Metal Thread V - Defenders of the Faith

[bloodlover]

Radiohead better than Zep and Queen sux... Oh god this bad. I feel sorry for the likes of you.

Also I never said that if a musician is popular than he must be good. Popularity does not equal singing good. It was referring to the legacy and continuation of the old music, unlike modern stuff that is just mediocre, it's just a trend and people forget it after certain years because it has no real value in the long run. You can look at classical music also if you want to understand better the value of good metal/rock.

I think it's absolutely normal to have very good, mediocre and very bad music no matter what period we are in. But the fact that many bands from the 70's and 80's still play today and have a huge audience just proves my fact. Bands like Motorhead, Iron Maiden, Judas Priest etc still bring more than 50.000 people at one concert and still release quality albums.

[grimbold]

Radiohead is better than Zeppelin.

I honestly could care less about musicianship, as long as the composition is enjoyable. On that note, I thought that Queen had horrible songwriting, as they all seemed to alternate between vocal and guitar wankery. Freddie Mercury was a proficient singer. He doesn't really suit my style, but I don't see how you can fairly compare him to other singers regardless of style and say that he's "better."

But you're right in that third paragraph. If a musician is popular, how couldn't they be good? There's pretty much nothing that can contest that.

What genre am I underestimating, exactly? The "time before the late 80's" isn't a genre, you know. Some of it was good, a lot of it was okay, and a lot of it was terrible. That which was good generally isn't as good as what exists today, in my opinion. This is probably because there is more music that is more easily available, plus the fact that production quality has in general improved.

okay
point by point

1. Zeppelin is better than radiohead just because
2. Queen has brilliant songwriting the combined operatic concepts with rock, their songs had a lot of ingenuity in them.
3. Freddie Mercury can be said to be 'better' than other singers because he covered quite a few styles. Also he had incredible vocal range
4. Genres that you are underestimating,
NWOBHM
Stoner Rock
What I call 'The Glory Days' of thrash when Burton was alive an Reign in Blood came out.
Speed Metal
among others
5. 'That which was good generally isn't as good as what exists today in my opinion'. ... Are you joking?
The 80s were the glory days of a lot of AWESOME bands.
Burtons Metallica,
Slayer
Anthrax
Megadeth
Maiden
Ozzy's solo stuff
Dio
The Dio Black Sabbath
Heaven and Hell
MAIDEN!!!!!!
so yeah
name a band created after 2000 that is as good as maiden and then we might get somewhere

[RedDeerJebediah]

Honestly it seems completely ridiculous to compare Led Zeppelin and Radiohead, if you ask me. Both bands are revolutionary but in totally different ways - basically it will always come down to the listener's personal preference because an objective conclusion is just impossible.
I think both are incredible, by the way.

Queen is one of the most original rock bands ever. They are very cheesy and over-the-top, though, so I can see why some could be put off by them. I always that they had just the right amount of ironic intention imbedded in their songs.

NWOBHM and its like seems to be a genre that you either hate or is completely in love with. Personally I can recognise the influence and, in a way, ingenuity of bands like Iron Maiden and Judas Priest, but I cannot enjoy their music. I liked these bands when I was 14-15 but when I realised how homogenous the compositions are and how irrevelant the subject matter remains, I could not take those bands seriously. Honestly, how any grown man can really like Iron Maiden is simply beyond my understading.

As for metal before the late 80's - King Crimson.

[bloodlover]

How is age relevant when it comes to music... ?

[Killer Angel]

Honestly, how any grown man can really like Iron Maiden is simply beyond my understading.

Grown men like good music. Iron Maiden made a lot of good music.

[grimbold]

Grown men like good music. Iron Maiden made a lot of good music.

thank you
maiden has so much variety that you kinda have to like them

[Klose_the_Sith]

<snip>

Thank you for a perfect demonstration of musical quality's total lack of consensus and general ambiguity

While you find Radiohead and Led Zep revolutionary, I hear yet more alt rock and an early rock band that plagiarised a ton of material. While you find Queen revolutionary and Iron Maiden homogeneous, for me it's always been the other way around.

There is no truth in quality difference between old and new music. Some people prefer the old and some the new, more power to 'em.

You know what's really amazing, though?

Liking both

[ex cathedra]

Radiohead better than Zep and Queen sux... Oh god this bad. I feel sorry for the likes of you.

Also I never said that if a musician is popular than he must be good. Popularity does not equal singing good. It was referring to the legacy and continuation of the old music, unlike modern stuff that is just mediocre, it's just a trend and people forget it after certain years because it has no real value in the long run. You can look at classical music also if you want to understand better the value of good metal/rock.

I think it's absolutely normal to have very good, mediocre and very bad music no matter what period we are in. But the fact that many bands from the 70's and 80's still play today and have a huge audience just proves my fact. Bands like Motorhead, Iron Maiden, Judas Priest etc still bring more than 50.000 people at one concert and still release quality albums.

Don't condescend to me. That's really quite rude.

That argument is imbecilic. If the good 70's/80's music is good because of its legacy, how is that fair to modern music that hasn't yet had time to form a legacy? There was a point in time where Queen only had one album. Albums aren't wine; one isn't better than another because it's aged for thirty years.

Why should I care if other people will forget my favorite bands? That's not important. I've found the music that pleases me most, or at the very least pleases me more than everything else that I've heard. Why should I care if Maiden still sells out concerts? Good for them, I guess, but it doesn't retroactively make their music any better.

And I suppose that you're right; my bad. 50,000 people is quite a lot. How could I possibly mistake being popular for having a wide audience?

grimbold: way to add nothing to the conversation.

re: age's relevance to music.
Dunno. Maturity, I guess?

Klose: I don't really consider it in terms of 'liking new music' versus 'liking old music.' Conceptually, it's fairly hard to like either group. It's not that I don't like music that's old, since I like bands older than most of these metal bands, it's just that there isn't a lot of music from that era that I honestly find appealing.

[Narmoth]

As for metal I like...

Opeth - has played covers of Celtic Frost and Iron Maiden amongst others, and I think also Black Sabbath can be traced in their songs.
Arcturus - has a guitarist that plays in Jørn's band as well, and several members doing more mainstream metal, particularly covering Dio and Thin Lizzy amongst others
Kvelertak - not metal, but rock, so I won't say more
the rest I haven't heard, so I can't really comment.

But to pull out some other new band influenced by old ones:
Almost every melodic death metal band there is, were influenced by Dark Tranquillity and early In Flames (and also At the Gates and )
Well, Dark Tranquillity and In Flames were in their turn influenced by bands like Iron Maiden, Blind Guardian and so on. The later were again influenced by Helloween, who were influenced by Iron Maiden, who again were influenced by Thin Lizzy, Rainbow, Judas Priest. Who in turn follow logically from the music of Black Sabbath and several other heavy rock and progressive rock bands of the early 70s
The same can be said for any other new band.
For us who have followed the scene for some time (the last 12 years for my part) or are musicians, this kind of connection is interesting.
Sometimes you discover older bands because your favorite band makes a cover of them, like Hammerfall doing a cover of Stormwitch. Sometimes, it's the other way around, like when I found Dreamtone on the forum of Blind Guardian.
I am myself a writing metal musician, and when I write, I am of course influened by what other bands did in the last decade, what was done in the 90s, the main legacy of the bands that played and defined the subgenres in the 80s, and the main theme givers of the 70s. Something else would be totally wrong for me. Maybe it's different for someone who only listens, but I can't really imagine how I would write without knowing and appreciating all the great music already made

[Whoracle]

Originally I did not want to chime into this, but some things have to be said:

3. Freddie Mercury can be said to be 'better' than other singers because he covered quite a few styles. Also he had incredible vocal range

Dani Filth (Cradle Of Filth) has a wider vocal range. IIRC he held or still holds the world record of "Male with the widest range. So by you definition, he's way better than Ol' Fred.
I don't think so, even though I like both.

name a band created after 2000 that is as good as maiden and then we might get somewhere

Better in what respect?
Technical Proficiency? I raise you Wintersun
Better in my tastes? Try some Nightrage

"Being better" can only be measured in objective terms, i.e. technical proficiency or high accuracy at high speeds or the like, so any other means of comparison are moot, as is my Nightrage-"argument".

Now, don't get me wrong, I like my maiden, and they certainly have been influential, but ten years from now, most bands will cite bands from today as their main influences. It's always like that.

[grimbold]

Originally I did not want to chime into this, but some things have to be said:



Dani Filth (Cradle Of Filth) has a wider vocal range. IIRC he held or still holds the world record of "Male with the widest range. So by you definition, he's way better than Ol' Fred.
I don't think so, even though I like both.



Better in what respect?
Technical Proficiency? I raise you Wintersun
Better in my tastes? Try some Nightrage

"Being better" can only be measured in objective terms, i.e. technical proficiency or high accuracy at high speeds or the like, so any other means of comparison are moot, as is my Nightrage-"argument".

Now, don't get me wrong, I like my maiden, and they certainly have been influential, but ten years from now, most bands will cite bands from today as their main influences. It's always like that.

thank you for your point whoracle and i agree with you to some degree
however, If you look at the first bit of my criterion for amazing singers they need to be able to cover a variety of styles, now Dani Filth is incredible yes, but he does almost all death growls/shrieked vocals, whereas Freddy Mercury could do harder vocals and more operatic ones even within the course of a song. As for those bands being better than maiden i suppose you are correct in calling better objective so i guess you get that point

[Killer Angel]

Albums aren't wine; one isn't better than another because it's aged for thirty years.

I'm not sure I agree on this.
Time is often a factor of judgement... we've plenty of albums, praised at their coming out, that slowly faded away. We have albums that were great, but their sound is now old, and they're valued most for their influence on a genre. And we have albums that are masterpieces, and are excellent even now, and still sound modern after 30 years.

[grimbold]

I'm not sure I agree on this.
Time is often a factor of judgement... we've plenty of albums, praised at their coming out, that slowly faded away. We have albums that were great, but their sound is now old, and they're valued most for their influence on a genre. And we have albums that are masterpieces, and are excellent even now, and still sound modern after 30 years.

excellent point

[ex cathedra]

I'm not sure I agree on this.
Time is often a factor of judgement... we've plenty of albums, praised at their coming out, that slowly faded away. We have albums that were great, but their sound is now old, and they're valued most for their influence on a genre. And we have albums that are masterpieces, and are excellent even now, and still sound modern after 30 years.

I like my music devoid of context.

[Moff Chumley]

Freddy Mercury was a fantastic singer. I don't think there's much of a question there. Brain May was a competent guitarist, and the other guys were fairly good. Fine. They were a very good band.

Zep, on the other hand, is one of the most vastly overrated bands of all time. They do have some truly breathtaking songs (When the Levee Breaks, No Quarter, Achilles Last Stand, Trampled Underfoot), but I'd say the majority of their music is either unoriginal or simply boring. John Bonham was the only truly great musician in that band.

Radiohead, on the other hand, is one of the most consistently and unrelentingly original bands of the last twenty years. Thom Yorke might not be a technically amazing singer in the same vein as Mercury, but that's asking rather a lot. Ed O'Brien and Johnny Greenwood are two of the most innovative and talented guitarists out there, and the band as a whole simply writes better songs than Zep, in my opinion.

Anyhow, one point I'd like to address: just because a band is influenced by an older band does not make the older band better. For example, Sabbath and Sleep. If it weren't for Sabbath, there's no question Sleep would've sounded a whole lot different, and there are obvious similarities. That said, I think Sleep perfected the formula Sabbath created, and I'd much rather listen to Sleep than Sabbath. Same thing goes for quite a few genres, honestly.

I don't care for NWoBHM at all, honestly. I think it's pretty silly, in general. I understand that that's hardly a popular opinion, but I don't think popularity makes a band OR an opinion inherently right or good.

grimbold and bloodlover, mind toning it down a bit? Just because we have opinions that differ from yours does not make us unintelligent or inferior.

[toasty]

]quote]Oh yes and I dare you to name me a guitar player, born after 1990 that beats Jimi Hendrix.[/quote]

Jimi Hendrix created much of what we consider good guitar music. I admit I've listened to little of his actual work and I assume he's really good, but I find it hard to believe that in the 40 years or since he died no one has managed to at least top him in technical proficiency? Surely guitarists like Steve Vai, Alexi Laiho, John Petrucci and likely a host of other guitarists have managed to at least equal Hendrix in the mastery of guitar, if not actually top him?

@the entire queen debate. I randomly listened to part of one of their albums, and, honestly, I wasn't impressed. I mean, I know... its queen, and I should be, I wasn't.

[Whoracle]

however, If you look at the first bit of my criterion for amazing singers they need to be able to cover a variety of styles,

And that is where I disagree. You don't have to be versatile in order to be good. Like the old (chinese?) saying goes:
"Who'd you rather get kicked by? Someone who trained 1000 different kicks once? Or someone who has trained one kick 1000 times?"
You have to be good at what you do. And Freddy wasn't that much of an operatic singer, he just was better than other guys who also did not sing operas. He would have been sung through at least two walls by any trained opera singer. He was good at what he did, which was singing pop/prog rock that incorporated influences from many styles, but I bet that most of the singers native to their styles at the time were better.

sure now Dani Filth is incredible yes, but he does almost all death growls/shrieked vocals, whereas Freddy Mercury could do harder vocals and more operatic ones even within the course of a song.

While I have never consciously heard Dani singing clean, I have to say from personal experience that growling/shrieking is dang hard. Sure, you don't have that much tonal shifts, but keeping your voice the way you want it to be while using your vocal chords in a way nature never intended for a prolonged period of time is roughly in the same league of hardness. And Danis tonal shifts (which a quick jump fropm deep growl to extremely high pitched shriek definitely is) is way easier said than done.
Plus, I'm willing to bet that Freddy would have been a lousy growler ;)

[grimbold]

And that is where I disagree. You don't have to be versatile in order to be good. Like the old (chinese?) saying goes:
"Who'd you rather get kicked by? Someone who trained 1000 different kicks once? Or someone who has trained one kick 1000 times?"
You have to be good at what you do. And Freddy wasn't that much of an operatic singer, he just was better than other guys who also did not sing operas. He would have been sung through at least two walls by any trained opera singer. He was good at what he did, which was singing pop/prog rock that incorporated influences from many styles, but I bet that most of the singers native to their styles at the time were better.



While I have never consciously heard Dani singing clean, I have to say from personal experience that growling/shrieking is dang hard. Sure, you don't have that much tonal shifts, but keeping your voice the way you want it to be while using your vocal chords in a way nature never intended for a prolonged period of time is roughly in the same league of hardness. And Danis tonal shifts (which a quick jump fropm deep growl to extremely high pitched shriek definitely is) is way easier said than done.
Plus, I'm willing to bet that Freddy would have been a lousy growler ;)

fair enough
freddy would be a lousy growler
i concede to you

[FlashRah]

Zep, on the other hand, is one of the most vastly overrated bands of all time. They do have some truly breathtaking songs (When the Levee Breaks, No Quarter, Achilles Last Stand, Trampled Underfoot), but I'd say the majority of their music is either unoriginal or simply boring. John Bonham was the only truly great musician in that band.

Sing it sister.

Radiohead, on the other hand, is one of the most consistently and unrelentingly original bands of the last twenty years. Thom Yorke might not be a technically amazing singer in the same vein as Mercury, but that's asking rather a lot. Ed O'Brien and Johnny Greenwood are two of the most innovative and talented guitarists out there, and the band as a whole simply writes better songs than Zep, in my opinion.

There's where we differ I'm afraid. To me Radiohead are the most crushingly dull band I've ever heard. And no I'm not talking about Pablo Honey. I remember a friend whom after I explained to him that I thought The Bends and OK Computer were rubbish breathlessly reccomended In Rainbows to me. And my concensus...? Eh...

Anyhow, one point I'd like to address: just because a band is influenced by an older band does not make the older band better. For example, Sabbath and Sleep. If it weren't for Sabbath, there's no question Sleep would've sounded a whole lot different, and there are obvious similarities. That said, I think Sleep perfected the formula Sabbath created, and I'd much rather listen to Sleep than Sabbath. Same thing goes for quite a few genres, honestly.

Who the heck is Sleep?

I don't care for NWoBHM at all, honestly. I think it's pretty silly, in general. I understand that that's hardly a popular opinion, but I don't think popularity makes a band OR an opinion inherently right or good.

Iron Maiden and Judas Priest. The other ones kinda blur together for me.

grimbold and bloodlover, mind toning it down a bit? Just because we have opinions that differ from yours does not make us unintelligent or inferior.

Well this is music we're talking about. People will defend their tastes in music with spears and swords if they have to.

Everything there was brilliant! (except ABBA of course)

Excuse me!?

[Narmoth]

For those that like Radiohead. Check out Porcupine Tree: anything done by Radiohead is done better by them, and their singer can sing, as well as play guitar.
I could also mention other prog rock outfits, like Pendragon (their last album, the others are more of an 80s sound that I like, but isn't good for comparison here) or Sieges Even...

[Whoracle]

Well this is music we're talking about. People will defend their tastes in music with spears and swords if they have to.

And thus, Viking Metal was born...

[bloodlover]

I saw CoF live and Dani's voice is horrible. I really mean it. It sounds NOTHING like the studio albums. On the other hand, Iron Maiden live was pure win and Bruce is not a high note singer.

Also I don't consider anyone that listens to other bands to be inferior. That's stupid... It's normal to have preferences in bands and genres but it's really childish to disconsider amazing bands that made this genre possible and even more comparing them with today's junk.

And in the end, talking about NWOBHM... there are some great bands except Iron Maiden and Venom, like Angel Witch, Saxon, Diamond Head, Samson (and this was Bruce Dickinson's band before Maiden), Witchfynde, Def Leppard etc.

Here's a really good song by Angel Witch btw -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCV3S...eature=related

[RedDeerJebediah]

Thank you for a perfect demonstration of musical quality's total lack of consensus and general ambiguity

While you find Radiohead and Led Zep revolutionary, I hear yet more alt rock and an early rock band that plagiarised a ton of material. While you find Queen revolutionary and Iron Maiden homogeneous, for me it's always been the other way around.

There is no truth in quality difference between old and new music. Some people prefer the old and some the new, more power to 'em.

You know what's really amazing, though?

Liking both

I agree wholeheartedly. I would never try to stop people from listening to music they liked. That doesn't mean there is anything out there that is beyond criticism. In retrospect I might have been a bit harsh in my choice of words; I didn't mean to step on anyone's toes, but I do feel that when the merits of a band like Iron Maiden are held to be axiomatic, the discussion becomes meaningless and stifled. Iron Maiden seems to be one of those bands that everyone is simply "supposed" to like, and it just doesn't click with me. I can recognise the influence their music has had on metal as a whole (they invented so many clichés that rock bands are now trying to avoid ), and I don't want to offend anyone who likes them or anything, but the music just seems too simplistic and silly for me to enjoy.
(As an aside, I must admit that it wasn't very fair of me to criticise Maiden for the homogeny of their songwriting considering how many bands I like that do exactly the same thing.)

Also:

Anyhow, one point I'd like to address: just because a band is influenced by an older band does not make the older band better. For example, Sabbath and Sleep. If it weren't for Sabbath, there's no question Sleep would've sounded a whole lot different, and there are obvious similarities. That said, I think Sleep perfected the formula Sabbath created, and I'd much rather listen to Sleep than Sabbath. Same thing goes for quite a few genres, honestly.

This.

For those that like Radiohead. Check out Porcupine Tree: anything done by Radiohead is done better by them, and their singer can sing, as well as play guitar.

I'm sorry but this comparison is just plain wrong. I've heard and enjoyed a lot of both Radiohead's and Porcupine Tree's music and they have practically nothing in common stylistically.
As a vocalist, Thom Yorke is also about a thousand times more interesting than Steven Wilson in my book. Your mileage may vary.
Although I don't see how anyone can argue that Steven Wilson's lyrics aren't irrepressibly drab and awful. I mean... "I hated every minute waiting for your email"? "My X-Box is a god to me"? Really?

[Klose_the_Sith]

I agree wholeheartedly. I would never try to stop people from listening to music they liked. That doesn't mean there is anything out there that is beyond criticism.

I fully agree with you, but my intentions are to restore the Pax Metallum to this thread, not debate semantics - hence my sweeping (but hopefully friendly and/or playful) generalisations without direct insult.

I'd also question this threads notions of criticism, as it seems to boil down to "Well no, I don't like that. I like this. You should also like it, or suffer." while no music should be above criticism, I'm not too sure that we're the ones to do it

In retrospect I might have been a bit harsh in my choice of words; I didn't mean to step on anyone's toes, but I do feel that when the merits of a band like Iron Maiden are held to be axiomatic, the discussion becomes meaningless and stifled. Iron Maiden seems to be one of those bands that everyone is simply "supposed" to like, and it just doesn't click with me. I can recognise the influence their music has had on metal as a whole (they invented so many clichés that rock bands are now trying to avoid ), and I don't want to offend anyone who likes them or anything, but the music just seems too simplistic and silly for me to enjoy.

I don't know if I'd call Maiden simplistic. They certainly have their musical crutches (3-5-7 chord progression lulz ...) but as a bass player I've encountered Opeth the was easier to handle than some of what they've done. I also don't know about silly. While they're hardly the most serious band around, I'd argue that there's a big difference between the good old fun exhibited by Maiden and the rokk silliness you'll find in Manowar.

Incidentally, I find most current rock too self conscious and afraid to be enjoyable. When musicians are desperately trying to avoid these 'cliches' out of some sense of shame the music can sometimes feel to focus around what it isn't, rather than what it is.

The only current rock band I like is Mustasch

(As an aside, I must admit that it wasn't very fair of me to criticise Maiden for the homogeny of their songwriting considering how many bands I like that do exactly the same thing.)

Good ol' metal

@the entire queen debate. I randomly listened to part of one of their albums, and, honestly, I wasn't impressed. I mean, I know... its queen, and I should be, I wasn't.

Don't worry about being too badly outnumbered here, I'm behind you all the way on this

Oh yes and I dare you to name me a guitar player, born after 1990 that beats Jimi Hendrix.

Saw this being quoted and I had to go back for it. This sentence is so superbly devoid of context or logic. Beats Hendrix at what? Sound? Originality? Fashion? Technical proficiency? Dress sense? Being Jimi Hendrix?

By my own judgement, Hendrix is boring as all get-out and the only one of those he'd win is 'being Jimi Hendrix' but that's obviously nowhere near consensus.

Heck, we had someone defending ABBA in this very thread and they're probably my least-liked band that isn't just whatever processed gunk the mainstream calls itself these days.

[ex cathedra]

Although I don't see how anyone can argue that Steven Wilson's lyrics aren't irrepressibly drab and awful. I mean... "I hated every minute waiting for your email"? "My X-Box is a god to me"? Really?

I actually enjoy a good deal of his lyrical output, especially on albums like In Absentia and Recordings. FoaBP's lyrics aren't exactly sincere, to be fair, but Feel So Low is admittedly a weak moment.

Anyways, I don't "disregard" all of these bands. I just don't happen to like their music. I realize that a lot of the music I like is derived from Black Sabbath and similarly seminal early metal, but that doesn't make their music any more valuable to me, though.

The only truly irksome thing about this conversation is that a couple of posters just seem unable to accept that people have different tastes than they do, and that that's okay. I mean, I was under the impression that everyone was expected to learn that fairly early on. Sure, discussing music is bound to lead to disagreements, but going so far as some of us have is... well, yeah.

Isn't it a bit hypocritical to chastise someone for disregarding older music while simultaneously writing off modern music as "today's junk?"

[Marillion]

Oh yes and I dare you to name me a guitar player, born after 1990 that beats Jimi Hendrix.

That's a really unfair question; While prodigies such as Jeff Loomis (Who started seriously playing at the age of 15, and one year later was seriously being considered for lead guitarist of Megadeth) and Luca Turilli (who, if I understand correctly, breathed music from the moment he was old enough to hold a guitar), they're generally exceptionally rare. At most they'd be 21 years old now, likely only just now polishing their technique and making a name for themselves, and while they may be incredibly talented, if we haven't heard of them yet it's difficult to praise them

Unrelated: A quick google search for Jeff Loomis reveals that, according to Wikipedia, he's the reincarnation of Niccolò Paganini. Sounds legitimate to me

[Moff Chumley]

For those that like Radiohead. Check out Porcupine Tree: anything done by Radiohead is done better by them, and their singer can sing, as well as play guitar.
I could also mention other prog rock outfits, like Pendragon (their last album, the others are more of an 80s sound that I like, but isn't good for comparison here) or Sieges Even...

I love PT. I saw 'em live a few months ago. The played all of Anesthetize and I squeed. I really did. But Radiohead is more original, more innovative, and without a doubt more influential. Totally agreed about Wilson's lyrics; they're awful, for the most part. However, Gavin's one of the best drummers in Rock these days, and Barbeiri is probably the greatest prog keyboardist of all time.

There's where we differ I'm afraid. To me Radiohead are the most crushingly dull band I've ever heard. And no I'm not talking about Pablo Honey. I remember a friend whom after I explained to him that I thought The Bends and OK Computer were rubbish breathlessly reccomended In Rainbows to me. And my concensus...? Eh...

I still can't stand The Bends. OK Computer grew on me, after a long while; I initially hated it. You really have to start with Hail to the Thief, and then Kid A. Kid A is hugely overrated, but it's still a very good album, and Hail to the Thief is easily their most accessible. It's still gorram weird, though... then you get to listen to In Rainbows and OK Computer and that one in between Kid A and Hail to the Thief that everyone hated but then started liking a few years later.

Who the heck is Sleep?

Very influential California stoner/sludge metal band. They take a bit of getting used to, but they're terrific.

Well this is music we're talking about. People will defend their tastes in music with spears and swords if they have to.

Not people with enough emotional maturity to realize that there are people with different tastes in music and that that's okay.

[Dada]

So, Roskilde festival is getting a pretty good metal and heavy rock lineup, but I'd like the playgrounds input on the bands as well. Not all of the names are tr00 MeTaL, but I'll include whatever seems interesting.

First off we have Iron Maiden and Mastodon who obviously are 'must sees'.

Autopsy are of course pioneers, but so far I've not been able to get into their music. Eyehategod on the other hand will give me a much needed sludge infusion.

Parkway Drive, Terror and Dååth all sound interesting too, but I haven't had the chance to give them a serious listen yet.

Other names which might be interesting for metalheads are Weekend, PJ Harvey and Anna Calvi. So, thoughts?

[RedDeerJebediah]

I fully agree with you, but my intentions are to restore the Pax Metallum to this thread, not debate semantics - hence my sweeping (but hopefully friendly and/or playful) generalisations without direct insult.

I'd also question this threads notions of criticism, as it seems to boil down to "Well no, I don't like that. I like this. You should also like it, or suffer." while no music should be above criticism, I'm not too sure that we're the ones to do it

Judging by this thread, you seem to be right

I don't know if I'd call Maiden simplistic. They certainly have their musical crutches (3-5-7 chord progression lulz ...) but as a bass player I've encountered Opeth the was easier to handle than some of what they've done. I also don't know about silly. While they're hardly the most serious band around, I'd argue that there's a big difference between the good old fun exhibited by Maiden and the rokk silliness you'll find in Manowar.

When I called Iron Maidens music "simplistic" I was referring more to the chord progressions and rhythmic concepts than how difficult it is to play their music. Steve Harris is certainly a technically accomplished bassist, but that doesn't improve his, in my opinion, very bland basslines.

As for Manowar, they are pretty much the silliest band around. I never know whether to be amused by their over-the-top antics or be slightly frightened by the possiblity that they're actually taking themselves seriously.

Incidentally, I find most current rock too self conscious and afraid to be enjoyable. When musicians are desperately trying to avoid these 'cliches' out of some sense of shame the music can sometimes feel to focus around what it isn't, rather than what it is.

This is very true; I catch myself doing this quite often when writing music. It probably stems from a desire to be just as original as all the truly inventive musicians of past times. It can be hard to learn that originality just has to come by itself and that you can't just force yourself to be original. When it doesn't come by itself you'll just have to do without

So, Roskilde festival is getting a pretty good metal and heavy rock lineup, but I'd like the playgrounds input on the bands as well. Not all of the names are tr00 MeTaL, but I'll include whatever seems interesting.

First off we have Iron Maiden and Mastodon who obviously are 'must sees'.

Autopsy are of course pioneers, but so far I've not been able to get into their music. Eyehategod on the other hand will give me a much needed sludge infusion.

Parkway Drive, Terror and Dååth all sound interesting too, but I haven't had the chance to give them a serious listen yet.

Other names which might be interesting for metalheads are Weekend, PJ Harvey and Anna Calvi. So, thoughts?

I'm really looking forward to seeing Mastodon and PJ Harvey. I've seen Anna Calvi open for Grinderman; she's an awesome guitarist and has some pretty cool ideas, but her songwriting could use some polishing in my opinion. Still, it's worth checking her out.
The rest I haven't really checked out yet.

[grimbold]

When I called Iron Maidens music "simplistic" I was referring more to the chord progressions and rhythmic concepts than how difficult it is to play their music. Steve Harris is certainly a technically accomplished bassist, but that doesn't improve his, in my opinion, very bland basslines.

there are a couple of things that make Maidens music deep IMO
yes chord-wise they can get kinda meh, some of their classics are surprisingly easy to play on guitar, almost depressingly so. However I feel that their more progressive sogns (ex Dance of Death, Children of the Damned) have a lot of musical depth and some very nice solos
also
cool username