Poll: Is Slipknot metal?
- Thread starter Akai Shizuku
- Start date
Recommended Videos
That's a rather perplexing statement, as ICP make music as well.saintchristopher said:
if you want METAL, listen to some Behemoth. They're the band Slipknot wishes they were.[/quote]
Behemoth are balls too man. Ditch their silly nonsense and listen to some Incantation.
I never quite grew out of Cradle of Filth. Can't say the same for Slipknot, Linkin park.zen5887 said:
For me, Slipknot consists of 2 bands. The first band, the better one, who kinda did play metal, and the latter one, the lesser one, who plays god knows what.
And in regards to the topic, no, they are not. They might have double bass, be down-tuned and have lots of distortion, but that doesn't mean a damn thing. Reverend Bizarre, Candlemass, Cathedral and the overwhelming amount of doom metal bands don't have double bass, aren't downtuned and have a bit of distortion, but they're infinitely heavier than Slipknot.
Also, to those who like brutal crossover (Think Pleasure to Kill era Kreator doing a Megazord with DRI), I present, Slipknot:
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=FTH5OJCW
Also, to those who like brutal crossover (Think Pleasure to Kill era Kreator doing a Megazord with DRI), I present, Slipknot:
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=FTH5OJCW
Uhh...yeah. I'd say they're metal, mostly because they've got heavy vocals and heavy guitars, heavy bass and heavy drums, like most metal bands out there.
Also, they just sound metal, so I really don't pay a great deal of notice to sub-genres.
In my mind, they're metal. Not great metal, but metal nonetheless.
Also, they just sound metal, so I really don't pay a great deal of notice to sub-genres.
In my mind, they're metal. Not great metal, but metal nonetheless.
Slipknot are to me considered metal and in my oppinion are alright but now i consider them a kerrang band which for me means they have had to much success for little reason. I think they are largely over rated and are know way as good as bands that are popular and have an underground following such as voivod, paradise lost and threat signal, and there are far more popular bands known to the public such as lamb of god and fear factory which are huge bands but do not get air time on the radio and on Tv but have become famous for groundbreaking tracks, unlike slipknot who everyone knows because they where masks.
I'm not too hot on classifying bands into distinct genres, because there's so much variation within different musical genres. Slipknot and all the 'nu metal' bands out there are an example of this. They have a few major differences that separate them from most metal subgenres (ex: rapping/sampling, occasional pop-esque vocals). But taking into account their influences and other factors of their sound, Slipknot is pretty much fits into the metal genre.
Take some musical traits that define general metal bands: Use of power chords, palm-muting, syncopated riffs, emphasis on loudness, guitar solos, speed/"heavy" drumming, dark/gritty atmosphere. Slipknot incorporates all of those into their sound. The few differences that separate Slipknot from general 'metal' music don't erase all of those similarities.
They're definitely have more in common with metal than grunge or hard rock. It's honestly really hard comparing Slipknot to Iron Butterfly and Led Zeppelin or Alice in Chains and Nirvana. Since most nu metal bands were influenced by Korn, who were partially influenced by grunge music, I suppose grunge has been influential in nu metal music (not to mention most nu metal artists were probably teens during the grunge era). However, heavy metal is the largest contributor to the nu metal sound.
I mean, from what I gather, most people say Slipknot or other nu metal groups aren't metal because they hate them. If that's the case, then there's a fundamental problem with the reason for the classification. They're not "not metal" because they play "shitty" music. Because "good" is subjective. And they're not "not metal" just because they cater to angsty teens. Because fucking early Metallica wouldn't be metal, either. And I can't just call every artist/band I hate nu metal. You know, because then New Kids On The Block would be metal and that's just not right.
Take some musical traits that define general metal bands: Use of power chords, palm-muting, syncopated riffs, emphasis on loudness, guitar solos, speed/"heavy" drumming, dark/gritty atmosphere. Slipknot incorporates all of those into their sound. The few differences that separate Slipknot from general 'metal' music don't erase all of those similarities.
They're definitely have more in common with metal than grunge or hard rock. It's honestly really hard comparing Slipknot to Iron Butterfly and Led Zeppelin or Alice in Chains and Nirvana. Since most nu metal bands were influenced by Korn, who were partially influenced by grunge music, I suppose grunge has been influential in nu metal music (not to mention most nu metal artists were probably teens during the grunge era). However, heavy metal is the largest contributor to the nu metal sound.
I mean, from what I gather, most people say Slipknot or other nu metal groups aren't metal because they hate them. If that's the case, then there's a fundamental problem with the reason for the classification. They're not "not metal" because they play "shitty" music. Because "good" is subjective. And they're not "not metal" just because they cater to angsty teens. Because fucking early Metallica wouldn't be metal, either. And I can't just call every artist/band I hate nu metal. You know, because then New Kids On The Block would be metal and that's just not right.
It's not good, regardless of genre in my opinion. I like Heavy, Power and Symphonic metals, but this does nothing for me.
Iowa, Volume 3 and All Hope is Gone arn't Nu-metal, and I would argue that the orriginal slipknot album isn't nu-metral either.
Nearly all of their music is fast and violent enough, there is skill in there also, and it get me hyped up more than most other metal bands. There is a lot wrong with it, for example the solos being taken out of the first album (I wish i knew why they did that) prior to release, but in my own opinion its metal, and it can be quite good.
In comparison to these idiots like limp bizkit [actual nu metal] its definatly good
Nearly all of their music is fast and violent enough, there is skill in there also, and it get me hyped up more than most other metal bands. There is a lot wrong with it, for example the solos being taken out of the first album (I wish i knew why they did that) prior to release, but in my own opinion its metal, and it can be quite good.
In comparison to these idiots like limp bizkit [actual nu metal] its definatly good
As I mentioned to the last person who said this, you can kindly fiddle with your radio trying to find Britney Spears as you drive towards a very steep and very high cliff.Agema said:
I was using nu metal as an example, do we really need to have all these sub genres?jonnosferatu said:
Yeah but it's still metal, it might be some stupid sub genre but it's still metal, does it really matter what type?
Okay then, how would you descibe metal? Dark lyrics, I present to you emo. Or maybe shout singing, scremo
Don't you think it's a bit pathetic, arguing about what genre a band is? The differences are so small it's just a bit stupid, why can't we just say something is metal or it's not?
No. They are not metal, I've given them an extensive listen, trying to answer this question myself and I can honestly see no metallic qualities in them. Heavy, down tuned guitars? Harcore punk has that. I've not heard a single blast beat from Jordison, another defining element of metal drumming. All I hear from Jordison is whoring the double bass drums.