Metal Reviews

As metalheads I don't think it's so much of a stretch to say we all adore most of the subgenre establishing classics. I find it hard to imagine a metalhead who listens to his or her favorite respective subgenre who doesn't love earlier albums of it. It seems the more you get into any of the genres the worse you tend to see. I guess I'm referring primarily to black and death. It seems once you go beyond the established bands the progressively worse the material gets. I'm not saying that all underground bands suck, there are always the bands like Ulcerate in death metal or Deathspell Omega in black who seem to be in a league of their own. But to what degree in reviewing albums or just perusing through albums do you just say:"Wow I think I'll just stick to the older stuff"?

Er, very little to none? Just because a band you've never heard of is shite, doesn't mean that there aren't ten out there that are amazing.

Yeah.

Music only progresses because people look beyond established bands.

imo the established classics are usually the most middle of the road presentations of what the genre has to offer and are often boring. They're not what I listen to most in any of metal's subgenres (except maybe Neurosis). I do think things like "screw this I'm listening to Dekapitator" a lot when I listen to a new band, especially in genres like black, thrash, or death metal where I don't listen to them very often and only need like 5 or 10 albums from each genre to keep me happy.

Most newer metal is shit. Very few bands can produce anything that is worth a flying fuck. We can thank the music industry for this, and Hot Topic. In my metal travels, and they are extensive, I have found that the older material is, in general, far superior. New bands lack the overall motivation and feeling of the older bands. So, when perusing heavy metal albums, my rule is, the newer, the crappier.

Bullshit. There's a difference between mainstream and new.

I like new metal because there's lots of really good bands like Valkyrie, East of the Wall and Bloodhorse

Your band is shit.

Coming from the guy with a Squidward pic.
WUT NIGGa!

The way I see it, there's a difference between "underground" and "unknown." Underground bands are usually those bands that you hear about through word-of-mouth or review sites (much like this one, in fact), when someone says "Hey, this is some good stuff," and other people are like "yeah, man, this band kicks ass," and the bands tend to garner some sort of following that way.

However, "unkown" bands tend to be those that no one outside of the 870 people who listened to them on YouTube, and never really garner much attention. I remember scouring through YouTube listening to some "unknown" bands, having feelings of "eh, this is just okay," to "this kinda sucks." Sometimes there's a song here or there that is good, but not quite good enough.

People get the word out about "underground" bands, because they have at least some measure of quality that appeals to enough people overall for their name to be heard. Know what I'm sayin'?

YES

Not always the case, but often.

Frigid, there's no point even trying to argue this one with HT. I gave that up some time in 2006 I think.

He's right. THere's no point. I'm not trying to argue my point with anyone. I'm just stating what I think and the reasons why. If it invites discussion, that's fine. But, as Radagast adroitly noted, it's not an argument you can win.

And the difference between "mainstream" and "new" is negligable. There's plenty of new "underground" bands that I don't care for either. In general, I think that all the best heavy metal has already been written, and is lurking in the shadows waiting to be discovered. THere's such a wealth of excellent old music that I have no need for newer stuff. That's not to say tha all new stuff is crap, but it is an extreme rarity for me to find anything post '98 that is good in my opinion.

Doesn't say much for the genre, does it, if it passed its peak in the first decade of existence.

Well I count the 70's as well. So, if you're going to give it a timeline, I say metal was great from 68-95. Years 96-98 are decent. But post 98, when all the old bands started reuniting and Swedish Death Metal, and metalcore, and super fruity power metal became the norm.....I can't say much for things since then.

But the first 27 years were brilliant.

Maybe you don't listen to much black metal but IMO from 98 on it has evolved greatly, and it still is!

I agree about the Swedish Death Metal and metalcore part (not to mention the fruity power metal, which I don't even consider at all), such staleness.

Yeah I think we'd all agree how metalcore and power metal flaked out but to reduce all of metal in those years to those small percentages of the output is ridiculous and really kinda just stupid.

There are good bands from every era, from every scene, underground or "mainstream". Stating otherwise is bullshit.

This.

+1

There are good bands from every era, but in general, there are far fewer.....far far fewer now then in the past 27 pre '98 years. And I've never been a fan of black metal apart from the early Mayhem and Darkthrone albums, and Emperor if that can be considered black metal. But, taking into consideration that what I've said is an opinion, calling it bull shit is just plain stupid.

I love going through this exercise ever time. What I've stated is an opinion, one with what I believe are valid reasons.