espnmarshall

When I was growing up, there was no music I wanted to listen to other than Hard Rock and ever-increasingly heavy metal, until I started to study music theory in high school. When you study it in academia, you're basically studying Bach. It's always been my argument that Heavy Metal is the closest thing to modern classical music that there is. Even Jazz doesn't resemble Classical in the way that Metal does, despite how snobby it's patrons can be about it (our own genre has it's snobs as well). Jazz theory (at least the theory that you learn if you go to a place like five towns college or Berklee) resembles pop music more than classical music; i.e. if you were going to cover a piece of music, there are plenty of substitutions for any given thing in the arrangement, other than the melody. In contrast, when making a rendition of a classical piece, any missing or changed notes in the piece are very noticeable. That having been said, think of how obvious it is when someone goes into guitar center and plays the wrong notes when playing Ozzy or Metallica. I submit a specific example; Halestorm's cover of Straight Through The Heart by Dio. When I first heard the track, I IMMEDIATELY noticed a change in the bassline and guitar for the opening riff. It's also been found in neurological studies that people who are fans of Metal have similar neurological "wiring" to classical music aficionados. Then there are bands like apocalyptica who, despite not having any guitar players, are most certainly metal. So where do some of you draw the line? obviously this is an ongoing conversation that the metal world has with itself, but when do you all personally stop calling something metal and start calling it something else? For me, it's not a defined line by any stretch. I feel that Metal, at least at this point in history, presents itself as "very loud, technical music, regardless of instrumentation." I even find myself listening to some electronic music and saying, "... the only thing seperating this from metal is instrumentation and the audience that is accepting it."

When I was growing up, there was no music I wanted to listen to other than Hard Rock and ever-increasingly heavy metal, until I started to study music theory in high school. When you study it in academia, you're basically studying Bach. It's always been my argument that Heavy Metal is the closest thing to modern classical music that there is. Even Jazz doesn't resemble Classical in the way that Metal does, despite how snobby it's patrons can be about it (our own genre has it's snobs as well). Jazz theory (at least the theory that you learn if you go to a place like five towns college or Berklee) resembles pop music more than classical music; i.e. if you were going to cover a piece of music, there are plenty of substitutions for any given thing in the arrangement, other than the melody. In contrast, when making a rendition of a classical piece, any missing or changed notes in the piece are very noticeable. That having been said, think of how obvious it is when someone goes into guitar center and plays the wrong notes when playing Ozzy or Metallica. I submit a specific example; Halestorm's cover of Straight Through The Heart by Dio. When I first heard the track, I IMMEDIATELY noticed a change in the bassline and guitar for the opening riff. It's also been found in neurological studies that people who are fans of Metal have similar neurological "wiring" to classical music aficionados. Then there are bands like apocalyptica who, despite not having any guitar players, are most certainly metal. So where do some of you draw the line? obviously this is an ongoing conversation that the metal world has with itself, but when do you all personally stop calling something metal and start calling it something else? For me, it's not a defined line by any stretch. I feel that Metal, at least at this point in history, presents itself as "very loud, technical music, regardless of instrumentation." I even find myself listening to some electronic music and saying, "... the only thing seperating this from metal is instrumentation and the audience that is accepting it."

Just don't surprise Macabre at his gardening (or go anywhere near Australia) and you'll be fine.
This is a lot like a discussion we had a while back, I think in one of the threads about "posers". I still think it's mostly an age issue. The older you get, the more people around you will have all of that personal identity garbage figured out and not feel threatened by others who don't conform to exactly the same standards.

Yeah thats probably it. The problem was that i had the "personal identity garbage" figured out (or not at all, didnt care much really) when i was younger so i never really connected to a certain group of people, even if we had similar taste in music. Adds up that i dont just "let things slide", when i figure out some peoples limitations (them stereotyping too much, stuff like that) i just stop hanging out with them or lose interest.

Maybe its a matter of generations and the space we live in. I know here in our country there was a large "true or not true" debate in my teenage years when metal subculture was flourishing. Yeah, it later became trolling, but i still see this with younger generations. People that didnt listen to certain genres, didnt dress in a certain way and acted a certain way, were excluded. Ive been listening to metal for about 12 years now (started when i was 13), and ive had experiences with all of these people ive mentioned. And not just a couple of them. You could even see a type of "cliques" forming when you went out to an alternative place.
And as for stereotyping and prejudice goes and the embedded traditional values in people, that stands for metalheads as well as "normal" people. Plenty of them seem open minded when in fact theyre not. But i just expect more from a person that feels excluded from general society, at least i expect them not to exclude other people or other subcultures, minorities and so on, since they have experience with such things. Sadly its mostly just about finding your group and not caring about anything else.

For the record there's a thread in the forum games section called "The Rant" for when you're pissed off and need to vent.

He thinks metal is satanic and all typical bullshit Death, Megadeth, Slipknot, Metallica aren't satanic you stereotype cocksucker He also wants me to change my Slipknot cover photo, another bullshit right there. if he's scared of metal because its satanic then he should think his horror fucking movies are satanic too. Its ok if he just said that he doesn't like metal because he doesn't like the sound, but "satanic"? Fuck you, dad. its just plain disrespectful and deeply frustrating he fucking listens to pop. Bitches like rihanna, nicki minaj. Seriously, what the FUCK is his problem? he should fucking research first on how his bullshit is zero fucking percent true sure there are satanic bands like those black metal types but NO, I DONT FUCKING LISTEN TO THEM SO CALM YOUR FUCKING TITS YOU FUCKING STUPID DAD. Sorry I can't say this to him personally, because things are gonna happen. So it just sucks to have a fucking stereotype dad. FUCK YOU AND YOUR STEREOTYPENESS, DAD. (I still love him outside this stereotype job, its just... Fuck it, man)

I liked DOA4 best. Best graphics, some larger maps, combat system fully developed, and the most challenging story mode boss of any fighter. That fucking Kasumi clone with health regen and teleportation in a room where the floor and walls randomly explode and halve your health? How is that fair? Hayabusa is the only character I managed to finish story mode with.

I don't hate GTA, but I'm not a fan either. Once you go on a couple of rampages you've pretty much seen everything. The characters are unlikeable, and the stories are dull.
DOA is a good series. I think I prefer DOA 2 on the Dreamcast and Ps2 the most.

Utahraptor was discovered in 1991, you are right the raptors in Jurassic Park had more in common with Deinonychus, in the later films Velociraptor had features resembling a blend of the two. Nevermind that Velociraptor actually existed.

I thought the velociraptors were more influenced by Deinonychus? I don't think Utahraptor had been discovered when the first film was in production.

Saw Jurassic World yesterday, awesome film, but they had to kill off the second best looking female in the film didn't they? The best looking female was obviously the T-Rex, damn she fiiiine.

On a happier note classic slasher films put me in a good mood. John Carpenter's Halloween should erase any and all thoughts of Sharknado. Sadly though it does remind me that awful remakes are not limited solely to action films. It should be a crime, punishable by death, to tamper with classic films if the end result is unwatchable.

Yes, they did, drugs were likely involved.