Jeff K wrote:the masked man wrote: Actually, I'd have loved to seen votes for Arch Enemy, if because they have a female vocalist who does nothing but growl - really, really odd!
You weren't lying.
Hawt.
Jeff K wrote:the masked man wrote: Actually, I'd have loved to seen votes for Arch Enemy, if because they have a female vocalist who does nothing but growl - really, really odd!
You weren't lying.
the masked man wrote:Jeff K wrote:Actually indie hipsters are very open to metal and prog.
Really? I remember seeing a list of Pitchfork's top 250 LPs of the year one time and noting that Mastodon (who I like, btw) were the only metal band there. Also, from experience I know that indie fans cannot abide the female-fronted European bands that are now my principal obsession.
I don't get on with indie much now.
Jimbo wrote:I guess I am over Graham Nash's politics. Hopelessly naive by the standards I've molded for myself these days.
algroth wrote:So if Rush and AC/DC are Metal, what's the stance on King Crimson's Red it occurs to me that it might have been the heaviest Rock album recorded back when it came out, at least on a mainstream basis. Certainly heavier than Sabbath to my ears.
Jimbo wrote:I guess I am over Graham Nash's politics. Hopelessly naive by the standards I've molded for myself these days.
bobzilla77 wrote:algroth wrote:So if Rush and AC/DC are Metal, what's the stance on King Crimson's Red it occurs to me that it might have been the heaviest Rock album recorded back when it came out, at least on a mainstream basis. Certainly heavier than Sabbath to my ears.
I considered voting for Red. But it's more the audience that get Rush put into the Metal camp, jersey-wearing loner stoners with mullets and peachfuzz who also like Judas Priest. Crimson never had much of that audience. They may have been stoned, and alone, but there the comparison ends.
algroth wrote:So if Rush and AC/DC are Metal, what's the stance on King Crimson's Red? it occurs to me that it might have been the heaviest Rock album recorded back when it came out, at least on a mainstream basis. Certainly heavier than Sabbath to my ears.
trans-chigley express wrote:algroth wrote:So if Rush and AC/DC are Metal, what's the stance on King Crimson's Red? it occurs to me that it might have been the heaviest Rock album recorded back when it came out, at least on a mainstream basis. Certainly heavier than Sabbath to my ears.
Not to mine. I think both sabbath and AC/DC are heavier. I think Rush straddle the prog/heavy rock line at times and I included a couple of their heavier albums but I could never put Crimson in that catagory. They can get heavy but it's always done in a more progressive fashion in the same way that Yes could get heavy but never in way that could ever be classified as Heavy Metal. This probably makes no sense.
kath wrote:i do not wanna buy the world a fucquin gotdamn coke.
algroth wrote:It makes no sense to me considering Red is maniacally heavy from the get-go, and Yes are a bunch of pansies compared to King Crimson in any era. In either case, AC/DC is not heavy at all to my ears. It's hard, maybe, but not heavy.
the science eel experiment wrote:Jesus Christ can't save BCB, i believe i can.
kath wrote:i do not wanna buy the world a fucquin gotdamn coke.
never/ever wrote:AC/DC, Aerosmith and such- I call it hard rock. Valid subdivision of metal.
Whatever suit, it still fits the poll.
the science eel experiment wrote:Jesus Christ can't save BCB, i believe i can.
Jeff K wrote:never/ever wrote:AC/DC, Aerosmith and such- I call it hard rock. Valid subdivision of metal.
Whatever suit, it still fits the poll.
Hey, Copehead called the list conservative and predictable and he included Boston and the White Stripes on his so it's all good.
kath wrote:i do not wanna buy the world a fucquin gotdamn coke.
Jeff K wrote:algroth wrote:It makes no sense to me considering Red is maniacally heavy from the get-go, and Yes are a bunch of pansies compared to King Crimson in any era. In either case, AC/DC is not heavy at all to my ears. It's hard, maybe, but not heavy.
You must remember that those of us of a certain age more or less grew up with AC/DC and they were always marketed as a metal band and those were the kind of audiences that were drawn to them. Whether or not they actually were is debatable but it's easy to understand why a lot of us paint them that way. King Crimson, regardless of how heavy Redis, were always considered prog. I picked Aerosmith's Rocks which was another album/band that drew the metal crowd. In the long run all this does is prove how meaningless labels really are.
Jeff K wrote:algroth wrote:It makes no sense to me considering Red is maniacally heavy from the get-go, and Yes are a bunch of pansies compared to King Crimson in any era. In either case, AC/DC is not heavy at all to my ears. It's hard, maybe, but not heavy.
You must remember that those of us of a certain age more or less grew up with AC/DC and they were always marketed as a metal band and those were the kind of audiences that were drawn to them. Whether or not they actually were is debatable but it's easy to understand why a lot of us paint them that way. King Crimson, regardless of how heavy Redis, were always considered prog. I picked Aerosmith's Rocks which was another album/band that drew the metal crowd. In the long run all this does is prove how meaningless labels really are.
trans-chigley express wrote:I think algroth underestimates how powerful Yes could be at times...
rock the kaspar wrote:Here's my list, a proper fuckin' metal list. It's quite surpring that there's no Helloween or Manowar from the old guard. These were staples with the metalheads back in the day, especially Helloween. Also where's Dream Theater? I thought these guys were a shoe-in as far as modern metal goes. Shows how much I know.