Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Robert Plants comment about sabbath.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Ashley and I have always been total poles apart on the issue of Led Zeppelin's greatness, and whether it's been wholly deserved or not----indeed she reiterates here, her estimation of the band's colossal reputation and fan-worship as "unwarranted and undeserving". Of course, I vehemently and completely disagree. But then, Ashley and I know that only too well.

    Originally posted by Mercury87
    I strongly disagree with some of your points: in what way were they better than every rock band of their generation? Bands like Deep Purple, Black Sabbath, ELP, Genesis, Rainbow, The Who, 10cc and Queen to name a few were as good or sometimes even better than Led Zeppelin imo so I think it's rather arrogant to state they were peerless. A great band: yes, peerless: no.
    And so you would, fair enough! Maybe, I'm being more arrogant about Led Zeppelin than those fabulous foursome ever were about their band, themselves.

    Seriously, though, Mercury, I realise how 'peerless' might appear too strong, and perhaps misleading a word, to many people like yourself, in describing Zeppelin's stature in the rock scene, at the time. But I just think only Black Sabbath of the concurrent era in the '70s was Zeppelin's 'near-equal' in terms of musical chops and the massive impact they undoubtedly had on countless other acts. Sabbath never quite achieved the near-ubiquitous and phenomenal popularity and success of Zeppelin. But to me, they were the only 'peer' band comparable to Zeppelin, in class and the quality of actual studio output. Deep Purple remains, for me, a distant third in the supposed Unholy Trio of Sabbath-Zeppelin-Purple. Of the rest you mentioned (and those that you didn't) only The Who was an under-rated classy band and I'd not-so-humbly argue that the likes of Genesis, Rainbow, ELP, 10cc, Queen were in the B-leagues compared to Zeppelin's pedigree, in the '70s. So yea, Zeppelin had 'peers' alright, but none (bar Sabbath) even nearly equal, ever....so that makes them 'peerless', in that sense, in my book.
    Last edited by RLP4ever; 11-14-2009, 03:58 AM.
    "Actors really are the scum of the earth. Their behavior makes arrogant, overpaid rock stars appear positively noble' - Buzz Osborne

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by RLP4ever View Post
      Ashley and I have always been total poles apart on the issue of Led Zeppelin's greatness, and whether it's been wholly deserved or not----indeed she reiterates here, her estimation of the band's colossal reputation and fan-worship as "unwarranted and undeserving". Of course, I vehemently and completely disagree. But then, Ashley and I know that only too well.



      And so you would, fair enough! Maybe, I'm being more arrogant about Led Zeppelin than those fabulous foursome ever were about their band, themselves.

      Seriously, though, Mercury, I realise how 'peerless' might appear too strong, and perhaps misleading a word, to many people like yourself, in describing Zeppelin's stature in the rock scene, at the time. But I just think only Black Sabbath of the concurrent era in the '70s was Zeppelin's 'near-equal' in terms of musical chops and the massive impact they undoubtedly had on countless other acts. Sabbath never quite achieved the near-ubiquitous and phenomenal popularity and success of Zeppelin. But to me, they were the only 'peer' band comparable to Zeppelin, in class and the quality of actual studio output. Deep Purple remains, for me, a distant third in the supposed Unholy Trio of Sabbath-Zeppelin-Purple. Of the rest you mentioned (and those that you didn't) only The Who was an under-rated classy band and I'd not-so-humbly argue that the likes of Genesis, Rainbow, ELP, 10cc, Queen were in the B-leagues compared to Zeppelin's pedigree, in the '70s. So yea, Zeppelin had 'peers' alright, but none (bar Sabbath) even nearly equal, ever....so that makes them 'peerless', in that sense, in my book.
      Couldn't agree more with your statement RLP4, I've always had BS, ZEP and Purple as my "Holy Trinity" (or un-Holy) of rock. Those 3 bands and particularly ZEP & SAB were the foundation of all that would be and has followed in hard/heavy rock. Zep more popular because of the sex appeal to women with rock "god" Plant out front. Sabbath was mainly a teen boy/male band with their female appeal coming from women who wanted to "mother" or "nuture" lil' Ozzy, the lost little boy who looked like he needed that. Zep was far more commercially succesful and acceptable to the mainstream public and radio than Sabbath. But staure wise, these 2 bands Zep and Sab were equals in the eyes of the die hard fans who worshipped them.
      "Music is so sacred to me that I can’t hear wishy-washy nonsense just played for the sake of selling records."
      R. Blackmore

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Franklin View Post
        It's also possible the comment referred to that show being crap, not Black Sabbath in general. Ozzy was using a lot of drugs back in the 70's and did more than his fair share of crap shows.
        Maybe he just thought it was crap, simple as that. Doesn't mean it was crap just that he thought it was.
        I've heard several boots from this era and I think their great, but a friend of mine who likes most rock music doesn't think much of them, boring he called 'em, but I still think their ace.
        Its all just a matter of opinion.
        If it was at Henry's Blues House it would've probably been circa '69 or '70, Sabbath were rough 'n ready back then and still finding their style, and obviously not to everyones taste.
        I could imagine Plant would appreciate the Sabbath of say, 1973, more than the one of 1969.
        Do you believe a word what the good book says?
        Or is it just a holy fairytale and God is Dead?

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by RLP4ever View Post
          Ashley and I have always been total poles apart on the issue of Led Zeppelin's greatness, and whether it's been wholly deserved or not----indeed she reiterates here, her estimation of the band's colossal reputation and fan-worship as "unwarranted and undeserving". Of course, I vehemently and completely disagree. But then, Ashley and I know that only too well.



          And so you would, fair enough! Maybe, I'm being more arrogant about Led Zeppelin than those fabulous foursome ever were about their band, themselves.

          Seriously, though, Mercury, I realise how 'peerless' might appear too strong, and perhaps misleading a word, to many people like yourself, in describing Zeppelin's stature in the rock scene, at the time. But I just think only Black Sabbath of the concurrent era in the '70s was Zeppelin's 'near-equal' in terms of musical chops and the massive impact they undoubtedly had on countless other acts. Sabbath never quite achieved the near-ubiquitous and phenomenal popularity and success of Zeppelin. But to me, they were the only 'peer' band comparable to Zeppelin, in class and the quality of actual studio output. Deep Purple remains, for me, a distant third in the supposed Unholy Trio of Sabbath-Zeppelin-Purple. Of the rest you mentioned (and those that you didn't) only The Who was an under-rated classy band and I'd not-so-humbly argue that the likes of Genesis, Rainbow, ELP, 10cc, Queen were in the B-leagues compared to Zeppelin's pedigree, in the '70s. So yea, Zeppelin had 'peers' alright, but none (bar Sabbath) even nearly equal, ever....so that makes them 'peerless', in that sense, in my book.
          Imo, you downplay Deep Purple/Rainbow too much. Ok, because of the regular member shifts and the tensions not all of their albums were consistent, but they still had many albums during that period that were as good and dare I say as influencial as the ones of Led Zeppelin. Also the first three albums of Rainbow were also very influencial on many HM/HR acts that followed.
          Same can be said for Queen: they also had very consistent and great albums during the '70s and were also very influencial on many acts that came after them.
          You might be right about the other acts that they didn't the acclaim of Led Zeppelin in the '70s, but imo they were all very good bands with a memorable back catalogue.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Mercury87 View Post
            Imo, you downplay Deep Purple/Rainbow too much. Ok, because of the regular member shifts and the tensions not all of their albums were consistent, but they still had many albums during that period that were as good and dare I say as influencial as the ones of Led Zeppelin. Also the first three albums of Rainbow were also very influencial on many HM/HR acts that followed.
            Same can be said for Queen: they also had very consistent and great albums during the '70s and were also very influencial on many acts that came after them.
            You might be right about the other acts that they didn't the acclaim of Led Zeppelin in the '70s, but imo they were all very good bands with a memorable back catalogue.
            You're right that I apparently did sort of 'downplay' the importance, and the impressive qualities of Deep Purple and Rainbow. That was weird because I actually rate '70s Deep Purple with an Ian Gillan in his vocal prime, pretty highly---indeed, it's the only DP that I ever really cared about, and 1-2 records of the '80s as well). Ditto with Rainbow; I have often praised the coolness of those first three Rainbow records with Dio, in these forums. Yes, both DP and Rainbow were strong performers in the '70s and had considerable impact on latter-day rock-metallers. I recognise Queen's fan following and impact, too, though because I honestly couldn't stand them at all, they wouldn't figure in any list of mine regarding icons of rock. As for the other bands of that era, my opinion is that a lot of them were actually patently second-rate, some were undoubtedly (unevenly) very good, but none ever threatened to match the greatness of a Led Zeppelin or Black Sabbath, through the '70s. So, I stand by my belief that Zeppelin were almost indisputably atop the pantheon of rock gods of that decade.
            "Actors really are the scum of the earth. Their behavior makes arrogant, overpaid rock stars appear positively noble' - Buzz Osborne

            Comment


            • #51
              The talk of CONSISTENCY always makes me want to hurl. There is nothing worse than any band who tries to be consistent.

              You are a MUSICIAN first and foremost, before you ever decide which music you desire to make. It should be an obligation of any musician, no matter their ability, to go out of their way to make their path as difficult as possible.

              Greatness, thus respect for it, should only be measured by how hard you make it on yourself. So a Metal band makes a metal record? Big Deal. How about trying to make a country album. And even if you do not want to branch out to other styles, at least make every record as inconsistent as possible.

              Originally posted by RLP4ever View Post
              ...As for the other bands of that era, my opinion is that a lot of them were actually patently second-rate, some were undoubtedly (unevenly) very good, but none ever threatened to match the greatness of a Led Zeppelin or Black Sabbath, through the '70s. So, I stand by my belief that Zeppelin were almost indisputably atop the pantheon of rock gods of that decade.
              Sir, are you forgetting Pink Floyd?

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Ashley Dalby View Post
                The talk of CONSISTENCY always makes me want to hurl. There is nothing worse than any band who tries to be consistent.

                You are a MUSICIAN first and foremost, before you ever decide which music you desire to make. It should be an obligation of any musician, no matter their ability, to go out of their way to make their path as difficult as possible.


                Greatness, thus respect for it, should only be measured by how hard you make it on yourself. So a Metal band makes a metal record? Big Deal. How about trying to make a country album. And even if you do not want to branch out to other styles, at least make every record as inconsistent as possible.
                Well, I'd argue 'consistency' can cut both ways for a band. I never had a quarrel with bands (and this includes some of my own favourite bands) that are sometimes, rightly or wrongly, 'accused' of being 'formulaic' and mocked by carping critics and fickle fans for allegedly making records that are too similar in style and content. Bottom line is, I can live happily with a band that maybe never strays much from a songwriting and sonic style of their own, BUT is 'consistent' in the top-drawer quality of their albums----unlike say, a post-Ozzy Sabbath that was mainly 'consistent' in its deflating, exasparating all-round mediocrity. LOL

                So, in the world of music and bands, I reckon that 'consistency' can be both a 'virtue' or a 'curse', as indeed can be the much-vaunted route of 'experimentation' that a lot of fans appear to always enthusiastically extol.

                But, Ashley, your other remarks are bafflingly sort of esoteric, and well.... rather amusing. Gosh, lemme tell ya that the lives and fortunes of too many of my own (metal) musical heroes have been rather tough and trying enough already, without their having to themselves strive to "make their path as difficult as possible" And you appear to demand that every self-respecting band oughta dabble in myriad different styles in order to warrant the real, true 'respect' from the fans. I don't know about others, I'd rather be caught dead or day-dreaming about nothingness than ever expect a 'metal' band, of all things, to try out country, (jazz, pop, reggae, too? LOLOL) to become worthy of our admiration?? You gotta be absolutely kidding me and winding me up, Ashley, eh?

                But hey, I'll grant you this much, though; i.e maybe all you seem to really wish for, is an ever-changing musical approach and style in any given band's successive releases. Fair enough...but I beg you please don't hold that (the refusal to do that) against the Cannibal Corpses, or Slayers of this world. Hahaha.


                Sir, are you forgetting Pink Floyd?
                Oh damn, I did......I should have mentioned that they, too, almost always (excepting assorted songs and the Animals album) bored me to distraction. And while Floyd get a lot of universal kudos for their "originality" (especially when pitting a particularly specious argument against Led Zeppelin ), all I can say is yea, Pink Floyd were perhaps THE 'original' Boring Band I had encountered, in my musical journey, so far. Fact remains, nobody, not Deep Purple, not Rainbow, not Pink Floyd were Zeppelin's equal, ever. Sabbath was the only challenger, and the jury is still out on that.


                Originally posted by Wicked Cricket
                Couldn't agree more with your statement RLP4, I've always had BS, ZEP and Purple as my "Holy Trinity" (or un-Holy) of rock. Those 3 bands and particularly ZEP & SAB were the foundation of all that would be and has followed in hard/heavy rock. Zep more popular because of the sex appeal to women with rock "god" Plant out front. Sabbath was mainly a teen boy/male band with their female appeal coming from women who wanted to "mother" or "nuture" lil' Ozzy, the lost little boy who looked like he needed that. Zep was far more commercially succesful and acceptable to the mainstream public and radio than Sabbath. But staure wise, these 2 bands Zep and Sab were equals in the eyes of the die hard fans who worshipped them.
                Yea, buddy, all of that you say here and the fact that Zeppelin and Sabbath were clearly far more dissimilar, than they were ever similar bands. I'd go further and say that had Sabbath, to their misfortune, not been such a woefully managed band (unlike Zeppelin, who luckily were actually expertly managed all the way) AND had Sabbath not been so spuriously associated with a 'Satanic', poorly-represented public profile, I reckon Sabbath would have been at least as massively popular as Zeppelin always were, during that unforgettable decade in Rock. Of course, the inner turmoil in the band also frequently tripped them up. Besides, for all their awesome musical gifts and undoubted innovative flair, Zeppelin seemed to be slightly more rooted in a 'traditional' turf regarding their musical craft and direction than were Sabbath with their crushingly ton-heavy, lumbering, deliriously downtuned, doomy sound and style AND the utterly mostly dark, bleak lyrical palette that placed them firmly in the counter-culture and almost an anti-thesis to anything 'mainstream' in music. Of our 'Un-Holy Trinity' Sabbath were obviously also the only genuinely 'metal' act, and pretty much a standout pioneer, for their time. So, I'd say that Zeppelin's greater 'accessibility' and phenomenal popularity among mainstream rock fandom and the press, definitely had something to do with their rather less 'subversive' sound (and lyrics) and the apparent diversity and depth to their overall songwriting through their career.

                Ultimately, on most days, Sabbath and Zeppelin, on my card, return a split decision (with Zeppelin occasionally winning by a TKO, Hahaha). Nobody else, from the '70s, was even a contender against this magnificent duo.
                Last edited by RLP4ever; 11-15-2009, 03:38 AM.
                "Actors really are the scum of the earth. Their behavior makes arrogant, overpaid rock stars appear positively noble' - Buzz Osborne

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by RLP4ever View Post
                  Originally posted by Ashley Dalby View Post
                  The talk of CONSISTENCY always makes me want to hurl. There is nothing worse than any band who tries to be consistent.

                  You are a MUSICIAN first and foremost, before you ever decide which music you desire to make. It should be an obligation of any musician, no matter their ability, to go out of their way to make their path as difficult as possible.

                  Greatness, thus respect for it, should only be measured by how hard you make it on yourself. So a Metal band makes a metal record? Big Deal. How about trying to make a country album. And even if you do not want to branch out to other styles, at least make every record as inconsistent as possible.

                  Sir, are you forgetting Pink Floyd?
                  Well, I'd argue 'consistency' can cut both ways for a band. I never had a quarrel with bands (and this includes some of my own favourite bands) that are sometimes, rightly or wrongly, 'accused' of being 'formulaic' and mocked by carping critics and fickle fans for allegedly making records that are too similar in style and content. Bottom line is, I can live happily with a band that maybe never strays much from a songwriting and sonic style of their own, BUT is 'consistent' in the top-drawer quality of their albums----unlike say, a post-Ozzy Sabbath that was mainly 'consistent' in its deflating, exasparating all-round mediocrity. LOL
                  The problem with the whole "never strays much from a songwriting and sonic style of their own" is the absence of ANYTHING once that well runs dry. What happens when you find a well and continue draining water from it without doing anything to replenishing it?
                  The well runs dry and you’ll be lucky to get your spit back from it.

                  Originally posted by RLP4ever View Post
                  So, in the world of music and bands, I reckon that 'consistency' can be both a 'virtue' or a 'curse', as indeed can be the much-vaunted route of 'experimentation' that a lot of fans appear to always enthusiastically extol.
                  As long as you have established a core foundation that you can always return to for safety, why not try to replenish your well? As long as the foundation is solid then the incessant adding of ingredients will never be able to crack it. Even your band’s most loyal fan base eventually ends up broadening and if your stuck with one formula then your highlight reel will be on VH1’s “Where Are They Now?” tv show, and who wants that?

                  You mentioned a curse with experimentation and this does hold true, my second favorite band is a great example of that. Just like Led Zeppelin did a few years before them with General Rock, they stapled the same approach to Metal, which is to include softer moments. Right in the middle of this bands album that is full of Thrash Metal there is a Waltz song that sounds like it could have been recorded by the Carpenters. Call it a conversational piece if you wish but I love discovering a song or two in a collection of tracks that leaves me scratching my head and thinking “Where did that come from?”

                  Originally posted by RLP4ever View Post
                  But, Ashley, your other remarks are bafflingly sort of esoteric, and well.... rather amusing. Gosh, lemme tell ya that the lives and fortunes of too many of my own (metal) musical heroes have been rather tough and trying enough already, without their having to themselves strive to "make their path as difficult as possible" And you appear to demand that every self-respecting band oughta dabble in myriad different styles in order to warrant the real, true 'respect' from the fans. I don't know about others, I'd rather be caught dead or day-dreaming about nothingness than ever expect a 'metal' band, of all things, to try out country, (jazz, pop, reggae, too? LOLOL) to become worthy of our admiration?? You gotta be absolutely kidding me and winding me up, Ashley, eh?
                  No I am not kidding or winding you up, I simply asked a question which I will ask again: why cant a Metal band do other styles of music?
                  I cannot say that you are unable or unwilling to see a Country/Metal fusion as a success because your tastes in Metal are literally, EXTREME. I enjoy Death Metal as much as the next person, who does, and can still appreciate a Metal song mixed with a genre that is far from their norm.
                  I cannot speak for you but in my beginning years as a Metal fan it was surrounded by a Metal band that actually DID do a Country/Metal song, so maybe that is why.

                  Originally posted by RLP4ever View Post
                  But hey, I'll grant you this much, though; i.e maybe all you seem to really wish for, is an ever-changing musical approach and style in any given band's successive releases. Fair enough...but I beg you please don't hold that (the refusal to do that) against the Cannibal Corpses, or Slayers of this world. Hahaha.
                  No offense sir but are you suggesting your beloved bands are not talented enough to do something EXTREME and throw a Bluegrass tune right in the middle of their Death or Thrash styles, respectively?

                  Originally posted by RLP4ever View Post
                  Originally posted by Ashley Dalby View Post
                  Sir, are you forgetting Pink Floyd?
                  Oh damn, I did......I should have mentioned that they, too, almost always (excepting assorted songs and the Animals album) bored me to distraction. And while Floyd get a lot of universal kudos for their "originality" (especially when pitting a particularly specious argument against Led Zeppelin ), all I can say is yea, Pink Floyd were perhaps THE 'original' Boring Band I had encountered, in my musical journey, so far. Fact remains, nobody, not Deep Purple, not Rainbow, not Pink Floyd were Zeppelin's equal, ever. Sabbath was the only challenger, and the jury is still out on that.
                  Certainly you are entitled but Pink Floyd being “boring”? You give away why you think Floyd is boring though in what album you quote as being one you enjoy, Animals, which is probably their most Metal-ish record to date. Is it because there is little to no crunch of heaviness to their sound? Their ever-changing approach every Gold-Mine they find. You wrote that I baffled you with esotericism, well now it is me who is baffled by the mystery. Certainly only you can explain this sir, but how in any sane person’s mind is Pink Floyd, the masters of experimentation, boring?

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Ashley Dalby View Post




                    No offense sir but are you suggesting your beloved bands are not talented enough to do something EXTREME and throw a Bluegrass tune right in the middle of their Death or Thrash styles, respectively?

                    Certainly only you can explain this sir, but how in any sane person’s mind is Pink Floyd, the masters of experimentation, boring?

                    Firstly, I have to say that I also fnd Pink Floyd boring beyond belief. Songs that drag on for 20 minutes plus without really going anywhere. I can definately do without that. Not all their albums though. "Wish You Were Here" is fantastic as it' tight. But so many of their other albums just have no direction and are more like one long jam.

                    And as far as this business of experimentataion, I both agree and vehemently disagree with you. I love variety-but it has to be sensible and reasonable and with credibilty.

                    If you're a hard rock/ metal band, then I love a good variety of rock/metal songs. Some songs fast/thrash, some songs slow, some short songs, some long epic songs, some songs with quick solos, some with long solos. You can do instrumentals, you can do softer/ballad type songs, you can do some acid/psychadelic tracks.

                    Look at Sabbath. There's the epic 16 min track from their first album with a long, elaborate solo. There's quick, more commerical friendly songs like "Paranoid". There's a variety of instrumentals. There's softer songs like "Changes" and "She's Gone". There's a hippy influence with "The Straightener". There's the somewhat psychadelic "Planet Caravan". There's a heap of really long songs and a heap of short songs.

                    But I'm sorry, what you're proposing is utterly ridiculous. A metal band doing bluegrass/country? You shouldn't be coming up with songs with "variety" just for the sake of variety. The fact is, country and bluegrass don't gel with metal/hard rock. Sure, have variety. But it has to be sensible. If you're a metal band, you just don't do country, bluegrass, hip hop, pop etc.

                    What's the most odd thing Sabbath ever did? That utter piece of crap with Ice T on the 'Forbidden' album. And most Sabbath fans hate it. I hate it. That sort of "variety" just doesn't suit Sabbath. Could you imagine 'The Carpenters' tryng their hand at some acid rock? I'm sure you wll agree it would sound ridiculous.

                    Or Metallica doing some disco? What about AC/DC trying their hand at some folk music. Yeah, I'm sure that would sound good-NOT. Or Rainbow trying to do some punk. Look at Zeppelin trying their hand at "funk" with "The Crunge". An easily forgettable track. Or Zeppelin trying their hand at country with the laughable "Hot Dog". Ugh!

                    So sure, any band should have variety. But stick to variety that's suitable. Not all styles of music are suitable for any band. You don't just do "variety" for the sake of it, like Zeppelin did occasionally do. It sounds ridiculous. You stick to your genre of music and do a variety of music appropriate to that genre. Bluegrass and country are not appropriate to a metal band as you propose.
                    Last edited by WheelsOfConfusion; 11-16-2009, 01:39 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by WheelsOfConfusion View Post
                      But I'm sorry, what you're proposing is utterly ridiculous. A metal band doing bluegrass/country? You shouldn't be coming up with songs with "variety" just for the sake of variety. The fact is, country and bluegrass don't gel with metal/hard rock. Sure, have variety. But it has to be sensible. If you're a metal band, you just don't do country, bluegrass, hip hop, pop etc.
                      Well, I don't consider Sabbath a metal band (nor do they), even if they did create the genre, but "St. Vitus' Dance" is a good example of 'heavy bluegrass' or 'country metal'!

                      And the alternate version of "Lord of this World" with steel guitar is almost another example of the merging of those forms.

                      As far as doing a "pop" song, that term is broad, but "Looking for Today" is a pretty close analogue, as was "Evil Woman". And "Rock 'n' Roll Doctor" is pretty much a classic rock song with honky tonk elements.

                      But I vehemently agree that hip hop has no place in the catalog of any self-respecting proponent of genuine music, and the sooner that repugnant, formulaic abomination passes into bad memory, the better.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Ashley Dalby View Post
                        The problem with the whole "never strays much from a songwriting and sonic style of their own" is the absence of ANYTHING once that well runs dry. What happens when you find a well and continue draining water from it without doing anything to replenishing it?
                        The well runs dry and you’ll be lucky to get your spit back from it.

                        As long as you have established a core foundation that you can always return to for safety, why not try to replenish your well? As long as the foundation is solid then the incessant adding of ingredients will never be able to crack it. Even your band’s most loyal fan base eventually ends up broadening and if your stuck with one formula then your highlight reel will be on VH1’s “Where Are They Now?” tv show, and who wants that?
                        Not quite true. Songwriting styles and other aspects of musicianship are not exactly finite resources, like oil/water wells or produce on grocery store shelves etc...Luckily, too many of these guys never seem to run out of killer new riffs, you know..and the dizzyingly cool drummers I admire don't cease to amaze with the stuff they do, over their careers. So, the 'wells' of ideas and cool musicianship seem to me to be far from spent, just yet. Fact is, there are a bevy of metal bands that have managed to innovate, improvise, merge and execute their own musical ideas, whether old or new, in whatever small or bigger ways they choose to. My point was that I never much minded the fact how many of my own favourite metal bands could tinker with their sound, adeptly alter and innnovate on certain things in their music, without ever really drifting too much away from their core musical intent and style. So no, I actually love the fact that an act like Cannibal Corpse, for instance, while actually changing a whole lot in many ways, between their two eras, never compromised on the very intrinsic nature of their music. Their very identity as musicians. That's who they are, and that's what they do musically. Same with Slayer. To my ears, they have certainly changed and adopted a few different ideas to their sound and playing, from album to album. They can't be fairly accused of being the 'same old' throughout their career. The only constant 'sameness' about Slayer is their relentless thrash sensibilities and musical onslaught. I can't think of anybody, fan or not, that even remotely expects these bands (or most bona fide Metal bands) to suddenly begin flirting with hard rock and country and other styles (let alone if they could convincingly pull if off even if they had tried)----so that they could garner whole new audiences. Do you expect country stars to show some bravado and take a stab at playing heavy rock/metal for a change, at a gig, on an album, on their next 'hit' single? Could they possibly do it? Would they even want to? Do their biggest fans even expect or want it? This is pretty crazy, Ashley, and I reckon you know it too.

                        So, I can bet my bottom dime, that the likes of CC and Slayer and tons of their ilk aren't destined to be featured on some 'Where Are They Now' flick. They have been heavy-hitting at their game for twenty years and more, and we fans will always know where they've been and where they are at----even when they pack it in and retire. It's called LEGACY. These guys have that all sewn up, by now.

                        You mentioned a curse with experimentation and this does hold true, my second favorite band is a great example of that. Just like Led Zeppelin did a few years before them with General Rock, they stapled the same approach to Metal, which is to include softer moments. Right in the middle of this bands album that is full of Thrash Metal there is a Waltz song that sounds like it could have been recorded by the Carpenters. Call it a conversational piece if you wish but I love discovering a song or two in a collection of tracks that leaves me scratching my head and thinking “Where did that come from?”
                        Oh no, if I ever heard a proper thrash act throw in a 'waltz' tune out of the blue, or god forbid, something akin to the Carpenters, as you suggest, I'd torch their homes, raze their studios, and the fans would flood the blogosphere with ample abuse---and it would all be deserved.

                        Look, I'm not opposed to 'experimentation' per se---I guess every rock/metal band actually do that, to whatever extents. It's just that I hate it when some bands do stuff seemingly just for the novelty of it--and what's worse, when their needless experimentation goes awry, I can't help but lament the results of that effort. There are occasions when experiments work out nicely enough, and the records are the better for it. It's a risk worth taking----only when you have the 'right' ideas in mind and can execute it expertly. I knew you would refer to my known passion for death metal----and I'd tell you that plenty of dm bands know how to incorporate musical ideas from other genres, include 'softer' slower passages to contrast with the otherwise brutal and heavy nature of their music..and there's more to it than I'd care to detail here now. But no, I'd unabashedly confess to wanting no such wacko surprises on a death metal album, as a sudden burst of an operatic song, or the strains of spanish guitar solos, or the sound of divas wailing and other assorted abominations---that simply do not belong in death metal, let alone Metal, itself. If that somehow sounds like closed-minded snobbery, then I'll plead no defence for that attitude.

                        No I am not kidding or winding you up, I simply asked a question which I will ask again: why cant a Metal band do other styles of music?
                        I cannot say that you are unable or unwilling to see a Country/Metal fusion as a success because your tastes in Metal are literally, EXTREME. I enjoy Death Metal as much as the next person, who does, and can still appreciate a Metal song mixed with a genre that is far from their norm.
                        I cannot speak for you but in my beginning years as a Metal fan it was surrounded by a Metal band that actually DID do a Country/Metal song, so maybe that is why.

                        No offense sir but are you suggesting your beloved bands are not talented enough to do something EXTREME and throw a Bluegrass tune right in the middle of their Death or Thrash styles, respectively?
                        A Metal band can feel free to do whatever they wanna-----but regardless of fans' opinions, how many metal bands can you honestly think of that would ever even contemplate cooking up a Metal-Country fusion album or horror of horrors, throw in "a Bluegrass tune right in the middle of their Death or Thrash styles, respectively?" ...This is honestly beyond bizarre, Ashley and I'm far from alone in feeling that way. It's not about my favourite bands being "talented enough" or not, to do this sort of thing. I gotta wonder whether they'd ever be that insane enough to even wanna try. Sure, metal bands, even death metal bands have always merged and devised various rock-metal formulas to their sound, but the stuff you're suggesting is wayyyy off base---artistically, aesthetically, and yes, even commercially---to say nothing of the inevitable, legitimately hostile fan reception. I have to stress that this has little to do with my tastes in Metal being 'extreme'---of course they are.. But I listen to and love traditional Rock/Metal, and the Blues too, for example. These are 'fused' into Metal structures, pretty often. Heck, even Rap has been toyed with by the nu-metal bunch. And that's been a total disgrace. But what you're suggesting here is far stranger and sillier.

                        Certainly you are entitled but Pink Floyd being “boring”? You give away why you think Floyd is boring though in what album you quote as being one you enjoy, Animals, which is probably their most Metal-ish record to date. Is it because there is little to no crunch of heaviness to their sound? Their ever-changing approach every Gold-Mine they find. You wrote that I baffled you with esotericism, well now it is me who is baffled by the mystery. Certainly only you can explain this sir, but how in any sane person’s mind is Pink Floyd, the masters of experimentation, boring?
                        Well, I wouldn't say Animals was really some sort of 'Metal-ish' record, really. But it was pretty classy, overall, and certainly the best that I ever got from Pink Floyd.

                        To me, and trust me, Ashley, I'm SO healthy and sane than you'd know, the "masters of experimentation' sucked with what they did, most of the time. Let's just say, I easily tired and grew weary of Floyd's psychedelic, spaced-out, pretty lame prog-rock tendencies, and found their records (heard 7 of them through, plus random other songs) downright dull and boring, pure and simple. Dave Gilmour could play some stirring solos sometimes, but his singing is atrocious, and Floyd's vocals, in fact, were always one of their worst aspect to their music, to my mind. Floyd usually sounded too dour, lethargic and would grate on my patience. So, while it may seem a mystery to you how anybody can find Pink Floyd 'boring', I know I sure do, and I hope that I unravelled some of it here. But hey, I did enjoy a few tunes on the Division Bell album---even the one that you used to lovingly praise in the forums, in the past.
                        Last edited by RLP4ever; 11-16-2009, 01:54 AM.
                        "Actors really are the scum of the earth. Their behavior makes arrogant, overpaid rock stars appear positively noble' - Buzz Osborne

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by thesithempire View Post
                          Well, I don't consider Sabbath a metal band (nor do they), even if they did create the genre, but "St. Vitus' Dance" is a good example of 'heavy bluegrass' or 'country metal'!

                          And the alternate version of "Lord of this World" with steel guitar is almost another example of the merging of those forms.

                          As far as doing a "pop" song, that term is broad, but "Looking for Today" is a pretty close analogue, as was "Evil Woman". And "Rock 'n' Roll Doctor" is pretty much a classic rock song with honky tonk elements.

                          But I vehemently agree that hip hop has no place in the catalog of any self-respecting proponent of genuine music, and the sooner that repugnant, formulaic abomination passes into bad memory, the better.

                          Well, I personally think that you're being highly creative in stretching the defintions of pop, country, bluegrass etc in attempting to claim that "St Vitus Dance" and other Sabbath songs branched out into those genres. Just because a song has elements of a genre, doesn't mean it is that genre.

                          A song could have an element of pop in it. Songs like "Looking for Today" (as you suggested ) or the much more radio friendly "Am I Going Insane" and "Never Say Die". But in the end, they are still not pop songs even though they have an element of pop in it.

                          In the end, "Am I Going Insane" and "Never Say Die" and "Looking for Today" are not full blown pop songs like "Show me the Way" from Peter Frampton. So you have to differentiate. Does a song have an element or influence only from a particular genre or is it a full blown version of that genre?

                          Example. Listen to Deep Purple's "Anya" with that harpsichrod intro. It has elements of classical/folk/medieval. But it is not a full blown classical/folk/medieval song like something from 'Blackmore's Night'.

                          But I agree. The sooner that that hip hop and rap are eradicated from the world, the better!

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by thesithempire View Post

                            But I vehemently agree that hip hop has no place in the catalog of any self-respecting proponent of genuine music, and the sooner that repugnant, formulaic abomination passes into bad memory, the better.
                            That's the kind of narrow-minded rubbish I'd expect from a rock fan.

                            You've obviously listened to a couple of Black-Eyed Peas songs (which are terrible beyond belief) and decided that this is hip-hop.

                            Anthrax and Aerosmith had the right idea. Mix it up a bit and you get something different and creative. Check out some Eric B & Rakim for top-notch creative hip-hop. If anything is formulaic it is Heavy Metal!!

                            I'm glad Sabbath didn't take this approach; no blues, no jazz, no psychedelia, etc, etc.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by thesithempire View Post
                              But I vehemently agree that hip hop has no place in the catalog of any self-respecting proponent of genuine music, and the sooner that repugnant, formulaic abomination passes into bad memory, the better.
                              Originally posted by WheelsOfConfusion View Post
                              But I agree. The sooner that that hip hop and rap are eradicated from the world, the better!
                              What bollocks! Why does the type of music YOU like have any more right to exist than another? Rap - like any other type of music - when done well, can be exhilarating, awe inspiring & every bit as legitimate as any kind of rock music.

                              As for it passing into the memory... Don't hold your breath.

                              Originally posted by WheelsOfConfusion View Post
                              You don't just do "variety" for the sake of it, like Zeppelin did occasionally do. It sounds ridiculous. You stick to your genre of music and do a variety of music appropriate to that genre. Bluegrass and country are not appropriate to a metal band as you propose.
                              I don't think Zeppelin did anything 'for the sake of it"... I think as talented musicians bored with the endless droning & riffage that some of their less educated & tolerant "fans" expected of them, they decided to try their hands at other stuff they enjoyed. Just 'cos you're in a "ROCK" band doesn't mean you have to attend to the needs of the great unwashed mindless masses ALL the time.
                              Last edited by devilmaycare; 11-16-2009, 07:40 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                As I wrote before if you are a musician or vocalist... It does not matter what genre of music you end up lumped into, you are a musician/vocalist first.

                                As a creator your only limitations should be what you set for yourselves, there should be no rules for what genres you sample or take on. All doors should be able to opened unless you simply do not have the skill to do so.

                                Originally posted by thesithempire View Post
                                But I vehemently agree that hip hop has no place in the catalog of any self-respecting proponent of genuine music, and the sooner that repugnant, formulaic abomination passes into bad memory, the better.
                                I am hoping you are referring to the abomination known as "Gangsta Rap" and not "Hip Hop" because there is nothing wrong with the latter.

                                There was talent and respect amongst the early rap artists and most of it was easily enjoyable. Heavy D and the Boyz, Gheto Boyz, Run DMC, Public Enemy, Twista, Grandmaster Flash and The Furious Five, Melle Mel, Big Daddy Kane. More importantly, there are a few rappers or rap bands who deserve extra credit for being quite talented at what they do like: Snoop Dogg, Too Short, Cypress Hill, Tupac and most of all, Bone Thugs-N-Harmony.

                                I saw Bone Thugs in concert at a festival and was quite stunned by how talented and entertaining they were.

                                Rap has come a long way and I will agree that Gangsta Rap is a useless sub-genre of music, there is certainly nothing wrong at all with Hip-Hop. If you need to know how far Rap has come, Listen To This! - NWA - Automobile or Listen To This! - Too Short - Blowjob Betty
                                Last edited by Ashley Dalby; 11-16-2009, 08:03 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X