Fan of albums, not bands

[Dead1]

It's dawned to me I am no longer a fan of bands but rather a fan of albums.

Eg I used to call myself an Overkill fan.  But I only like 7 out of 20 albums!  And out of those 7, I only love 2!  Can you be a fan if you only like 35% of a band's output.

Could say the same about any band really.  It's rare where I like 50% of their output let alone 100% unless they only have 1-2 albums out.

Only band with more than 2 albums out  where I like 100% of their output is Atheist.

Even my all time faves Megadeth and Iron Maiden have albums I really don't like (eg Risk or X Factor) or which I find "meh" (much of the 21st century).  Even Carcass who other than Reeks of Putrefaction, had a damn near perfect run (even Swansong) has started coming out with rather meh albums/EPs (Surgical Remission/Surplus Steel and Torn Arteries).

I think a big issue is bands just keeping going now, releasing pointless superfluous and flaccid albums instead of just breaking up and staying broken up. 

 

[Thatguy]

This makes entire sense. Bands change for the better or the worse for any number of reasons or just change to a style you're less interested in. Also, albums cement themselves into your affections for reasons of the time, your age etc when you first heard them, and you move on even if the band doesn't. The brand name/band name is in the end just a signal that you should check this out maybe you'll like it.

An example for me would be MASTODON. Loved Blood Mountain and Crack The Sky, then came I don't know how many albums that I was indifferent to. I enjoyed Hushed And Grim, but I never listen to it.

[Dead1]

8 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

The brand name/band name is in the end just a signal that you should check this out maybe you'll like it.

 

It's interesting but I found bands from the 1970s and 1980s often managed sufficient runs of kicks arse albums to warrant calling me a fan of the band back in the 1990s when I was first hearing them.  Eg first 6 Black Sabbath or first 6 Megadeth or first 5 Metallica (even Black).

By the 1990-2000s either stagnation or changes for $ sake kicks in but one could still get 3-4 decent albums before the bullshit sets in (eg In Flames or Arch Enemy).

Now for many new bands I find I can enjoy 1-2 albums and then they run out of puff and become stagnant (eg Havok or High Command or Enforced or whatever).

 

Quote

An example for me would be MASTODON. Loved Blood Mountain and Crack The Sky, then came I don't know how many albums that I was indifferent to. I enjoyed Hushed And Grim, but I never listen to it.

Hushed and Grim was off putting even though I liked Emperor of Sand and Once More 'Round The Sun (which I listen to regularly).

It dawns to me I like Mastodon more than I get them credit for!

 

 

[AlSymerz]

OMG not a fan of all Iron Maiden albums? I wished I'd known there was bad ones before I started listening to their discog again.

[GoatmasterGeneral]

Rare when a band can put out more than 5 or 6 really good albums that you absolutely love. I can't think of more than maybe a 10 or 12 bands I feel that way about out of 3,700 bands I've scrobbled. Because when you start adding up the albums even most bands I think of as favorites of mine have only managed two or three, possibly 4 what I would consider great ones if they're lucky, many only have one or two in them if that.

But I've never been a completist, and I don't understand blind loyalty to a band for decades. I've aways been fine disregarding the bulk of most bands' output and just concentrating on the albums I am interested in. That's just the way it goes in the music world, nothing lasts forever, no matter how much I like them I fully expect all bands to start sucking after a certain point. Either that or they'll change course and I don't and so I have to let them sail away.

That's one thing I think is cool about many of the more underground extreme metal bands, most of the them don't stay together with the same lineup for long enough to go stale and start sucking because they have jobs 'n' shit. It's the bigtime bands who achieve success as professional musicians that have nothing else to do so they just keep making albums for the sake of making albums til long after the anyone has any reason to care. Except of course for their loyal die-hard fans in whose eyes they can do no wrong. But whatever, to each his own.

 

[Dead1]

19 minutes ago, GoatmasterGeneral said:

That's one thing I think is cool about many of the more underground extreme metal bands, most of the them don't stay together with the same lineup for long enough to go stale and start sucking because they have jobs 'n' shit.

 

I don't think changing lineups means music's going to change.  Truth is most bands have a band leader/tyrant or two  who is the band and everyone else is just a hired merc.

Later Megadeth, Annihilator and Iced Earth are great examples of this.  Regardless of who is playing  in their later albums, these albums are singular visions of Mr Mustaine, Mr Waters and Mr Schaffer (currently incarcerated for his activities in 6 January riot).

These tyrants have to want to allow other people to contribute for there to be meaningful change.  And more often than not, they won't let go of any control so stagnation sets in.

Underground bands tend to exhibit it even more simply cause there is no business side of it and thus no external influence (eg managers, labels, critics or even simple ambition of wanting to succeed).  I've known a few bands locally in both rock and metal and they tend to be the visions of 1-2 members and anyone else is there for the ride.  So again you get stagnation.

 

And change in style itself is not a guarantor of writing interesting music.  Eg Paradise Lost pretty much squeezed the life out of their clean vocal rock orientated goth metal approach that started with Icon and then switched back to a more doom-death approach.  Except it isn't very interesting IMO.  I haven't brought a Paradise Lost since 2012's Tragic Idol (last album with clean vocals and I can't even remember it).

 

[Nasty_Cabbage]

35 minutes ago, Dead1 said:

I don't think changing lineups means music's going to change.  Truth is most bands have a band leader/tyrant or two  who is the band and everyone else is just a hired merc.

Later Megadeth, Annihilator and Iced Earth are great examples of this.  Regardless of who is playing  in their later albums, these albums are singular visions of Mr Mustaine, Mr Waters and Mr Schaffer (currently incarcerated for his activities in 6 January riot).

These tyrants have to want to allow other people to contribute for there to be meaningful change.  And more often than not, they won't let go of any control so stagnation sets in.

Underground bands tend to exhibit it even more simply cause there is no business side of it and thus no external influence (eg managers, labels, critics or even simple ambition of wanting to succeed).  I've known a few bands locally in both rock and metal and they tend to be the visions of 1-2 members and anyone else is there for the ride.  So again you get stagnation.

 

And change in style itself is not a guarantor of writing interesting music.  Eg Paradise Lost pretty much squeezed the life out of their clean vocal rock orientated goth metal approach that started with Icon and then switched back to a more doom-death approach.  Except it isn't very interesting IMO.  I haven't brought a Paradise Lost since 2012's Tragic Idol (last album with clean vocals and I can't even remember it).

 

There are exceptions to every rule though. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a Motorhead fan who wouldn't want more Motorhead albums, even if the quality is slightly lesser. In fact now that I think about it Motorhead in particular seem resistant to the later album slump. Lemmy's an exception to a lot of rules, though.

Another example would be The Dillinger Escape Plan. Granted that the reason they retired was that they felt musically they felt they'd said all they could say. Still though they had an uncharacteristically long run of unwavering quality. Then we have to account for later revivals that usually come with a new album and a tour. It seems to rejuvenate some and not others. Did anybody happen to hear the reunion Cirith Ungol album. It's just as good as King of the Dead and, in my opinion better than Frost and Fire.

Completionism on the other hand I can understand if it's a band that has left a huge impression on you personally or was a force in forming your taste. I can completely understand the people who tenaciously hunt down every album, demo, and lost live recording that Death has out there. Whether you like them or not, they're one of those rare bands that can absolutely leave a meteor size impact on a budding metalhead.

Then there's Absu or as they're now formally called Proscriptor McGovern's Apsu. Proscriptor wasn't even an original member and kind of just inherited the band. Here I should probably note that I am an unabashed Proscriptor fanboy. There's still no question that he's the undisputed leader. He writes the drum parts of their songs before anything else which is a pretty rare way to do things. When you talk about Absu odds are though you're talking about Proscriptor before anything else.

[BLAMO]

I don't like Green Day but when I listen Dookie it brings me back to my childhood, same goes for The Offspring's Smash album. I would pay a lot of money if any of them had a tour playing those albums.

[GoatmasterGeneral]

1 hour ago, Dead1 said:

I don't think changing lineups means music's going to change.  Truth is most bands have a band leader/tyrant or two  who is the band and everyone else is just a hired merc.

Later Megadeth, Annihilator and Iced Earth are great examples of this.  Regardless of who is playing  in their later albums, these albums are singular visions of Mr Mustaine, Mr Waters and Mr Schaffer (currently incarcerated for his activities in 6 January riot).

These tyrants have to want to allow other people to contribute for there to be meaningful change.  And more often than not, they won't let go of any control so stagnation sets in.

Underground bands tend to exhibit it even more simply cause there is no business side of it and thus no external influence (eg managers, labels, critics or even simple ambition of wanting to succeed).  I've known a few bands locally in both rock and metal and they tend to be the visions of 1-2 members and anyone else is there for the ride.  So again you get stagnation.

 

And change in style itself is not a guarantor of writing interesting music.  Eg Paradise Lost pretty much squeezed the life out of their clean vocal rock orientated goth metal approach that started with Icon and then switched back to a more doom-death approach.  Except it isn't very interesting IMO.  I haven't brought a Paradise Lost since 2012's Tragic Idol (last album with clean vocals and I can't even remember it).

 

95% of the time I basically listen to two Paradise Lost albums: Shades of God and Icon. Those are the ones I'd consider "great." Occasionally I'll spin Gothic or In Requiem or The Plague Within and very very rarely Draconian Times but that's about it. Not that all their other albums are worthless, because they're not. But why not play the ones I like the best?

This is a hard convo for you and me to have because we listen to such different kinds of bands. I don't bother to learn the names of many of the musicians in most of the bands I listen to. So much of the black metal I listen to are two-piece bands with day jobs that spend limited time together. So it's not the same band dynamic as many of the more commercialy successful 4 and 5-piece bands you mostly listen to that do it for a living. I just don't listen to anything like Maiden, Megadeth, Annihilator, Pantera, or Iced Earth. I did own albums from Maiden and Megastaine back in the day, but I stopped listening to Megastaine a good 30 years ago and Maiden nearly 40 years ago..

But I stand by my statement that most bands have a very limited number of truly great (to us) albums in them, and I'm very happy when I can get three or four albums that stay in the rotation for many years out of a band. There are some bands like Darkthrone, Inquisition, Overkill, Motörhead, Horna, Azaghal, Diaboli, Archgoat, Incantation, Grave, Sabbath, Kiling Joke that have given me more than just 3 or 4, but I would never expect more than that, it's just too rare. I'm often happy to get two albums I consider to be great from a band I like. But that's ok because there will always be more bands coming down the pipeline to entertain me. 

[AlSymerz]

All bands should be like Bolt Thrower. "We've had enough. We've done our best. There is no more albums. The band is dead." That will solve any band getting stale.

 

[Dead1]

1 hour ago, AlSymerz said:

All bands should be like Bolt Thrower. "We've had enough. We've done our best. There is no more albums. The band is dead." That will solve any band getting stale.

 

This hits the nail on the head.

[CumBloodSucker]

In my mind the genre comes first. Black metal is the core of everything. There it spreads to both bands and albums. I wouldn't call myself a fan of any band or particular album even though there are many favorites in both categories. I wear a band shirt to salute them for a given time and place. I'm a black metal "fan" for certain. Bands and albums come and go, some circle around longer than the others, but black metal stays forever. And a few other genres too.

 

 

[CumBloodSucker]

2 hours ago, AlSymerz said:

All bands should be like Bolt Thrower. "We've had enough. We've done our best. There is no more albums. The band is dead." That will solve any band getting stale.

Yes and no. If there ever comes a spark to write a Bolt thrower record they should feel free to do so, but I guess when you are a career band, things work out little differently. Guys like Werwolf understand this. He doesn't put out all his work under the name Satanic warmaster. Instead there is many projects of which some though could be under Satanic warmaster. But that is the freedom of underground business.

[FatherAlabaster]

I've known a bunch of people who exhibit what looks (to me) like misplaced loyalty towards bands that are obviously (to me) past their prime. But it's not really about the specifics of the music for them, it seems to be more of an identity thing, like team sports fandom. All the band needs to do is keep the ball rolling. Never been something I understood on a gut level but whatever.

As far as bands needing to hang it up when the inspiration is gone, well, in a way I agree - I think there is a glut of treadmill-quality bullshit out there, legacy acts sound like they're phoning it in, new bands sound like tryhard poser bullshit in search of market share. Music is a "business" and everybody's making a "product". Right now I'm as jaded and negative about metal as I can ever remember being. But that's all in the eye/ear of the beholder too. I've had enough experiences of coming around to "new" albums or previously disliked bands after a few months or years that I never trust my own snap judgements anymore. I know my mood will change at some point and I'll hear energy and creativity in some of the stuff I'm currently dismissing out of hand.

If some of these older guys have lost the spark to write something new that's really vital, well, ok... it's tough to keep things fresh when you're doing it in the context of all the other music you've already come up with over decades. Especially (I would imagine) when there's pressure from your team-sports lizard brain fanbase not to change too much. Maybe it's the only job they've ever had and they're not going to start a new career digging ditches in their 50s or 60s because some kids on the Internet think they've shot their load. And maybe some of these bands love putting together new stuff and playing it in front of people even if it isn't their best work. Ultimately, who are we to tell them what to do or what name to put it out under? We're free to ignore it. 

[MacabreEternal]

Having watched this thread develop I have been thinking about my own "loyalties" and can determine that I have never truly been a fan of bands since even my early years I was always only one bad album (in my ears) away from ditching a band and moving on.  Even Iron Maiden who were probably my biggest influence growing up couldn't escape this process.  I do however still buy albums from artists cold if I consider them to have (or still be in) a golden run and the likes of Gorguts and Ulcerate fall comfortably into this category.  I have no interest in them as bands though.  I don't follow them on social media or look out for articles/interviews with them specifically so I would not class myself as fans of the band anyways still.

I am also increasingly comfortable stagnating with an artists back-catalogue and not bothering to pursue new releases is a conscious effort for me most of the time as I find keeping up with them exhausting.  I mean, I get more enjoyment out of the first four Metallica albums than I ever will out of anything new they put out so why make myself (more) miserable and irritable listening to their newer stuff in the hope they will deliver a modern day Master of Puppets?  I can still celebrate the golden eras of bands and so will just go with what I know to keep me occupied.

[AlSymerz]

At the end of the day it still comes down to personal taste and preference. Just because a bunch of people claim Band X is past their used by date, or beyond their creative ability, doesn't mean it's true.

[navybsn]

I'm a fan of very few bands that I like every single release they have (min 3 releases). Will probably miss a few, but off the top of my head Rush, the Cure, Mazzy Star, Trampled by Turtles, Bolt Thrower, Demoncy, Circle of Ouroborus, Inquisition. Lots of other bands that I like huge chunks of the discogs and there are few I'll never miss live, but it's rare that a band will not have at least one less than stellar release. So I'd have to side on the fan of albums vs. bands. Half those mentioned will never release another, so I feel pretty safe with them. The others still have a possibility to disappoint. Which leads me to the point that you can only truly assess a discogs after a band either releases 2 consecutive crap albums or have called it a day.

[GoatmasterGeneral]

2 hours ago, FatherAlabaster said:

I've known a bunch of people who exhibit what looks (to me) like misplaced loyalty towards bands that are obviously (to me) past their prime. But it's not really about the specifics of the music for them, it seems to be more of an identity thing, like team sports fandom. All the band needs to do is keep the ball rolling. Never been something I understood on a gut level but whatever.

As far as bands needing to hang it up when the inspiration is gone, well, in a way I agree - I think there is a glut of treadmill-quality bullshit out there, legacy acts sound like they're phoning it in, new bands sound like tryhard poser bullshit in search of market share. Music is a "business" and everybody's making a "product". Right now I'm as jaded and negative about metal as I can ever remember being. But that's all in the eye/ear of the beholder too. I've had enough experiences of coming around to "new" albums or previously disliked bands after a few months or years that I never trust my own snap judgements anymore. I know my mood will change at some point and I'll hear energy and creativity in some of the stuff I'm currently dismissing out of hand.

If some of these older guys have lost the spark to write something new that's really vital, well, ok... it's tough to keep things fresh when you're doing it in the context of all the other music you've already come up with over decades. Especially (I would imagine) when there's pressure from your team-sports lizard brain fanbase not to change too much. Maybe it's the only job they've ever had and they're not going to start a new career digging ditches in their 50s or 60s because some kids on the Internet think they've shot their load. And maybe some of these bands love putting together new stuff and playing it in front of people even if it isn't their best work. Ultimately, who are we to tell them what to do or what name to put it out under? We're free to ignore it. 

Are we really telling them what to do though? I don't think a bunch of middle aged men like us bitching on internet forums about some legacy bands being creatively bankrupt is anything more than a bunch of empty hyperbole. People just like to complain about shit. No one really thinks the members of these various legacy bands are gonna poke their heads in and see us complaining about them and let that cause them to self-reflect and decide to hang it up and retire. It's any band or musician's inalienable right to keep making their music and keep on touring and selling their merch which makes them lots of money, just as it's our right as fans to critique and bitch about the shit they put out.

Obviously we're all free to just ignore these bands' more recent output if we're not interested, I know that's what I do. There are thousands of bands and albums I don't particularly care for whose existence doesn't affect my life in any way. I don't actually care if any of these bands retire or keep on going til they drop onstage mid-song like Lemmy. I'm not truly wanting to ruin things for anyone who might still enjoy bands that I've turned my back on.

All this bitching we metalheads do about various bands as I see it is more about camraderie and bonding with the fellow metalheads in our little communities by commiserating over shit we have in common. That's why most of us looked on the internet for a metal forum to begin with, in hopes of finding people who have similar interests to ourselves, because most of us haven't found many if any irl. I don't go around telling random strangers I run into irl that Iron Maiden or Megastaine are past their prime and shoud hang up their guitars. It's only something I'd talk with my fellow metalheads about, because I assume they'd understand where I'm coming from.

You can't take all the bitching and hot takes and hyperbole as any more than just noise. Static. We're just flapping our gums here nothing more. I simply can't pass up a chance to bash bands like Maiden, Megastaine and Pantera. But I'm not sending hate mail to these bands or staging protests or trying to cancel shows or organize boycotts or anything. I literally couldn't care less what these bands do. 

[Dead1]

16 hours ago, GoatmasterGeneral said:

So much of the black metal I listen to are two-piece bands with day jobs that spend limited time together. So it's not the same band dynamic as many of the more commercialy successful 4 and 5-piece bands you mostly listen to that do it for a living. 

I knew plenty of people in bands like that when there was a local scene.  Some were 4-5 people but there was quite a few solo projects or "main man + mercs.").

The ones that managed more than an ep or 2, all perform the same way as the big bands.  Most got stuck on a creative rut or stagnated.  Many just weren't that good in the first place

Even Psycroptic (our big success story) haven't been able to recapture the energy they had on their first two albums.  They have become just another 3rd tier death metal band churning out albums out of habit (most of them still have full time jobs).

[Dead1]

6 hours ago, FatherAlabaster said:

 Maybe it's the only job they've ever had and they're not going to start a new career digging ditches in their 50s or 60s because some kids on the Internet think they've shot their load. 

Great post but this part especially resonates.

Glenn Benton commented it was either play in Deicide or stock shelves at the local supermarket.

Tom Araya and James Hetfield both admitted albums were being released because of contractual requirements or sense of obligation to employees.

Dave Wyndorf (Monster Magnet) said many bands viewed albums as a necessary evil to enable touring and hence didn't put much effort into it.

 

------

 

But whilst the above cabb be explained from a financial perspective,what drives Municipal Waste clone #45981 or Generic Power Metal act #98664 and Generic HM2 Death Metal Band #55634 to churn out derivative album?

 

------

And more importantly why can't many modern bands maintain a sustained run of even 2 or 3, let alone 4 good albums? 

 

Is their attention span or creativity more limited or their scope limited?

 

And back to topic, even many older bands are the same even on their heyday.  Look at the old death metal scene - how many bands had more than 2 albums worth listening to, let alone buying?

 

[AlSymerz]

Imagine how quite internet forums would be if we had the same creativity rules for them.

"Sorry user you can not continue to post here. Your creativity has waned and you haven't posted an original thought in 5 years. It's also been noticed that your posts receive half as many likes as they used to, so we have no other choice but to ask you to retire."

 

[Dead1]

5 hours ago, MacabreEternal said:

Having watched this thread develop I have been thinking about my own "loyalties" and can determine that I have never truly been a fan of bands since even my early years I was always only one bad album (in my ears) away from ditching a band and moving on.

I am also increasingly comfortable stagnating with an artists back-catalogue and not bothering to pursue new releases is a conscious effort for me most of the time as I find keeping up with them exhausting.  I mean, I get more enjoyment out of the first four Metallica albums than I ever will out of anything new they put out so why make myself (more) miserable and irritable listening to their newer stuff in the hope they will deliver a modern day Master of Puppets?  I can still celebrate the golden eras of bands and so will just go with what I know to keep me occupied.

I totally agree with your post.  

I am actually contemplatng ditching "compulsory buys" for my last 3 hold outs: Iron Maiden, Carcass and Megadeth.

It feels wierd and uncomfortable to lose that loyalty.

52 minutes ago, GoatmasterGeneral said:

I simply can't pass up a chance to bash bands like Maiden, Megastaine and Pantera. 

Blows me out you harbour such hate towards these older bands that contributed a lot to metal in the past so much yet somehow have no words for likes of Trivium, Slipknot, Korn, Limp Bizkit, Papa Roach, Spineshank, Parkway Drive, Five Finger Death Punch and a whole raft of commercial posers that get lumped into our scene.

[AlSymerz]

13 minutes ago, Dead1 said:

Blows me out you harbour such hate towards these older bands that contributed a lot to metal in the past so much yet somehow have no words for likes of Trivium, Slipknot, Korn, Limp Bizkit, Papa Roach, Spineshank, Parkway Drive, Five Finger Death Punch and a whole raft of commercial posers that get lumped into our scene.

 

Oh I think he has a few words for the likes of Trivium, Slipknot and Korn. In fact I'm pretty sure I've seen him use those words more than a few times!

 

[GoatmasterGeneral]

35 minutes ago, Dead1 said:

I knew plenty of people in bands like that when there was a local scene.  Some were 4-5 people but there was quite a few solo projects or "main man + mercs.").

The ones that managed more than an ep or 2, all perform the same way as the big bands.  Most got stuck on a creative rut or stagnated.  Many just weren't that good in the first place

Even Psycroptic (our big success story) haven't been able to recapture the energy they had on their first two albums.  They have become just another 3rd tier death metal band churning out albums out of habit (most of them still have full time jobs).

But that's what I've been saying. All bands big and small will lose whatever it was that made them so great after awhile. It's very rare to see a band release stuff 30 or 40 years down the road that's nearly as good as their early stuff.

My point was that the more obscure extreme metal bands who have regular jobs because they aren't making much if any money from this music thing, are much less likely to stay together to keep churning out uninspired mediocre albums for 40 years just because they feel obligated to. Because they haven't created some brand name corporation they're now enslaved to and they're not raking in tons of dough like the big name bands. Which understandably makes it a lot harder for the big name musos to walk away from the whole thing. Offer a band a quarter million to play a big festival show or a million or more for a limited tour or many millions for an extended tour and it's gotta be hard to say no to that kind of money. Underground bands maybe get $2k for a little club show that needs to be split between the band and crew and management and also pay for merch and touring expenses. Much easier to walk away from that life. Especially when you get to a certain age and you just get tired of living in a van or a bus with a bunch of other smelly dudes. 

The smaller bands have less pressure on them so they can just release stuff at their leisure if and when they feel like it, or not if they don't. If you're one of the 'mercs' it's easy to float around and play with different bands which keeps things fresher than just being in one band all that time playing the same god damned songs at every show for 40 years. At some point when the little no name bands have had enough they can just fade away and you'll never hear from them again. The bigger bands have more pressure to keep going into their 50's and 60's and beyond as you've pointed out for a variety of reasons mainly because they feel like someone's counting on them and they don't want to let them down. From the fans to the record companies to their employees and even their fellow band members.

How many big name bands have you heard about who have members that basically hate each other, but they keep going anyway because they wouldn't want to lose that revenue. The band has become too big to fail. How many Priests and Maidens and Anthraxes have we seen the original lineup split up for awhile and then end up back together for the money. The brand name becomes bigger and more important than any individual member. Underground two-piece bands don't have to do that, it's much easier for them to go their separate ways and do something else if they want. A lot of the little black metal bands many metalheads have never heard of are really just one guy or 2 or 3 guys who are often in multiple bands/projects at the same time, which must help keep it all from getting too stale to them. Especially some of these black metal drummers (mercs) if they're good they can be in like 2 to 4 or even 6 or 8 bands at a time.

Just saying the underground metal band musician's life is a lot different from the rockstar legacy band musician's life. 

[GoatmasterGeneral]

1 hour ago, Dead1 said:

Blows me out you harbour such hate towards these older bands that contributed a lot to metal in the past so much yet somehow have no words for likes of Trivium, Slipknot, Korn, Limp Bizkit, Papa Roach, Spineshank, Parkway Drive, Five Finger Death Punch and a whole raft of commercial posers that get lumped into our scene.

I don't choose to concern myself with bands like that who aren't metal and who are not and have never even been on my radar. Who lumps them into my scene? I haven't even heard half of those bands' music or not more than maybe a minute of any of their shit, because I'm old and these bands weren't around yet when I was a young hesher. Three of those bands I've never heard any music from at all and I literally have no idea who they are. I've made plenty of snide comments about Balloon-knot, Limp Bizkunt and Korn though, but what would be the point in continually making posts punching down at some pathetic defenseless commercial rock bands being marketed to 11 year olds? It'd be like trashing Taylor Swift or Bieber. Sure they suck, but who fucking cares? I feel these commercial bands' abject patheticness speaks for itself, it should go without saying how I feel about mainstream bands like those. Those type of bands represent probably the last sub-genre of music I would ever want to listen to.

That said, I'm an iconoclast. I have a deep seated insatiable need to tear down the icons and institutions that I feel are unjustly pedestalized, worshipped and deified. E.g.  Christianity, and your Maidens, Panteras and Megastaines. (and many many more!) It should not come as a big surprise that you and I would have very different ideas about which bands have contributed the most to metal over the years. Those 3 while being favorites of yours, are not favorites of mine. I don't feel like I owe them anything. If I were to make a list of the 50 most important and influential metal bands of the last 50 years they would not be on it. I do have some dinosaur legacy bands whom I do love and revere, but definitely not those three.