Written by TarannonFalastur on 05.11.2019 at 09:55

...

You're not pretentious for being uncompromising, but for acting like your opinions are fact and throwing around big words like "faux-originality" to justify it. It's not that we have lower expectations, it's just that we like different things, and you're incapable of realizing the subjectivity in your taste and the inherent psychological biases people have against new music as they get older. Believe it or not, I vastly prefer stuff like blackgaze to thrash. I'm not going to waste my time debating your opinion even when you're objectively wrong on some of the technical points as that's not what this thread is about. Your mistaking rules about a specific challenge for rules about accessing quality in metal because you fundamentally didn't understand the purpose of the challenge and did not appreciate elaborations there of. If you don't appreciate metal across 50 years, there is no point in making such a list. Aside from not even trying to do the challenge your list wasn't half bad, but if you're can't even bring yourself to try to bring in other bands you don't come across as much as a fan of metal as specific bands. As you've demonstrated you have no interest in actually doing the challenge and have shown that your opinions aren't worth reading, I will be ignoring you for now on.

That was a lot of carpal tunneling for 5 fucking comments.

Written by TarannonFalastur on 05.11.2019 at 09:55


Improving technology was a NECESSITY for metal to evolve, for music to evolve. Why didn't we have thrash metal in the 60s then? Simple, because the technology wasn't there yet. Back then there were barely amps to create proper distortion, there weren't pedals to enhance the sound and there weren't studio equipment advanced enough to properly mix and master the sound and instruments of a heavier form of music.

So why didn't black metal pop up 2 decades earlier? A bunch of the early acts used old equipment anyway.