Jump to content
Sign in to stalk this  
LiakosVikernes666

Anti Nu-Metal

Recommended Posts

Re: Anti Nu-Metal

I like tool and rage against the machine' date=' both of which often get lumped into this category.[/quote'] Tool getting lumped with nu-metal is largely a symptom of their idiotic fan base. Rage Against the Machine are similar, but are more of A groovy rap rock band, not really the same as Korn. Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like some Nu-metal bands. The only ones I really listen to... Dope, Disturbed, Mudvayne, Machine Head, Otep, Chimaira, and Slipknot. Dope is more hard rock most of the time, but can go decently metal in some songs with their naturally C-tuned guitars. Machine Head is the most metal out of all these bands, with Chimaira being a little behind them. Most Nu-metal is bullshit, but some of it sounds good. In my ears, at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like some Nu-metal bands. The only ones I really listen to... Dope, Disturbed, Mudvayne, Machine Head, Otep, Chimaira, and Slipknot. Dope is more hard rock most of the time, but can go decently metal in some songs with their naturally C-tuned guitars. Machine Head is the most metal out of all these bands, with Chimaira being a little behind them. Most Nu-metal is bullshit, but some of it sounds good. In my ears, at least.
Machine Head are not nu-metal - Disturbed I can agree with but MH no way. "Burn My Eyes" was way before nu-metal and is probably one of the most influential albums in my education growing up listening to metal. This was Pantera minus the groove and Metallica minus the polish. Rob Flynn gets a kicking (rightly sometimes) but Machine Head are a solid heavy metal band. "Locust" is seriously underrated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Machine Head are not nu-metal - Disturbed I can agree with but MH no way. "Burn My Eyes" was way before nu-metal and is probably one of the most influential albums in my education growing up listening to metal. This was Pantera minus the groove and Metallica minus the polish. Rob Flynn gets a kicking (rightly sometimes) but Machine Head are a solid heavy metal band. "Locust" is seriously underrated.
While I do disagree, the consensus is indeed that Machine Head are a groove metal band. While I could see Burn My Eyes being categorized thusly, there's no way to say that their mid-period albums aren't nu-metal. Here's a good example of something that sounds very Slipknot/Korn inspired on that album: WZEGenYq9hQ Their newer albums don't sound a ton like nu-metal though, more like metalcore to my ears. I don't like this band at all though, Robb should have stuck with thrash, I'm not sure why so many thrash metal musicians evolved from that (Vio-Lence in his case) to this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't stand nu metal. Personally I think it is retarded to combine something awesome like metal with something horrible like rap. It's ok if people listen to it but I do not call it metal nor will I ever acknowledge that it is metal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't listen to huge amounts of Nu Metal. Nowadays the only genuinely Nu Metal bands I really listen to off the top of my head are Korn, Slipknot, Dry Kill Logic, (hed) p.e. and Ill Nino. I adore Deftones as well, but don't really consider them Nu Metal (save for Adrenaline). I listen to Metal and Rap so, if it's done well, Nu Metal can be pretty enjoyable for me. I like heavy, aggressive music in general, and so whilst I do like Death Metal, Black Metal etc., sometimes I want something that will deliver more direct and simple aggressive grooves. Bands that don't make me think much or require that I absorb and study the music; just music I can bob my head to after a few beers. I'll second the comment that Rage Against The Machine, whilst including elements of Funk and Hip Hop, aren't really part of Nu Metal as it is known today. They, along with Faith No More, simply laid the foundations for the genre. As for whether Nu Metal should be classified as a Metal genre, I think my general answer would be "yes", but it does depend on the band. Papa Roach and Linkin Park have both adhered to the Nu Metal conventions, but are so commercial and watered-down that the "Metal" part of the sound is scarcely there. Korn have released music I would consider Metal in the past, but their forays into Industrial, Funk, Hip Hop and latterly Dubstep mean that I don't call them a Metal band; just a band that has played Metal. In other words, I believe that a Nu Metal band can be considered Metal, provided that Metal plays the biggest role in the music. Slipknot, Otep and bands liked that come to mind. Whereas, bands that don't place emphasis on heaviness or other "Metal traits" like Linkin Park are not, and never have been, Metal in any way, shape or form. Hope this makes sense. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hang on a minute so linkin park are commercial and watered down but korn aren't? hmm. I can't stand nu-metal to be perfectly frank I don't consider it a sub-genre of metal and never will. I've yet to encounter any band in this style which I could stomach and only one musician in any nu-metal band I've heard that I would consider talented (Slipknot's drummer who I sincerely hope graduates to a worthwhile project ASAP).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hang on a minute so linkin park are commercial and watered down but korn aren't?
Yeah, I raised my eyebrows at that too. I had the displeasure of listening to part of their newest single, and there's nothing even remotely metal about it. Even by Korn's "standards", their new single is horrendous. I can't imagine anyone who liked their older stuff would like their newer stuff, which legitimately sounds like an alternative rock band, but granted i'm not super familiar with their music because it's fuckin awful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Anti Nu-Metal

hang on a minute so linkin park are commercial and watered down but korn aren't? hmm. I can't stand nu-metal to be perfectly frank I don't consider it a sub-genre of metal and never will. I've yet to encounter any band in this style which I could stomach and only one musician in any nu-metal band I've heard that I would consider talented (Slipknot's drummer who I sincerely hope graduates to a worthwhile project ASAP).
You can hear Joey's drumming skills accompany music that doesn't gargle balls on Ministry's Rio Grande Blood. It's their fastest and thrashiest album, and I was impressed with his style on the album. Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys. If you read my post again you'll see I don't consider Korn a Metal band as there are other more prominent aspects to their sound, but they have made music I do consider Metal in the past: mainly their older stuff (e.g. their first album). I also think people are falling into the trap of thinking that, if a band is relatively commercial, they can't be Metal. But more accessible Metal does exist. Sabbath, Maiden, Priest and Metallica are more commercial than Behemoth or Anal Cunt. That doesn't mean these bands aren't Metal; it just means they're on the less extreme end of the genre and non-Metalheads are more likely to enjoy at least some of their songs. My favourite thing about Metal is its diversity. Just because Bring Me The Horizon doesn't sound like Decapitated, doesn't mean they're less of a Metal band from a musical standpoint. To be honest, I think this true vs non-true debate has more to do with culture than music. If any of you follow publications like Metal Hammer, you will probably have also noticed that the backlash they receive on their Facebook page whenever they post about bands like BMTH often has much more to do with the clothes and haircuts (I know, they look daft to me, too) than the music, and I think therein lies the problem. People who, like myself, are more fully immersed into the proper Metal culture don't feel much in common with this new scene of bands who might play a sort of Metal, but the culture that goes with it is more an offshoot of Emo and Hardcore. If you go to a Bring Me show and then a Death, Black or traditional Metal show, you'll see huge differences in those who attend. It's perfectly fine to like, say, Decapitated but not BMTH or vice-versa, or to enjoy both bands in different ways. It's ultimately all about heavy, aggressive and loud music, isn't it? That's why we're all here. Also, we gotta start somewhere and I know many Metal fans from my generation use bands like Korn or Slipknot as an entry point. Some don't venture beyond that and might lose interest; others wouldn't be Metalheads today without those bands. I absolutely despise BFMV, but if that leads to a kid discovering good music, that's a great thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Anti Nu-Metal I can appreciate the gateway argument, even if I don't like many of the so called "gateway bands". I'm also fine with people listening to what they want to, but having a few metal elements won't qualify bands like Bring Me the Horizon as metal to me. That doesn't mean people shouldn't listen to them, I don't care about that, I just believe in calling something what it is. There's nothing wrong with somebody calling a steak watermelon, it doesn't change the steak, but if I order a steak and receive a watermelon, I would probably get annoyed. Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not a "true" vs "non-true" debate at all. The disticntion here is between bands whose main influence is metal and bands whose main influence is not. If the over-riding sound of a band is metal then said band is a metal band. An example would be Orphaned Land whose main sound is metal but they incorporate a great deal of traditional middle eastern scales and instruments into their music. If the over-riding sound of a band is not metal then they are not a metal band period. An example of this would be Avenged Sevenfold whose main sound is pop with very limited hard rock and metal stylings incorporated for mass appeal among the supposedly disenfrachised teens (they aren't disenfrachised in truth but rather trend hoppers). Most if not all nu-metal falls into the later category as do deathcore and metalcore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Avenged might be a commercial Hard Rock band, rather than a Metal band, but to call them "Pop" is stretching the definition of Pop just a tad. And, I certainly don't buy the argument that Deathcore falls into the category of "pop with very limited hard rock and metal stylings" either. If you can identify ANY elements of Hard Rock or Pop in Suicide Silence's music, one of us must have serious hearing problems... -_- Also, Metalcore can refer to anything from Bullet For My Valentine, to Biohazard, to Converge, to Chimaira, so you need to be more specific. I'm assuming you're mainly talking about Modern Melodic Metalcore, yes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Anti Nu-Metal

Avenged might be a commercial Hard Rock band' date=' rather than a Metal band, but to call them "Pop" is stretching the definition of Pop just a tad. And, I certainly don't buy the argument that Deathcore falls into the category of "pop with very limited hard rock and metal stylings" either. If you can identify ANY elements of Hard Rock or Pop in Suicide Silence's music, one of us must have serious hearing problems... -_- Also, Metalcore can refer to anything from Bullet For My Valentine, to Biohazard, to Converge, to Chimaira, so you need to be more specific. I'm assuming you're mainly talking about Modern Melodic Metalcore, yes?
The point being that pop music not only tends to negates the purpose of whatever other sounds it is mixed with, it also has to dumb down any of those elements to integrate them with pop music. Even if a band like Suicide Silence could be looked at from an outsider's perspective as not sounding all that poppy and sounding like "death metal", those death metal elements are so far degraded to the lowest common denominator, that even were they not accompanied by the pop music, it wouldn't pass as death metal. In the case of Suicide Silence, it is really just a cheap "death metal" aesthetic of speed and guitar tone, the song structures and riffs are all still pop/metalcore riffs, in addition to the lyrics and vocals (another aesthetic ruse). I could cover a Backstreet Boys song with death growls, chugging riffs, and change the key and note progressions to something more dissonant or atonal, but it would be no less a pop song despite the presentation. Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I could cover a Backstreet Boys song with death growls, chugging riffs, and change the key and note progressions to something more dissonant or atonal, but it would be no less a pop song despite the presentation." So, if you took a Pop song and performed a Metal cover of it, your version would still be Pop, just because you've kept the original structure? Surely, then: if a Hip Hop group decided to rap the lyrics to a Slayer song and took all the guitars and drums out and implemented a Hip Hop beat instead, would this version still be considered Metal? I'm not arguing that Suicide Silence are proper Death Metal; merely that they do in fact play a fusion subgenre of Metal, known as Deathcore. Metal is not solely defined by the structure but the sound is key as well. Going by my example, the whole point of covering a particular song with a different genre of music is just that: to see how a certain song structure lends itself to different genres.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Anti Nu-Metal

"I could cover a Backstreet Boys song with death growls, chugging riffs, and change the key and note progressions to something more dissonant or atonal, but it would be no less a pop song despite the presentation." So, if you took a Pop song and performed a Metal cover of it, your version would still be Pop, just because you've kept the original structure? Surely, then: if a Hip Hop group decided to rap the lyrics to a Slayer song and took all the guitars and drums out and implemented a Hip Hop beat instead, would this version still be considered Metal? I'm not arguing that Suicide Silence are proper Death Metal; merely that they do in fact play a fusion subgenre of Metal, known as Deathcore. Metal is not solely defined by the structure but the sound is key as well. Going by my example, the whole point of covering a particular song with a different genre of music is just that: to see how a certain song structure lends itself to different genres.
It depends on what they did with it. My point is that death metal (or metal in general) is not defined by the techniques it uses, it has everything to do with the feeling and songwriting. Death metal is frequently expressed through palm muted riffs, minor or atonal note progressions, and low growled vocals. Death metal does not exist within these characteristics, as all of those elements can be found within other genres and there are death metal bands that don't use these hallmarks, those are just common ways to communicate that death metal feeling. Deathcore may possess some of these superficial traits, but the point is that death metal is not what they are communicating with them. This was the point of my Backstreet Boys example, as I can't imagine any degree of changing one of their songs without playing another song altogether that would make it not be a pop song. Popular music is written with the point of being banal and catchy to appeal to the lowest common denominator, and changing that base tone to match what death metal is all about probably can't be done. As far as your Slayer example goes, hip-hop may not be the best example, as hip-hop has always borrowed from and sampled other genres while remaining hip-hop. However, a good similar example would be Tori Amos' Slayer cover, which was changed drastically enough that it isn't a metal song. I've heard songs from other genres covered to become metal songs, but typically they possess a similar feeling at their core, helping to cross the genre boundaries, whereas feelings found in pop music seldom have anything in common with those found in metal. Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the futher discussion. If a backstreet boys song were covered by a metal band it would be pop UNLESS the song structures were sufficiently changed to alter the song. A good example of changing song structures to alter the feel of a song would be Fields Of The Nephilim's cover of In The Year 2525. The original song was in essence a folk song but through altering the structure and feel of the song that cover becomes a goth-rock/metal song.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst I'm loath to use such a God-awful expression, we may just have to "agree to disagree" on this. For me, Metal is dictated by sound rather than feeling: if a Metal song doesn't give the right feeling I want from the genre, I'd rather just say "this may be Metal, but it doesn't deliver for me and there's other Metal out there I prefer". This is the attitude I take to some older bands like Iron Maiden and most Power Metal. This is the online dictionary definition of Metal music: "heavy metal music - loud and harsh sounding rock music with a strong beat; lyrics usually involve violent or fantastic imagery" This is a vague definition, but ultimately it's saying Metal is Rock, but heavier due to being "harsh and loud-sounding". Hence, anything that comes into this category, for me, can be described as Metal. But, yeah, regardless of all that, I still like Metalcore, Deathcore and Nu Metal, just as I like Death, Groove, Thrash, Black, Sludge etc. You don't and that's cool. All that really matters is that we all listento what we like. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Anti Nu-Metal

Whilst I'm loath to use such a God-awful expression, we may just have to "agree to disagree" on this. For me, Metal is dictated by sound rather than feeling: if a Metal song doesn't give the right feeling I want from the genre, I'd rather just say "this may be Metal, but it doesn't deliver for me and there's other Metal out there I prefer". This is the attitude I take to some older bands like Iron Maiden and most Power Metal. This is the online dictionary definition of Metal music: "heavy metal music - loud and harsh sounding rock music with a strong beat; lyrics usually involve violent or fantastic imagery" This is a vague definition, but ultimately it's saying Metal is Rock, but heavier due to being "harsh and loud-sounding". Hence, anything that comes into this category, for me, can be described as Metal. But, yeah, regardless of all that, I still like Metalcore, Deathcore and Nu Metal, just as I like Death, Groove, Thrash, Black, Sludge etc. You don't and that's cool. All that really matters is that we all listento what we like. :)
I'm not stating that metal is not a sound, but that sound does not exist without that root feeling. My point was that many sounds can be superficially imposed onto other things, and that those sounds are not what makes metal metal. Things like blast beats and tremolo picking are not exclusive to metal, they are just techniques frequently used by extreme metal bands to deliver their sound. If these things are being used to deliver a pop sound (or free jazz or surf rock respectively, for the examples used earlier), they are not metal, regardless of how frequently they may appear in metal. Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have yet to make up my mind about ''nu-metal'' as it is called. I tend to get annoyed in discussions questioning what types of metal bands are or are not. But most bands I've heard that others call ''nu-metal'' tend to sound really shitty so I've just chosen not to listen to bands that get that description. But with that said its pretty damn annoying that people who aren't into metal ask if i listen to Avenge Sevenfold for example when they hear that i like aggressive metal in many forms. I cant put my finger on what exactly it is that bothers me with it tho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to stalk this  

  • Join Metal Forum

    joinus-home.jpg

  • Our picks

    • Whichever tier of thrash metal you consigned Sacred Reich back in the 80's/90's they still had their moments.  "Ignorance" & "Surf Nicaragura" did a great job of establishing the band, whereas "The American Way" just got a little to comfortable and accessible (the title track grates nowadays) for my ears.  A couple more records better left forgotten about and then nothing for twenty three years.  2019 alone has now seen three releases from Phil Rind and co.  A live EP, a split EP with Iron Reagan and now a full length.

      Notable addition to the ranks for the current throng of releases is former Machine Head sticksman, Dave McClean.  Love or hate Machine Head, McClean is a more than capable drummer and his presence here is felt from the off with the opening and title track kicking things off with some real gusto.  'Divide & Conquer' and 'Salvation' muddle along nicely, never quite reaching any quality that would make my balls tingle but comfortable enough.  The looming build to 'Manifest Reality' delivers a real punch when the song starts proper.  Frenzied riffs and drums with shots of lead work to hold the interest.


      There's a problem already though (I know, I am such a fucking mood hoover).  I don't like Phil's vocals.  I never had if I am being honest.  The aggression to them seems a little forced even when they are at their best on tracks like 'Manifest Reality'.  When he tries to sing it just feels weak though ('Salvation') and tracks lose real punch.  Give him a riffy number such as 'Killing Machine' and he is fine with the Reich engine (probably a poor choice of phrase) up in sixth gear.  For every thrashy riff there's a fair share of rock edged, local bar act rhythm aplenty too.

      Let's not poo-poo proceedings though, because overall I actually enjoy "Awakening".  It is stacked full of catchy riffs that are sticky on the old ears.  Whilst not as raw as perhaps the - brilliant - artwork suggests with its black and white, tattoo flash sheet style design it is enjoyable enough.  Yes, 'Death Valley' & 'Something to Believe' have no place here, saved only by Arnett and Radziwill's lead work but 'Revolution' is a fucking 80's thrash heyday throwback to the extent that if you turn the TV on during it you might catch a new episode of Cheers!

      3/5
      • Reputation Points

      • 3 replies
    • I
      • Reputation Points

      • 1 reply
    • https://www.metalforum.com/blogs/entry/52-vltimas-something-wicked-marches-in/
      • Reputation Points

      • 3 replies
    • https://www.metalforum.com/blogs/entry/50-queensryche-the-verdict/
      • Reputation Points

      • 0 replies

    • https://www.metalforum.com/blogs/entry/48-candlemass-the-door-to-doom/
      • Reputation Points

      • 1 reply
×