They pride themselves on knowledge of history too.
So power metal isn't metal then because it's also based around power chords right?
Its song structure is not metal? How so? Intro verse chorus verse chorus guitar solo chorus. It's standard song structure.
And if the extra instrument(s) disqualify it then why is any band with a keyboard also not metal? Because you've arbitrarily decided some instruments outside the core guitar/drum setup are or are not metal? What about symphonic death metal? If Fleshgod Apocalypse used a turntable in one of their songs do they suddenly become not metal?
How exactly is Slipknot similar to but not metal? What exactly about it makes it not metal despite having all the elements of any common definition of metal? That should be a very easy question to answer if your classification system is at all based on logic and not just whatever bullshit you feel in your stomach about what bands belong where.
No. You've never once addressed my point. Define Heavy Metal and then explain why something like Slipknot doesn't fit that definition.
What on earth does this have anything to do with an argument about classification?
You contradicted yourself with your two points and no, they're not high selling. Not by the standards of popular music. You're extremely delusional.
This is the stupidest analogy imaginable.
You're delusional if you think the average person on earth has any fucking clue who Mayhem and Emperor are.
And I'm always curious, what genre do people like you insist that Slipknot and the like are if not metal? What is your absurd, fringe definition of 'metal' if something that sounds like Slipknot doesn't qualify?
Actually, I'll just admit it - I haven't plumbed the depths of many genres/subgenres lmfao. Well, maybe I tried with mathcore. But I kinda tapped out after Dillinger Escape Plan and Botch as my favourites. and Fall of Troy if they count, but a little more riding genres. Converge and Between the Buried and Me were great but I didn't connect as much.
started as more punky metalcore band. I quite enjoy their first album. City of Evil is pretty much straight trad/power metal, though. Slipknot are numetal and FFDP can be either numetal or buttrock depending on your mood, lol. Two of my faves are Mudvayne and Nothingface tbh
aight at least you put them in a metal subgenre or differentiating between albums at the end of the day lol. just find all of 'what is metal' convo hilarious as someone who acclimatized to metal from the outside when I was an older teen (now in my 30s).
lol fair enough on the totally different ranking. Slipknot just overall sounds heavier most of the time to me, A7X ends up sounding like wanky emo metalcore, and FFDP is just like...dumb buttrock groove metal. if they're not some form of metal subgenre, then what are they?
I am no fan of Slipknot, 5FDP or A7X, but they are 'metal', probably about in that descending order. Put one of their songs on for an average person. They will tell you that you are playing them 'heavy metal'. Yes, some of their songs, once again probably more from A7X but I can't bring myself to torture myself more, are not metal at all.
I will acknowledge that Rammstein are really good.
Declaring that bands that are obviously metal are "not metal" and then listing a bunch of obscure black metal is so 2009 man. A7X, Slipknot, and 5FDP are clearly metal whether you like it or not. Just because a band has more than 10,000 listeners a month on Spotify doesn't affect what genre they are.
Holy hell, this is a reminder that people are not well versed in metal on this board lol
Every community needs gatekeepers!
Also Brodie or any variation that sounds like "Bro". There are plenty of other names I hate, too. Too many to list or think of.
Gertrude.
An equivalent American company would only have 8 or 9 employees because they don't have to comply with that. How are you failing at basic math?
Is that possible?
You're staffed such that at minimum 10% of your employees are on leave at any given time. You don't "feel" overstaffed because the excess staff isn't on-hand at any given time, but to maintain that leave policy means that you have to keep at minimum 11% more people on payroll to maintain the same level of staffing an equivalent American company would. The math isn't perfect, as an American company would generally offer 2 weeks paid leave per year vs 6 weeks in most European countries but close enough.
One big difference between European and American employers is that by American standards you're massively overstaffed. An American company generally doesn't have the staff to have people gone a month or two out of the year, and hiring more people (or paying massive overtime) is actually more expensive than raising wages (within limits, of course).
He's worth like $3 million, which doesn't sound like that much to me for someone working high-profile jobs for a lot of their life into their 80s
The problem with "inflammable" is that it looks like it's formed by attaching the prefix "in-" to the root "flammable" (which would mean "not flammable"), but it's actually formed by attaching the suffix "-able" to the root "inflame" (meaning "able to be inflamed"). It's a consequence of the many different etymological roots English has, and very nicely demonstrates why English morphology can be such a mess.
Flammable means it catches fire and inflammable means it does not.
Sorry, I'm too STEM brained to accept mob mentality as being the de facto justification for this.
Who is exactly this "we"?
And then there's "awesome", which is still relatively common, which was a popular 80s slang term, and which doesn't even remotely mean what it originally meant.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gO_gwBXTkg8
wow venom!