Because it actually is bull, and anyone unbiased can see that vis-a-vis what you are basing it on. "Yeah...erm...different distortion!". What are you on about? Having a different guitar effect doesn't warrant a new genre, otherwise Tom Morello would be out there creating them everytime he plays.
I told you before that if you want to label them something other than metal, label them alternative metal. I can agree to that, really. They are admittedly different sounding metal, but not so different that it warrants a "'core" or some shit. They're just a different metal band. I can find genuine metal bands with all the qualities of Hawthorne Heights (except, you know...not shit.).
A) I didn't actually say that. I said they performed at a metal tour, with two other bands who are also metal, organised by a metal magazine for metal fans.
B) I have given evidence above and before.
Yes, but they don't, not this magazine, see how it works?
YOU are getting ahead of yourself, here. These people call them metal bands, you call them hardcore or "metalcore", right? That doesn't mean that they also cater for "metalcore", it means they cater for bands that you label as "metalcore". The kids are the only people calling them by that name.
It's not hypocricy when you change my quote. I said they were touted as a metal band by journalists and by themselves, on a metal tour, they are KNOWN as metal bands.
The difference between fans (you) and the bands/journalists is simple. One group thinks they know it all (like going around using "'Core" terms), and the others...the ones who make the music, don't do that.
So who's side is more acceptable, credible and reasonable? You telling me that a band is "metalcore", or the band themselves saying "We're metal"? The band. Yes. For example, Tool label themselves casually as hard rock, but most call them progressive metal. I have no reason to adhere to what the fans say, because the band know enough about their music to call it what they wish.
I specifically directed you to what I said previously, you are getting desperate, man.
As are you, AC
What reason did I have to believe it was a joke? Tell me. If the reason is "You don't think I believe that!", then I will say "You're the one calling Rage rapcore, funk metal and hard rock. How can I take anything you say seriously?".
Once I admitted it, and that was the above part, you claiming it was actually a joke, but I don't believe it was, though there was no sense in arguing over it.
You keep changing your stance then acting like I misunderstand, and people here have seen it.
I've no problem detecting sarcasm, I've interacted with more sarcastic people here than you. It was the fact that you never made mention of it being a joke, nor did you hint otherwise. I'm good, I'm not a mind-reader.
Oh, and what the hell is this hypocricy now? I call you out on the Slayer/Amarth debacle and you start throwing a fit because you claim you were joking. I clearly point out that I call you an idiot purely with regards to music, and you refuse to accept it? You can take what I say however you want, but I have the final say over what I meant.
Well I don't think I'm wrong, I know I'm right, that was never up for grabs. I just enjoy watching you fill your post with these little parts, because you can't resist, you can't actually debate on topic.
Avant-Garde alternative rock was how you described Radiohead.
Rapcore, funk-metal and hard rock was how you described Rage.
Alternative pop rock was how you described The Smiths.
You wish to tell me you're not throwing labels around? "I said I wasn't credible there." Then don't do it.
Don't get ahead of yourself? You are the one stating you can "war" with me, kid. If by war you mean Persian-Gulf, me as America, you as Iraq, then yeah.
From here on, it stays with regards to music only.
Okay, I have grown sick of this agrument. It is clear that we are never going to agree. I skimmed your reply and here are the closing points I want to make:
It's not hypocricy when you change my quote. I said they were touted as a metal band by journalists and by themselves, on a metal tour, they are KNOWN as metal bands.
The difference between fans (you) and the bands/journalists is simple. One group thinks they know it all (like going around using "'Core" terms), and the others...the ones who make the music, don't do that.
So who's side is more acceptable, credible and reasonable? You telling me that a band is "metalcore", or the band themselves saying "We're metal"? The band. Yes. For example, Tool label themselves casually as hard rock, but most call them progressive metal. I have no reason to adhere to what the fans say, because the band know enough about their music to call it what they wish.
I didn't change your quote
You say the journalists and bands are the ones who call them metal, thus they are more credible. I don't know what magazines you read, but theones I do refer to such bands as hardcore. It seems no one is credible and genres are merely a concept. One side of people (fans, bands, and magazines alike) will always know hardcore as hardcore, while another side will refer to them as metal. No one is more credible than the other. You are no more credible than I am and I am not more credible than you. It's the view of the concept. Metalcore is not a myspace genre, it is recognized by magazines, websites, bands, and fans. You may not believe in it, but so many others out there do.
What reason did I have to believe it was a joke?
Hrm... maybe the " :P "?
You're the one calling Rage rapcore, funk metal and hard rock. How can I take anything you say seriously?
Did I call them that? No, I don't believe I did. That was the impression I got from their music. Are you saying there is NO element of rap, funk, or rock whatsoever? Tell me, since you know more than me (that's sarcasm), what would you classify their music as with your expert opinion.
I've no problem detecting sarcasm, I've interacted with more sarcastic people here than you. It was the fact that you never made mention of it being a joke, nor did you hint otherwise. I'm good, I'm not a mind-reader.
It doesn't take a mind-reader to know that a smilie that looks like this: next to a sentence means that it's a joke. Don't act so dense.
Avant-Garde alternative rock was how you described Radiohead.
Rapcore, funk-metal and hard rock was how you described Rage.
Alternative pop rock was how you described The Smiths.
You wish to tell me you're not throwing labels around? "I said I wasn't credible there." Then don't do it.
Are you saying that all of my impression were 100% wrong? Then what are they?
Now, I'd like you to answer those questions and we can be done. This topic is stupid, because it's simply not going anywhere. You insult me, I insult you, that's it. Hell, why does it even matter?! We both don't even like Hawthorne Heights! We probably like tons of the same bands, yet you come off so hostile because, even though I gave a definition of emo with a list of example bands (most of which were correct, yes?) you got all over my back for naming ONE BAND.
You think little of me because we disagree, while I'm somewhat confused on why you would be so hostile toward me in this lame subject. And of course, in order to defend my pride, I have to fight back.
Let's just leave this alone and assume we're both wrong. How does that sound?
Kerrang! has been a primary metal publication since June 1981, they've seen trends come, go and stay. Now they have far from a perfect set of writers, but they have some very good, very credible writers that have been a part of metal music through "immersion" (take that) since long before that. If they don't recognise the labels, if bands are starting to shun the labels and refer to themselves simply as rock or metal, what is that to say?
Hardly screams "The preceding comment is a joke.".
They're a hard rock band with hip hop influences, that's what they are. You don't need to go into saying they are funk metal, "rapcore" and shit like that. They are an instrumental 3 piece band that make hard rock music with hip hop influence that comes mostly from Zack and occasionally the rhythm section, on a few songs.
To you, maybe. Not to me, but I hold to you the same respect in THAT sense that I hold toward myself. You said it was a joke, so I will accept that it was and that I assumed wrong. My point was that it wasn't an unfair assumption.
Radiohead are a rock band at the very centre of things, they have a rock guitarist who can play very many styles and a vocalist who calls them such. They have other influences from electronics, but that's all they are, influences. They're still a rock band, dude.
The one I can slightly see is what you said about The Smiths. They have a great deal of pop sensabilities, but I'd hardly call them pop rock. Alternative rock maybe, when it was actually alternative, not just a cool name.
You don't have to fight back, I don't think little of YOU; I think little of your musical perception, since that's all I know, and finally, no.
Alright, then. Good this is over with.
Still, thinking little of my musical experience because we disagree is a bit much, but I'm sure that's one of your loveable quirks.
KMC Community Forums
Jul 20th, 2006 10:49 PM
next to a sentence means that it's a joke. Don't act so dense.
