Burning Hot Metal Takes

[jco5055]

I thought of a few, but a big one that might ruffle some feathers is the following:

I really feel the vast majority of bands out there, particularly either lesser known or unsigned/local bands, don't see success because the songs suck. Yes, I am obviously aware that how the music industry works, especially today, is not a meritocracy by any stretch of the imagination....but whenever there's an instance of

- "man my band is working their butts off, but in today's world we all gotta work day jobs and probably will never make this a full time thing"
- "there's some killer local bands, check them out"
- "my dad was in a band that released a major label album in the 70s, opened for HUGE bands, but just couldn't break through that ceiling"
-really any time I've gone to a local show

9 times out of 10, the songs just frankly aren't that good compared to the bands that did make it. Fuck, in college I was in a I guess melodic death metal band, but our songs sucked (only one member at the time seemed to find the time to write anything while balancing a full college workload, so we didn't have anything better to present to him/it became more of a friends hanging out thing by the end), but even then I was shocked at how much success you can see with shitty songs that could delude someone into thinking their songs are good lol.

Maybe it specifically is an underground/non mainstream metal thing, but I remember distinctly thinking at the time that the big bands a la the top draws on labels like Nuclear Blast, Sumerian etc were basically only "one step up", kind of like your direct manager/supervisor in the 9-5 world. Though I think that's more a sign of how little real world success being a draw in extreme metal is in general.

 

[GunpointMetal]

I thought of a few, but a big one that might ruffle some feathers is the following:

I really feel the vast majority of bands out there, particularly either lesser known or unsigned/local bands, don't see success because the songs suck. Yes, I am obviously aware that how the music industry works, especially today, is not a meritocracy by any stretch of the imagination....but whenever there's an instance of

- "man my band is working their butts off, but in today's world we all gotta work day jobs and probably will never make this a full time thing"
- "there's some killer local bands, check them out"
- "my dad was in a band that released a major label album in the 70s, opened for HUGE bands, but just couldn't break through that ceiling"
-really any time I've gone to a local show

9 times out of 10, the songs just frankly aren't that good compared to the bands that did make it. Fuck, in college I was in a I guess melodic death metal band, but our songs sucked (only one member at the time seemed to find the time to write anything while balancing a full college workload, so we didn't have anything better to present to him/it became more of a friends hanging out thing by the end), but even then I was shocked at how much success you can see with shitty songs that could delude someone into thinking their songs are good lol.

Maybe it specifically is an underground/non mainstream metal thing, but I remember distinctly thinking at the time that the big bands a la the top draws on labels like Nuclear Blast, Sumerian etc were basically only "one step up", kind of like your direct manager/supervisor in the 9-5 world. Though I think that's more a sign of how little real world success being a draw in extreme metal is in general.

Either the songs suck, or the band won't quite put together a look (even in extreme music this matters, whether neckbeards admit it or not), or they can't/won't take a chance on a show/tour/etc. Mostly, it's because the songs suck. IME the difference between a lot of known bands and a lot local bands that have all the ability is that most of those local bands are writing to fit a sound instead of writing from their inspiration.

 

[jco5055]

Either the songs suck, or the band won't quite put together a look (even in extreme music this matters, whether neckbeards admit it or not), or they can't/won't take a chance on a show/tour/etc. Mostly, it's because the songs suck. IME the difference between a lot of known bands and a lot local bands that have all the ability is that most of those local bands are writing to fit a sound instead of writing from their inspiration.

yeah, I think an extreme point is really every band that we either all love here or is considered some of the best, whether Sabbath, Priest/Maiden, Metallica, Slayer, Death, (old) In Flames etc, really all of them weren't trying to be in a specific subgenre, they really just found their sound.

A particular example of that is thrash, I feel like all of the big 4 were just writing what they wanted to write, and in my head when I think of a "Stereotypical thrash sound" I definitely think of a lesser known band like Evil Dead or even some band like Forbidden...seems like at that point it was more of a "we love thrash, let's copy" instead of how Metallica and company were inspired by classic heavy metal, NWOBHM and the like and thrash metal was basically their unique take on it.

 

[bostjan]

I thought of a few, but a big one that might ruffle some feathers is the following:

I really feel the vast majority of bands out there, particularly either lesser known or unsigned/local bands, don't see success because the songs suck. Yes, I am obviously aware that how the music industry works, especially today, is not a meritocracy by any stretch of the imagination....but whenever there's an instance of

- "man my band is working their butts off, but in today's world we all gotta work day jobs and probably will never make this a full time thing"
- "there's some killer local bands, check them out"
- "my dad was in a band that released a major label album in the 70s, opened for HUGE bands, but just couldn't break through that ceiling"
-really any time I've gone to a local show

9 times out of 10, the songs just frankly aren't that good compared to the bands that did make it. Fuck, in college I was in a I guess melodic death metal band, but our songs sucked (only one member at the time seemed to find the time to write anything while balancing a full college workload, so we didn't have anything better to present to him/it became more of a friends hanging out thing by the end), but even then I was shocked at how much success you can see with shitty songs that could delude someone into thinking their songs are good lol.

Maybe it specifically is an underground/non mainstream metal thing, but I remember distinctly thinking at the time that the big bands a la the top draws on labels like Nuclear Blast, Sumerian etc were basically only "one step up", kind of like your direct manager/supervisor in the 9-5 world. Though I think that's more a sign of how little real world success being a draw in extreme metal is in general.

I happen to disagree. There are a tons of songs that suck that get tons of exposure, and there are tons of great songs that do not. Sure, the proportion of sucky songs that go big is smaller, but I think that points to there being factors other than how good your songs are at play.

First off, the obvious part is that how much a song sucks is pretty much purely subjective. But to say 9 times out of 10... I'm not seeing it from the same perspective as you do.

And this applies to a wider discussion than music, you could apply this to pretty much any career/industry, only to qualify that, I'd say that how these principles apply varies.

But the number one thing that no one likes to admit is that luck always plays a big part. The world is a complex place and very little of the world around us is ever fully within our control. But we love love love to believe that we are in control, which is why no one likes to think about how much of a part luck comes into play.

I'll counter your anecdote with my own personal anecdotal experience. I played in tons of bands.

My first band ever, let's call us "band A," was actually pretty good. We were all under 16. I was the oldest, just about to turn 16, and I was the weakest link in the band. We had a good singer who also played lead guitar and we had an awesome drummer, and also a revolving door of bass players of varying levels of skill. We got together to jam, worked out a mixture of covers and originals, and started booking gigs, all within two months. We probably put in quite a bit of work to our sound, but really no unified look or whatever, and we never even stuck with a name for our band for more than a week. But we kept racking up paying gigs. Probably a lot of it had to do with the novelty factor of "wow, that drummer is only 12, dude, check it out!" We also didn't turn anything down, as far as gigs went. It was a blast, but eventually the drummer's mom caught him with weed, and then we got a new drummer, who was also great, but was my age, and we played maybe a few too many weird gigs, and burnt out. I'd say our skill level was 5/10, work ethic 3/10, and success level was a solid 4/10. Not bad for a bunch of young teenagers for one summer vacation, though.

I won't go through every band I was in, but in another band, "band B," we worked really really hard. We sounded okay at best, but had an "image" and logos and merch and CD's (before homemade CD's were even really a thing anyone heard of). Our songs were maybe a little on the generic side for my taste, and everyone knew how to play their instruments quite well. We stuck it out for years hoping to get whatever break we could get, which always seemed like it was just out of reach. I think maybe that band fits your conjecture well, since our weakness was most likely our lackluster songs. Granted, at the time, we thought our songs were pretty good. But I'd rate band B's skill level 7/10, work ethic 8/10, and success maybe 2/10, since we played a lot of paying gigs, but it seemed like we got zero recognition in local press despite years of work trying to push just a little higher.

Now, take "band C," which was the most hilarious example. These guys were all close friends long before I met them. There was a pretty good drummer, a rhythm guitarist who had been playing maybe a year, and a bassist who, well, honestly, didn't know how to play even. The problem was that the drummer wanted to be a singer and didn't want to play drums, so he got a buddy of his who was a singer to play drums (I know it makes no sense- I promise none of this makes sense to me, either). Not that I'm a great player, especially at this point, but I was like the only one in the band who had spent any considerable amount of time in the role, you know. We sounded like shit. Personalities were really shitty, too. The singer picked a fight with the promoter at a big show we did. We went into the studio to record songs, but, since no one could play their own parts, it ended up being me doing all of the guitars and bass parts and the singer playing the drums and then the engineer making the most hilarious faces when recording the vocal parts. Obviously none of this ever saw the light of day. But weirdly enough, we got a shit ton of gigs, we had a record contract on the table for us, but I didn't like the terms, which seemed exploitive, so I quit the band rather than sign. Prior to that, we recorded a soundtrack for an indie movie (which never got used). We had toured around Michigan and Ohio, and when I quit, there was a plan to tour the West Coast. Skill level 1/10, work ethic 1/10, success level 7/10. How the hell do you explain that?

Well, my theory behind these three data points, as well as other stories I won't get into right now, is that there is no one formula for success. However, there is one factor that plays a big part that no one wants to acknowledge- luck. And, furthermore, there is one other factor that probably everyone knows but no one really wants to say out loud, and that is sex appeal. Band A was a bunch of young kids. There was novelty factor, but sex appeal wasn't really there. Band B - I don't want to be mean, but we didn't have sex appeal. Band C - the frontman was 6'4", skinny, blue eyes and dark hair, and the ladies loved him. The bass player had defined muscles and always performed with his shirt off. That's the only thing I can think of when trying to rationalize why we kept fucking up gigs yet always managed to book more. I've played in tons of bands with females in them and they always do much better success-wise considering the level of skill and work ethic. But this should surprise no one.

Anyway, how good your songs are is, at most, 3rd or 4th on the list (personally, I think even hard work is a bigger determining factor than how good the songs are). You could have the shittiest song in the world, but if you have a hot singer combined with better-than-average luck, I bet you could hit the Billboard Top 10. If your front-person was so ugly that their parents left them in the woods to be raised by wolves, but the wolves thought they were too ugly, and you have no-better-than-average luck, you could have the best song in the universe and work harder than any band out there and you'll be nobody. Maybe it makes me seem like an ass for pointing this out, but I certainly didn't make this rule.

And, like I said, you can apply this principle to any industry. Luck and good lucks will always factor in. I don't care if you are doing structural welding or porn - it will play some sort of role in determining success.

 

[Dr. Caligari]

yeah, I think an extreme point is really every band that we either all love here or is considered some of the best, whether Sabbath, Priest/Maiden, Metallica, Slayer, Death, (old) In Flames etc, really all of them weren't trying to be in a specific subgenre, they really just found their sound.

A particular example of that is thrash, I feel like all of the big 4 were just writing what they wanted to write, and in my head when I think of a "Stereotypical thrash sound" I definitely think of a lesser known band like Evil Dead or even some band like Forbidden...seems like at that point it was more of a "we love thrash, let's copy" instead of how Metallica and company were inspired by classic heavy metal, NWOBHM and the like and thrash metal was basically their unique take on it.

Hang on a second, Forbidden kicked ass! And so did a lot of other thrash bands in the late 80s.

I agree that often the trailblazers make better music than the copycats but in the late 80s thrash hadn't lost its spark yet and many bands were pushing boundaries in their own way. Forbidden Evil and Twisted into Form both demolish The Black Album when it comes to quality but which album sold the most?

Remember the late 80s bands didn't have the head start or the management or the touring opportunities that a band like Metallica had.

 

[Jahnboy9000]

I happen to disagree. There are a tons of songs that suck that get tons of exposure, and there are tons of great songs that do not. Sure, the proportion of sucky songs that go big is smaller, but I think that points to there being factors other than how good your songs are at play.

First off, the obvious part is that how much a song sucks is pretty much purely subjective. But to say 9 times out of 10... I'm not seeing it from the same perspective as you do.

And this applies to a wider discussion than music, you could apply this to pretty much any career/industry, only to qualify that, I'd say that how these principles apply varies.

But the number one thing that no one likes to admit is that luck always plays a big part. The world is a complex place and very little of the world around us is ever fully within our control. But we love love love to believe that we are in control, which is why no one likes to think about how much of a part luck comes into play.

I'll counter your anecdote with my own personal anecdotal experience. I played in tons of bands.

My first band ever, let's call us "band A," was actually pretty good. We were all under 16. I was the oldest, just about to turn 16, and I was the weakest link in the band. We had a good singer who also played lead guitar and we had an awesome drummer, and also a revolving door of bass players of varying levels of skill. We got together to jam, worked out a mixture of covers and originals, and started booking gigs, all within two months. We probably put in quite a bit of work to our sound, but really no unified look or whatever, and we never even stuck with a name for our band for more than a week. But we kept racking up paying gigs. Probably a lot of it had to do with the novelty factor of "wow, that drummer is only 12, dude, check it out!" We also didn't turn anything down, as far as gigs went. It was a blast, but eventually the drummer's mom caught him with weed, and then we got a new drummer, who was also great, but was my age, and we played maybe a few too many weird gigs, and burnt out. I'd say our skill level was 5/10, work ethic 3/10, and success level was a solid 4/10. Not bad for a bunch of young teenagers for one summer vacation, though.

I won't go through every band I was in, but in another band, "band B," we worked really really hard. We sounded okay at best, but had an "image" and logos and merch and CD's (before homemade CD's were even really a thing anyone heard of). Our songs were maybe a little on the generic side for my taste, and everyone knew how to play their instruments quite well. We stuck it out for years hoping to get whatever break we could get, which always seemed like it was just out of reach. I think maybe that band fits your conjecture well, since our weakness was most likely our lackluster songs. Granted, at the time, we thought our songs were pretty good. But I'd rate band B's skill level 7/10, work ethic 8/10, and success maybe 2/10, since we played a lot of paying gigs, but it seemed like we got zero recognition in local press despite years of work trying to push just a little higher.

Now, take "band C," which was the most hilarious example. These guys were all close friends long before I met them. There was a pretty good drummer, a rhythm guitarist who had been playing maybe a year, and a bassist who, well, honestly, didn't know how to play even. The problem was that the drummer wanted to be a singer and didn't want to play drums, so he got a buddy of his who was a singer to play drums (I know it makes no sense- I promise none of this makes sense to me, either). Not that I'm a great player, especially at this point, but I was like the only one in the band who had spent any considerable amount of time in the role, you know. We sounded like shit. Personalities were really shitty, too. The singer picked a fight with the promoter at a big show we did. We went into the studio to record songs, but, since no one could play their own parts, it ended up being me doing all of the guitars and bass parts and the singer playing the drums and then the engineer making the most hilarious faces when recording the vocal parts. Obviously none of this ever saw the light of day. But weirdly enough, we got a shit ton of gigs, we had a record contract on the table for us, but I didn't like the terms, which seemed exploitive, so I quit the band rather than sign. Prior to that, we recorded a soundtrack for an indie movie (which never got used). We had toured around Michigan and Ohio, and when I quit, there was a plan to tour the West Coast. Skill level 1/10, work ethic 1/10, success level 7/10. How the hell do you explain that?

Well, my theory behind these three data points, as well as other stories I won't get into right now, is that there is no one formula for success. However, there is one factor that plays a big part that no one wants to acknowledge- luck. And, furthermore, there is one other factor that probably everyone knows but no one really wants to say out loud, and that is sex appeal. Band A was a bunch of young kids. There was novelty factor, but sex appeal wasn't really there. Band B - I don't want to be mean, but we didn't have sex appeal. Band C - the frontman was 6'4", skinny, blue eyes and dark hair, and the ladies loved him. The bass player had defined muscles and always performed with his shirt off. That's the only thing I can think of when trying to rationalize why we kept fucking up gigs yet always managed to book more. I've played in tons of bands with females in them and they always do much better success-wise considering the level of skill and work ethic. But this should surprise no one.

Anyway, how good your songs are is, at most, 3rd or 4th on the list (personally, I think even hard work is a bigger determining factor than how good the songs are). You could have the shittiest song in the world, but if you have a hot singer combined with better-than-average luck, I bet you could hit the Billboard Top 10. If your front-person was so ugly that their parents left them in the woods to be raised by wolves, but the wolves thought they were too ugly, and you have no-better-than-average luck, you could have the best song in the universe and work harder than any band out there and you'll be nobody. Maybe it makes me seem like an ass for pointing this out, but I certainly didn't make this rule.

And, like I said, you can apply this principle to any industry. Luck and good lucks will always factor in. I don't care if you are doing structural welding or porn - it will play some sort of role in determining success.

buddy out here writing a novel.
what if there's no formula and what if there's no heirarchy to causes of success and what if this is just a forum for extended range guitar nerds and

 

[nickgray]

I really feel the vast majority of bands out there, particularly either lesser known or unsigned/local bands, don't see success because the songs suck.

I bet you would've thought the same of a lot of famous bands if you had only heard their very early demos (demos, not the actual first album). Or we can go a bit further and imagine if a lot of famous bands only released that first album. What would you have thought of that album in that context? Cool underground shit some wacky forum users post.

 

[nickgray]

and what if this is just a forum for extended range guitar nerds and

This is a six string guitar forum.

 

[jco5055]

Hang on a second, Forbidden kicked ass! And so did a lot of other thrash bands in the late 80s.

I agree that often the trailblazers make better music than the copycats but in the late 80s thrash hadn't lost its spark yet and many bands were pushing boundaries in their own way. Forbidden Evil and Twisted into Form both demolish The Black Album when it comes to quality but which album sold the most?

Remember the late 80s bands didn't have the head start or the management or the touring opportunities that a band like Metallica had.

I shouldn't have used Forbidden, because I also like them a lot haha, it was more how depending on how "precise" a person's definition of a genre is (in this case thrash) I often feel the albums considered the best actually aren't as "pure" to the genre as others.

 

[jco5055]

I bet you would've thought the same of a lot of famous bands if you had only heard their very early demos (demos, not the actual first album). Or we can go a bit further and imagine if a lot of famous bands only released that first album. What would you have thought of that album in that context? Cool underground shit some wacky forum users post.

possibly, but at least for bands that have broken up demos would be all I have to go off of, kinda like how sports debates are like "what if this college player was never killed in a car crash" just speculation because of the lack of later opportunities to actually see.

 

[Dr. Caligari]

I shouldn't have used Forbidden, because I also like them a lot haha, it was more how depending on how "precise" a person's definition of a genre is (in this case thrash) I often feel the albums considered the best actually aren't as "pure" to the genre as others.

Yeah again I don't entirely disagree but I think it's oversimplifying. For thrash, that genre was on fire in the 80s, even the more "generic" bands were on average really good. And even bands like Metallica had songs that were not that special. Escape, Leper Messiah, Shortest Straw... These songs are not impressive. Even a song like For Whom the Bell Tolls is not very impressive. A reasonably cool bass intro, a guitar lead more or less lifted from Fairies Wear Boots, a simple verse, a simple chorus... It's not great.

 

[xzacx]

The Sound of Perseverance should never have been released under the Death name and is by far the worst album in the catalogue.

I'll see this, and raise you that nothing after Leprosy is worth listening to.

 

[M3CHK1LLA]

will fans of ghost be able to tell if the band sells out?

 

[works0fheart]

Also, it's 2022 and djent still sucks. Does all of this forum still love it as much as they did in 2014?

 

[Zer01]

Far Beyond Driven is the worst of Pantera’s latter-day albums. Uninspired songwriting, lack of solos, Phil’s screeching, and a guitar apparently recorded in a toilet. And the worst thing they ever did: Good Friends and a bottle of Pills.

The drums are good.

 

[Genome]

there's a first for everything, I guess

This was the first opinion in this whole thread that made me shout "NO!" at my screen, quite an achievement

 

[Genome]

- Likewise, getting a $4k super specced guitar won't really do anything. It's a cool guitar, but it won't improve your playing. It's not the guitar, it never was.

- There are no silver bullets. No best guitar, no most versatile guitar, no "that one thing that helped you the most". I really wish beginners would understand this.

Couldn't agree more here. Instruments are meant to inspire you to play and make music. that's it. For different people, this will mean entirely different things, and finding that is the journey.

Some people will be inspired by a boutique guitar and amp, some will be inspired by a £100 guitar and a cheap distortion pedal. If that's what drives them to make music, fantastic.

Gear snobbery drives me insane. It entirely misses the point.

 

[tian]

- Likewise, getting a $4k super specced guitar won't really do anything. It's a cool guitar, but it won't improve your playing. It's not the guitar, it never was.

- There are no silver bullets. No best guitar, no most versatile guitar, no "that one thing that helped you the most". I really wish beginners would understand this.

I got a lot more open-minded about guitar specs after hearing session players talking about putting down takes and then being asked to redo it immediately on a different guitar or several.

Tried to imagine them going "Okay but what is the nut width and what size frets does it have..."

 

[Metropolis]

What even is "djent" at this point? Is it just a slur to express how someone doesn't like modern metal?

Is this djent?

 

[tian]

What even is "djent" at this point? Is it just a slur to express how someone doesn't like modern metal?

IMO, the same as it's ever been.

(I love that the meme video has outlived the original. Bonus BRJ sighting.)

The djent thing really isn't that deep even though it's been something people have bickered about for over a decade now. It's onomatopoeia. Does the song have prominent riffs that go "djent, djent, djent"? If it passes the audible "sniff test" so to speak, it's fair to say it's djent.

The genre has grown, evolved (maybe...) and picked up new defining traits along the way but has any djent band really wandered all that far away from the Meshuggah-inspired early Periphery/SikTh sound to be that ambiguous?