hello

[Natassja]

5 minutes ago, dmiller458 said:

I disagree. I think that most metal heads are narrow-minded (I include myself in that). Help me out here. Please gimme your take on Babymetal and Ghost (BC).

I'm listening to it right now. It's kickass. Kickass is enough, kickass is plenty. But I don't hear anything groundbreaking.

You know marra, to be honest, on this forum I couldn't have wished to 'meet' any nicer people. I don't say that to kiss any ass either. I speak how I find. I dunno if you're just wanting a bit of frisk or whatever..but we're a good bunch. As for Babymetal or Ghost BC well they ain't really to my taste but I certainly dig that people get something outta them. That's something I enjoy about metal, the diversity, and I certainly don't close my doors to someone just cos they dig something I don't.  So anyway I hope you enjoy it here and hope to have some cool discussions with ya!  Respect goes a long way in my eyes...

2 minutes ago, dmiller458 said:

Even though I replied to them separately the forum combined those posts. Is there a wait time between posts?

Yes or comments will be merged.

[RelentlessOblivion]

12 minutes ago, dmiller458 said:

I disagree. I think that most metal heads are narrow-minded (I include myself in that). Help me out here. Please gimme your take on Babymetal and Ghost (BC).

I'm listening to it right now. It's kickass. Kickass is enough, kickass is plenty. But I don't hear anything groundbreaking.

Narrow-minded in what regard? In the sense that we often aren't receptive to bands diluting their sound with overtly commercial elements? I would agree wholeheartedly with that. I would also suggest it is unfortunate that a band need pursue commercially viable sounds in order to attain mainstream success. There becomes a point at which a band is no longer driven by the music but rather the need to pay their bills. That's fine but I don't have to like what a band like In Flames is doing these days and if I don't enjoy their music I won't buy it simple as that.

 

I would suggest that perhaps you need to take a step back. I agree Vektor are not exactly trailblazers. What they are is forging their own path and playing something entirely different to most thrash currently being produced. These days it's all retro thrash riding on the coat-tails of what came before or the old guard reminding us what thrash was all about. Overkill are still doing it well, Destruction have some killer songs left in them, and Exodus' Tempo Of The Damned is probably the third best album they've ever made. That being the case none of these bands sound like Vektor. The spacey prog tendencies fused with thrash make them stand out amongst the crowd.

 

Now if you'll excuse me there's more unique modern metal bands crying out for my attention. This narrow-minded motherfucker is gonna spin some Ulcerate, Grave Miasma, maybe Deathspell Omega as well.

[dmiller458]

5 minutes ago, natassja7 said:

As for Babymetal or Ghost BC well they ain't really to my taste but I certainly dig that people get something outta them.

I was looking for a little something more than "I don't like 'em."

[Natassja]

1 minute ago, dmiller458 said:

I was looking for a little something more than "I don't like 'em."

I didn't say " I don't like em".

[RelentlessOblivion]

11 minutes ago, dmiller458 said:

I was looking for a little something more than "I don't like 'em."

So if we've found something doesn't fall in line with our tastes simply saying as such isn't enough? Isn't taste subjective? For example I'm not fond of Burzum, that style of black metal isn't for me, should I go into great detail about everything I don't like about every band/artist whose music isn't for me? Should we all do this?

[BlutAusNerd]

1 hour ago, dmiller458 said:

Technical thrash with a black metal shriek. That's your idea of pushing the boundaries? Kickass, yes; trailblazing, no.

Your description of Vektor this way is akin to describing Black Sabbath as "loud". It touches on something that they're doing, but totally downplays their majesty and unique excellence.

[dmiller458]

23 minutes ago, RelentlessOblivion said:

Narrow-minded in what regard? In the sense that we often aren't receptive to bands diluting their sound with overtly commercial elements? I would agree wholeheartedly with that. I would also suggest it is unfortunate that a band need pursue commercially viable sounds in order to attain mainstream success. There becomes a point at which a band is no longer driven by the music but rather the need to pay their bills. That's fine but I don't have to like what a band like In Flames is doing these days and if I don't enjoy their music I won't buy it simple as that.

When a band changes their sound that radically, sometimes a name change is in order. I might have been more receptive to their change in direction if they weren't still calling themselves In Flames.

7 minutes ago, BlutAusNerd said:

Your description of Vektor this way is akin to describing Black Sabbath as "loud". It touches on something that they're doing, but totally downplays their majesty and unique excellence.

Majesty and unique excellence? Were you able to type that with a straight face?

[RelentlessOblivion]

4 minutes ago, dmiller458 said:

When a band changes their sound that radically, sometimes a name change is in order. I might have been more receptive to their change in direction if they weren't still calling themselves In Flames.

Just one example but we can go back a long way with this. Eighties Judas Priest for example bears little resemblance to the jaw-droppingly awesome band they were in the seventies. Nor as a matter of fact to the immense heaviness of Painkiller. Defenders Of The Faith being removed from that eighties stigma because it was great. Metallica jumping the shark with the black album, Cradle Of Filth devolving into symphonic mellowdeath post Cruelty, this is a trend rife in metal. I'm going to use sporting parlance as a means of justifying why keeping the name isn't an issue though. Say the San Antonio Spurs radically change how they play the game of basketball so as to bear little or no resemblance with the side fans knew would they change the name? No because they are a brand. That group of people, in those colours, at that location is the brand San Antonio Spurs. In much the same way the band members of In Flames playing their individual instruments make up the brand In Flames. What the brand stands for changes but branding itself remains the same.

[dmiller458]

15 minutes ago, RelentlessOblivion said:

Just one example but we can go back a long way with this. Eighties Judas Priest for example bears little resemblance to the jaw-droppingly awesome band they were in the seventies. Nor as a matter of fact to the immense heaviness of Painkiller. Defenders Of The Faith being removed from that eighties stigma because it was great. Metallica jumping the shark with the black album, Cradle Of Filth devolving into symphonic mellowdeath post Cruelty, this is a trend rife in metal. I'm going to use sporting parlance as a means of justifying why keeping the name isn't an issue though. Say the San Antonio Spurs radically change how they play the game of basketball so as to bear little or no resemblance with the side fans knew would they change the name? No because they are a brand. That group of people, in those colours, at that location is the brand San Antonio Spurs. In much the same way the band members of In Flames playing their individual instruments make up the brand In Flames. What the brand stands for changes but branding itself remains the same.

Every five-ten years the Spurs will have a completely new line-up. Is a band nothing more than a corporate logo? Or is it a musical ensemble with specific members? You get enough personnel changes and they're no longer the same band despite their brand.

 

[RelentlessOblivion]

7 hours ago, dmiller458 said:

Every five-ten years the Spurs will have a completely new line-up. Is a band nothing more than a corporate logo? Or is it a musical ensemble with specific members? You get enough personnel changes and they're no longer the same band despite their brand.

 

The core remains the same though doesn't it. Should Death have rebranded themselves given Chuck was pretty much the only consistent member of the band? No because Chuck was the driving force of the band.

[BlutAusNerd]

9 hours ago, dmiller458 said:

When a band changes their sound that radically, sometimes a name change is in order. I might have been more receptive to their change in direction if they weren't still calling themselves In Flames.

Majesty and unique excellence? Were you able to type that with a straight face?

Were you able to keep a straight face when you dropped Avenged Sevenfold into a metal conversation?

[dmiller458]

12 hours ago, RelentlessOblivion said:

The core remains the same though doesn't it. Should Death have rebranded themselves given Chuck was pretty much the only consistent member of the band? No because Chuck was the driving force of the band.

Death was really a solo project with a band name. Did Schuldiner ever work with the same people for more than two albums?

[dmiller458]

11 hours ago, BlutAusNerd said:

Were you able to keep a straight face when you dropped Avenged Sevenfold into a metal conversation?

I've never referred to them or any band as having majesty and unique excellence. So yes, I was.

[RelentlessOblivion]

7 hours ago, dmiller458 said:

Death was really a solo project with a band name. Did Schuldiner ever work with the same people for more than two albums?

That was kind of my point. The best parallel with my Spurs analogy actually. One or two people driving the idea of that brand forward with changes to the broarder collective common. Ultimately yes the bands seeing widescale commercial success often have to treat themselves like a business. The brand of a business is how people recognise it and so if In Flames were to change their name it would be akin to Coca-Cola rebranding overnight. If they suddenly became say Coopers Cola with a new logo and dropped the colour scheme we all associate with their brand would you buy their brand over the still familiar pepsi?

[dmiller458]

1 hour ago, RelentlessOblivion said:

That was kind of my point. The best parallel with my Spurs analogy actually. One or two people driving the idea of that brand forward with changes to the broarder collective common. Ultimately yes the bands seeing widescale commercial success often have to treat themselves like a business. The brand of a business is how people recognise it and so if In Flames were to change their name it would be akin to Coca-Cola rebranding overnight. If they suddenly became say Coopers Cola with a new logo and dropped the colour scheme we all associate with their brand would you buy their brand over the still familiar pepsi?

Is a band nothing more than a corporate logo? IF it's just a brand, then Hamm and Christy need to reform Death. They need to put out an album and tour behind it.

 

[RelentlessOblivion]

To be fair they kind of did. Sure no album was put out but the Death tribute tours happened if you'll recall. With great success as well and I wouldn't be surprised if there were more. It is different though in the sense that Chuck drove the brand forward not anyone else. I also quite clearly stated the parallel only applied once a band started to reach higher levels of commercial and mainstream success. Metallica for example are more a brand then a band. By contrast Portal have total freedom to produce whatever they like because commercial success will not be forthcoming when you make such challenging music. Again the short answer is yes some bands are commercial entities with the name identifying their brand. That is true of In Flames and Metallica as examples. Others have different goals for their music and so don't act in the same way. For the record whilst Death made for a good example of the idea I was discussing they were certainly acting as a band not a brand. Death was music first and foremost for sure and their evolution highlights just that.

[dmiller458]

We've got these doo-wop and R&B vocal groups out touring the oldies circuit. Often the groups have none of the original members. In more and more cases, none of the original members are even alive.

Iommi, Ozzy, Geezer, and Ward will eventually all pass away. Would it then be acceptable (IYO) for some four random guys to be out touring and calling themselves Black Sabbath?

[RelentlessOblivion]

Not releasing albums no but I have no issue with something like what happened with Death. Touring playing just the original material and donating the profits to charity for example.

[dmiller458]

But I didn't say that they'd be out touring as a Black Sabbath tribute band. I said calling themselves Black Sabbath. And donating the profits to charity? How noble.

Using the sports team analogy, bands would be eventually be like these J-pop idol groups where every member is interchangeable.

[RelentlessOblivion]

Yes in some cases. As I have said repeatedly it doesn't apply to every band only those like In Flames whose primary goal is commercial success. Randoms touring as Black Sabbath? No. A former vocalist touring with four randoms once the inevitable happens to keep the name alive maybe not so much of an issue. Depends on how it's handled doesn't it? Something like the Death tour I'd actually be ok with. If it feels like needlessly cashing in on the name though different story.

[dmiller458]

4 hours ago, RelentlessOblivion said:

Yes in some cases. As I have said repeatedly it doesn't apply to every band only those like In Flames whose primary goal is commercial success. Randoms touring as Black Sabbath? No. A former vocalist touring with four randoms once the inevitable happens to keep the name alive maybe not so much of an issue. Depends on how it's handled doesn't it? Something like the Death tour I'd actually be ok with. If it feels like needlessly cashing in on the name though different story.

Are they touring as Death or are they touring as a Death tribute?

The groups I mentioned earlier sometimes had four and five different line-ups out there calling themselves the Drifters or the Platters.

[MacabreEternal]

5 hours ago, dmiller458 said:

But I didn't say that they'd be out touring as a Black Sabbath tribute band. I said calling themselves Black Sabbath. And donating the profits to charity? How noble.

 

You don't like charity as well as everything else huh?  Yeah, fucking pricks giving money to needy causes - who the fuck do they think they are?

[dmiller458]

1 hour ago, MacabreEternal said:

You don't like charity as well as everything else huh?  Yeah, fucking pricks giving money to needy causes - who the fuck do they think they are?

I believe people call that virtue signaling nowadays. If they want to give to charity, they don't have to do in front of a camera and a microphone. They can do it privately and anonymously.

[RelentlessOblivion]

4 hours ago, dmiller458 said:

I believe people call that virtue signaling nowadays. If they want to give to charity, they don't have to do in front of a camera and a microphone. They can do it privately and anonymously.

But if their fame is the only reason that money can be donated in the first place isn't it necessary people know this? The Death For All tours for instance (yep that's what Death called those tours) made it clear proceeds were going to charitable causes not the band members.

 

In answering your question from earlier they toured as Death for those shows. Also to be fair we have two bands touring as Queensryche right now so...

[dmiller458]

And isn't (wasn't) there two versions of Saxon as well?