System Of A down

[Kahgan]

Since my brother refuces to believe what I say no matter how true it is, I'll have to get a common opinion.

Is System Of A Down nu metal or something else?

same with Soil and In Flames?

I know there's bound to be some knowers around here who can tell me for sure.

 

[Buxbaum666]

Is System Of A Down nu metal or something else?

Ah, damn! I can't listen to it, because it is Nu Metal and Nu Metal is crap!
Who cares about labels?

 

[Sander]

System of a Down is really its own genre. The latest album being the closest to more ordinary metal. It's not just nu-metal, though.

In Flames certainly isn't. Although their latest album is not anywhere near their older albums, when looking at their overall music, that's Swedish death/thrash-metal.

 

[Ashmo]

Are the In Flames nu metal? HAH! Are you serious?

Listen to them and then compare it to Linkin Park.

Don't insult the flames like that.

 

[Volkov]

Are the In Flames nu metal? HAH! Are you serious?

Listen to them and then compare it to Linkin Park.

Don't insult the flames like that.

I think the flames have done a perfect job of insulting themselves with their last two albums anyway.

 

[Kahgan]

I kind of asked about in flames since I thought it was black/death metal but then heard a song that screamed nu metal in my ears...

So I take it System Of A down is something else with both traces of nu metal and other kinds of metal in it, yeah?

 

[Ashmo]

Are the In Flames nu metal? HAH! Are you serious?

Listen to them and then compare it to Linkin Park.

Don't insult the flames like that.

I think the flames have done a perfect job of insulting themselves with their last two albums anyway.

That's only true if you don't refuse to believe in the existence of those albums.

 

[Kahgan]

kind of like refusing to believe in the existance of FOOS, eh?

 

[Ashmo]

There never were any sequels to the original Fallout. Nuff said.

 

[Volkov]

I kind of asked about in flames since I thought it was black/death metal but then heard a song that screamed nu metal in my ears...

So I take it System Of A down is something else with both traces of nu metal and other kinds of metal in it, yeah?

I think we'd probably have to properly establish what nu-metal is first. I must have heard at least 3 definitions of nu-metal from various sources, so it's kind of hard for me to establish whether System of a Down does or doesn't fit into that category.

 

[Phias]

I think with their newer album, they've proven themselves to be nu-metal, at least in my opinion.

They lost my interest after their first album, anyway. Even then, I only liked it because it seemed somewhat.. different, I guess. Then they just began to get ridiculous.

 

[Ashmo]

Nu Metal is the angsty commercial teenage twin of Metal as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Kahgan]

excactly, it often sounds like rap with guitars. (Linkin Park bleh)

 

[Volkov]

I just like to reserve the generally derogatory term "nu metal" for real crap, like Slipknot, Linkin Park and Korn. System of a Down is pretty bad, but at least it's members do seem to have some talent in there.

I'd have to say that System of a Down is not nu metal, however it's not metal either. I'll put it on the same level as post-sellout In Flames, Soilwork and Metallica.

 

[TorontoReign]

What do you consider sellout? Just curious.

 

[Ashmo]

What do you consider sellout? Just curious.

You know, I hate it when people say something's too "commercial" for them.

That's no better than angsty emo kids arguing something's too "mainstream".

That alone is never the reason one doesn't like a particular piece of music.

Yes, if a group drastically changes its style for the sole purpose of making more money by reaching a greater target audience, that's annoying. It's a reason to dislike them personally, especially if you don't like the new style in the first place.

There are a lot of bands or specific music tracks I like. There are also a lot I hate (basically everything R&B). And then there are a few I just LOVE, that affect me emotionally -- more so than others.

However it doesn't matter whether they are just doing it for the money, whether they actually put their emotions in it, and whether they try to get a message across.
These are motives. And unless you're a telepath, you can only make guesses on that (educated and very accurate ones maybe, but you're still not reading their minds).

Unless you're an art critic and see music as an artform, it's pointless to judge the artists' perceived intentions when discussing music.

There are some tracks that I absolute love and that DO have strong indicators of being intended to convey certain ideas or emotions, but there are also a lot of tracks I like of which I'm rather sure that they're just supposed to sound good (i.e. sell adequately).

How I feel for the particular artist (or style) in general can intensify the love or hate (usually you don't love music by artists you don't like, but it's still possible to dislike music by artists you like -- but usually you'll feel more strongly about music you don't like by an artist you hate or music you love by an artist you like), but it's not a reason whether I like something or not.

Calling something bad because it's commercial or claiming someone sold out because they changed their style is not much different from just being like the cattle they "sold out" to.

Even though I can understand why you'd turn against an artist who changed their style to something that sells better but doesn't push your buttons if you were absolutely in love with their prior music.
It's breaking your heart, basically, and that does tend to cause strong negative emotions.

(disgruntled post, ignore content)

 

[Volkov]

"Sellout" is just a term I use when a band dramatically changes the style and content of their music to gain popularity in a different group. In the case of Soilwork and In Flames, listen to their latest albums, the ones made after they gained a reasonable American audience. Thier style changed so dramatically that it's difficult to put it down to some sort of artistic or creative evolution. However, whether or not they did change their style just to make money is actually irrelevant, as their new style in my opinion, sucks. The term "sellout" is an assumption on my part.

I'd actually prefer if they sold out. For example, if In Flames released Reroute to Remain actually thinking that it was a good idea, rather than it simply being an extremely retarded version of their older music designed to appeal to the American mainstream metal scene (and therefore, make lots of money), then I'd be seriously disappointed.

As an aside, I'm not used to writing serious in-depth posts, so if this post is retarded, just ignore it. I'll go back to writing the occasional one-liner.

 

[TorontoReign]

Everyone always say's that Metallica "sold out", but the thing is, they were already rich by the time their music changed. Why the fuck would they want to "sell out"? I'm a Metallica fan that likes every album that they have put out; even the new one. I can admit that the newer albums aren't as good, but does that make me fucking hate Metallica and call them douchebags? The answer is no Focker.
I honestly believe they were tired of playing the same fucking riffs over and over, so they wanted to change. System of a Down changed a little too. The difference is that System of a Down improved a LOT more than Metallica did . I think they accomplished what Metallica couldn't and that's ok. I still love Metallica, but System of a Down brings something a little more fresh to the table. That is the point of music. No one wants to hear a band play the same shit all the time. Well, maybe people do if they keep calling innovative bands sellouts. Fuck it. What do I know?

 

[Anack]

I'm a Metallica fan that likes every album that they have put out; even the new one. I can admit that the newer albums aren't as good, but does that make me fucking hate Metallica and call them douchebags?

Aren't as good as the old ones? New albums are POS. First listen Master of puppets or Ride the lightning, and then listen St. Anger, and then compare them. You will want to cry. I mean, not even a single solo on albuM? It's not innovation, it's nu metal shit.

The same thing is with In flames. Take Jester Race or Lunar Strain and compare it to Reroute to remain. It's not that they aren't as good as the old ones, they even cannot be compared to the old ones because they suck so much.

And yeah, I'm Metallica fan also, but i don't delude myself. Simply because it has Metallica written on it, it doesn't have to be good / I don't have to like it because I'm a fan.

 

[Sander]

St. Anger is a lot better than Load or Re-Load, though. I can't listen to the album for one simple reason, though: snareless snare drum. Ugh.

Frankly, though, Metallica did not have that much money when they started making the Black Album. It's quite reasonable to think they did it for the money. And the style change is rather huge, while they have gradually changed their style before that (Kill 'Em All vs. Ride The Lightning was a rather big change as well), this was an entirely new style of music.

As for In Flames, I've heard from an extremely reliable source that their next album is going to be a lot rawer and more like their previous albums than Reroute.