cactusoly

Do you prefer Old School or Nu Metal? Who are your favorites.

By old school I mean the likes of Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, Metallica (pre corporate shill), Motorhead ect ect. (not glam bands like Poison or Warrent... although they have there place)

Nu Metal like Rob Zombie, Dope, and Drowning Pool.


What do you think .... and play nice.

If you don't like heavy music please stay away.

Rypro 525

Can I say both??? I love the old metallica and guns n'roses, as well as the new stuff like Linkin Park, Audioslave, Evanecence, ect.

Deftones

I've only heard the radio song but this band is considered metal? sheesh.

Old metal sucks to me, unfortunately. Hell, "nu-metal" sucks to me also.

The stuff I like doesn't fit into predetermined categories, thankfully.

benedict

<small></small>Prescient words, cactusoly.

I have a question: where would bands such as Deep Purple and Led Zep fit?

Certainly "oldschool", are these two hard rock bands pre-metal? Did "proper" HM start with Sabbath?

To answer the original question, I prefer the older bands although I found Geezer Butler's dabblings in the new (nu?) form to be listenable.

MJKTool

Never liked the old school metal, especially the bands where the vocalists sound like someone is stepping on their nuts while they sing. So I would have to say the newer metal acts of today.

inVectiVe

I don't think I've ever actually sat down and listened to a CD from the "nu-metal" genre. Mainly because, if my concept of what qualifies as nu-metal is accurate (that being: most of what I hear on rock radio), I find the stuff downright unlistenable.

I'll use Korn as Exhibit A. I've heard *many* of their songs on the radio ("Blind," "ADIDAS," "Freak on a Leash," "Got the Life," "Falling Away From Me," "Here To Stay," probably plenty more) and the most glowing review I could give to any of them would be Mediocre. And that's if I was in a generous mood. Can't figure out why millions of people buy Korn albums, to be honest. All I hear is unoriginal guitar work, standard drum beats, and one of the worst vocalists EVER.

I mentioned in the Unpopular Music Opinions thread that I'll even take "hair metal" / "cock rock" over nu-metal. So I guess my point is that I consider nu-metal to be the least respectable form of "metal" I've ever been exposed to.

Goat3001

Old School without a second thought. I can't ever see myself picking Linkin Park over Iron Maiden.

cerial442

Hardcore

Jason

One of the radio bimbos yesterday said if you don't go pick up the new Linkin Park CD, you don't know what music is all about.



There's a place for it, but I find it too repetitive and too whiny. Sure, life is hardly rock and rolling all night and partying every day, but listening to people bitch all the time is pointless.

I would just be happy is somebody, somewhere, decided that musicianship mattered again. Where's the solo's? Where's the complex riffs? Where's anything to make people sit up and take notice of the music?

inVectiVe

This is what I was hinting at in the last sentence of my anti-Korn segment. I'm not a musician at all [I don't even dabble], but it seems SO much of "nu-metal" guitar playing doesn't even warrant the term "riffage"; it's like they just lay on this thick sludge of sustained, indistinct feedback that could have come from any of their interchangeable songs.

Any musicians (guitarists especially) care to comment on this? Is the twin axe assault of Korn's "Munky" and "Head" actually highly technical guitar pyrotechnics that my amateur ears aren't capable of appreciating? Or am I correct in suspecting that a 13-year-old who started messing around on his B-day present 6-stringer 3 weeks ago, could probably fill in for 90% of nu-metal guitarists and not miss a beat?

Ergyu

I've played for about 5 years now and I could play pretty much any Nirvana or major Korn riff within the first month or so of playing. I think that this "numetal" stuff started out as something more raw, maybe just emotion flowing all over if you get what I'm saying. It wasn't important to be technically excellent at your instrument, or to flaunt it about, but more important to "get out what's inside" so to speak. The first Korn album, for it's time, was pretty innovative (not technically, but in a pop sense.) Since then they have deteriorated, probably due to the fact that they all don't have that much to be unhappy about anymore (hence the softer songs.) They definitely made it popular to play a seven string guitar, to tune down that guitar, and to have a second useless guitarist. It's pretty much faded down now though, it sounds as though nu metal is evolving again. I've been hearing a lot of bands lately with that loud, soft, loud formula. It's just as annoying to me.

As for the original question, I prefer some of both. I like Slayer, Metallica, Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin, but I also grew up on Grunge and newer rock and can't deny my love for some of those either. My first CD in grade school was Pearl Jams "ten" and soundgarden and alice in chains followed soon. I enjoy some newer metal bands, ones that don't really subscribe to the traditional formula (Opeth, Tool, etc.)

I have a huge spectrum of musical taste though, not just limited to any type of Metal.

cactusoly

Just me rambling... but I’ll try to make sense of the old school vs. Nu metal style. At least my perception of
it.

Its hard to really categorize. I guess bands like Kiss, Alice Cooper, Led Zeppelin, and Deep Purple would be considered pre metal. Yes they are Metal type bands (guitar oriented ect.), but they were around before metal was really a term. Some people lump bands like Rush into the Metal category others don't. Same thing with the Glam bands of the 80's. We could debate for days what is and is not considered Metal.

In my opinion Old School Metal could be considered a hard music style from the Mid 70' to early 90's. Just for simplicity I would just consider bands like Priest, or Metallica or even GNR as Old School Metal. Bands such as Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple and the likes would be considered very strong influences.

Nu Metal would be bands like Godsmack and Korn who’s popularity hit after grunge died a most deserving death.

The easiest assessment would be Old School = Pre Grunge , Nu metal = Post Grunge

flair

I prefer "real" metal Such as:

Converge
A Life Once Lost
Caliban
etc.

harpo787

I'll join the club of enjoying both styles, just depends on the mood I'm in at the moment. Now I'll go ahead and further blur and confuse the lines of what's old metal, new (nu?) metal and not metal and all in between.

I'd say Black Sabbath are the founders of Heavy Metal (obviouly old school). I'd not put Led Zep in metal category, I'd put them in rock (but old school rock), or even rock/blues kind of stuff. Also in this range of old school would be the likes of Iron Maiden, who I guess if you want to be a technical pain about it, can be the instigators of "new metal" by getting the title of "New Wave Of British Heavy Metal" and lopping off the words between "New" and "Metal". I'll put two bands here at the end of this group, as they seem to be responsible for transitional phases between old and new metal: Metallica, who seem to have gone off into their own sort of genre, so now we have "old Metallica" (Kill 'em All thru around ...And Justice for All) and "new Metallica", which began at the slightly more commercial "black album", and gone down into what many have referred to as "sell out period" or "bar rock". I enjoy both old and new Metallica, and now from what I've read here in the forum, their new album is going the way of new metal in one sense: not many (if any?) guitar solos, which is unheard of for Metallica in ANY phase. The other band is Pantera, who seems to have changed with the times, and may have helped usher in the "solo-free" metal, as they went from Cowboys From Hell thru til about Far Beyond Driven. Beyond that album the solos disappeared which is a shame, as I always enjoyed Dimebag Darrel's guitar-work.

Then we have the new metal crowd, who I'd say that Korn is the founders of, sort of. Someone suggested that they were playing tired old low end sludge-type noise, which is not inaccurate, but, for me, they were the ones to start that style, so to me they are copying themselves. At that point, the only one I'd heard doing stuff like that was Steve Vai, a guitar shredder who, if I'm not mistake created the seven string guitar along with Ibanez.

Then we've got those other useless wastes of space that make up what we call "hair metal"....like Warrant and all that crap. The only ones that were good were Twisted Sister (laff) and Saigon Kick (hey, gotta support the local boys), but you can take yer Poison and (message cut off for fear of punishment by mods).

Yikes....that seems rather long, especially considering I've only just got started. Guess I'll stop here.

Josh-da-man

Here's my take on it (and everyone has an opinion on this).

I would classify Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple (along with Hendrix) as proto-metal. This stuff, though not technically heavy metal, was the heavy metal of its time, and laid much of the foundation for what was to come.

I would say Black Sabbath was probably the first heavy metal band - at least the one to break out into the public consciousness. Simple, chunky riffs. Stripped down sound. Occult influences. It started here.

I look at heavy metal, as an actual movement, as beginning with the NWOBHM. Bands like Diamond Head, Angel Witch, Iron Maiden. Mix up a little post-punk DIY with some goofy occult **** and you get those bands. Probably the kids who grew up on Black Sabbath and watched the punk scene from afar.

I reckon Motorhead fits somewhere inbetween Sabbath and Maiden.

This stuff gets exported to America in short order and splits into two camps. Either the Def Leppard-influenced pop metal -- which was a little harder in the beginning, like the Crue's "Shout at the Devil" and Quiet Riot's "Metal Health" -- or the hard **** like Metallica and Slayer, that mixed Motorhead's speed with the upside down crosses and baphomets. In the early days Metallica was dabbling with occult themes with songs like "Four Horsemen" and "Jump in the Fire."

So I guess I would look at "old" metal as being Maiden, Priest, Ozzy, Metallica, Slayer, Anthrax, Motley Crue. That, to me, is when the actual genre of metal began. Other bands like Zep and Sab were then grandfathered in. But up until '78 or '79, I'd say that Black Sabbath was pretty much going it alone.

cerial442

Please keep in mind there is a difference between "new" metal and "nu" metal. Bands like Disturbed, Linkin Park, and Korn and nu-metal. Bands like Shadows Fall, Killswitch, December, Lamb of God, and Darkest Hour are "new" metal. There is a BIG difference between the two.

Ergyu

I was going to say this too, but that's exactly right!

Gdrlv

In my opinion, there are only a few "nu-metal" bands that have any worth at all. The Deftones, Incubus and Tool (although they don't really sound nu-metal) are the only ones that spring to mind. I do think that these three bands are pretty good though.

Most nu-metal does nothing for me. I can't stand bands like Korn, Limp Bizkit, Drowning Pool and Linkin Park. Don't even get me started on Disturbed, as I may hate them more than any other musical act I've ever heard, and I've only heard two or three of their songs. (I think "The Sickness" is one of the most despicable songs ever recorded).

So, I guess old metal is my choice.

edclem

Very true.
I personally can't stand nu-metal, but there are a bunch of newer metal acts around that I'm really into
Dark Tranquility, Iced Earth, Nightwish, Lacuna Coil, Opeth, and Nevermore come to mind

Adam Tyner

There are plenty of bands like that still active today -- possibly more now than there were 15-20 years ago. They're just not on the radio.

Josh-da-man

One thing about "nu metal" -- Linkin Park, Limp Bizkit, and the like -- I don't really consider them "metal."

They're more like an offshoot of mid-90s post-Nirvana alt-rock (Collective Soul, "Gravedancer's Union era Soul Asylum) and white boy hip-hop.

I really can't consider them as offshoots of "metal," but I think the music is branded as such in the marketing to give it some kind of rebellion cred. It's like Avril Lavigne calling herself a punk.

Now, as far as a band like Godsmack is concerned, I think that something like that is more easily considered to be metal than the hip-hop wannabes with a couple of tattoos. But even Godsmack comes off as being a post-Nirvana alt-rock act, though not as much. Put it this way, I'm sure that the members of Godsmack have listened to their share of Sabbath and Maiden in their youths.

cerial442

I am sorry but, Godsmack is a hard rock band that has released the same album three times. It's my opinion but I really won't consider them metal at all.

I will admit this, there are some nu bands I like. Deftones are an amazing band, and it is a shame they get lumped into this genre. Nothingface, Rob Zombie and System of a Down are good too. I really don't think it is right to lump Rob Zombie in with the nu metal bands. White Zombie really wasn't a nu-metal band. I probably already metal license, but I will play some Arch Enemy to make up for it

Personally, and I keep talking about them, the two bands I feel will bring real metal to the forefront are Shadows Fall and Killswitch Engage. Trust me on these bands.

edclem

give Opeth a listen. amazing stuff. It does take awhile to get used to the aggressive vocal sections, though.

KingSmoth

The way you feel about Disturbed is how I feel about Limp Bizkit- I would give them the Worst. Band. Ever. label, but Jane's Addiction slightly passes them on the suckiest band scale. I also can't stand Linkin Park, etc.
However, Disturbed is one of my favorite bands, not only of the last few years, but all-time. I just can't get enough of their music - I listen to both CD's every single day, swapping to other discs in my changer just for variety(usually to Live, The Offspring, STP, or Metallica). When I first heard last year that Disturbed was releasing a second album('Believe') I was actually quite worried they would be yet another band that would disappoint beyond a first release. Gladly I was mistaken, because 'Believe' rocks, although it isn't as heavy as 'The Sickness'.
Anyway, I honestly don't categorize music to the point of having old metal, "new" metal, "nu" metal, rock, "hard" rock, "cock" rock(wtf is this?), etc. I just listen to whatever the hell I like.

db27

A like some of both. And it is hard to lump some in with old or new or nu, but what it's called doesn't make a huge difference to me.

I enjoy Metallica, Sevendust, Deftones, Godsmack, Disturbed, Linkin Park, Led Zepplin, Rush, Black Sabbath, Dream Theater, etc... And many more, some more than others for sure. I look at a band like Godsmack or Disturbed as more of an "aggressive" "angry" type of music. Something that is just loud and crunchy and can pump me up. So it's hard to call them metal in the classic sense of the word.

Genre's in the music industry are ever changing, thus making it difficult to place bands, even album to album for any given band.

Music is great, aside from country and opera and can dig just about anything out there. Or at least find something within it to like. Life would suck without music.