Written by [user id=101272] on 04.02.2014 at 00:45

Want a medal?


You know, if anything, this thread made me realize that a) I prefer the "new school" and b) that most of the "old school" is either just plain overrated, or I simply don't like it because I wasn't there and am thus not like some members that think their time is better than ours. Of course, there's hypocritical irony in that, because I see our time way better than theirs. Like Marcel said, most of the stuff from that time we have now made it out of the temporal filter because it was actually worth listening to, and even then some shit works and some don't. I'm sure people will say the same about the new school when it's referred to as the old school (and the old school is referred to as "the classic oldies"), but I gotta tell you: New school is shitting over the old school for me. It's like stuff from the underground: 75% of the time, it just deserves to stay there.

Actually, you know what? Fuck the old school/new school mentality. This ain't hip-hop.

As long as you're offering, might I have one? Shiny.

That idea about the "temporal filter" is interesting because I think in some respects "old school" has become synonymous with "classic." Personally I think there's a difference between what is old school and what is classic, I mean you can have metal that sounds old school, but isn't really classic. Some crap from back in the day, so to speak. As Marcel says it was just as abundant back then as it is now.

Written by deadone on 04.02.2014 at 01:15

6. Old school stuff sounds more "fresh." I.e. this stuff was pioneering and done in a time when metal and it's extreme subgenres were new and exciting.

Initially that seemed like a contradictory statement to me, fresh is the opposite of old, after all. But I think what you're getting at is that if you were around to experience these old school sounds when they were considered fresh, then you remember that, and they become valued memories and music. So to you those old school sounds were fresh at the time, more-so than today because you personally connected with them, whereas today you don't find the same connection or love for contemporary music.

Written by deadone on 04.02.2014 at 01:15

Bloody Motley Crue has more balls than the Epicas, Soilworks and In Flames of the world.

That is the only thing in your post that isn't total BS. Early Crue definitely had more balls than most melodeath bands today.

Otherwise...

Written by R'Vannith on 04.02.2014 at 03:43

As long as you're offering, might I have one? Shiny.

That idea about the "temporal filter" is interesting because I think in some respects "old school" has become synonymous with "classic." Personally I think there's a difference between what is old school and what is classic, I mean you can have metal that sounds old school, but isn't really classic. Some crap from back in the day, so to speak. As Marcel says it was just as abundant back then as it is now.

Exactly. I think the only thing keeping people from associating new school stuff as better than old school stuff is that we don't have a word for it that can rival with classic. I can't tell you how many albums from this time I've listened to that deserve the classic status more than other so-called classics.

Written by deadone on 04.02.2014 at 04:01

Ala Five Finger Death Punch and Hellyeah which according to you are better than Pantera?!?

Well, I'd take War Is The Answer (and maybe Way Of The Fist) over 5 of the 9 Pantera albums (The first four and Reinventing The Steel) and maybe Hellyeah's debut over the first four.

Oh, by the way: Pantera is, by technicality, new school.

I think it's because of a variety of factors:

1. Nostalgia

2. "Grimy" production is more appealing for the aggressive atmosphere that metalheads love

3. The old school albums established a precedent and standard for all modern albums to follow, and if they don't follow them, then fans will usually be disappointed.

4. Metal being more underground and "kvlt" back in the day, as opposed to now where more middle class university students like me have gotten into the genre, which tends piss off the generic "true" metalheads.

Written by [user id=101272] on 04.02.2014 at 00:45

Written by angel. on 03.02.2014 at 22:07

I started out this thread

Want a medal?


You know, if anything, this thread made me realize that a) I prefer the "new school" and b) that most of the "old school" is either just plain overrated, or I simply don't like it because I wasn't there and am thus not like some members that think their time is better than ours. Of course, there's hypocritical irony in that, because I see our time way better than theirs. Like Marcel said, most of the stuff from that time we have now made it out of the temporal filter because it was actually worth listening to, and even then some shit works and some don't. I'm sure people will say the same about the new school when it's referred to as the old school (and the old school is referred to as "the classic oldies"), but I gotta tell you: New school is shitting over the old school for me. It's like stuff from the underground: 75% of the time, it just deserves to stay there.

Actually, you know what? Fuck the old school/new school mentality. This ain't hip-hop.

Still not seeing any half-decent arguments.

Written by deadone on 21.02.2014 at 01:34

I think the difference between you and me is that I love the old school, you don't and you love the new school and I don't. It's probably a great example of that generational change..

Maybe you should stop posting here, because you are going full-speed foot-in-mouth and you're doing nothing but making yourself look like a clueless elitist that's stuck in the past.

I, for one, fully agree with Joe. Metal fans, especially old ones that lived through it and hate what it's turning into because "it's not true" and younger ones that get wet over the old shit, need to get over the fact that metal is evolving, and more and more of it is getting increasingly better than the old stuff (bar notable exceptions).

Bunch of elitist cunts

That's... way too vague a question to ask. Define old school, new school, new style, old style, how we differentiate between the two...

Huh... Well according to your definition I'm old-school all the way then, despite the fact I was born in '94. Well, except folk metal, I like my Turisas from time to time, horrible recent entries notwithstanding. From my admittedly limited understanding of the genres you mentioned in the new school, a lot of them don't get to the point. I like my basic chorus-verse structures with blast beats and shredderiffic guitar solos as necessary. Make the song too long and I just get bored... I appreciate trying to deviate from the norm, I really do, but at most times it's just... not fun to listen to. At all.

Now I don't even agree with myself in this thread Old school, new school, middle school, whatever sounds great I would grab it

Written by angel. on 21.02.2014 at 14:53

Now I don't even agree with myself in this thread Old school, new school, middle school, whatever sounds great I would grab it

Well you certainly wouldn't have had Obscure Sphinx without a modern metal outlook

Written by [user id=4365] on 21.02.2014 at 14:59

Written by angel. on 21.02.2014 at 14:53

Now I don't even agree with myself in this thread Old school, new school, middle school, whatever sounds great I would grab it

Well you certainly wouldn't have had Obscure Sphinx without a modern metal outlook

Indeed it's true, that's reason that I'm saying I changed my opinion over this, there are so many great metal bands nowadays with modern tunes. I wouldn't limit myself to the 80s' legends, even I must say that recently metal evolved so much, the variety and creativity in some of the recent bands with modern approach is incredible and incomparable to some of the bands with old school approach likewise you said so many revivalist thrashers are tending to fail just because of that kind of restricting themselves to the same way of old school riffing and such...

Written by angel. on 21.02.2014 at 15:12

Indeed it's true, that's reason that I'm saying I changed my opinion over this, there are so many great metal bands nowadays with modern tunes. I wouldn't limit myself to the 80s' legends, even I must say that recently metal evolved so much, the variety and creativity in some of the recent bands with modern approach is incredible and incomparable to some of the bands with old school approach likewise you said so many revivalist thrashers are tending to fail just because of that kind of restricting themselves to the same way of old school riffing and such...

I firmly accept that there are things these days that will never be done as well again, thrash for example. There was no way such a basic, meat 'n' two veg subgenre was ever going to survive for this long. There's only so many variations on the same few riffs you can do before it gets tiresome. Same applies to heavy metal really. Similar problem although it does appear to be more adaptable. Death metal seems to be about even. Old bands certainly have a certain something about them which is difficult to replicate, however bands certainly have done justice to their progenitors and furthermore evolved the genre beyond its confines with some pretty great results. Black metal though is by far and away the more superior genre to what it was. Black metal back then was mostly frolicking and fucking around with the odd success, the genre mostly being led by reputation alone. These days it's where the creativity lies, for a larger part anyway. Doom? Well doom is doom and has always been doom. Luckily we've had some nice offshoots in the forms of sludge and stoner so there genre remains fairly varied, if not especially original (though fusion doom bands do pretty well).

There is almost literally something for everyone these days though really. Marcel gets his old-school doom and death bands and seems to be relatively happy about it. I get the odd great experimental number with a fair few genuinely interesting band that manages to successfully fuse recognisable metal with something a bit different. The metal laymen get hoards of melodic-yet-generic bands popping up every day. Some are pretty good, most aren't. They don't seem to be too bothered though.

So yeah, the only argument I can see is that old school is better because it had better heavy, thrash and death metal. Except death can be just as good, so it's only 2/3rds right. As I've said, modern day has everything from simple, high-octane, mindless jokey metal to slow, contemplative, intellectual metal. I don't really see the competition to be honest.

Written by deadone on 12.02.2014 at 04:45

The bands also didn't seem to take themselves too seriously. There is a sense of tongue in cheek in older metal - this started disappearing in 1990s.

I have a hard spot for metal bands which do not take themselves too seriously, especially if they are rooted in extreme metal. Could you please have a few suggestions for me ?

Written by deadone on 21.02.2014 at 05:18

Lit - "My opinion is gospel truth and everyone else is clueless. Old school stuff is largely rubbish."

I'm not saying everyone's clueless. Just you.

Written by deadone on 21.02.2014 at 05:18

But I'm happy to say my opinion is just that opinion.

I don't like the direction metal has been heading towards for the last several years. That's my opinion and preference.

Many other people do and that's their opinion and preference.

Doesn't make anyone right.

If you truly believed that, you wouldn't be going on and on and on in this thread with rubbish like "The older stuff has far more "youthful exuberance" than the newer stuff which often is stiff sounding." or "Modern metal is for the most part not fun" and other elitist bullschtick like such.

There's believing your thoughts are just an opinion, and stepping on other's tastes then pulling out the opinion card to try to avoid being flamed.

I mostly listen to old school stuff. It's not that I dont like some new bands out there, there is a lot of good music out there.
But this "new wave of brutal technical death metal" is kinda generic and boring for me :/

^Pretty sure that's a form of spam, Mr. Walking Contradiction.

Pretty sure at this point you guys might as well agree to disagree.

Or take it to the PMs.

Written by [user id=4365] on 24.02.2014 at 04:44

great music can surface from anywhere, even tiny countries than no one's heard of.

Like Darkestrah. C'mon, name another band from Kyrgyzstan (without looking it up, that's cheating).
And are you including Sabbath, Priest, Maiden, Motorhead in the flogging a dead horse group? 'cause I like their new stuff about the same as their old stuff (varies from album to album). My 3 favourite Priest and Metallica albums are from different decades (70s, 90s, 00s and 80s, 90s, 00s respectively).

I just love how !J.O.O.E! and deadone is trying to prove to each other that they're wrong, by quoting each other and tell each other how wrong the arguments are xD fun reading!

As for old school new school discussion, I am more into the new stuffs. There are a lot of crap in the new stuffs, like poppy metalcore bands with whiny vocals and awful screams (Attack Attack, We Butter The bread With Butter etc, yuck!!) but that's them.. These bands should never ever been classified as metal.. Luckily there are many other bands that can do great music. Why do I prefer the new good shit? I find the generic song writing boring, where you have verses, refrains etc all the way, it's way to predictable. I love those bands that can make something that sounds fresh and unpredictable, like Ne Obliviscaris, Opeth and so on. Many seems to get bored of long songs, for me it's opposite, just love them! I like to enjoy an album in it's entirety, as one big sound of art instead of focusing on just one song.

That's just how I feel about it!

Written by deadone on 24.02.2014 at 15:04

Written by M C Vice on 24.02.2014 at 10:28

Quote:


Dee Schneider from Twisted Sister.

Oh yeah, I forgot about him.

Dunno if many people ever appreciated him as a great vocalist.

I personally always loved his voice - it's powerful and gritty.

I don't think he ever was a great vocals, and his name is Snider.

Even as a Twisted Sister fan myself, I would hardly call Snider a talented vocalist. He's decent but not spectacular.

Written by Troy Killjoy on 24.02.2014 at 05:08

Pretty sure at this point you guys might as well agree to disagree.

Or take it to the PMs.

yeah, this is just making my eyes bleed.

Perhaps you're right. In the future I'll use poorly developed metaphors and sarcasm instead of actually trying to engage with someone. After all, that's what forums are about

Written by [user id=4365] on 05.03.2014 at 11:29

Perhaps you're right. In the future I'll use poorly developed metaphors and sarcasm instead of actually trying to engage with someone. After all, that's what forums are about

And the funny thing is that people tend to think someone is offended just because he/she is actually engaging a discussion. I wonder how people act in real life.

Written by X-Ray Rod on 05.03.2014 at 14:40

And the funny thing is that people tend to think someone is offended just because he/she is actually engaging a discussion. I wonder how people act in real life.

Indeed. I'm far from throwing my keyboard at my monitor over discussions I have.

Written by deadone on 05.03.2014 at 15:11


I think most people avoid discussions in real life especially if they involve criticism of something they like or hold dear.

You've clearly never met me in real life

Written by deadone on 05.03.2014 at 15:11
I think most people avoid discussions in real life especially if they involve criticism of something they like or hold dear.

Most probably. I'm extremely transparent so just like you and Marcel... It doesn't really apply to me. I mean, I've visited Marcel 3 times already, I'm immune to to criticism of my tastes!

Written by X-Ray Rod on 05.03.2014 at 16:26

I'm immune to to criticism of my tastes!

Not true I have heard you sob, cry and weep like a little bitch at night because of my criticism