Separate names with a comma.
Join Symphony X and discover tons of other great Metal forums, sign up today!
Discussion in 'Symphony X (Unofficial)' started by metalxmetalx, Jul 15, 2011.
When a band puts out a cover album, it shows that they are completely out of creative ideas. See just about any other metal band that did a covers album. Yes you, Dream Theater and Metallica et al.
Cover albums are for two crowds:
1) Not talented enough to write our own songs - amateurs
2) No longer creative enough to write our own songs - washed up
I thought this was the "ultimate metal" forum? Most of the bands in this thread are rock/pop.
This is my favorite band
Cool opinion. Let me go ahead and pay attention to it, hard as I can.
Or sometimes the bands pressured by the record label to put out a covers album. Or sometimes they just need to get something out there while they're working on their next real album.
I know everybody loves to flame Metallica, but they did their covers album the right way. They focused on bands that most of their fan base had probably not heard before - Misfits, Mercyful Fate, Budgie, Diamond Head, etc, and they "Metallica"ized the songs, bringing in their own style. (Keep in mind this was in the old days before the internet, so you're relying on word of mouth & magazines to find out about bands that aren't getting played on FM radio.)
For the most part, I find the cover albums to be uninspired & pointless. I would really have no desire to hear Symphony X play a note-for-note cover of "Burning for You" or "Highway to Hell" (ahem... Iced Earth)
Not interested in cover albums. Maybe a well done cover song once in a while, but that is all.
It's more 'metal' (and 'prog' especially) to be open minded than to stick to 'metal' per se.
I don't know about pop, but there's a lot of interest in prog rock, film music, and stuff like that in this part of UM. There's a lot of good non-metal music as Chuck himself would have said.
pop is not a bad thing
I don't think there is a single genre of music that can fairly be labeled as bad. But pop is definitely one of those few genres that contain the most shit. It's also barely discussed here which was my point (he said "most of the bands in this thread are rock/pop" which is not true).
It's a subgenre though.
And one that is about as silly as some of the subgenres of extreme metal, to be fair.
Diversity is what makes metal attractive.
Diversity can be dangerous.
Much less so than lack thereof.
It is a myth to say that any genre is more diverse than another genre. Apples and oranges. Oh, and pop doesn't have the most shit.
Some people put metal on a pedestial, cause somehow they think that distorted guitars make anything better or something. Same of course goes for fans of other genres. I almost got into a ridiculous argument with someone recently, cause I said I thought he was narrow-minded if he only listened to different forms of metal. He argued that he was very open-minded, cause although he indeed did only listen to metal, he listened to pretty much every sub-genre of metal in existence and many of the bands were "obscure". I find this kind of a delusion baffling.
He took even more offence when I said that metal contains just as much shit as any other genre of music. Maybe some people over here will disagree with that statement as well, but I do really believe so, because even out of the metal bands, which are highly rated by fans and critics, I find 50% to be fairly pointless. By that I don't mean that it's necessarily objectively bad, but that I see no reason to spend time listening to it (has no impact on me).
Now, some people make statements like "band X's music is good, but you just don't get it" and fair enough, but is that not then true of every single fucking band in the world that has at least a single fan. I suppose there might be factors, which you can measure to say that some piece of art has merit even without you enjoying it, but on a personal level it makes no difference from something that everyone agrees to be shit.
1) In general, metal sucks. Some is good, but not very much
2) I don't see what all this talk about each genre being as good as any other or having just as much shit as any other, or being just as diverse as each other is about. Why wouldn't some genres be better and more diverse? Don't you think it would be an astronomical coincidence if they all happened to have the same quality and diversity? What a weird belief
3) I don't think there is some good in every genre. Some are just plain bad
4) I don't see the problem with having narrow, specific tastes in music and not listening to anything outside of a specific genre
Well thanks for saying that as I didn't even wanna bother do it anymore. Sometimes it feels like some people just want to disagree for the hell of it. Some arguments I just fail to see the point of, but that is just me.
You could say that about any genre really. Everyone has different tastes, and everyone likes and dislikes different things. People should just listen to what they know they like.
though i dunno, if i want some i can always find some good jazz released in the past half year, whenever i want something new
metal, i can't, you have to follow specific acts with a good track record to get anything worthwhile, and there will be months and months at a time with nothing worthwhile