The next great metal band?
 |
Photo by Scott Kinkade |
Perhaps the corollary of "Why do kids listen to crap?" is "Why are young bands crappy?" After all, kids prefer young bands. Youth relates to youth. But young bands aren't crappy because they're young. We know this from a vast segment of the population called "the earlier stuff was better." Classic metal debuts are legion: Metallica, Slayer, Napalm Death, Morbid Angel, Entombed, and Deicide, to name a few. Many of these "changed the game" of metal.
I'm always on the lookout for bands that will "change the game." But increasingly I think that no individual band can do so now. There are just too many bands now for one to dominate the rest.
To analogize to sports, game-changing bands are like first round draft picks. These players are expected to change their teams fundamentally. Lower round draft picks are only expected to fill roles by position. With so many established subgenres, virtually all new bands now are lower round draft picks. They fill specific niches: retro thrash, depressive black metal, old-school Swedish death metal. Young bands all too often ghettoize themselves into subgenres. Thus, they water down original sounds, a sure path to crappiness.
 |
The earlier stuff was better |
Let's make this inquiry positive. Who is the next great metal band? This seems like it should be obvious. When Metallica debuted with Kill 'em All, it must have been clear that they were headed for big things. This is the million dollar quest for every big metal label: to find the next Metallica.
Revocation are not the next Metallica, but they could be the next great metal band. They have songs, not just a sound. Their songs are identifiable within seconds. They have memorable riffs and rhythms. Their chops have soul. David Davidson's solos are amazing tightrope walks of speed, hooks, and bluesy swagger. The last metal guitarist to do that was Dimebag Darrell. Listen to "Dismantle the Dictator" and "The Brain Scramblers," from Existence Is Futile (out September 29 on Relapse), on the band's MySpace. The next Megadeth, perhaps?
Who is the next great metal band?
Labels: clee, death metal, features, thrash metal, usa
36 Comments:
>Classic metal debuts are legion: Metallica, Slayer, Napalm Death, Morbid Angel, Entombed, and Deicide, to name a few. Many of these "changed the game" of metal. ...When Metallica debuted with Kill 'em All, it must have been clear that they were headed for big things.
I disagree. I submit that when thrash appeared, just as when punk appeared, it was not greeted with waves of "my God, this is what I've been waiting my whole life to hear!" adulation. Yes, there were enthusiasts early on, but they were cultists, not tastemakers.
I remember the first time I heard Reign In Blood; I was 14 and loved Judas Priest and Iron Maiden, and this new band just sounded like screaming noise. If I wanted to listen to punk, I'd listen to punk, was my thought at the time. It took me several months to come back and give them another shot. I think a lot of the love heaped on older bands now is retroactive, because those bands have proved themselves over time.
I don't know if they're "game changers" but I loved Gojira's last two albums and think they're in a good spot to not only doing something really interesting musically but also move a butt load of records. Plenty of bands make better music than Lamb of God and Metallica these days, but most of those bands aren't actually opening for Lamb of God and Metallica.
Gojira is being exposed to the masses and now they just have to capitalize on it. I expect they will.
When I heard The Shaggs' Philosophy of the World, I screamed, "My God, this is what I've been waiting my whole life to hear."
I personally think on all levels that Gaza will be the band to break through. These guys bring it on CD but their live show is top notch. I think with the right push they could be the band to take mainstream metal to the next 'level'. Not necessarily selling millions, but adding a rougher edge to what is played on mainstream radio.
This post has been removed by the author.
I think for every person that says "My God, this is what I've been waiting my whole life to hear.", there is another person that says "The old stuff is better". Over time the "old stuff" people's voices fade...which means one day the masses will look back fondly at Winds Of Plague.
Revocation's solos absolutely kill. I love the way this band plays with melodic riffs/leads. I could do with fewer chugging breakdowns, but that's just my own obsessive distaste for chugging breakdowns and not a comment on the actual quality of the music. This is good! I don't know about next big thing, but they'll definitely have a devoted following amongst kids who are into mainstream metal right now.
I had completely ignored this band. Mainly because I figured they were a shitty modern death metal band.
The solos are definitely cool, but I'm uncomfortable with the clean production, they'll need to throw on a couple layers of mud before i can fully support this.
Also, definitely going to have a young audience, could imagine them playing mayhem fest or ozzfest or something similar
Phil - My impression is that Kill 'em All got a "this is the next level" reception. Not a lot of "this one is a grower." But, as you say (and as Rob observes), that might be just the voices of hindsight. It would be cool if someone who were around and cognizant at the time could weigh in. But good point about context. The first Slayer I heard was Hell Awaits, which sounded like screaming noise to me because I was listening to mainstream stuff like Metallica, Anthrax, and hair metal.
Were Megaforce (who put out a lot of classic thrash) cultists, not tastemakers? I remember looking for the Megaforce brand on albums and usually being happy with the results.
Stew - I got that feeling with the techno remix of "Crazy Train."
Anon - A truly great band doesn't live and die on the live show alone. The albums are the legacy. On that score, Gojira are good, not great. I don't hear songs, but I do hear a lot of force and occasionally some interesting ideas. Great bands make albums where one knows every song title (if not lyric), and Gojira don't do that.
Path - Gaza played on mainstream radio? I wish, but it won't happen. Again, they are a band for the (evidently tremendous) live show, not the album.
WZA'd - I don't consider Torche metal, but, yes, they might have crossover potential, especially for those who don't remember Foo Fighters.
Torche compared to the Foo Fighters? Interesting to say the least. To think the FF have been around for almost 20 years and really have put out mediocre records (good singles, but not albums as a whole) is really not a good band for comparison. I'm not saying Torche is uber metal by any stretch, so don't take this as torche super fan to the rescue of the beloved band. I'm just curious why you compare them to the Foo Fighters other than being loud pop bands although the Fighters go for acoustic drivel way too much and are not good at writing pseudo-sappy rock songs. They should just stick to the loud rock.
My comment revised and expanded upon because I've been thinking about this.
If there’s a line of “Metal Laureates,” it goes something like this:
Black Sabbath
Metallica
Pantera
Mastodon
What makes a great metal band great?
I think the great metal bands have a few vital things in common.
They need to be original obviously, but more importantly they need their own signature sound as early as possible (with Pantera being the obvious exception). Nobody sounds like Metallica. They maintained a weird sort of integrity even on St. Anger, in which, even though it was shit, you could hear riffs that only Metallica could have made.
Mastodon has also done a lot to hollow out a space for their own sound. Go back and listen to early Mastodon, and while they share a lot of aspects of their sludgy peers, they still have their signature sound in place.
The greats also need to believe that they're a metal band. They can't think that they're representing some subgenre they're close to, even though they can derive heavily from their favorites or their local scene. Metallica didn't really represent thrash so much as they represented Metal as a whole. James Hetfield wasn't saying "thrash up your ass!" in interviews.
Lyrical content also has something to do with it I think. Black Sabbath wanted to make lyrics that were scary. They ended up talking about drugs, war, lovecraft and the devil among other now-staples. Metallica did the same thing, and brought a lot of stuff about death into it. Pantera, the exception again, brought tough-guy texas swagger into it. Mastodon went the exact opposite direction and went the escapist route. All of them share similar lyrical traits though, and you can find a lot of the same threads running through each band.
Also: guitar solos. Any band, as heavy as they are, can’t be among metal’s greats without guitar solos.
WZA'd - You're missing some obvious choices like Judas Priest and Iron Maiden. But I agree with the larger point that great metal bands transcend subgenre and are essentially their own genres.
Trivium have sometimes sounded like Metallica, but are the lesser for it.
ben - I'm not the first to compare Torche to Foo Fighters. (A Google search for "torche 'foo fighters'" yields 65,600 hits.) Torche are heavier, but both bands have a melodic, droning quality that makes me think of the older one first.
The next (current?) great metal band, in my opinion, is High On Fire. Here's why:
1. pretty much unparalleled heaviosity
2. pretty much unparalleled originality
3. mind-boggling riff composition
4. unflagging intensity
5. risen from the ashes of Sleep
And they are more than the sum of these. I think (pray) their next album will be impregnated with their total genre-shattering evilness orders of magnitude more than (the superb) Death Is This Communion.
But hey, I'm a big fan.
I forgot to add to the list of reasons why High On Fire is the "Next Great" the fact that Matt Pike is in it.
But I see what you are saying with Revocation...
Black Hell
Put me down as seconding the High on Fire vote. Such a killer band. Not the world's most original, but holy shit, they are fantastic modern standard bearers for metal.
As far as new, young bands that I think we'll be talking about in 10 years, I'd say Dreaming Dead has a tremendous shot.
i usually get crap for my views on this topic but i'm going to post anyways in the hope someone will actually agree with me one day...
but to me, the "next level" of metal was always a revolution in sound and attack...
Led Zep--> blues electrified
Sabbath-->took Zep and made it dark
Priest--->added 2nd guitar crucnch
Maiden--->twin melodies and speed
Metallica--->massive speed attack
Morbid Angel--->downtune jazz infl
from there, there's simply too many offshoots and Morbid Angel might not even qualify outside the death metal tag...
but with that in tow, alot of harsher ebm bands from wumpscut to tamtrum to even Skinny Puppy and Ministry are the true evolutions of metal (throw them in between Metallica and Morbid Angel)...nobody respects the electronic side of things, but i don't see the difference since technology itself has evolved in the same fashion...many "metal" artists were trying to get new and exciting sounds to coincide and express their raw energy, not necessarily create a shrine to "metal"...
so all that said, my vote is for Tamtrum or anybody pushing the envelope electronically.
also of note, when i was 9 years old (1987), my cousin bought Reign In Blood, Spreading the Disease, and Master of Puppets...it was the weekend i was waiting for all my life without even knowing it...she couldn't pry the headphones from my head :)...
I think that ever-increasing genre-fication means that no band will ever rule over metal like some of the early titans mentioned.
Historically, I think the arrival of thrash is where the separation took hold. Until then, there was just (heavy) metal, even if it came in old and then 'new' waves. I am sure that there were plenty left behind by the onset of thrash, that didn't appreciate the punk influence and have clung to Priest and Maiden ever since.
Genre distinctions have become ever more established since, so the pool of listeners is partitioned, and it is hard for any one band to appeal to listeners across the spectrum.
So where would a new Metallica come from? Would they be a band that spans a couple of genres, like Behemoth, or that eschews the mainstream metal genres, like Mastodon? I find it hard to see any new band creating an audience that eclipses the current pattern of genre segregation.
Next great metal band? Will there ever be another that galvanizes fans like Maiden or Metallica or Slayer? Probably not one that reaches any level of popularity. The constant schisms and divisions within culture have assured that thenceforth everything will be long tail, even metal more so than before. Shit, it's possible that Pantera will be the last "great" (I use that word loosely) metal band that was actually metal and reached any kind of audience beyond metal. That being said, I'll put my money on Anvil.
Oof. Surprised Cosmo let Freeman run with twisting his rather even comment about Metallica seemingly being headed for "bigger things" into a straw man.
Ridiculous anyway since in 1983 Bob Muldowney was definitely greeting Metallica as the band likely to change the sound of heavy metal and Pushead was gushing about them being the best new thing in metal in MRR and Thrasher throughout 84/85. You can call them, uh, “cultists” if you want but Metallica was quickly gainging popularity due to their distinct sound, touring and fast release rate, and the larger mags that initially ridiculed thrash changed their mind shortly afterward.
Much as I love High on Fire, they aren't the next great metal band. First, they aren't game changers. They've basically updated Motorhead with some stoner/doom influences. Second, they don't have the songs. To how many High on Fire songs do you know all the lyrics? Lyrics are key. They unite people. Once metal started getting "extreme" (i.e., people yelling instead of singing), lyrics took second priority because no one understood them. Thus the music lost part of its total package.
That's not necessarily a bad thing. I prefer "extreme" metal to traditional metal. But "extreme" stuff divides, not unites. I think Trivium realize this; hence, their many attempts at writing anthems. Unfortunately, those come off as insincere and calculated.
I think it's still possible to have another great metal band. But it will have to write strong songs with a strong singer.
Primordial.
not to sound condescending, but i think many people are missing the point..
i am extremely excited for the new Revocation CD, do I think, they are the "next big thing"? No. The t-shirts in the their promo photo are a slight descriptor of that. They are obvious fans of these bands [ as many bands are that wear metal shirts ] as heard in their music.. the listener finds themselves constantly picking out Atheist "styled" breakdowns, Decrepit Birth "styled" speed, Dark Angel "styled" groove, Necrophagist "styled" precision & melody, Enternamehere "styled" soulfulness..
if you are comparing "success" and the ability of a band to capture the hearts, inspire the minds, and overall flatten the listener with an overwhelming mesmerized feeling alike Metallica in 1983 you must contextualize the band with it's influences, and it's overall impact and presence in history.
sure, Metallica listened to diamondhead, motorhead, venom, wore their shirts just like Revocation do their "idols'", but Metallica were able to create something new from these influences, and it is obviously apparent. Sure you can pick out a Motorhead type riff here or there, and sure their rode the wave of a scene in history alongside Exodus, Anthrax and a slew of other bands, but they were ultimately able to create something new, something theirs, and something that was, in the eyes of the scene following, the best, and fittest version of itself.
Touring played a part, tape trading as well, etc; but anyway you put it, what they were "peddling" came out on top for a reason.
The concept of exposure has drastically changed, and how we listen to and hear bands has changed, but the substance remained intact - if you create something genuine, sincere, and new, you will be recognized [ unless you have a shitty manager and no ambition :) ] There is no way to predict what "new" wave will hit, but you can look back in history and contextualize, and as the last 10 years have been going, i would say it has been "emulation over innovation".
The point is, when you contextualize these bands' within history somebody like Metallica, or Slayer, stand out for a reason. They changed music. Created something new. If the "metal scene" moves in the emulating direction it has been moving, & as much as I love High on Fire or Revocation, i will for now, have to doubt that their names will stand visibly among a sea of shit.
Baroness always struck me as a band capable of doing their own thing while still reaching bigger and bigger crowds. Their 'Red Album' definitely is a modern classic to me, no fillers at all. This band has just been ruling from their demos to the cleaner sounding new stuff, I don't care how "big" they will become but they're defnitely more salient to me than any band mentioned here so far.
Anaal Nathrakh
Cheese +!
Revocation are young dudes, but they're not a young band. They formed as Cryptic Warning back in like 2000-2001. They've been at this for quite some time.
Does a great Metal band have to make a record with mass appeal? eg sell out, for at least one album?
I think we can get a gauge for who the next great Metal band is, when we start seeing covers of their songs. Cosmo has stressed that great bands need to have great songs. Some people are enamored with bands that have great intensity, but not the great songs. It is the great songs that tend to be covered.
I don't think there ever was any 'rulers of metal'. I don't think 'kill 'em all' was greeted with stunted realizations that this is the next big thing at the time. I think magazines put bands on the cover and aggressively try to market them, and that has gotten a lot of bands a purely Spectacle-based status as 'rulers of metal' in the past but as far as what people put in their cd players (or today, play in their mp3 players) there never were any genre leaders. I liked Metallica as a kid but I remember spinning Helloween's 'Walls of Jericho' more than any Metallica record even 15 years ago, although the magazines were preoccupied with Metallica always. In fact, most of the bands I ever obessed with were broken up by the time I got to them.
This is good, I see no use for icons in HM. I don't really care to predict which band will be big on magazine covers next year, it's an outmodded concept of publicity and celebrity that will go out as people get used to the fact that they never really needed tastemakers and the internet has neutered them. What's interesting is what touches people deeply, not what will touch a lot of people superficially.
The first question that pops up in my mind is: what is a definition of "great" that would work as a universal maxim? Is it influence? Or that a "great" band be able to fill stadiums? Then Metallica might be the last truly great band.
But the second question would be what's metal? To me Metallica stopped being a real metal band with the Black Album. So maybe Pantera, who drew huge crowds and didn't evolve their sound into a more radio-friendly formula, were the last titans.
If you look at influence, then most bands, who are "big" now, don't really qualify, since most pay obvious homage to the giants on whose shoulders they stand. And so basically spice the past with current sound and market sensibilities. And one doesn't have to look down on the Nu-Metal/Insert-Hyped-Tag-Here bands, that featured in Cosmo's great "Why do kids listen to crap?"-post, to find evidence for that. Mastodon, with their Prog Rock routine (they're actually touring with Dream Theater ... ack!), Opeth with their open love-affair with Deep Purple and 70s Acid Rock and Enslaved with their Pink Floyd hero worship come to mind easily. And I really love all those bands, but they're not really pushing the envelope of truly original metal.
Maybe original, exiting metal has to be "extreme" to qualify, thus ending its chance of becoming "great" in a commercial sense, as several posters pointed out above. When Metallica released "Kill 'em All" back then, they were much closer to the mainstream of metal than a game-changing metal band could ever hope to be today. Again destroying their chance of ever becoming as "great" commercially as Metallica.
But then again, metal has always been very conservative, as exemplified by the legions of awful and stale bands, that haven't released a good album in decades and still hog the headliner slots of pretty much every metal festival.
Tradition, as the composer Gustav Mahler pointed out, means passing the flame, not the veneration of the ashes.
Maybe Behemoth thus qualify for "great", as they continuously evolve their version of extreme metal, while broadening their commercial appeal through solid song writing, awesome technical skills, great sound and a superbly coherent overall presentation. And some of their songs are even almost hummable.
But will they ever become the next Metallica? Or even Pantera?
Very unlikely
If Drudkh were to go on a world tour they could take over the whole scene, their sound is so epic like - great metal should be. Their last album Microcosmos was a bit of a let down but Estrangement, Blood in our Wells, Autumn Aurora, = classics. Even Forgotten Legends, & The Swan Road are good albums.
That band does not, and will not exist. Metal is too fractured for the entire culture to gather behind one band.
I recently came accross your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I dont know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
Susan
http://mariahcareylyrics.net
Cosmo, please no. I already have to listen to Kevin Stewart-Panko go on and on and on about how awesome Revocation is every time we talk...
It seems to me that Sunn0))) has been getting a lot of critical acclaim from the non-metal people and what they do is very unique. They are leaders of a new wave, in some sense, because of their ability to bring attention to other bands (i.e. Striborg). At this point, though, I'm undecided on whether I actually like Sunn0))).
I have Revocation's first demo from 2002 when they were called Cryptic Warning, check it!
http://raiseyerfists.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/its-your-cryptic-warning/
Post a Comment
<< Home