Post your unpopular music-related opinions here

Post Reply New Topic

Which songs are the earliest psychedelic Beatles-songs? In 1966 there were bands like The 13th Floor Elevators around in the mid-60s.

The only really pszyched-out song I can recall is Tomorrow Never Knows (which I actually like) from Revolver, 1966.

There's a whole lot of hideous music hall music as well as some "fun" songs for kids around on their albums. Obladi-Oblada is probably one of the most annoying songs ever. And I still can't figure out if "Hey Jude" is a joke or if it is a serious song.



To me George Martin (R.I.P.) was the star of The Beatles.



Oh, yes. Please make it stop.

Psychedelic rock is largely boring drug addled structureless nonsense, weird music that is actually good tends to be made by people who actually don't do much drugs.

Metal with a polished production is much heavier than metal with raw production.

Pantera, Slayer, and Venom all ruined metal. Grunge, glam, and symphonic metal saved it.

Pierce The Veil is alright.

Booo! Pantera was the second best 90's metal band.

90's metal bands better than Pantera:

Tool
Alice in Chains
In Flames
Amorphis
At the Gates
Fear Factory
Emperor
Kamelot
Rage Against the Machine
Within Temptation
Strapping Young Lad
Deftones
Sepultura
Agalloch
Nightwish
Children of Bodom...
And the list goes on and on...

That's a lot of bands who were the BEST 90's metal band.

Hair metal isn't metal, grunge isn't metal. Not-metal can't save metal. Thrash metal saved metal, grunge helped, but only by forcing metal back underground where it belongs. Metal gets weakened by becoming mainstream when too many people who don't get it infiltrate it, it's strengthened by going underground to be recharged with elitism.

Personally overproduction is the cancer that's killing metal. Venom and Celtic Frost are metal distilled to it's purest essence. Overproduced, overcompressed, surgically clean sounding metal misses the point. Imagine Transilvanian Hunger with mallcore production. *wretch*



I Feel Fine, Ticket To Ride, Norwegian Wood, Day Tripper - all dating to '64 and '65. The term 'psychedelic rock' didn't really catch on until '66 though. The album Revolver came out in '66 and was their first album that was 'thoroughly' psychedelic. The 13th Floor Elevators first album came out that year as well. Count Five had a single that year as well. The Beach Boys and The Byrds were the two other 'big' bands to embrace and influence the style.




Agreed.

Hair metal isn't a genre, some bands under that label are just traditional heavy like Twisted Sister and WASP and thus more metal than thrash, which takes heavily from hardcore punk. Really glam has just as much a claim to being metal as thrash does, it's just taking it in the other (better) direction. Grunge is also as much metal as it alternative rock, Nirvana happened to be influenced by your oh so precious Celtic Frost.

This is a load of nonsense that only makes sense to elitists. Fact is the mainstream can do nothing to kill underground music, there is no such thing as "infiltration", just new styles of music being developed. Metal never was underground, the first metal songs were created by freaking Jimi Hendrix and the Beatles at the higher of their careers, and Led Zep and Black Sabb were popular from the get go. Thrashers just stole that idea from hardcore punk, really thrash is just hardcore for w*kers. Glam saved metal by getting it popular again as the underground just comes up with stupid ideas which results in terrible music, glam reminded people melody is an important part of music. Grunge have metal a new direction, much better direction, after glam run its course.


Overproduction can only really affect mainstream metal as they are the only ones with the resources available to make well produced metal, the underground is always going to be full of people who don't even release production is a thing your supposed to do while recording so your music doesn't sound like butts.


If by "metal distilled to its purest essence", you mean "lives up to every negative stereotype about metal", yes, Venom fits that description. And regarding Celtic Frost, yes, Cold Lake is a very pure metal album without al that punk influence other 1st wave black metal albums have.


Yeah, that would sound awful, with the better production it would become apparent just how bad Darkthrone's composition is!

PS. An overcompressed sound is NOT a polished production, it's the exact opposite. Quality production brings out the dynamics rather than diminishes it.

I love this thread.

The 90's were the best time for music. 2000's were the worst in recent memory, and 2010's are slightly better than 2000's.

Oh, here is another: black metal is better when it uses clean vocals, or at least actual screaming rather than that horrible off-key gargling most black metal musicians attempted to pass off as brutal vocals. It's not brutal, it just stupid and sounds terrible. At least death metal growls fit with death metal. That's the main reason Myrkur is way better than most black metal, she actually knows how to make vocals which fit the music, and how to actually sing.

I can look past it if I like the music, but I agree that it's better to have dynamics than to have things be all loud all the time.


Them's fighting words. I will agree that Pantera and Slayer are somewhat overrated, but I still like them.

Fighting words is exactly the purpose of this thread. I actually do like a lot of Pantera's songs, mainly I just hate Walk and find Phil's singing style annoying and Darrel's guitartone irritating. The problem isn't so much Pantera themselves, but all the copycat bands taking metal in a direction I don't like, I like the more "feminine" bands. As for Slayer, I like Raining Blood, but that's about it. They're kinda monotonous.

Kurt Cobain liked plenty of bands that didn't sonicly influence Nirvana's sound.
While thrash metal drew on both hardcore punk and older metal, they sounded like metal and didn't play pop structured songs (and didn't play the 'pop/rock songs stripped to their barest essentials' type songs that defined hardcore punk either).

Most of the hair bands played pop/rock structured songs exclusively; besides the lack of heaviness, the bigger element that makes them not-metal is that they didn't play songs that deviated from pop song structures. Metal songs are built around movements, rock songs around verse chorus verse. Certainly there's metal bands with rock songs, and but when a rock band insists on rejecting those structures for movement based writing, they're prog rock or post-rock or some other subgenre on the fringe of rock. This is why even really heavy rock isn't metal, and metal that isn't particularly heavy is (I like grunge more than power metal, but power metal is definitely metal, grunge only rarely borders on metal).



There's a reason elitists are dismissive of casual fans, they don't get what actually defines the genre and feel that watering down the elements that make metal distinct makes metal somehow better. You're welcome to insist pablum is as tasty as steak, but really it's just easier to digest. You're welcome to not like steak, but don't insist pablum or even McSteakettes are comparable. I won't insist your McSteakettes can't be tasty, they're just not steak.



If the instruments are clearly defined, the production is good enough. Maybe you like the Andy Sneap sound, but personally I think it sounds more 'like butts' than an album recorded on an answering machine in the middle of a forest.



There's a reason Tom G Warrior has disavowed that album and that it's never received a re-release. Everyone makes mistakes - even Tom G Warrior.



Pssh, atmosphere? Where's the hooks. I can't sing along to this.
Transilvanian Hunger is perfection and stands beyond any criticism.



Overcompression is typical of 'overpolished' production. That's what popular in pop music and mainstream rock music. 'Quality' is debatable, but overcompression seems to be what radio stations, clubs and non-audiophiles prefer. If something made on a sh***y four-track sounds thin and grainy but has more dynamic range than a mastered and polished "professional" release by Sneap or Rubin, or Dutkiewicz which one has higher quality?



Me too, it's interesting to see who makes well-thought out arguments for their controversial opinions (even the disagreeable ones) and who makes troll posts. You must have a spotty connection under that bridge.

At least casuals move on pretty quickly...

Finally figured out why I've never really liked Pantera...

...too much macho angst. They're the spear counterpart to bands like Glassjaw (who I like quite a bit). If I wanted to listen to angsty men covering their emotional vulnerability with rage I'd listen to Earth Crisis, who at least have something legitimate to be pissed about.

Metal doesn't need to be angsty or angry, it needs to be emotionally blank. A deathcore band might sound equally brutal as a death metal band, but the deathcore band will sound emotional, angry, out of control. The death metal band will sound emotionally nihilistic; like Spock, if Spock were showing you what your insides liked it.

I like a lot of aggressive music that's not metal, crust punk, grindcore, hardcore, skramz (if we still gotta call it that), some metalcore etc, but metal has a different appeal. Heavy not-metal is emotionally cathartic. Metal is a blank canvas to project your own feelings against.

Indeed. I saw them live back in 1991, I believe. Playing with Judas Priest on the Painkiller-tour in Stockholm (Sweden). The show was ridiculous: "Cowboys from hell". ¿Que?

Feel free to check this out: https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3017/2738 ... 6b7c97.jpg - Phil Anselmo in his heydays.

Naw, the reason elitists dislike casual fans or because they are upset they don't have control over the definition of metal, it's really the journalists who define the genres. Metal really isn't that special, every area people claim it has some dominance in is actually out beat by someother genre, whether it be influence, aggression, complexity, controversity, or even elitism. Only reason many metal bands deviate from conventional song structures is because metal formed at the same time progressive rock was popular, which actually is partially defined by unusual song structures. Hard rock at the time had the same trait, it's other sonic traits like rhythm, melody, and harmony which differentiated the two, over all giving metal a darker, more driven sound with a more melodic texture than hard rock, which has a more harmonic texture. There have always been metal bands which made frequent use of pop song structures, even Metallica did it on Kill 'Em All. Pop metal is still metal, not hard rock, deal with it.

Hardcore is really more experimental with song structure than heavy metal is, it was started by a bunch of art students in the US. While it was simpler than metal, it was much less commercialized and had much more artistic integrity. It's only really black metal that really got to mainly unusual song structures, and they stole that from hardcore along with their production quality and deprecemcy between note tempo and harmonic tempo. Black metal is spiritually more punk than metal.

The metal influence is extremely obvious in Nirvana's first album. Grunge is more metal than it is alternative rock, it really ruined the alternative rock scene. Metal recovered from grunge, alternative rock did not.

Cold Lake might be awful, but it's still the most metal thing Celtic Frost ever did. Metal is not a synonym for good.

Darkthrone is seriously overrated. It's possible to be atmospheric and dark and also have a melody actually worth listening to, as many other black metal bands proved. You know, sometimes something is easier to digest because it's better, rusty nails are harder to digest than steak. It's also possible to be atmospheric with good production, Devin Townsend is the master of that. (btw, by polished I mean something a sound engineer would put a lot of effort into getting it precisely how they want, their audiophiles)

I would say the best metal is the most emotional metal, but that's hardly a controversial opinion. My controversial opinion though is that heavy metal has always had a somewhat feminine quality to it, especially in comparison to hard rock. It's just more romantic, in the art sense of the word rather than the popular meaning.

"Hardcore" is a broad term. Which hardcore are you referring to now?

I have been discussing Refused's album The Shape of Punk to Come every now and then and to me it feels like it's The Album that created the hideous screamo-genre and is probably the most influential Swedish album of all times (no one really ripped off ABBA). Does it make sense?

I didn't like the album when it came out (1998, Refused were awesome live back then though, one of the best bands I have ever seen live) but I like it these days. Dennis Lyxzén (vocals) kind of ruins the album, but I let it slide now.

I like what I like. I have liked songs that are uber commercial and popular and alternative music when it was actually alternative. I did not turn on Devo or Blondie as sell outs because they had hits. "Whip It" and "One Way or Another" are still great songs, that a lot of other people agree with me is irrelevent.