group. I am sure that each of here on this forum listens to at least one band that is fairly obscure because of them being to technical or too artsy or too experimental. Since 99% of these bands will never be popular does that mean that they are no good? In my opinion it is the music that is too good to become popular that is usually the best. Challenging music doesnt get popular.