about DOOM METAL

[snakepitguy]

Ozzy once said about the dispute: "Don't call it Rock, don't call it Metal, don't call it Pop - call it Ozzy-music.". I guess that must be the best solution. At least it avoids quite some pointless fights. And yeah, I guess I am a hippie. Pretty young one with 31 though.

You got your point across Hugin, no doubt. I do agree with your explanation, no doubt. But again, don't get me wrtont, this is no dispute thing -although it may sound like one somewhat- maybe at the end of the day you're right.... time pass, styles moves and as new people gets in everybody has a different perception..
Still no one will ever get me agreeing with associating bands like KREATOR, SLAYER, DESTRUCTION with stuff like ANTHRAX, METALLICA, TESTAMENT or L. ROCKIT.... this is two different styles.

[Hugin]

Returning to the Slayer vs. Testament thing. When I started listening to Metal in the late 80s, both were definitely defined as Thrash by most people and metal magazines. I grew up with those definitions. I can surely hear the differences, no doubt. I agree that those are different styles, but are they THAT far apart that they can't both be (some kind of) Thrash Metal? I mean Michael Jackson and Britney Spears both make Pop music, still they sound pretty much nothing alike. Mozart and Beethoven? Both classical composers, still stylistically a lot different. Some people consider(ed) the likes of Slayer and Kreator Black(ened) Thrash to stress the lyrical themes and the massive impact of Venom throughout, while Testament, Heathen, Forbidden are thrown into the Bay Area (Thrash) shelf by most people. I think there's no rule that Thrash needs to have harsh vocals to seperate it from Speed Metal, and then already 20 years ago, the verges of Speed and Thrash were unclear. Taking the Godfathers Venom, depending on whom you ask, they get every label from Rock'n'Roll via NWoBHM to Black Metal, from Punk via Thrash to Death Metal. Or Exciter: Most people - myself included - will call them Speed Metal, still there are quite some who'd also call them precursors or initiators of Thrash. Hell, in the late 80s, record stores around here regularly filed Motörhead and Running Wild under "Thrash Metal". Wrong or right? Doesn't matter to me. I just don't see the point in arguing about who puts which band into which shelf. You say it's not a dispute, but still: What's the point then?

I have no problem with people saying "This is no Doom for me.", but when it comes to the point that people start to call others ignorant and clueless just for they have another (wider) definition of "Doom" or "Thrash", then it gets a bit irritating. I mean, I listen to Metal for around 19 years now, and I think I don't have to be taught a lesson about Doom, despite I consider a band like My Dying Bride a (Funeral) Doom band. That was what I wanted to say. However, I got used to the idolatry towards narrow-mindedness in our beloved scene, that I shouldn't complain. I chose to be part of this scene, so that's what I get. Deservedly so.

[Guest]

"Still no one will ever get me agreeing with associating bands like KREATOR, SLAYER, DESTRUCTION with stuff like ANTHRAX, METALLICA, TESTAMENT or L. ROCKIT.... this is two different styles."

Hell yeah Laurnet. Metallica, Anthrax, Testament are for sure Speedy Heavy Metal. And Slayer, Kreator, and Destruction are THRASH METAL.

I am sure Kick Ass Monthly's Bob Mudlowney used the Phrase "Power Metal" for the bands that were faster versions of Motorhead, Raven, Anvil, The Rods and Tank.

I am mostly a fan of Metallica, Anthrax and Testament, and I can hear the difference in the RIFFS. From the Slayer's, Kreator's, and Destruction's of this World.

The problem with all those classifications is to many outsiders who emulate/ rip-off Heavy Metal, have re-written the history so much...Every HEAVY METAL record collector is pretty much fucked without owning the first 36 isuses of Kick Ass Monthly, and the first 15, (now going on # 16) Isuses of Snakepit Heavy Metal Magazine.

I still blows my mind Laurent Ramadier, Bob Muldowney, and Frank Stover have not joined Forces for the ultimate Heavy Metal collectors book.

Frank Stover and Heinz were right in those mid-era Snakepit Magazine editorials. Most magazines are not worthy to pick up dog poop, (think Revolver, Decibel) and most webzines are 90%+ a waste of the readers time.

[snakepitguy]

Returning to the Slayer vs. Testament thing. When I started listening to Metal in the late 80s, both were definitely defined as Thrash by most people and metal magazines. I grew up with those definitions. I can surely hear the differences, no doubt. I agree that those are different styles, but are they THAT far apart that they can't both be (some kind of) Thrash Metal?

I doubt anybody who has grew up with the extension of Metal back in the early ?80s (Heavy Metal becoming harder/ faster with ACCEPT, TANK, RAVEN, JAGUAR, J. PANZER, ANVIL?. then going to another stage with Power/ Speed Metal,B. AXE, VENOM, EXCITER, ANTHRAX, METALLICA and then going to the next stage, Thrash when SLAYER released ?show no mercy?

[TWOS]

Sounds like the good old "If you ain't true you can't have a clue!"-garbage. Sorry if that may sound a bit harsh, but I find all that pretending and self-indulgent trueness so damn annoying. This is true doom, that isn't; this is true black, that isn't... Why can't people just relax and accept the fact that "Doom" in a more general sense is not only the stuff that THEY like, but also other stuff, bordering to other genres, with fluent transitions.

Why should bands like My Dying Bride, Funeral, Fallen, Pantheist, Beyond Belief, Ahab etc... not be Doom? Yep, we already had the fantastic thesis that Funeral Doom isn't Doom but slow Death Metal. Holy cow. Doesn't all that serve the sole purpose of making yourselves looking more "competent" than other people: "How stupid they are... they think that My Dying Bride is Doom, hahaha...".

Indeed, sometimes it is like that. Unfortunately.

For me Doom is something very puristic. The 'traditional' Doom bands celebrate this purism and are strongly influenced by the old gods such as Pentagram, Vitus and Sabbath. That's why it is difficult for me to put bands that mix various and more modern styles such as Death and Gothic with Doom in the same genre with bands such as Reverend Bizarre or Solitude Aeternus. Albert Witchfinder wanted to split up with R.B. because his music is developing into something else and he don't want to 'abuse' the word Doom for it. For him Doom is something holy and clearly defined.

Recently I could listen to a Mourning Beloveth Album. I really lilked it but I don't want to call it Doom. Death-Doom is ok.

I have no problem with people saying "This is no Doom for me.", but when it comes to the point that people start to call others ignorant and clueless just for they have another (wider) definition of "Doom" or "Thrash", then it gets a bit irritating.

All right, a good attitude. But it should be accepted as well if someone has a more narrow definition.
I don't think it is narrow-minded to use your own definitions for bands and styles but it is more a good way to manage the big amount of Metal bands and decide what could be interesting for you and what not.

[Holy Mighty Stormwitch]

All right, a good attitude. But it should be accepted as well if someone has a more narrow definition.

Wise words, I would say... btw, this discussion reminds me a lot of the often-asked question about power metal bands. If someone talks about power metal, most of us think of the classic bands like Savatage, Metal Church, Vicious Rumors, Helstar, Armored Saint etc. However, there are still many ppl considering Sonata Arctica, Hammerfall, Stratovarius, Edguy and stuff like that as typical power metal... and I must admit, some years ago when I didn´t know so much about power metal I was one of those ppl, too... but today I just grin when I think of that *gg*.