Tropes, Clichés, metal group think

[Ducky]

Do you find yourself dismissing an album or a band because of a review or a commonly held belief with your peers or within the wider listening community?

I'll try to frame this without too much meandering with examples:

Example: Cradle of Filth were a massive band at one stage and suddenly became a dirty word amongst many of the people who had initially vaunted them.

Iron Maiden: No Prayer for the Dying. Widely regarded as a poor follow up to Seventh Son. It was definitely a time and a place issue for this album, but removing yourself from that whole rigmarole and allowing yourself to listen without prejudice, it's actually a really strong album with great performances throughout.

Wasted Years(Maiden song) Bruce says he didn't like it and people latch onto that. As a kid I never distinguished.

Zepellin: The Crunge. Very typical for music journos to do this song down in any retrospective. It just seems like they all sing off the same hymnsheet, and yet if I'd never read a word on the album I'd never even have noticed.

Something that I've encountered again and again over the years as a music listener(and not just in metal).

It annoys my bollox when someone comes out with these types of tropes(I'm not sure if my use of the word trope is correct here: preconceived notions I suppose)..am I the only one?

I think discovering metal (and music in general) of my own accord (in terms of both influence and time) has meant that most of this sort of stuff is pure bollocks to me.

Cradle - Dusk is a fucking classic, one of the moodiest metal records I've ever heard. Wasted Years - my favourite Maiden song. Zeppelin to me are one of those sort of "beginner" bands - they're amazing as they're probably the first like it you hear, but when you delve deeper they're pretty shit. I do think No Prayer is a stinker though. I'd go so far as saying it's their worst album with Bruce, especially when it followed a stone cold classic.

[John Kimble]

the metal dresscode always irked me, or the rule of being rude to 'outsiders' or normies, the long hair rule, the rule of forced alcohol intake, that if something's loud it must be heavy, that Motorhead is cool, that Lemmy epitomised 'metal' etc

This kind of attitude annoys me and speaks more about your own insecurities rather than any shortcomings in the metal scene itself. Look, there's an image associated with metal, there has been since it emerged as a genre in its own right decades ago. You don't have to subscribe to every single aspect of it, just pick and choose the bits you like. Like, I've never worn a bullet belt in my entire life, and I'd look like a twat if I did...but I don't particularly want to go to a Gospel of the Horns gig and see a bunch of blokes on stage dressed like an Oasis covers band. There's plenty of heavy bands doing the whole anti-image thing, so it's not like it's not out there. I just don't get this whole coming onto a metal forum and constantly giving out about metal-shtick.

[Eoin McLove]

Classic case of wimposerism.

[Carnage]

Roots is a great example of an album that could be seen in 2 completely different lights.

1. A band experimenting and pushing out beyond the confines of the 'limitations' of their genre.

2. A band changing their sound to capture a wider audience.

I personally think there was an element of 2 at play, which is something that any established artist probably wrestles with, but, that said, I would tend to veer towards number 1. Chaos AD another example of an album that is much derided in certain circles, and while I adore Beaneath the Remains, Arise decent too, I can see how a band would want to change after what was a handful of albums of similar-ish style up to Chaos. Pared back, simpler riffs etc, but it was something to behold as a young lad, and a really enjoyable listen still, once you do some mindfulness meditation and release all those preconceptions that are holding you back..at least that's what Oprah said about it.

Definitely #2 to the fore there (Roots), with an element of the experimentation approach.

With Chaos AD, they'd just toured with Ministry the year before and I remember - when Territory came out before the album - thinking that their (Ministry's) sound had rubbed off on them. Whether that was riding the industrial metal wave or an experimental push, I don't know but Chaos AD is more of a stylistic shift than Roots IMO. Both perfectly good albums too, even if the latter is overlong.

No Prayer is shite though. Pub rock bollocks.

[Slaughterday]

I suppose what I'm saying is if you already have your mind made up how are you ever going to enjoy something or allow yourself to approach it with an open mind. I've dismissed albums for no good reason in the past and later found them to be perfectly fine listens when I moved beyond allowing myself to be told what to like and not to like.

I was awful for this in my early days of listening to metal. I passed over so many quality albums for years based on shite I had read in Terrorizer or on forums. Suffocation - Breeding The Spawn, Darkthrone - anything past 'Transilvanian Hunger', Angelcorpse - Of Lucifer and Lightning, anything past 'Nightfall' for Candlemass...

[Eoin McLove]

I think it's normal enough to a degree. You will find a certain critic or forum member who generally steers you right and begin to take their word as gospel,  which is fine in the beginning for laying a good bit of groundwork,  particularly regarding the classics.  As you get older and have a few more quid to spend and you have a better understanding of your own tastes over the long term,  you can start to fill in the gaps.  You also realise that just because something is labelled a classic,  it can still be total shite to your own ear.  Age,  confidence,  wisdom and a bit of long in the tooth grumpiness is a good thing.

[mugz]

...

[mugz]

...

[mugz]

...

[mugz]

...

[mugz]

...

[Nail_Bombed]

Chaos AD had the right balance at the time being still rooted in their thrash/death background, but bringing in more diversity from punk, industrial, and some tribal sounds without being cloyingly TRIBAL ROOTS MUSIC UBER ALLES which is what Roots ended up being IMO. And there were far too many guest appearances which can be the sign of album rot.

[Pedrito]

Yep, Chaos was a band hitting their peak, maybe not in terms of raw aggression or musicianship or even passion, but it had that element of maturity that allowed them to hone a lot of what they had already built and channel it very effectively. Now that type of thing certainly doesn't float many older fans' boats and it is definitely them 'knowing' what appeals and what doesn't.

Put it this way: Arise is great, Schizophrenia too, but to capture a wider audience they needed something with more pizazz, more modern. The cover looked amazing, the themes of the songs talked to people, 'Pavilhao nove' all that raised fist stuff, a kind of metal Clash in many ways. It was SJW before SJW ever existed.

Roots, by contrast, was fairly winky wanky woo, though in a strange way the world might be a less interesting place without it. The album art was beautiful, the idea was there, but the execution was fairly poor.

[mugz]

...

[ochoill]

I got killed for this before but I'll say it again, Chaos AD is their best album.  Closely followed by Arise.  Roots is awful muck