HAVE WE HEARD IT ALL

Have we heard it all...has metal gone as far as it can...has every sub-genre been created now...is everything from this point forward just remakes and copys of the past?

I Hope So !

Although I don't discount the possibility of some new "sound" surfacing , I prefer for rockers to keep that classic sound of all the great metal genres from the 70s thru the 80s.
To me "new = meh"... grunge had a few good sounds, but didn't exceed the previous classic sounds. Nu-metal, screamo, cookie monster growling and the like may have built upon the metal foundation, but none of it was an improvement.... some metal bands even tried the new tech of auto-tune in the 90s... another passing fad. 
What I'm saying is, the ground-work was successfully laid in the 70s/80s... and nothing since has been new and exciting. With exception of industrial metal... I think that was a pretty cool genre that came after the classics. 
Im open to listening to any attempts at a new metal genre... but I won't hold my breath for anything good.

I don't know if we have heard it all yet or not, but I find myself quickly getting to the place where I don't really want to hear much anymore that strays outside of my favorite genres.  Most of the new stuff sounds boring and repetative to me (unless it doesn't vary much from the 70s/80s kind of sound).  For instance Black Star Riders is a new (secular) band made up of some ex-members of Thin Lizzy.  They are a new band with modern production but their sound is very rooted in the 70's/80's rock and roll sound and I dig it.

Staybrite wrote:

I don't know if we have heard it all yet or not, but I find myself quickly getting to the place where I don't really want to hear much anymore that strays outside of my favorite genres.  Most of the new stuff sounds boring and repetative to me (unless it doesn't vary much from the 70s/80s kind of sound).  For instance Black Star Riders is a new (secular) band made up of some ex-members of Thin Lizzy.  They are a new band with modern production but their sound is very rooted in the 70's/80's rock and roll sound and I dig it.

Yeah, BSR has an awesome 70's sound and Revolution Saints have that Journey/Night Ranger 80's sound. I am not interested in anything new unless it is a classic artist releasing something new or unless it sounds like this:

MikeInFla wrote:

Yeah, BSR has an awesome 70's sound and Revolution Saints have that Journey/Night Ranger 80's sound. I am not interested in anything new unless it is a classic artist releasing something new or unless it sounds like this:

Agreed.  There have been a few modern bands in the last few years with touches of that old-school sound that I find very enjoyable such as Messenger and Four Star Revival, Absolon etc.

I admit that I like the 70's and 80's sound, and am not too keen on what amounted to hard rock and metal from the 90's, but I enjoy power and symphonic metal, something we didn't have back then as far as I know.

But as to the question at hand, I think we probably have heard it all by now. Chris Impellitteri says he spent the last three years developing and perfecting a new style of picking that allows him to play even faster which he used for this latest CD, but to the untrained and non-particular ear (mine) his playing on this one doesn't sound much different than it did on previous albums. This is an example, to me anyway, of how a musician can play something new, but the general public won't necessarily hear anything new.

BearDad wrote:

I admit that I like the 70's and 80's sound, and am not too keen on what amounted to hard rock and metal from the 90's, but I enjoy power and symphonic metal, something we didn't have back then as far as I know.

But as to the question at hand, I think we probably have heard it all by now. Chris Impellitteri says he spent the last three years developing and perfecting a new style of picking that allows him to play even faster which he used for this latest CD, but to the untrained and non-particular ear (mine) his playing on this one doesn't sound much different than it did on previous albums. This is an example, to me anyway, of how a musician can play something new, but the general public won't necessarily hear anything new.

Makes sense to me. I don't have Venom (yet) but I have heard it and it sounds like his playing, I detect nothing out of the ordinary (and there is nothing wrong with it being like his previous work, in fact that's a GOOD thing).

To be honest, I don't care if guitarists can play any faster.  When they get so fast, it just becomes mechanical and soulless.  I'd rather hear a dozen Angus Young or Ace Frehley clones than one guy who can play faster than anyone else.  Why?  There's more feeling involved.  Some of what our old school players did was mix in some speed and some just fishing for something that felt right.  What they played needed to bring out the same emotion as the song.  Today's players have forgotten that.  We used to say it, but it really is true:  speed kills.

I am thinking we've pretty much heard all there is.  Even new musics are just mixups of old styles thrown into a blender.  To be honest, I don't really WANT new styles.  I just want to hear something that moves me musically, lyrically, and doesn't look too weird.  I've grown tired of even modern rock that is just the same thing over and over.  I know I am going to sound old and I don't care.  However, all the GREAT musical styles came before 1990.

Quote :

However, all the GREAT musical styles came before 1990.

I agree.

I'm not willing to say that every possible combination of musical sound and musical structures have been exhausted, but I think we are long past the point where any meaningful combinations have been exhausted because there is no money in innovation, just in repitition.  Individual musicians and bands are going to continue to experiment with different techniques and effects, but I have a hard time thinking of most of those as being significant enough to call it a new style.  I think we have to realize that at some point faster, louder, and different clothes don't make a new style of music.  How many "different" -core subgenres are there supposed to be?  How many truly sound different from something else?  I mean, we got thrash from blending metal and hardcore punk, and we developed death metal from thrash, so how is adding elements of hardcore punk to death metal really giving us a different style?  Do we really consider something like pornogrind a separate entity from grindcore just because of the lyrical content?  I have a hard time doing that.

alldatndensum wrote:

To be honest, I don't care if guitarists can play any faster.  When they get so fast, it just becomes mechanical and soulless.  I'd rather hear a dozen Angus Young or Ace Frehley clones than one guy who can play faster than anyone else.  Why?  There's more feeling involved.  Some of what our old school players did was mix in some speed and some just fishing for something that felt right.  What they played needed to bring out the same emotion as the song.  Today's players have forgotten that.  We used to say it, but it really is true:  speed kills.

I am thinking we've pretty much heard all there is.  Even new musics are just mixups of old styles thrown into a blender.  To be honest, I don't really WANT new styles.  I just want to hear something that moves me musically, lyrically, and doesn't look too weird.  I've grown tired of even modern rock that is just the same thing over and over.  I know I am going to sound old and I don't care.  However, all the GREAT musical styles came before 1990.

Couldn't agree more.

alldatndensum wrote:

To be honest, I don't care if guitarists can play any faster.  When they get so fast, it just becomes mechanical and soulless.  I'd rather hear a dozen Angus Young or Ace Frehley clones than one guy who can play faster than anyone else.  Why?  There's more feeling involved.  Some of what our old school players did was mix in some speed and some just fishing for something that felt right.  What they played needed to bring out the same emotion as the song.  Today's players have forgotten that.  We used to say it, but it really is true:  speed kills.

I agree 100%, as I too prefer the drawn out, soulful guitar solos. Chris' fast arpeggios are impressive, but as you say they don't have any feeling.  I simply used his statements as an example of how a musician may feel he is playing something different but to the fans it is just SOS. I enjoy hearing it from time to time, but a couple of spins are about all I can stand before I'm back to something with soul.

alldatndensum wrote:

To be honest, I don't really WANT new styles. 

I think most of us, as we get older, crave the familiarity of the good, solid rock and roll we had while we were growing up. That's why the 80's bands are still around and still touring, and still drawing in crowds.

alldatndensum wrote:

I just want to hear something that moves me musically, lyrically, and doesn't look too weird.

I think this is why I have grown so fond of symphonic metal lately.

messiaen77 wrote:

Do we really consider something like pornogrind a separate entity from grindcore just because of the lyrical content?

Lyrical content a genre, does not define.

I watched a video of a drummer playing some sub-genre of speed metal.  It was just the drums, nothing else.  While I'll give the guy props on the time and effort that goes into playing that fast, I'll say the whole thing sounded bad.  Just a lot of pounding in rhythm.  Zero flow, zero nuance, zero anything that is required to make music move you.  I'll take style or feel over speed every time.

It seems a lot of musicians, at least in the Rock Genre, sub-genre, sub-sub-genre, sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-genre, aren't just making music any longer.  They are trying too hard to "be" something.  Whether it's sounding like their favorite bands or going so far outside of the box they are irrelevant.

At the heart of Metal and all the sub-genres is Rock.  What makes one band better than another?  Hard to tell, really but a lot of it has to do with the chemistry among its members.  What makes Rush stand out?  Three great musicians who love playing together.  Why did Motley Crue make it as far and as long as they did?  Four average musicians who love playing together.

Have we heard it all?  No.  We're just in musical Dark Age.  I'm sure there's a Renaissance coming.

Quote :

I like the 70's and 80's sound, and am not too keen on what amounted to hard rock and metal from the 90's, but I enjoy power and symphonic metal

I agree with this although there are a few bands from the 90s I like..specifically Alice In Chains and their clones like forevertree.......I also like Goth metal and darkwave..

Quote :

messenger...perfect storm

I had never heard this before... It rocks and sounds great...

Savage Amusement wrote:

Quote :

I like the 70's and 80's sound, and am not too keen on what amounted to hard rock and metal from the 90's, but I enjoy power and symphonic metal

I agree with this although there are a few bands from the 90s I like..specifically Alice In Chains and their clones like forevertree.......I also like Goth metal and darkwave..

Quote :

messenger...perfect storm

I had never heard this before... It rocks and sounds great...

The whole Messenger EP is awesome, I bought it from iTunes. Was cheap, maybe 4-6 bucks?

Savage Amusement wrote:

Quote :

I like the 70's and 80's sound, and am not too keen on what amounted to hard rock and metal from the 90's, but I enjoy power and symphonic metal

I agree with this although there are a few bands from the 90s I like..specifically Alice In Chains and their clones like forevertree.......I also like Goth metal and darkwave..

Quote :

messenger...perfect storm

I had never heard this before... It rocks and sounds great...

Gotta admit I like some goth as well.

I think this is a cycle. I remember reading that someone told Miles Davis in the late sixties that people had heard everything there was to jazz. Read about jazz in the seventies and early eighties and you'll see why that's crazy. Oddly enough, jazz has come full circle where most of it is either 40's style big bands or 50's/60's style combos. Sounds the same, but they're still pushing their art.

In the 20's and 30's this new radical style called country started and then there were a ton of sub-styles - Western Swing, honky tonk, Cowboy, Red Dirt, Gulf and western, Lubbock Sound, Bakersfield sound... and now, country is mostly what classic rock was before 1989.

My point is that most genres recycle and it may take decades for something "new" to come out. People thought rock music was dead in 1990 but in 1991 Nirvana broke (much to the dismay of many folks around here... being a punk lover, I'm a fan...).

Okay I'll quit rambling.

alldatndensum wrote:

To be honest, I don't care if guitarists can play any faster.  When they get so fast, it just becomes mechanical and soulless.  I'd rather hear a dozen Angus Young or Ace Frehley clones than one guy who can play faster than anyone else.  Why?  There's more feeling involved.

Precisely! While technical proficiency is impressive, it's gotta move ya. Same with the other instruments, of course.

Quote :

I know I am going to sound old and I don't care.  However, all the GREAT musical styles came before 1990.

Yep, bet our parents and grandparents said the same thing but with a different year.