Log in

No account? Create an account


nu metal vs new school metal

« previous entry | next entry »
May. 29th, 2002 | 03:43 pm
mood: apatheticapathetic
music: Godgory-walking from the dead
posted by: machizmo in loud

see I am around old school metal heads all the time and they think anything put out after 95 is nu metal even though some of it is not even..... I have heard all about the agruments over how much nu metal sucks and so forth but when it comes time to listing bands people get quiet because some of the music they may like may actually be considered just that nu metal. I do agree there is alot less original music than their should be but most of this is because a record label flood the market with bands of the same sound after a certain band starts a trend. This happened in the 80's with glam. So it seems nu metal is the lastest to be bashed but what bands are considered nu metal and if they are do they all suck really or is it just cool to say something sucks when it is no longer the cool. As far as korn inventing nu metal I woujld have to disagree I would say Mr Bungle did..... just korn got the credit for it. Also I do not consider nu metal and new school metal the same thing.

Link | Leave a comment | | Flag

Comments {4}


(no subject)

from: system_86
date: May. 29th, 2002 03:05 pm (UTC)

I'd say nu-metal is stuff like incubus, linkin park... stuff that isnt really rock... has a heavy sorta twist so its not really alternative... new school metal is bands like chimaira, slipknot, dry kill logic, and any heavy band...

either way, i like it all.

System 86 - www.mp3.com/noassemblyrequired

Reply | Thread


(no subject)

from: lasair
date: May. 29th, 2002 04:13 pm (UTC)

Linkin Park I'd have to agree with, though reluctantly. Maybe it was too many months working in a huge corporation music store where they were wrongly filed under heavy metal. But Incubus? they don't even have a heavy sound to them.

In general, I agree that there is a nu metal genre, though people never seem to agree with what it exactly includes. My complaint is that people are insulting it, saying "It's nu metal, not real metal, and it needs to stop pretending to be." Even if they don't say it in so many words. The fact is, is it's simply a different genre. It's not -trying- to be 'real' metal, it's just a different kind of metal, a different kind of rock. If someone had been able to slap a different name on it from the begining, methinks we wouldn't even be having such a stupid argument through the music community in the first place. I have the same arguement with people in the punk community about new punk bands, and sometimes in the rap section as well (though I'm not a -huge- rap fan) (yes, I love all music, gimme a break).

The thing is, if you're complaining it's so different, then why don't you just admit that it's different? And if you won't, then there must be some quality in it that reminds you of your 'real' metal, and you really have no right to complain.

+grin+ can you tell this is one of my pet peeves?

Oh well. I like it all too. They need to stop being close minded.

Reply | Parent | Thread


(no subject)

from: ravenshadow
date: May. 29th, 2002 05:48 pm (UTC)

mr bungle sounds nothing like korn, the metal that is could nu-metal to seperate itself from the the 80s & 90s "hair" metal (eg GNR, LA Guns, poison, metallica) i have no idea where the nu-metal term came from and don't care for it much. Todays metal is mainly influenced by faith no more this represented by the fact that alot of people (eg fred durst and coby dick) have been hasselling mike patton to allow a tribute record

Reply | Thread


(no subject)

from: gosc
date: May. 30th, 2002 09:32 am (UTC)

Forget about labels. I either like something or I don't. To me "the original metal band" was Sabbath. It would be silly to disregard any band that didn't sound like them.

Reply | Thread