I'd like to hear people's thought whether the older band (let's say bands before the 2000 area) are damaging the awareness of newer bands.
This is more a general thought but to emphesize my point let's look at Metalstorm. Of the top 100 bands people will see (based of fanbase of course) we have only 6 bands that was actually formed after the year of 2000. Now if you look at it that way, it's actually quite depressing that the chance that a band get recongnition by a market that's first introduced to the Metal genre, only 6% of these people will even be able to mention a band that's less than 13 years old.

Now I have myself been a "fan" of many of the old school metal bands for a long time but for me, it's only logical that once you've heard a band too much you eventually will get a bit bored of them and find something new... And even if you always will treasure albums of these bands (due to nostalgia and getting alot of appreciation to said band) it's still very likely that you will find some new bands that you'll listen to much more. This is of course my own thoughts on the matter, and feel free to mention if you still listen daily to the bands that you initially became a fan to, but in my own personal opinion I find this to be damaging both for the Metal genre as a whole (it damage creativity and variation with less bands on the market) as well as for newer bands as they have a hell of a time even getting known, as people (not necessary you) will then lack the knowledge of newer bands.

So why is this then a big deal? Well for one, it supports a very unlogical mindset, especially when it comes to the really classical Metal bands. Now this is a broad speculation that might not be true, because I don't have any consistent proof but I have a strong feeling (based on my own character and people I know)... That people being fan by let say, Iron Maiden, Metallica or Megadeth generally only fancy one, two or maybe three albums by them... The big ones that is, those that people went like "Damn, this is a kickass band". If we then look at the overall critique of every album, they've in a broad term only released maybe one great album since 1993 or so forward, which is again 20 years ago by today (this is a subjective matter of course). So in other words these bands (great as the might be) are still the most popular bands in the Metal genre. Those bands are what other bands want to be, those bands are what people who first get introduced to metal will watch out for and buy... But they will probably only buy the old ones, the good ones, those who were fucking brilliant. Now if this was a new band, it would never work for them to release maybe one really great album and then in the forthcoming of years only release mediocre albums, in fact they would most likely flunk (or what have been happening in some regards to older bands, only play songs from the good album). This by itself is a very unlogical mindset people have, due to nostalgia they will defend the old band although they might not listen to any new material what so ever which atleast based on my own experience are material they've probably even got bored to listen to due to the numerous times they've heard these albums.

The second reason, which I find more troublesome is the fact that with everything previously written, what might essentially happen in about 5, 10 or maybe 20 years is that the Metal genre will be gravely damaged because then when all the older bands have stopped, we will run into an area where newcomers to metal will have very few bands to listen to and those who might still be active in that time might essentially have reached the same outcome as many of the older bands today, resulting in only one great album now and then... And the thing I fear is that before we reach this time area many of today's newcomers might never reach the oppertunity they so rightfully deserve and will be disbanded (after all you would love to make a living with your music if you're an artist, which might not be the case if they aren't given the chance to begin with) we will essentially only be stuck with bands that happened to be made while Metal still was big.

Metal is still in great shape, and thanks to the Internet, getting acces to information has never been so easy. Combine that with the great technology we now have and you can get a home DIY studio pretty cheap. So I wouldn't be scared by the old bands choking the new ones. It's basically the opposite that we're seeing. More and more, new bands learn to adapt to the new industry and get more recognition from medias. Using the most popular bands of an e-zine forum as a base of your theory is ill advised since that data has many flaws.

Pure Bullpies. In the 80's perhaps it would've seemed so, but nowadays it's exactly what Fogg said. It's a natural order of things. No one band or genre can stay in the spotlight forever.

Wow.. that post was wayyy too long! Too much rambling for me to understand what you're saying.

You are right though about there's barely any of the bands in the top 100 that formed after 2000.

Written by Zombie94 on 14.01.2013 at 21:00

You are right though about there's barely any of the bands in the top 100 that formed after 2000.

But that fact doesn't mean anything.

Written by Edmund Fogg on 14.01.2013 at 21:10


But that fact doesn't mean anything.

To me it means that bands don't just blow up immediately, but need a few years before they reach the height of their popularity. Opeth foromed in '90, Amon Amarth in '88, COB in '93, Behemoth in '91. These are some of the biggest metal bands of the 00s (excluding bands like Slipknot, SOAD, Disturbed etc. which all probably formed in the 90s too).

Interesting thoughts and observation! It's always fun to speculate. I personally wouldn't worry about this all that much though.

Written by Zombie94 on 14.01.2013 at 21:20

To me it means that bands don't just blow up immediately, but need a few years before they reach the height of their popularity. Opeth foromed in '90, Amon Amarth in '88, COB in '93, Behemoth in '91. These are some of the biggest metal bands of the 00s (excluding bands like Slipknot, SOAD, Disturbed etc. which all probably formed in the 90s too).

Well, I think you're wrong with that. trends exists everywhere and bands will be put on the podium whether they deserve it or not. If you take away all the fake accounts, the lazy accounts that just add bands to their favourites without actually taking away bands they just don't listen too anymore, accounts that thinks it's cool to like band a...etc. Then I'm positive we'd have a very different list that would follow approximately the best selling chart. That is why I don't add bands to my favorites, I know I'm too lazy to update it, so it would become quickly irrelevant. That's why I don't think you can get any tangible info on that kind of list.

Written by Edmund Fogg on 15.01.2013 at 04:11


Well, I think you're wrong with that. trends exists everywhere and bands will be put on the podium whether they deserve it or not. If you take away all the fake accounts, the lazy accounts that just add bands to their favourites without actually taking away bands they just don't listen too anymore, accounts that thinks it's cool to like band a...etc. Then I'm positive we'd have a very different list that would follow approximately the best selling chart. That is why I don't add bands to my favorites, I know I'm too lazy to update it, so it would become quickly irrelevant. That's why I don't think you can get any tangible info on that kind of list.

Hmmm I don't think there are THAT many fake accounts. Maybe I'm wrong.

Well users on MS don't tend to like nu-metal and 'core' bands as much as other metal fans do. If the top 100 was an accurate reflection of the most popular bands worldwide, you'd still have the old favourites of Maiden, Metallica, Slayer etc. But there'd be a lot more of SOAD, Slipnot, BMTH and bands in that vein.

I don't believe they are:):):)

You will get many different answers because it is all how you approach it. Maybe the newer bands are just not as good? For me personally I can listen to 20 different bands that are considered newer and to be honest I CANNOT tell one from the other about 97% of the time because everything has become soooo generic and monotonous. Blast beat,double bass drumming at 110mph through 9-12 songs on an album with vocals that sound.....er.......oh yeah just like the 20 other bands I can't tell apart.

On the other side though I can hear 2 seconds of Angel of Death and know it right away. Just my personal thoughts on it though. I am not saying newer bands suck in any way but there is only so much you can stomach when every song on an album sounds like the previous ones. I do think now things are coming full circle like they always do(60's were revived in 80's,70's in 90's etc etc) and thrash is again influencing people that didn't grow up with it and they LOVE it! So to ponder on your question my final thought would be: NO! In fact just opposite. Newer bands being so generic, pushed people back into listening to the older stuff again. If a band cannot establish a fanbase locally then chances are they won't anywhere else either. Not older bands fault that people don't like them. Its their fault.

This is Raven King, isn't it?

Written by M C Vice on 15.01.2013 at 13:09

This is Raven King, isn't it?

no, because RavenKing would spit on old bands and keep on going on about how extreme his taste is

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 15.01.2013 at 13:44
no, because RavenKing would spit on old bands and keep on going on about how extreme his taste is

he would also say it in a completely humorless fashion. Dead serious stuff I tell ya.

Written by M C Vice on 15.01.2013 at 13:09

This is Raven King, isn't it?

Who?

I actually dont care about whereas the bands are new or old-if i like their material i'll listen to them...Quite honestly a lot of new bands do a lot of coping of the older ones (ok not literally,but more like recycling of old ideas and such ) and a lot of new bands really sound either trying too much to sound like their influences or to radically change the sound of particular genre and at the end end up diminished by metal community.Do they all deserve 100% of our attention?

Before I read article I thought '' if there wont be pioners there wont be new bands'' than I read article and well ... media and magazines likes to write about old bands , media help old be still alive and I have no clu but old works for me, more how new bands, seems new bands wanna get glory in 1th place but there is long way in you wanna top of rock n roll, and even nowdays media destroys also whit elegal download,s I doubt meny bands still would be in TOP, in TOP means you live life metal life not just play meral, you need sacrifie all and main think sacrifive wife and children

I can agree with a lot of the posts above, in particular those by Timelord, Angel Reaper and the Original Post[er]. But - this:

Written by Patrick. on 15.01.2013 at 03:33
Interesting thoughts and observation! It's always fun to speculate. I personally wouldn't worry about this all that much though.

QFT. Nothing lasts forever, and unless you're doing some degree on metal's evolution (really? well, even then. why do people do this..?), worrying/being fearful about such an - inevitable, perhaps - end or devolution is absolutely pointless. You can't really change the way that hundreds or thousands of bands around the world are perceived, followed or [dis]respected. There are so many more positive/creative things on which one can spend one's time and [kilo]bytes.

Cill: may I introduce you to RavenKing; you can check his recent posts, but it'd likely be a similar waste of time and bandwidth. Elsewhere you might eventually see that he happens to express a negative view of 99% of modern, and older, metal... yes, even more than myself /

Written by Syk on 16.01.2013 at 02:17

I can agree with a lot of the posts above, in particular those by Timelord, Angel Reaper and the Original Post[er]. But - this:

Written by Patrick. on 15.01.2013 at 03:33
Interesting thoughts and observation! It's always fun to speculate. I personally wouldn't worry about this all that much though.

QFT. Nothing lasts forever, and unless you're doing some degree on metal's evolution (really? well, even then. why do people do this..?), worrying/being fearful about such an - inevitable, perhaps - end or devolution is absolutely pointless. You can't really change the way that hundreds or thousands of bands around the world are perceived, followed or [dis]respected. There are so many more positive/creative things on which one can spend one's time and [kilo]bytes.

Cill: may I introduce you to RavenKing; you can check his recent posts, but it'd likely be a similar waste of time and bandwidth. Elsewhere you might eventually see that he happens to express a negative view of 99% of modern, and older, metal... yes, even more than myself /

You nailed it.
To me, it also seems to be a bit random too. Why not do a study on how different musicians in a band are peing percieved? Psychologically, what roles do the different instrumentalists have and so forth according to or percieved by the masses, or what is the psychological aftermath of someone dropping the bass to become the voice instead, and all sorts of in-depth(?) stuff like that (Okay, lame example. Excuse stupido moi trying to contribute. ) Oh well, each to his/her own and whatever makes us all tick!

It's not damaging, you know. It's just that older pioneers may have a solid spot on everyone's mind. Many are more likely to start with older, classic stuff and stick to it even if they discover new bands. that's a natural order, I believe.