Written by King Bonzo on 23.12.2010 at 00:15

Written by RavenKing on 23.12.2010 at 00:13

Well said. I find it annoying sometimes when kids try to teach a lesson to experienced metalheads like us.

These young whipper snappers!

*I'm 23 incidentally lol

Yeah those damned young folk.

Written by [user id=107773] on 23.12.2010 at 00:20


Yeah those damned young folk.

nice snarky comment, but you completely avoided any response to my points, so i will put it another way.

I watched the World Cup this summer. Does that mean I know as much about football as the punters at the pub down the road from you, who have been watching the Cup and EPL matches for decades? or might they know a bit more than i do?

Written by King Bonzo on 23.12.2010 at 00:15

Written by RavenKing on 23.12.2010 at 00:13

Well said. I find it annoying sometimes when kids try to teach a lesson to experienced metalheads like us.

These young whipper snappers!

*I'm 23 incidentally lol

I should have said 'those who got into metal only a few years ago' and not 'kids'. It's not a matter of age but experience (though age usually helps when it comes to experience).

Um, I don't think anyone's refuting that, BitterCold. The contention is whether you need to have "a lot" of experience (quantified by whomever) in order to be qualified to state your views and participate in conversation. Any such demands are simply nonsense. In a public forum discussion, everyone is free to participate and present arguments regardless of their personal background and attributes. The claim made by some posters was that Luneth isn't in a position to say anything because he doesn't "know enough." How much is enough, and when is it appropriate to point it out anyway? And on the topic of snarkiness, he's far from the worst offender.

I certainly don't agree with Luneth (or anyone else in this topic, for that matter). I fully acknowledge both sides of the issue. But of the two, I find the arrogance of self-appointed veterans much more annoying than the enthusiasm and over-confidence of the recently-converted. Noobs are noobs, that's their excuse. Veterans have no excuse; they should know better than to get worked up by someone challenging their complacent status. My best professors at Uni (who also happen to be the oldest and/or most renowned experts in their fields) never dismiss student questions and arguments on the basis of our inexperience. They always meet us as equals, answering arguments with counter-arguments and references to further research. It's only the insecure teachers who're not quite sure about their case (or who just don't know how to communicate it) who have to refer to their authority and experience.

Written by IronAngel on 23.12.2010 at 01:47

Um, I don't think anyone's refuting that, BitterCold. The contention is whether you need to have "a lot" of experience in order to be qualified to state your views and participate in conversation. Any such demands are simply nonsense. In a public forum discussion, everyone is free to participate and present arguments regardless of their personal background and attributes. The claim made by some posters was that Luneth isn't in a position to say anything because he doesn't "know enough." And on the topic of snarkiness, he's far from the worst offender.

Problem with him is he tries to defend his point of view but he can't bring anything to back up his affirmations. He only uses rhetoric answers that have very little to do with the topic.
I mean, when I said Ancient Bards are a Rhapsody clone, the best he was able to do is replying "sure, because they play Powermetal and are Italians". I explained to him, both on this thread and on another thread, that originality and quality are two different things and that if I'm saying something is unoriginal, it doesn't mean it is bad. But he either doesn't understand or simply don't want to understand. I mean, if you want to be stubborn in your opinions, at least be able to bring good arguments to defend them.

He understands what he wishes to understand and put words in our mouths at times.
Sorry but, to me, Luneth is only one of those people who have a hard time dealing with criticism directed at bands he likes.

Anyway, its typical of Powermetal fans to act like butthurt fanboys. Do you see fans of other genres taking so much offense when someone posts a negative comment about a band they like? Rarely.
And fans of other genres can criticize their own favorite metal genre, acknowledge that x or y band sucks or that this album is garbage, etc, etc. But there is quite a bunch of whiners among Powermetal fans (though you can find exceptions, so don't put everyone in the same basket).
Unfortunately, it seems lots of Powermetal fans are unable to do the same and fans of this genre tend to believe everything that sounds remotely like PM is awesome.

You may be right. I just think some of the arguments and attitudes displayed here aren't very tasteful. No matter how dumb somebody is, I like to simply point it out indirectly with trumping their arguments and leaving it at that. Finger-pointing is lame, even if it's warranted.

But now we're getting way off-topic, so this is the last I'll talk of this issue. Resume business as usual.

Written by RavenKing on 23.12.2010 at 01:57

Sorry but, to me, Luneth is only one of those people who have a hard time dealing with criticism directed at bands he likes.

This is merely a curiosity, but why don't you have any favorite bands listed? I'm not trying to start anything, I really don't like power metal at all, but it was just something I noticed. I understand you are new to MS and may not have had time to fill out your profile, but I was just interested in what bands you liked. You seem to have a good head on your shoulders and sometimes favorite bands give a deeper understanding of a person, if only in their musical tastes.

Written by RavenKing on 23.12.2010 at 01:57

And fans of other genres can criticize their own favorite metal genre, acknowledge that x or y band sucks or that this album is garbage, etc, etc. But there is quite a bunch of whiners among Powermetal fans (though you can find exceptions, so don't put everyone in the same basket).
Unfortunately, it seems lots of Powermetal fans are unable to do the same and fans of this genre tend to believe everything that sounds remotely like PM is awesome.

All that time buying volumising shampoo and hair moose knocks their reaction threshold out of kilter some what....

Written by Introspekrieg on 23.12.2010 at 06:25

This is merely a curiosity, but why don't you have any favorite bands listed? I'm not trying to start anything, I really don't like power metal at all, but it was just something I noticed. I understand you are new to MS and may not have had time to fill out your profile, but I was just interested in what bands you liked. You seem to have a good head on your shoulders and sometimes favorite bands give a deeper understanding of a person, if only in their musical tastes.

I had plenty of time to create a favorite bands list. I just happen to don't give a damn at doing it.
And I have no intention to do it. To be honest, I don't care at all to put any info on my profile.

For your information, I'm mostly into Black Metal and some Thrash. If I know much about Powermetal, it's because I liked some bands from this genre in the 90s but my appreciation for PM is long gone.

Quote fail

Punctuation fail.

Life FAIL!

It's "fail at life".

So's your face.

I thought I was the idiot here? Haha, see what an opinion can do to everyone?

Alas, I digress. Continue arguing about punctuation

@Bonzo: Really now...a 23 year old stooping to 'so are you' retorts? Stooping to retorts in the first place! Shameful.

Now I digress

Ok so putting aside the last 7 comments and going back on the main topic... you know *Originality Paradox*
I have to agree that some people simply expects too much from new bands, its true that they don't always bring new elements but you can't say that they CLONED the pioneer. They might have some similarities but I believe every band is different one way or another. They all have their ways to play and create even though they stick to an already existing genre. Im not a Hardcore power metal fan but I enjoy alot of their music and personally I see alot of talents in younger bands and thats also true for most of the genres, their addition to the existing style is always welcome since it helps the scene grow stronger and explore new assets. But anyways its my opinion OF COURSE. Besides, even though they're not ground breaking this doesn't mean their music is mediocre or bad, I mean if you liked the pioneer for their sound why would you hate the new ones for exploring the same path ? They were inspired the same way we were... but only decided to praise their favorite style by playing it instead of criticising it !

Written by Guib on 25.12.2010 at 00:42

Ok so putting aside the last 7 comments and going back on the main topic... you know *Originality Paradox*
I have to agree that some people simply expects too much from new bands, its true that they don't always bring new elements but you can't say that they CLONED the pioneer. They might have some similarities but I believe every band is different one way or another. They all have their ways to play and create even though they stick to an already existing genre. Im not a Hardcore power metal fan but I enjoy alot of their music and personally I see alot of talents in younger bands and thats also true for most of the genres, their addition to the existing style is always welcome since it helps the scene grow stronger and explore new assets. But anyways its my opinion OF COURSE. Besides, even though they're not ground breaking this doesn't mean their music is mediocre or bad, I mean if you liked the pioneer for their sound why would you hate the new ones for exploring the same path ? They were inspired the same way we were... but only decided to praise their favorite style by playing it instead of criticising it !

Don't waste your breath; this isn't a concept many humans are familiar with. What a case study this discussion would make

Written by [user id=107773] on 25.12.2010 at 03:19

Don't waste your breath; this isn't a concept many humans are familiar with. What a case study this discussion would make

And what would that case study be about exactly? "Case study on Luneth's intellectually dishonest ways of debating"? "Why you should not throw tantrums about differing opinions"? No? I didn't think you would think so. Although such studies would be much more warranting than what I imagine you might have in mind.

The only thing you have done in this thread has been trying to discredit the (more well-informed) opinions of others. When you got called out for it, this became even more apparent as you kept on doing it instead of actually trying to back up your opinions.

"This isn't a comcept most humans are familiar with"? Give me a fucking break! You are still trying to play it like you are the victim of some imaginary group of people whom according to you are too stupid to agree with what you're saying. Also, this seems to be your only point. You are also using it again and again in an extremely dishonest kind of way.

"Oh, you don't agree with me about this, so you must be one of THOSE people and your opinion is invalid". Real clever, champ. Real clever...

The fact that you completely ignored most of the valid arguments against your standpoint (instead chosing to throw fits about more or less OT stuff) makes me even more suspicious regarding your motives.

Not expecting you to reply (seeing as you haven't so far), but maybe you can prove me wrong.

Case in point: I am calling YOU out for being even more dishonest in your argumentation than your percieved opponents, for not having any real arguments, and for using this thread as a means to throw tantrums about people having different opinions than you. I am also calling bullshit on the existance of the phenomenon you are criticizing (at least in the way you are describing it). What is your reply to this?

Written by ForeverDarkWoods on 25.12.2010 at 18:39

Written by [user id=107773] on 25.12.2010 at 03:19

Don't waste your breath; this isn't a concept many humans are familiar with. What a case study this discussion would make

And what would that case study be about exactly? "Case study on Luneth's intellectually dishonest ways of debating"? "Why you should not throw tantrums about differing opinions"? No? I didn't think you would think so. Although such studies would be much more warranting than what I imagine you might have in mind.

The only thing you have done in this thread has been trying to discredit the (more well-informed) opinions of others. When you got called out for it, this became even more apparent as you kept on doing it instead of actually trying to back up your opinions.

"This isn't a comcept most humans are familiar with"? Give me a fucking break! You are still trying to play it like you are the victim of some imaginary group of people whom according to you are too stupid to agree with what you're saying. Also, this seems to be your only point. You are also using it again and again in an extremely dishonest kind of way.

"Oh, you don't agree with me about this, so you must be one of THOSE people and your opinion is invalid". Real clever, champ. Real clever...

The fact that you completely ignored most of the valid arguments against your standpoint (instead chosing to throw fits about more or less OT stuff) makes me even more suspicious regarding your motives.

Not expecting you to reply (seeing as you haven't so far), but maybe you can prove me wrong.

Case in point: I am calling YOU out for being even more dishonest in your argumentation than your percieved opponents, for not having any real arguments, and for using this thread as a means to throw tantrums about people having different opinions than you. I am also calling bullshit on the existance of the phenomenon you are criticizing (at least in the way you are describing it). What is your reply to this?

I think if you examine the entire thread, my comments have been nothing but in defense of my original post with the odd sarcastic response, if you don't understand that, I can't help you. You're wrong, my opinion and my comments defending it have been honest.

What's wrong with the following?

Initial Opinion stated- Opinion considered 'wrong'- Opinion forced into being 'right'- Initial Opinion Burnt at the Stake/beheaded/Obliterated, imagine if that opinion was a person...Oh yeah...

One of these days I have to get around to making a "butthurt power metal fanboy" demotivational poster.

Maybe not.

Written by vezzy on 25.12.2010 at 19:24

One of these days I have to get around to making a "butthurt power metal fanboy" demotivational poster.

Maybe not.

Let me know how that goes, OK?

Oh, sorry, a comment like that doesn't warrant a sarcastic response. I should bow down to his opinion of me being a 'butthurt [if anything, my brain hurts from seeing this used as a curse] power metal fanboy.

Written by [user id=107773] on 25.12.2010 at 19:08

I think if you examine the entire thread, my comments have been nothing but in defense of my original post with the odd sarcastic response, if you don't understand that, I can't help you. You're wrong, my opinion and my comments defending it have been honest.

What's wrong with the following?

Initial Opinion stated- Opinion considered 'wrong'- Opinion forced into being 'right'- Initial Opinion Burnt at the Stake/beheaded/Obliterated, imagine if that opinion was a person...Oh yeah...

You have misunderstood some things. You are not being criticized for liking some bands. We who don't like said bands can offer our opinion on them, but we're not expecting our opinions to change your liking of the bands in question if you really like them. I like a bunch of shit that usually gets a lot of flaming directed towards it, and I don't give a fuck. The criticism against you was born out of you trying to discredit the negative viewpoints regarding said bands (the entire point of this thread). Nobody who's not an asshole will give you shit for liking these bands, but we will call you out if you give us shit for not liking them. Simple as that, really.

The "Oh, I'm such a non-conformist" arguments don't really go anywhere. It's basically an equivalent of saying "You don't think like me, so you must be a conformist!" by playing it like a victim of some massive conspiracy, and it doesn't ring true in the slightest. Replace conformist with elitist and we have the dreaded elitist strawman that cannot be used in an intellectually honest discussion.

Indeed I will examine the entire thread. I suggest you do the same. Hence, I will quote myself to illustrate the main problem I see with your reasoning:

Written by ForeverDarkWoods on 16.12.2010 at 19:29

Written by Angelic Storm on 16.12.2010 at 16:55

@Foreverdarkwoods: Are you trying to say you've never seen anyone criticising a band solely for being unoriginal?

I am not denying the theoretical existance of such idiots, but I am questioning their relevance. In my experience these people live an extremely periphery existance, which in some ways is evidenced that this thread is nearly 100% a bunch of people agreeing with eachother on the foundational points of the issue. I'm saying that this percieved group of individuals appear to possess the qualities of a strawman (a fictional character or group of characters used to discredit someone else's opinions during a discussion, but that really is irrelevant to the issue at hand). In all cases I've seen of the "they are unoriginal" approach to criticism, the nature of those statements point to the word "unoriginal" being used wrongly instead of "generic" or "mediocre". This is also often blatantly obviously the case. Therefore I question the existence of this percieved group of individuals who only care about originality and not about quality as anything else than a strawman to help unsecure people validate their own opinions and discredit the opinions of others.

I attribute this to language errors, and not so much to people being genuinely only attracted by original music. I would very much like some links to posts by these aforementioned people to prove me wrong though. The OP talked about comments surrounding some euro-power albums, for instance. Which albums are we talking about here? What do the comments look like?

What I'm saying, basically, is that there is a difference between a badly worded argument and an attraction to only original music, and if it all (or most of it) comes down to badly used English, which is likely, then this "I only like original music" type of people becomes a strawman and not relevant at all to any serious discussion (only usable in intellectually dishonest ways of discrediting the opinions of others). I get the sense that the purpose of this little strawman would be to go into hyper-defensive mode when people criticize albums they like, as that would be it's most obvious use.

Written by ForeverDarkWoods on 16.12.2010 at 20:41

Written by Angelic Storm on 16.12.2010 at 20:26

@ForeverDarkWoods: The thing about comments on euro-power albums is something you'd have to bring up with the OP. lol There is a difference between a badly worded arguement and an attraction to only original music. The problem then is, it comes down to the individuals' own interpretation of criticsm of unoriginality in a band. A person can only be attacked for what they've actually said, so I dont think you can really blame anyone for not being mind readers and not seeing more in someone criticising a band's unoriginality if that's the only thing they've attacked in their criticsm. There are lots of people who get hyper-defensive when bands/albums they like are attacked, but by the same token, a person cant be blamed for someone else's badly worded arguement. (if thats what the criticsm of originality actually is) I do agree with you though that in at least some cases when someone is criticising (or seems to be criticising) only unoriginality that its more of a case of language errors and poor choice of words, rather than only liking original music.

Oh, and I know what a strawman is. hehe

Well, quite simply I see an interpretation that makes sense and one that makes no sense. Which one do you think I'll go with? Even at the start of the thread I also tried to point out the difference between unoriginality, genericness and mediocrity. I did this since I thought it was highly related to the problem. Everything I've seen still tells me I'm right about this. I don't know if you remember, but we had a thread on generic european power metal a while back where this failure to differentiate between terms became very apparent.

And then another one I posted directed at you, which you didn't respond to.

Written by ForeverDarkWoods on 19.12.2010 at 17:10

Written by [user id=107773] on 19.12.2010 at 15:04

Additionally, I wholeheartedly agree that I should widen my palette, but I still don't see how having slightly limited knowledge in this context makes any difference, the original post was a very valid argument against the whole 'originality' bull that people of this forum come up with and I don't see how listening to another 200 albums or so will elevate me to a higher plain of understanding so that I won't need to even wonder if a metal album is good, I would've listened to sooo many albums that I'll know what the original was and base it solely on that.

Again, where is this percieved "originality-bull" that you are constantly referring to? I don't see it anywhere basically. People don't diss on those bands only because they are unoriginal, but also because they percieve said bands as mediocre or crap. Cheesiness, which most of the time is a term used for describing the feeling when you are exposed to something that is so over the top it becomes stupid (in a bad way) has also very little to do with originality. What my experience of this forum tells me is that the main problem is not with originality and has never been. It is whether the quality is up to snuff, or if the band is mediocre.

Originality and quality are not related, virtually nobody has claimed that they are, and still you are trying to say that it is unfair that people are dissing your favourite bands because of lack of originality only. This is not some valid point you're making. The way I percieve it, you are using a strawman to throw a tantrum about other people not liking your favourite bands. In fact, I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt (maybe there really are such idiots who care only about originality and not about quality, and I've just never come across them), but since I've asked you to post links to discussions featuring these individuals at least two times in this thread (a request you have ignored), I am becoming more convinced that you are misunderstanding what people are saying on purpose in order to use this strawman.

FYI, the term "clone" in it's most common deregatory usage doesn't just mean "they sound just like band X", it's usually used (when used as a deregatory comment) to say "they sound just like band X except crappier". There's the problem with your reasoning. The word generic, the correct word to use when slamming these bands, refers to the fact that they have no distinguishing qualities. In a generic band, very little or nothing stands out in any way, and this includes such things as guitar riffing, vocal performance, drum tracks, bass lines and the list goes on. Basically, in these cases, there is nothing good or original about the music. It just leaves a blank impression.

This is the problem, not the "originality-bull" you're speaking of. Unless of course you can show me to these people who think otherwise (who knows, I might still be wrong).

That is where I think your reasoning is flawed. Also, even after it became apparent that most people were talking about quality and not 100% about originality, you posted stuff like this:

Written by [user id=107773] on 18.12.2010 at 09:02

Or the reverse, one's dislike for something that's generally considered to be great. Though you find less of those people because a huge majority love holding onto this 'Originality=quality' premise which is stupid.

Where are those people again?

Written by ForeverDarkWoods on 25.12.2010 at 19:51

Written by [user id=107773] on 25.12.2010 at 19:08

I think if you examine the entire thread, my comments have been nothing but in defense of my original post with the odd sarcastic response, if you don't understand that, I can't help you. You're wrong, my opinion and my comments defending it have been honest.

What's wrong with the following?

Initial Opinion stated- Opinion considered 'wrong'- Opinion forced into being 'right'- Initial Opinion Burnt at the Stake/beheaded/Obliterated, imagine if that opinion was a person...Oh yeah...

You have misunderstood some things. You are not being criticized for liking some bands. We who don't like said bands can offer our opinion on them, but we're not expecting our opinions to change your liking of the bands in question if you really like them. I like a bunch of shit that usually gets a lot of flaming directed towards it, and I don't give a fuck. The criticism against you was born out of you trying to discredit the negative viewpoints regarding said bands (the entire point of this thread). Nobody who's not an asshole will give you shit for liking these bands, but we will call you out if you give us shit for not liking them. Simple as that, really.

The "Oh, I'm such a non-conformist" arguments don't really go anywhere. It's basically an equivalent of saying "You don't think like me, so you must be a conformist!" by playing it like a victim of some massive conspiracy, and it doesn't ring true in the slightest. Replace conformist with elitist and we have the dreaded elitist strawman that cannot be used in an intellectually honest discussion.

Indeed I will examine the entire thread. I suggest you do the same. Hence, I will quote myself to illustrate the main problem I see with your reasoning:

Written by ForeverDarkWoods on 16.12.2010 at 19:29

Written by Angelic Storm on 16.12.2010 at 16:55

@Foreverdarkwoods: Are you trying to say you've never seen anyone criticising a band solely for being unoriginal?

I am not denying the theoretical existance of such idiots, but I am questioning their relevance. In my experience these people live an extremely periphery existance, which in some ways is evidenced that this thread is nearly 100% a bunch of people agreeing with eachother on the foundational points of the issue. I'm saying that this percieved group of individuals appear to possess the qualities of a strawman (a fictional character or group of characters used to discredit someone else's opinions during a discussion, but that really is irrelevant to the issue at hand). In all cases I've seen of the "they are unoriginal" approach to criticism, the nature of those statements point to the word "unoriginal" being used wrongly instead of "generic" or "mediocre". This is also often blatantly obviously the case. Therefore I question the existence of this percieved group of individuals who only care about originality and not about quality as anything else than a strawman to help unsecure people validate their own opinions and discredit the opinions of others.

I attribute this to language errors, and not so much to people being genuinely only attracted by original music. I would very much like some links to posts by these aforementioned people to prove me wrong though. The OP talked about comments surrounding some euro-power albums, for instance. Which albums are we talking about here? What do the comments look like?

What I'm saying, basically, is that there is a difference between a badly worded argument and an attraction to only original music, and if it all (or most of it) comes down to badly used English, which is likely, then this "I only like original music" type of people becomes a strawman and not relevant at all to any serious discussion (only usable in intellectually dishonest ways of discrediting the opinions of others). I get the sense that the purpose of this little strawman would be to go into hyper-defensive mode when people criticize albums they like, as that would be it's most obvious use.

Written by ForeverDarkWoods on 16.12.2010 at 20:41

Written by Angelic Storm on 16.12.2010 at 20:26

@ForeverDarkWoods: The thing about comments on euro-power albums is something you'd have to bring up with the OP. lol There is a difference between a badly worded arguement and an attraction to only original music. The problem then is, it comes down to the individuals' own interpretation of criticsm of unoriginality in a band. A person can only be attacked for what they've actually said, so I dont think you can really blame anyone for not being mind readers and not seeing more in someone criticising a band's unoriginality if that's the only thing they've attacked in their criticsm. There are lots of people who get hyper-defensive when bands/albums they like are attacked, but by the same token, a person cant be blamed for someone else's badly worded arguement. (if thats what the criticsm of originality actually is) I do agree with you though that in at least some cases when someone is criticising (or seems to be criticising) only unoriginality that its more of a case of language errors and poor choice of words, rather than only liking original music.

Oh, and I know what a strawman is. hehe

Well, quite simply I see an interpretation that makes sense and one that makes no sense. Which one do you think I'll go with? Even at the start of the thread I also tried to point out the difference between unoriginality, genericness and mediocrity. I did this since I thought it was highly related to the problem. Everything I've seen still tells me I'm right about this. I don't know if you remember, but we had a thread on generic european power metal a while back where this failure to differentiate between terms became very apparent.

And then another one I posted directed at you, which you didn't respond to.

Written by ForeverDarkWoods on 19.12.2010 at 17:10

Written by [user id=107773] on 19.12.2010 at 15:04

Additionally, I wholeheartedly agree that I should widen my palette, but I still don't see how having slightly limited knowledge in this context makes any difference, the original post was a very valid argument against the whole 'originality' bull that people of this forum come up with and I don't see how listening to another 200 albums or so will elevate me to a higher plain of understanding so that I won't need to even wonder if a metal album is good, I would've listened to sooo many albums that I'll know what the original was and base it solely on that.

Again, where is this percieved "originality-bull" that you are constantly referring to? I don't see it anywhere basically. People don't diss on those bands only because they are unoriginal, but also because they percieve said bands as mediocre or crap. Cheesiness, which most of the time is a term used for describing the feeling when you are exposed to something that is so over the top it becomes stupid (in a bad way) has also very little to do with originality. What my experience of this forum tells me is that the main problem is not with originality and has never been. It is whether the quality is up to snuff, or if the band is mediocre.

Originality and quality are not related, virtually nobody has claimed that they are, and still you are trying to say that it is unfair that people are dissing your favourite bands because of lack of originality only. This is not some valid point you're making. The way I percieve it, you are using a strawman to throw a tantrum about other people not liking your favourite bands. In fact, I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt (maybe there really are such idiots who care only about originality and not about quality, and I've just never come across them), but since I've asked you to post links to discussions featuring these individuals at least two times in this thread (a request you have ignored), I am becoming more convinced that you are misunderstanding what people are saying on purpose in order to use this strawman.

FYI, the term "clone" in it's most common deregatory usage doesn't just mean "they sound just like band X", it's usually used (when used as a deregatory comment) to say "they sound just like band X except crappier". There's the problem with your reasoning. The word generic, the correct word to use when slamming these bands, refers to the fact that they have no distinguishing qualities. In a generic band, very little or nothing stands out in any way, and this includes such things as guitar riffing, vocal performance, drum tracks, bass lines and the list goes on. Basically, in these cases, there is nothing good or original about the music. It just leaves a blank impression.

This is the problem, not the "originality-bull" you're speaking of. Unless of course you can show me to these people who think otherwise (who knows, I might still be wrong).

That is where I think your reasoning is flawed. Also, even after it became apparent that most people were talking about quality and not 100% about originality, you posted stuff like this:

Written by [user id=107773] on 18.12.2010 at 09:02

Or the reverse, one's dislike for something that's generally considered to be great. Though you find less of those people because a huge majority love holding onto this 'Originality=quality' premise which is stupid.

Where are those people again?

I think what you interpret as 'giving us shit', is simply me defending my opinion. If I'm allowed to give an opinion and you're rightly allowed to give your opinion, why can't I defend my opinion without it being me attacking your opinion? If that is the premise behind what you are saying then why bother state your opinion in the first place if you didn't agree with the original?

Why? Because you thought you saw a weak or vulnerable opinion and thought you'd step on it making sure that the person who gave the opinion would have to either agree in response

"this became even more apparent as you kept on doing it instead of actually trying to back up your opinions."

or defend their opinion to the point that it looks like

"you give us shit for not liking them".

Like I said, it's not a familiar concept.

Edit: 'Opinion' was repeated several times for obvious reasons

Written by [user id=107773] on 25.12.2010 at 20:06

I think what you interpret as 'giving us shit', is simply me defending my opinion. If I'm allowed to give an opinion and you're rightly allowed to give your opinion, why can't I defend my opinion without it being me attacking your opinion? If that is the premise behind what you are saying then why bother state your opinion in the first place if you didn't agree with the original?

Why? Because you thought you saw a weak or vulnerable opinion and thought you'd step on it making sure that the person who gave the opinion would have to either agree in response

"this became even more apparent as you kept on doing it instead of actually trying to back up your opinions."

or defend their opinion to the point that it looks like

"you give us shit for not liking them".

Like I said, it's not a familiar concept.

Edit: 'Opinion' was repeated several times for obvious reasons

Well, put it like this, what has this thread been about, exactly? Has it been about the qualities of these bands? Hardly. It has been about you criticizing other people's opinions about these bands and you trying to invalidate them by using this originality=quality strawman.

It has nothing to do with your opinion being weak and vulnerable. I actually don't hate power metal (if you look at my favourite bands, you will find some power metal). I also think that you are free to like anything you want, without needing to defend your liking of anything you like. I like Gallhammer, which gets a lot of shit online, and although I disagree with the shit they are getting, I don't attack the validity of the negative opinions. Your dissing of other people's opinions however contain flaws that you were called out for, and yet you persisted restating the same flawed arguments again and again (while not responding to the main points when we were actually trying to explain that you had gotten the reasons why we disliked said bands all wrong).

The reason I called you out was for the fact that the entire subject of this thread is dedicated to invalidating the opinions of others. If you like said bands, fine. But what you have been doing during this entire thread has been trying to force these bands to get some recognition from us when (according to a lot of us) they deserve very little of it.

Basically, you didn't back yourself up, but mostly attacked anyone else (even the purpose of the OP was to disqualify some other people's opinions who had dissed on some bands).

Basically, you're wrong. We don't hate on Dragonforce because it's fun or popular to hate on Dragonforce. We hate on Dragonforce because we find nothing enjoyable about their music (most of it is downright annoying).

Basically, I called you out because we do not draw this complete correllation between originality and quality. None of us do, and you still kept claiming that we did in order to attack us. In fact, we keep originality and quality as separate factors that both affect our enjoyment of the music in some way. For most of us though, quality takes the center stage in this evaluation. I see the entire point of the thread, this implied correlation between originality and quality that supposedly is highly abundant here, as nothing but a deliberate misinterpretation.

Written by ForeverDarkWoods on 25.12.2010 at 20:59

Written by [user id=107773] on 25.12.2010 at 20:06

I think what you interpret as 'giving us shit', is simply me defending my opinion. If I'm allowed to give an opinion and you're rightly allowed to give your opinion, why can't I defend my opinion without it being me attacking your opinion? If that is the premise behind what you are saying then why bother state your opinion in the first place if you didn't agree with the original?

Why? Because you thought you saw a weak or vulnerable opinion and thought you'd step on it making sure that the person who gave the opinion would have to either agree in response

"this became even more apparent as you kept on doing it instead of actually trying to back up your opinions."

or defend their opinion to the point that it looks like

"you give us shit for not liking them".

Like I said, it's not a familiar concept.

Edit: 'Opinion' was repeated several times for obvious reasons

Well, put it like this, what has this thread been about, exactly? Has it been about the qualities of these bands? Hardly. It has been about you criticizing other people's opinions about these bands and you trying to invalidate them by using this originality=quality strawman.

It has nothing to do with your opinion being weak and vulnerable. I actually don't hate power metal (if you look at my favourite bands, you will find some power metal). I also think that you are free to like anything you want, without needing to defend your liking of anything you like. I like Gallhammer, which gets a lot of shit online, and although I disagree with the shit they are getting, I don't attack the validity of the negative opinions. Your dissing of other people's opinions however contain flaws that you were called out for, and yet you persisted restating the same flawed arguments again and again (while not responding to the main points when we were actually trying to explain that you had gotten the reasons why we disliked said bands all wrong).

The reason I called you out was for the fact that the entire subject of this thread is dedicated to invalidating the opinions of others. If you like said bands, fine. But what you have been doing during this entire thread has been trying to force these bands to get some recognition from us when (according to a lot of us) they deserve very little of it.

Basically, you didn't back yourself up, but mostly attacked anyone else (even the purpose of the OP was to disqualify some other people's opinions who had dissed on some bands).

Basically, you're wrong. We don't hate on Dragonforce because it's fun or popular to hate on Dragonforce. We hate on Dragonforce because we find nothing enjoyable about their music (most of it is downright annoying).

Basically, I called you out because we do not draw this complete correllation between originality and quality. None of us do, and you still kept claiming that we did in order to attack us. In fact, we keep originality and quality as separate factors that both affect our enjoyment of the music in some way. For most of us though, quality takes the center stage in this evaluation. I see the entire point of the thread, this implied correlation between originality and quality that supposedly is highly abundant here, as nothing but a deliberate misinterpretation.

I'm not disputing that, what you aren't acknowlodging is the reason for this, which is my initial opinion which wasn't 'pro' anything, it was a 'honest' dicscussion opener with examples of Power Metal bands, not, 'Oh I'm so pro power metal only that I'd engineer an entire discussion to show how pro I am'. It was then forced into an open ended conflict when you took my 'new opinion' riddled with sarcasm as 'giving you shit'.

Uh okay Like wtf ? you guys are still getting off topic... im gonna make the staff lock this thread if you guys keep flaming eachother.
Can't we simply argue in a more respectful way about the MAIN TOPIC plz ? Im only asking for that. Now nobody really answered my post...

Written by Guib on 26.12.2010 at 06:09

Uh okay Like wtf ? you guys are still getting off topic... im gonna make the staff lock this thread if you guys keep flaming eachother.
Can't we simply argue in a more respectful way about the MAIN TOPIC plz ? Im only asking for that. Now nobody really answered my post...

report all you want, but several staff - self included- have participated in this thread.

i gave up in responding because it is largely pointless. OP is yet another one of those relative noobs who somehow believes that any disagreement with their POV is not based on a logical point but simply a personal attack. the more valid the criticism, the more he goes to great lengths to avoid retorting.

there is some validity to the counterarguments to the original poster's oint... that "unoriginal" is not a brickbat tossed around wildly to hammer bands, but rightfully used by more experienced metallers who recognize second-rate copy cats when they hear them.

Your opening question was:

"It's come to me that when Power Metal bands release albums that are the typical melodic [guitar solo's, extensive keyboard usage, high pitched vocals etc] European metal type all the feedback that these albums receive are comments such as

'flower metal'
'unoriginal'
'cheesy'

Why? Is my question."

This can be distilled down to "why are these bands called unoriginal?" since we haven't really gone into the cheesy and flower metal remarks. The answer is, simply, they are called unoriginal because they are unoriginal.

Secondly we've discussed "is this a bad thing" the answer is "sometimes". No one here has claimed that un-originality = poor quality. I've seen Gallhammer mentioned (top band) I've reference Insect Warfare (Top band) there will be more mentioned but the samples evidence that the consensus is that un-originality in bands will not lead to poor quality.

It can be a contributing factor to quality: "this band sucks and brings nothing to the table" and originality can woo us to a band "I'm not into it but at least it sounds new". But I haven't read anyone claim that bands need to be original to be good, and I don't believe anyone, anywhere, who was being intelligent about it would claim that.

So "is it a bad thing?" Answer: Sometimes.

Written by King Bonzo on 27.12.2010 at 00:30

Your opening question was:

"It's come to me that when Power Metal bands release albums that are the typical melodic [guitar solo's, extensive keyboard usage, high pitched vocals etc] European metal type all the feedback that these albums receive are comments such as

'flower metal'
'unoriginal'
'cheesy'

Why? Is my question."

Lets discuss the matter in a way that will be more related to Powermetal.


About Flowermetal: Not all Powermetal can be called Flowermetal but the stuff released by some bands nowadays definitely can be called Flowermetal. It would be ridiculous to label early Blind Guardian or Helloween when Kai Hansen was still in the band as Flowermetal. However, recent Edguy or Sonata Arctica are Flowermetal. Bands like Power Quest, Narnia and most of the stuff released by the PM genre after the millenia is Flowermetal from my point of view. Why?

Because it has no roughness, no bite of any kind, it is generally slow, the polished production makes it sound pop-ish, etc. In other terms, it has barely anything in common with melodic speed metal, which is what Powermetal originally was. It has no power at all. It sounds like hard rock and even pop rock at times, not like metal.


About unoriginal: Lots of PM bands are unoriginal because, compared to Thrash, Black or Death Metal, the riffs are more simple and basic on many occasions. Keep in mind I'm talking about riffs and not solos. I don't give a fuck at guitar solos and if music features great solos it is not a redeeming quality at all for me. I will go as far as saying that guitar solos are often an annoyance. It is riffs who give moods and character to a song, not solos.

Bass is usually more inaudible in PM than in extreme genres (though it can depend on bands and albums).

But, Imo, the weakest point (and the element I probably hate the most in PM), is drums. Drums are generic in PM and the same from band to band. Most drummers only alternate the bass drums right-left-right-left without doing any pattern, while barely doing anything with their hands. The snare usually hits at the same time with no variation. Not much tempo variation in lots of cases and they play at a comfortable speed. Drums are boring and repetitive in PM, they lack originality. Add to this that they often are recorded over the top of everything else (way too loud) and you get songs where all you remember is a tac-tac snare and the rest leave no mark in your mind.

Also, PM usually is not great at all when it comes to atmosphere. Normal from a genre that tries so much to be catchy and easy listening for the more mainstream masses. If you look past the initial catchiness, you can see how shallow PM usually is. The overpolished production doesn't help at all either. Old PM albums at least had some echo that gave some depth, some tri-dimensional feeling to the songs.

The song structure also often makes modern-day PM unoriginal because the music is simple, basic, easy to play and extremely predictable. It is a well-known fact that most people prefer simple and basic music, so PM bands who try to appeal to the masses begin to compose much simplier music. The fact that PM focuses so much on 'catchy choruses' doesn't help either, as it tends to cause songs to revolve solely around the chorus. And this adds to repetitiveness, another obstacle to originality.


As for cheesy, lots of PM fans themselves even acknowledge that PM is quite often cheesy. PM is often over-the-top childish. Sometimes, it is so childish, over-the-top happy or fantasy for kids that it is impossible for a grown-up to take it seriously.
However, cheesiness is not necessarily an issue. Some people admit themselves that they like cheesiness and enjoy it when it is cheesy. It depends on tastes as if cheesiness is an issue or not. For me, it is. If I find music so cheesy I can't take it seriously (as much as music can be taken seriously, that is) or too childish, I will dislike it and dismiss it as "too fucking cheesy for my tastes". But you can find people who like cheesiness and are not ashamed at all to admit it (and they don't have to).