Worst Things About Metalhead ElitistsWonkeyDude98 Yes, I know ProPanda already made this list (talking to admin). However, it was...flawed, to say the least. Vague, generalizing, nonspecific, and really hard to defend. Of course, the fact that I had to fight as hard as I had to on that list says a lot more about it than I ever could.
I want to revise that list, and narrow it down to very specific and concise reasons. This should be fun...
The Top Ten
What artists really represent why pop is awful, or why metal is so great? It's, I kid you not, ALWAYS one of these names: Justin Bieber, One Direction, Taylor Swift, Rebecca Black, Metallica, Megadeth, Iron Maiden, and Anthrax. The big four of each genre for better of worse. Not really.
You don't GET to talk about how awful pop is if you've never listened to CHVRCHES, or Marianas Trench, or Frank Ocean, or Steven Wilson, or Arcade Fire, or Sufjan Stevens.
You ALSO don't get to tell me how much you love metal until you listen to bands like Icon For Hire, Death Grips, Panopticon, Saor, Boris, Jesu, or Ulver.
I'm not saying to go Autechre-level obscure, but at least have a LITTLE knowledge beyond the cliché and what's most popular. That makes you just as ignorant if not more than the people you bash.
Yet another thing that shows the masquerade that most metalheads put on. I've seen so many people, BlueFrostOfThunderClan (formerly), zxm (formerly), malamJONES, Brobusky, MetalObsessed, that 64 year old left wing visitor, PhantomMilitia, Metalthomas, all people who hate pop with a passion but never give real reasons as to why. Their reasoning for why pop is awful consists of "no instruments" and "not rough-edged", assuming they have any at all besides "it's not real music".
Most dedicated pop fans actually have an idea what scales of quality are, or how music actually works and should sound. I bet if I said right now "Picardy third", you all would be scratching your heads in confusion. That's just the beginning. What about texture? Or presence? Or nuance? Or if the artist succeeds at what they try to do? There are so many factors as to how music can be good, you can't boil it down to "if it's pop it's bad".
The biggest argument that metalheads use is "pop is awful because it doesn't use instruments". Even ignoring the fact that we know that argument is worthless because it's a lie, it's also blatantly ignorant because production and synthetic instrumentation takes every bit as much if not more effort than organic instrumentation. Yes, it is important to have actual instruments to have a more human sound, but even ignoring how they already have a decisive sound, it usually isn't what's intended for pop and even electronica. It's a type of music that requires extreme precision. You have to get every single synth and instrumental tone right, make sure they line up in a way that's intended, and even afterward you have to ask yourself so many questions. Does it sound lush and have texture? Does it pull off the atmosphere right? Am I going up or down the scale too fast? Is everything on-key? Assuming there's more than one tone being used at a time, are they compatible with each ...more
McGillaCuddy is having a year-end post called the Music Of The Year 2016. BroBusky and PhantomMilitia trashed him for mostly including mostly pop and some indie (yes because Nick Cave, David Bowie, Leonard Cohen, Radiohead, A Tribe Called Quest, and Anderson.Paak are pop...), claiming it to be a "popularity contest".
BroBusky, one of those people, held a similar contest called Metal Of The Year 2016 (yes because already the most overhyped genre needs an awards post all to itself...). I was irritated by the fact that he included Iron Maiden, who did nothing throughout 2016, but missed Saor. He said it was because no one knew Saor, and because Iron Maiden was popular.
So which one is the REAL popularity contest?
As of right now this is the biggest case I can think of, but more will come to me with time.
An award show is to put commercial and critical acclaim togheter, so that's probably why
Still agree with the overall reason though
I got flogged on my Defense Of Pop post for comparing Justin Bieber, the most hated music artist on the site, to Varg Vikernes, the worst personality in music. Apparently being a soft teen makes you worse than a guy who has actually killed one of his bandmates because he wanted to "feel cool" and burns down churches.
Or Axl Rose in general.
Apparently pop always has and always will be awful with zero exceptions. Good job for advertently saying that the Beatles, 80s-age David Bowie (yes he wasn't great but let me make my point), Madonna, Justin Timberlake, the Beach Boys, and ALL of the artists on the #1 item are bad. Which...
But if you even are distant from metal, you're obviously a female teenage idiot without taste who needs to blow their brains out with a shotgun and go walk off a pier! Hurgh.
One of my favorite new users on this site is Survive, and it's for a peculiar reason. I was first under the illusion that he was earnest in him insulting me for liking pop, but then he told me he was joking. Then I realized his parody was surprisingly accurate. He actually told me that either Justin Bieber is the best artist ever, or metal is good.
Take what they say about how production takes no talent. Look where that got Metallica on the trainwreck of overproduction and awful drumming on St. Anger.
Or how pop has lazy, unintelligent lyrics and unlistenable beats. Dave Mustaine sounds awful on Dystopia and spits out conspiracy theories (look at The Threat Is Real) like he was made to and that album's loved on this site.
Contradicts #5, but if you think about it it doesn't. Not only is there flawed reasoning in their judgements, unless they're someone like the Chainsmokers or Chris Brown, whose awful personalities actually align with their music, their music should be judged by the art rather than the artist to begin with.
Really speaks for itself.