Find Me On:
Thanks, Kaitlyn. Did your knee smash into your schnozz when it jerked its way through your comment? I’m old enough to remember when Tegan and Sara were 2 shrub-headed Ani DiFranco’s as well.
The comparison wasn’t a criticism; I like the song, and I hear a lot of post 2010 Robyn-isms in it. If you don’t, that’s cool.
A little Robyn goes a long way.
It’s cool, man.
We mutually don’t care what the other really thinks. I’m just glad it didn’t spiral into something really negative, which I was afraid my initial response would have caused.
To riff, one could argue that Junkhead is a modern-day “Heroin.” I’m not making the argument, but if someone did, I wouldn’t disagree.
To your credit, if Alice in Chains is your most hated band, you’ve deftly gone through life avoiding many, many worse ones. But I’m being subjective.
Objectively I’d say having a singer of strong and unique voice, skilled percussion, and tasteful guitar playing with above standard tone and vibrato are positives.
I’d also credit catchy hooks, great melodies, and interesting lyrics to the band, but those are subjective.
Going to not go out on a limb at all and say you’re horribly wrong. To say “one of my least favourite bands of all time” is one thing. To say “one of the worst” tells me you have a disastrous ability to judge what makes music objectively good or bad.
I know what he said, just as much as I’m sure he knows how to “@” someone or add a comment here, and would have had he wanted to. I don’t take issue with the way you phrased it, I think it’s lame you did altogether.
It’s not a big deal, I just think it was an unnecessary rat move.
I’d say he intentionally didn’t call him out, but should have realized someone (you) would do it on his behalf.
So true re: Everything’s Ruined. The record highlight, for sure. “But when he lost his appetite, he lost his weight in friends” has always stood out as a great lyric.
I know where you’re coming from re the suing of the band’s own fanbase; despite the hugeness of the Metallica “brand”, its vision has always been pretty myopic, with a confused “shoot first, ask questions later” approach. I’m not saying the band was right, but it also wasn’t wrong. The issue, of course, is Lars, music’s all-time goat. That guy could cure cancer and people would still dislike him (although to be fair, he’d probably be pretty annoying about it.)
For the sake of argument, the band probably did have to go glossy and clean. As I’m sure you recall, the mainstream Metal landscape in 1996 was very different than 1991, and because of the limited technical musicianship, Metallica would have been spinning its wheels hard had it dumped another Black album into the market. Skin tight black pants and long hair just wasn’t “cool” in the mid 90’s to the type of audience the band had gained, and if there’s anything Lars wants to be it’s “cool.” If you want people to believe you’re the biggest Metal band in the world, you aren’t gonna convince them by dressing like Pete Sandoval.
I’m not accusing you specifically of falling into the crossover category, but it is a huge percentage of Metallica’s audience. I love Metallica, and I’ll defend Load, but if the pre Black album era material wasn’t so incredibly composed I’d never be able to sit through a current live performance. It sounds elitist, but hearing Lars hit his kick exclusively on the 1 during a song like Battery? It’s like, come on, man.
The ghastly skillset of Lars forced the band to take a different path, which, interestingly, made Metallica the biggest Metal band in the world.
There’s a boring and obvious argument to be made about suing the fans you love.
The band did earn its success, but there was no way but down after the Black Album because they’d overreached so far with …and Justice. They simply weren’t talented enough musically to evolve, so Metallica became a hard rock band, then tried to catch the Metal wave again only to falter after having been surpassed by those who took the early influence and ran with it.
It’s such an interesting case where strong material excuses some wretched playing for a split audience of small part ‘grin-and-bear-it’ and mostly crossover ‘this-is-the-only-metal-band-I-like-and-therefore-don’t-know-the-difference.’
MAN, the first sample is from the Extreme song Rest in Peace! Which makes this mixtape infinitely better.
Don’t even get me started on the use of Zappa’s Tell me you Love Me.
Help me, Rhonda.
That’s fair. I get what you’re saying. I’d still argue that Pantera has a tremendous and very real legacy, though.
In terms of appreciating the pre-90’s output of the Big 4, yes, what they’ve since released certainly puts perspective on the strength of those records, but those bands at that time were also at their creative high points; flying by the seats of their collective pants in a genre that was at its most “dangerous.” The bands all peaked and came down right as metal was fading. But while those bands faded and tried to accommodate to trend, Pantera released 5 records in 10 years, each more difficult than the next.
I do agree with you that not all of what those bands recorded in the 90’s was dreadful (yes, some John Bush era Anthrax is pretty cool, and Megadeth has some great stuff from the decade,) but none were as vital as Pantera.
We’re just differing in opinion, which is fine. If mainstream hard rock is lame, I can’t blame a band that was only mainstream in name (due to magazine covers, individual virtuosity, being the most impressive American metal band over a 10 year span.) And I would suggest Alice in Chains, Korn, and Marilyn Manson as being far more responsible for what happened to modern rock.
Pantera isn’t my “favourite band ever, bro!” but it was an important gateway, and I suppose my point is that its legacy doesn’t fairly represent what the band actually was (as seen in some of the one sentence comments below.)
Dismissing a band’s legacy because of what it inspired is a total shame. Every great band has spawned wretched imitators, so instead why not praise it for the good bands who twisted the influence into something worthwhile. For every Soil/Drowning Pool/Spineshank etc., you could give credit for the success of a band like Lamb of God (controversial choice, maybe, but the stronger output far outweighs the bland, in this case.)
It’s like dismissing AC/DC as a whole simply because of, I don’t know, Jet?
Pantera didn’t really have the opportunity to age, so that point doesn’t really get off the ground.
Still, Metallica transitioned because of skill limitations. Anthrax, while continuing to release records, struggled in transition as well because of lineup adjustments. Slayer released 2 records of original material in the 90′s, and one of those was nu-metal misstep Diabolus. While Pantera was continuing to somehow gain momentum with mid-career weird-yet-uncompromising/interesting stuff like The Great Southern Trendkill, Megadeth was dumping out Cryptic Writings and Risk.
I don’t see how straying from an original sound to something stale is a credit. Plus, there is currently an entire “re-thrash” scene rife with imitators.
Near 20 year old production might make it sound less pummelling, but i’d still put this performance up against just about anything: http://youtu.be/e2Yy__sxseg
I don’t mean to sound dismissive, but I don’t even know where to start with this. You’ve put forth some valid points, but expressed them in ways that nearly disqualify them.
Such an absolutely crucial game-changer.
“Mouth for War” into “A New Level” remains one of the strongest opening 1-2 punches in hard music history.
Thanks for this.
I won’t argue that.
The nominations for the category mentioned are already flawed – Anvil is a sentimental choice and we all love to see them keeping at it, but a band like Threat Signal is more deserving, on a music level (although then I’m falling into the black hole of award merit.)
The nominations do seem to be based on a “who has been at this the longest and still going” mentality, and if Townsend doesn’t win it’ll be a sham, but I fully expected this category to be a catch-all for junk like Three Days Grace, so I was pleasently surprised.
I’m defending the fact that the bands who arguably struggle and work the hardest of all the respective nominated genres are finally being acknowledged on a bigger scale. This kind of exposure can make a big difference for the guys in KEN mode, you know?
So, yes? In the sense that awards like these can mean the most to those who don’t actually strive for them, I guess I am?
I gotta say, when they announced the inclusion of a new “Metal/Hard” category I was pretty skeptical, but they actually did a decent job. A Juno won’t mean much for the bigger name acts, but for Fuck the Facts and he-who-should-win Devin Townsend to be recognized is pretty cool.
Exactly. The poor girl is much more digestible live when she’s not wandering around, shoved into some gown.
Putting her in something youthful and Layne Staley-ing her movement makes a big difference.
I believe the claim against SNL sound is relative to the stage itself. Some artists can deal with it (those who’ve paid serious dues dealing with these limitations), whereas some have more trouble (those who have a career go from 5mph to 200mph in a few months.)
Her live vocals are never as bad as people claim them to be. Her stage presence has a long way to go.
It seems she feels the need to embellish the vocals, which the music doesn’t require.
“My only trending topic is the caaash.”
A Twitter reference never sounded so cool.
That G&T General 7B epitomizes _everything_ that is wrong with pencils. They should be taking shots from every pencil user. I’m glad you haven’t bought-in enough to remain silent.
Somewhere there’s a Nickelback fan who is really passionate about pencils. Nothing turns that person on more than discovering a new pencil that offers them a different experience that what they’re familiar with, or slipping into the groove of a pencil type they love with some easily digestible modern hard rock playing in the background. Nothing frustrates that person more than watching the general public snatching up regular old boring pencils when there’s so much diversity out there.
Some people like ballet, some knitting, some baking, some wine. Everyone likes music.
Hopefully 2012 will be the year people who don’t like Nickelback stop talking about Nickelback. It’s so boring now.
That’s the beauty of Vai: he’s so outrageously cheesy in that “you go girl” kind of way and I love him for it. It adds to it all. If he was the exact same player but dressed like say, Lenny Kravitz, it would all kind of stink, wouldn’t it? The costume aspect of it is without a doubt a conscious decision, because he doesn’t dress like that offstage. Flashy and ridiculous outfits with flashy and ridiculous music.
Malmsteen is the same: total doofus, arrogant, costume-y (openly credits Paganini influence) and absolutely rips. He has tremendous tone, great vibrato, and singlehandedly pioneered neo-classical shred (understanding Ritchie Blackmore’s role,) and he’s not on that list (I don’t think. It’s impossible to quickly navigate the stupid RS site article quickly) but Peter Greene is? Stupid.