Is rock dead and/or dying?

Technically they are very similar. Hence why I say they are similar.

Pop isn't a legitimate genre. It's a referencing word, just like "grunge", or "indie". Most "pop" uses it because it is in fact rock. Musicologists have known it for years. Hence why people like Michael Jackson and country stars like Hank Williams Sr. are in the rock and roll hall of fame. Because, in reality, they play rock music.

You are strawmanning again. Rock isn't defined by tempo, or time signatures, or solos (namely because through variations in notation any song can be rewritten at any tempo and come out the same). Thousands of bands play wide variations of those. Instrumentation simply refers to the instruments common to the genre. Sigur Ros uses guitar, bass, keyboards and drums predominately. It doesn't mean what they are playing is rock. It isn't. They use non-rock chord progressions, rhythms, and harmonies. I've heard people argue that they also use non-rock melodies but that is a crap argument because rock isn't defined by it. So technically it's not rock. Mogwai on the other hand was rock at times, but not all the time. It depends on the song.

No. What influences can be incorporated into rock's objective definition is objective. Once those boundaries are broken that isn't rock anymore.

What do you think is actually original about that album? Sure it's cool, sure it might bring some of elements of Native American music to a broader audience, but it doesn't break any new ground. Native American music has been borrowed from for many years now, just as Egyptian and Oriental music has been done before.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Technically they are very similar. Hence why I say they are similar.

Pop isn't a legitimate genre. It's a referencing word, just like "grunge", or "indie". Most "pop" uses it because it is in fact rock. Musicologists have known it for years. Hence why people like Michael Jackson and country stars like Hank Williams Sr. are in the rock and roll hall of fame. Because, in reality, they play rock music.

"Country" is obviously a form of rock. It's a regional term.

Pop is obviously what you said, but it's also an established sound independent of rock. Jimi Hendrix was not a pop star any more than Michael Jackson was a rock star.

Originally posted by Nellinator
You are strawmanning again. Rock isn't defined by tempo, or time signatures, or solos (namely because through variations in notation any song can be rewritten at any tempo and come out the same). Thousands of bands play wide variations of those. Instrumentation simply refers to the instruments common to the genre. Sigur Ros uses guitar, bass, keyboards and drums predominately. It doesn't mean what they are playing is rock. It isn't. They use non-rock chord progressions, rhythms, and harmonies. I've heard people argue that they also use non-rock melodies but that is a crap argument because rock isn't defined by it. So technically it's not rock. Mogwai on the other hand was rock at times, but not all the time. It depends on the song.

They do a lot of the same as Sigur Ros, it just sounds different. When people say "post" they usually mean "in reaction to". It's very odd of you to say Sigur Ros are not a form of rock band, yet imply Michael Jackson made rock music.

You've gone from saying rock is dying or dead, to it somehow being everything ever, including mainstream pop music.

Sigur Ros do not make TYPICAL rock music, but it's rock music. Like The Birthday Massacre are a rock band, alternative (In whatever sense), or otherwise. The Cure, Led Zeppelin etc.

Originally posted by Nellinator
No. What influences can be incorporated into rock's objective definition is objective. Once those boundaries are broken that isn't rock anymore.

And that applies to whether something is TECHNICALLY traditional rock or not. Rock is a sound as much as it's a technical way of objective composing. Opeth are more or less a rock guitar band, they're more rock than metal nowadays. Hardly anything traditional about them.

Originally posted by Nellinator
What do you think is actually original about that album? Sure it's cool, sure it might bring some of elements of Native American music to a broader audience, but it doesn't break any new ground.

Native Americans strolled around playing songs like the ones of Anonymous, then? No. Similar, perhaps. They never made music that's on that album, neither has anyone else.

Besides, totally original wasn't my point, my point was that you were trying to suggest something as if I didn't know. They weren't trying to deviate from Native American tunes, but they weren't trying to outright copy. They achieved both.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Native American music has been borrowed from for many years now, just as Egyptian and Oriental music has been done before.

Yes, point?

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
.

I joke (Not about the grammar).

-AC

what supposed that to mean?

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
what supposed that to mean?

You said "Your", not "You're".

It should have been "You're a technical person.", not "Your".

-AC

This is odd.

Of course there can't be innovations in rock if any innovation is defined as not-rock.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
"Country" is obviously a form of rock. It's a regional term.

Pop is obviously what you said, but it's also an established sound independent of rock. Jimi Hendrix was not a pop star any more than Michael Jackson was a rock star.

They do a lot of the same as Sigur Ros, it just sounds different. When people say "post" they usually mean "in reaction to". It's very odd of you to say Sigur Ros are not a form of rock band, yet imply Michael Jackson made rock music.

You've gone from saying rock is dying or dead, to it somehow being everything ever, including mainstream pop music.

Sigur Ros do not make TYPICAL rock music, but it's rock music. Like The Birthday Massacre are a rock band, alternative (In whatever sense), or otherwise. The Cure, Led Zeppelin etc.

And that applies to whether something is TECHNICALLY traditional rock or not. Rock is a sound as much as it's a technical way of objective composing. Opeth are more or less a rock guitar band, they're more rock than metal nowadays. Hardly anything traditional about them.

Native Americans strolled around playing songs like the ones of Anonymous, then? No. Similar, perhaps. They never made music that's on that album, neither has anyone else.

Besides, totally original wasn't my point, my point was that you were trying to suggest something as if I didn't know. They weren't trying to deviate from Native American tunes, but they weren't trying to outright copy. They achieved both.

Yes, point?

-AC

Yes, they do do a lot of the same things which is why I said they aren't also rock. Unlike Sigur Ros, Mogwai occasionally plays rock songs. Therefore, they are rock sometimes and sometimes not. Sigur Ros has no rock songs from the stuff I've heard and looked at. Michael Jackson did make rock music, Sigur Ros has made something that is not rock. It's that simple.

Originally, I was using the colloquial sense of "rock", but for the sake of this part of this discussion, that isn't really feasible. In reality, rock is very very broad. What Sigur Ros is doing is not one of them.

No rock is an objective way of composing. Sub genres were invented for referencing the differences in sound.

So you don't really have point here that is relevant to whether rock is stale and not innovating anymore?

The point being that Anonymous may be good (personally, I think it's mediocre, but that's besides the point), but it isn't breaking any new ground because everything they did on it has been done before.

Originally posted by Nellinator
The colloquial uses of the words "rock" and "pop" don't actually matter when it comes to down to what they actually are.

Yes, they do do a lot of the same things which is why I said they aren't also rock. Unlike Sigur Ros, Mogwai occasionally plays rock songs. Therefore, they are rock sometimes and sometimes not. Sigur Ros has no rock songs from the stuff I've heard and looked at. Michael Jackson did make rock music, Sigur Ros has made something that is not rock. It's that simple.

Was Jimi Hendrix a pop artist, Nell?

Originally posted by Nellinator
Originally, I was using the colloquial sense of "rock", but for the sake of this part of this discussion, that isn't really feasible. In reality, rock is very very broad. What Sigur Ros is doing is not one of them.

What isn't feasible is your suggestion that rock is one thing, then moaning that it's not another, while making additional claims that all "pop" music is rock.

If that's the way you wanna see it, then look at every single pop artist and rock artist since 1995, then say there's been NO innovation. That's an even worse claim than originally made.

Originally posted by Nellinator
No rock is an objective way of composing.

Yeah, I never said it wasn't. I said it's not JUST that.

Originally posted by Nellinator
So you don't really have point here that is relevant to whether rock is stale and not innovating anymore?

I don't believe it is.

Your point is that rock isn't innovating for lots of reasons, some of them contradict each other. I provide an example such as Klaxons and Tomahawk, so you say they don't count because they don't sound like rock bands to you, well...not Tomahawk.

So I say that you're just after olden stuff, to which you say you're not.

Then you clarify your argument to mean innovating with outside influence that still coincides with these rules of rock that you keep going on about.

If you actually go and look at the history, you'd see that many bands accepted as rock have been as different to each other as Tomahawk and Klaxons may have been. Pink Floyd were a rock band, Queens of the Stone Age are. Tomahawk are, The Beach Boys were. Radiohead are, King Crimson are.

Not all of them fall into the traditional tags, but they're all rock bands.

Originally posted by Nellinator
The point being that Anonymous may be good (personally, I think it's mediocre, but that's besides the point), but it isn't breaking any new ground because everything they did on it has been done before.

The fact that it's an innovative album, by definition, should satisfy you enough. They're been around since after '95, in three albums they've covered many styles as a rock band.

Anonymous wasn't original in general, but it's most definitely more advanced than a lot today, it's ahead of the times.

-AC

No, pop isn't a legitimate genre.

I was blatantly talking about rock in the colloquial sense of the term from the start. You brought up pop as being something separate from rockwhile using rock sensibilities, which is wrong, and I had to abandon the colloquial sense because of it. So, you are strawmanning again. It's not a viable debate tactic. It's wrong.

It is just that, or else we can say artists are whatever we want to call them, which is stupid. That's not to pigeonhole artists because they can be more than one thing, but they are objectively one thing or another.

Except that they fit into the definition of rock. The Klaxons do at times, so I'll concede that they are making some inroads. Other than that you aren't really making a point. All those bands are objectively rock. I'm not saying they aren't. And I'm not after olden stuff, I'm after the opposite. Now, that's not to say I feel deprived because there is a lot going on in music, just not rock (in the colloquial sense) imo.

Estradasphere covers many aspects of metal in their album, it doesn't make them innovative, they aren't.

You can't just claim Anonymous is innovative without actually naming the part that is innovative.

Is it ahead of it's time? Depends on how you look at it and how you define "ahead of it's time" and "advanced".

Originally posted by Nellinator
No, pop isn't a legitimate genre.

I was blatantly talking about rock in the colloquial sense of the term from the start. You brought up pop as being something separate from rockwhile using rock sensibilities, which is wrong, and I had to abandon the colloquial sense because of it. So, you are strawmanning again. It's not a viable debate tactic. It's wrong.

Ok then.

You believe Michael Jackson made music within the same genre as Jimi Hendrix? Rick Astley?

You're saying it's all rock, aren't you?

Originally posted by Nellinator
It is just that, or else we can say artists are whatever we want to call them, which is stupid. That's not to pigeonhole artists because they can be more than one thing, but they are objectively one thing or another.

Pop began as a shortened term for popular music, but it isn't anymore. It has an undeniably established sound.

I'm not sure why that's being disputed.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Except that they fit into the definition of rock. The Klaxons do at times, so I'll concede that they are making some inroads. Other than that you aren't really making a point. All those bands are objectively rock. I'm not saying they aren't. And I'm not after olden stuff, I'm after the opposite. Now, that's not to say I feel deprived because there is a lot going on in music, just not rock (in the colloquial sense) imo.

There's not a lot going on in metal, there's not a lot going on in any one specific genre, which is why it's stupid to look at those things.

There will never be much "going on" if you're committing yourself to one spot. Even when all the big bands were around, Zeppelin, The Who etc, there wasn't much "going on", it was just a boom of rock music. There wasn't much going on besides rock music being made. All the innovations happened in the 90s really, the important ones. Maybe 80s.

Furthermore, these things change. Just because you haven't seen things happen, doesn't mean they aren't. It doesn't mean they aren't if people cannot immediately list things you want them to either.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Estradasphere covers many aspects of metal in their album, it doesn't make them innovative, they aren't.

Tomahawk are, though.

Originally posted by Nellinator
You can't just claim Anonymous is innovative without actually naming the part that is innovative.

Name an album like it, right now. Out now, in the current musical climate, or of the past say...five years or more.

Ahead of the times.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Is it ahead of it's time? Depends on how you look at it and how you define "ahead of it's time" and "advanced".

I define those terms as they should be.

Being ahead...of the times...by being advanced. Native Americans didn't have electric guitars, effects, the vocal skills of Mike Patton and drum kits. They are doing different things, new things, even if it's based on an old idea.

All in all, this is a tricky subject for me to discuss, I won't lie. Simply because I really don't give a shit about a genre, I care about music. It's as good now as it's ever been, except for maybe 90s and 80s high points.

-AC

Rick Astley teehee. Yes, it is all rock. Some of it is just very soft, lame and terrible imo.

It's a subgenre of rock. That's not a new theory you have there.

The 50s and 60s saw tons of innovation. The early 70s as well where metal branches off. The 80s saw a lot of things happen. I'd say there was a burst in the mid 80s and another in the late 80s in rock (colloquial sense) and another in the early 90s. Then not very much.

I'm not trying to infer that rock is actually dead or that I think it will remain in it's current stale form and I'm not actually suggesting that there is nothing going on (it should be obvious that I'm taking an extreme position to make a point), but I can't see it and I have yet to see anyone really prove it wrong in the least.

No, not really.

Anything by Douglas Spotted Eagle, for example. I've seen Native Canadian artists doing the same thing since I was in grade school when I used to have to sit through assemblies of "rocking and traditional aboriginal bands". It's actually 15 years behind the innovation... It may be influential in the future, it is the first big band I've heard of doing it, and it definitely broadens the audience, but it isn't new.

I can honestly understand that really nitpicking over genres does kind of take away from musical appreciation, but I'm trying to make a point moreso than being controversial. With the massive increase in accessibility to bands across the world giving thousands of bands the opportunity to make a living doing music and thereby create great original stuff, there hasn't really been anything groundbreaking for an abnormal period of time. Even if we consider "post-rock" rock it's a relatively long time ago in terms of the evolution of rock. From about 1980 until 1995 there was something new, noticeable and exciting coming out every couple of years. If we count all the offshoots of rock like punk there was a lot happening in the 70s as well. Metal has been just as stale as of late imo (the same innovations affect both) and really only electronic music seems to be advancing imo (though it's not really my thing).

Originally posted by Nellinator
Rick Astley teehee. Yes, it is all rock. Some of it is just very soft, lame and terrible imo.

It's all blues, then.

You wouldn't say that, though, cos it's stupid. Like calling Rick Astley the same kind of artist as Jimi Hendrix.

[QUOTE=9737008]Originally posted by Nellinator
It's a subgenre of rock. That's not a new theory you have there.

It's not a "subgenre", or in that case, everything's blues. We can just keep going back further.

Originally posted by Nellinator
The 50s and 60s saw tons of innovation. The early 70s as well where metal branches off.

Yet pop branches off and it doesn't count?

Originally posted by Nellinator
The 80s saw a lot of things happen. I'd say there was a burst in the mid 80s and another in the late 80s in rock (colloquial sense) and another in the early 90s. Then not very much.

I'm not trying to infer that rock is actually dead or that I think it will remain in it's current stale form and I'm not actually suggesting that there is nothing going on (it should be obvious that I'm taking an extreme position to make a point), but I can't see it and I have yet to see anyone really prove it wrong in the least.

Which was more or less what I said. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it is. If you don't feel rock is actually dead, my whole argument has been for nothing.

Originally posted by Nellinator
No, not really.

Yes, really.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Anything by Douglas Spotted Eagle, for example. I've seen Native Canadian artists doing the same thing since I was in grade school when I used to have to sit through assemblies of "rocking and traditional aboriginal bands". It's actually 15 years behind the innovation... It may be influential in the future, it is the first big band I've heard of doing it, and it definitely broadens the audience, but it isn't new.

It isn't an original idea, but what it does is new.

The music you listened to did not sound like the band Tomahawk, let's not get silly. It's way ahead of the current musical climate, it's innovative. Nobody is doing what they are, not the way they are.

Originally posted by Nellinator
I can honestly understand that really nitpicking over genres does kind of take away from musical appreciation, but I'm trying to make a point moreso than being controversial. With the massive increase in accessibility to bands across the world giving thousands of bands the opportunity to make a living doing music and thereby create great original stuff, there hasn't really been anything groundbreaking for an abnormal period of time. Even if we consider "post-rock" rock it's a relatively long time ago in terms of the evolution of rock. From about 1980 until 1995 there was something new, noticeable and exciting coming out every couple of years. If we count all the offshoots of rock like punk there was a lot happening in the 70s as well. Metal has been just as stale as of late imo (the same innovations affect both) and really only electronic music seems to be advancing imo (though it's not really my thing).

Like I said, it's not an issue I can honestly debate well, cos I'd have to care I suppose.

It obviously goes in cycles, but you're not saying rock is actually dead, which was the point I was arguing.

-AC

Nellinator, if a new subgenre of rock came about, like grunge did, is that the sort of innovation your on about?

Originally posted by Nellinator
Rick Astley teehee. Yes, it is all rock. Some of it is just very soft, lame and terrible imo.

It's a subgenre of rock. That's not a new theory you have there.

The 50s and 60s saw tons of innovation. The early 70s as well where metal branches off. The 80s saw a lot of things happen. I'd say there was a burst in the mid 80s and another in the late 80s in rock (colloquial sense) and another in the early 90s. Then not very much.

I'm not trying to infer that rock is actually dead or that I think it will remain in it's current stale form and I'm not actually suggesting that there is nothing going on (it should be obvious that I'm taking an extreme position to make a point), but I can't see it and I have yet to see anyone really prove it wrong in the least.

No, not really.

Anything by Douglas Spotted Eagle, for example. I've seen Native Canadian artists doing the same thing since I was in grade school when I used to have to sit through assemblies of "rocking and traditional aboriginal bands". It's actually 15 years behind the innovation... It may be influential in the future, it is the first big band I've heard of doing it, and it definitely broadens the audience, but it isn't new.

I can honestly understand that really nitpicking over genres does kind of take away from musical appreciation, but I'm trying to make a point moreso than being controversial. With the massive increase in accessibility to bands across the world giving thousands of bands the opportunity to make a living doing music and thereby create great original stuff, there hasn't really been anything groundbreaking for an abnormal period of time. Even if we consider "post-rock" rock it's a relatively long time ago in terms of the evolution of rock. From about 1980 until 1995 there was something new, noticeable and exciting coming out every couple of years. If we count all the offshoots of rock like punk there was a lot happening in the 70s as well. Metal has been just as stale as of late imo (the same innovations affect both) and really only electronic music seems to be advancing imo (though it's not really my thing).

You are bound to enjoy at least a few of these if you like metal. And all have recently released new material, most this year!

Originally posted by Pezmerga
Metal hasn't really been stale. Look at Mastodon, Dream Theater (love em or hate em, Their new album wasn't great but it was good), Tool, Opeth, Symphony X (decent new album, kinda cheesy though), Ayreon, Iron Maiden, Amaran's Plight, Mind's Eye, Darkwater, Sieges Even, Anubis gate, Redemption, Canvas Solaris, Virgin Black, Circus MAximus, Pain of Salvation, Grayceon, Sun Caged, Blotted Science, Dominci, Rosetta, Therion, Neurosis, Kamelot, Epica, The Pax Cecilia, or Winds....

You are bound to enjoy at least a few of these if you like metal. And all have recently released new material, most this year!

The difference is, those bands are not just metal. The reason bands like Mastodon, Opeth etc are not stale is because they incorporate so much other stuff that it's even arguable to call them metal.

Listen to Eternal Soul Torture by Opeth, it's a bonus track on Morningrise. It's them being completely metal, and it's the worst song I've ever heard them do. It's good, for a metal song, but it's shit by Opeth standards. Then you listen to Closure, Windowpane or something like Ghost of Perdition, and it's entirely different.

Tool are arguably a metal band. All the rest are not straight metal bands, straight metal is shit, hence why any band worth their salt ends up progressing.

Why do you think there are so many perceived sellouts in metal? Because metal bands start out as pure metal and then realise how shit it is.

-AC

'shit' is opinion

Yes, what's your point?

The rest of what I'm saying is quite apparant. None of the best metal bands are purely metal, in my opinion. The only people who seem to like pure metal bands like Mortician etc, are kids or adults of think it's still cool to like metal and only metal for fear of looking weak or something.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's not a "subgenre", or in that case, everything's blues. We can just keep going back further.

Yet pop branches off and it doesn't count?

Which was more or less what I said. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it is. If you don't feel rock is actually dead, my whole argument has been for nothing.

Yes, really.

It isn't an original idea, but what it does is new.

The music you listened to did not sound like the band Tomahawk, let's not get silly. It's way ahead of the current musical climate, it's innovative. Nobody is doing what they are, not the way they are.

Like I said, it's not an issue I can honestly debate well, cos I'd have to care I suppose.

It obviously goes in cycles, but you're not saying rock is actually dead, which was the point I was arguing.

-AC

Not for the sake of the topic it doesn't, although in reality it does.

Of course it doesn't sound the same. It's the same principles though. That's like saying Spiritual Beggars don't sound like Deep Purple even though they nearly a straight up copy them.

Being ahead of the musical climate doesn't really mean much when the ideas and innovative are 15 years ahead of it. Native Americans have been doing traditional Native American songs incorporating rock instrumentation for a long time.

Originally posted by Pezmerga
Metal hasn't really been stale. Look at Mastodon, Dream Theater (love em or hate em, Their new album wasn't great but it was good), Tool, Opeth, Symphony X (decent new album, kinda cheesy though), Ayreon, Iron Maiden, Amaran's Plight, Mind's Eye, Darkwater, Sieges Even, Anubis gate, Redemption, Canvas Solaris, Virgin Black, Circus MAximus, Pain of Salvation, Grayceon, Sun Caged, Blotted Science, Dominci, Rosetta, Therion, Neurosis, Kamelot, Epica, The Pax Cecilia, or Winds....

You are bound to enjoy at least a few of these if you like metal. And all have recently released new material, most this year!

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
The difference is, those bands are not just metal. The reason bands like Mastodon, Opeth etc are not stale is because they incorporate so much other stuff that it's even arguable to call them metal.

Listen to Eternal Soul Torture by Opeth, it's a bonus track on Morningrise. It's them being completely metal, and it's the worst song I've ever heard them do. It's good, for a metal song, but it's shit by Opeth standards. Then you listen to Closure, Windowpane or something like Ghost of Perdition, and it's entirely different.

Tool are arguably a metal band. All the rest are not straight metal bands, straight metal is shit, hence why any band worth their salt ends up progressing.

Why do you think there are so many perceived sellouts in metal? Because metal bands start out as pure metal and then realise how shit it is.

-AC

Originally posted by Nellinator
Blues is separate genre altogether. Most rock bands, especially the earlier ones, incorporate it into rock. Other bands play both. Blues scales in rock music is different than blues, just like the use of Egyptian and ancient Greek scales in metal was still metal.

And some pop artists incorporate rock.

Thriller wasn't a rock album because Eddie Van Halen played on a song. Rick Astley does not make rock music, he makes pop music.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Of course it doesn't sound the same. It's the same principles though. That's like saying Spiritual Beggars don't sound like Deep Purple even though they nearly a straight up copy them.

That's different to comparing the works of Tomahawk to Native American music.

I'm not denying the similarities, I'm just of the opinion you aren't giving the differences enough credit.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Being ahead of the musical climate doesn't really mean much when the ideas and innovative are 15 years ahead of it. Native Americans have been doing traditional Native American songs incorporating rock instrumentation for a long time.

There's a HUGE difference between using guitars, drums and bass in traditional Native American music, and what Tomahawk did on Anonymous with ambiance, effects, vocal techniques and others. It's not as innovative as their other work, which I guess is more "original", but it's still pretty innovative.

Decadence by Head Automatica was an innovative album. It sounded absolutely nothing like anything else at the time, but those ideas came from Faith No More, which came more than a decade before.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Straight metal isn't necessarily shit. It's the swarm of thousands of crappy bands being tossed around by pretentious idiots who like to appear as though they are up to date that ruins metal imo. There are some great straight metal bands out there.

Depends what you consider "straight" metal.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
The difference is, those bands are not just metal. The reason bands like Mastodon, Opeth etc are not stale is because they incorporate so much other stuff that it's even arguable to call them metal.

Listen to Eternal Soul Torture by Opeth, it's a bonus track on Morningrise. It's them being completely metal, and it's the worst song I've ever heard them do. It's good, for a metal song, but it's shit by Opeth standards. Then you listen to Closure, Windowpane or something like Ghost of Perdition, and it's entirely different.

Tool are arguably a metal band. All the rest are not straight metal bands, straight metal is shit, hence why any band worth their salt ends up progressing.

Why do you think there are so many perceived sellouts in metal? Because metal bands start out as pure metal and then realise how shit it is.

-AC

I agree. I'll restate what I said earlier...Metal isn't completely stale, alot of bands use metal elements in their music to make wonderful music! Like for instance...Opeth! This just happens to be the only metal bands I listen to, I do realize it is not strictly Metal, But all of them are associated to some degree with the genre. I pretty much only listen to progressive metal, so that's why none are strictly metal, although I do enjoy Megadeth.

Regardless of what music you listen to, there's always an underground.

If you find the music you like or always run into is turning "stale," then dig around for awhile looks for similar bands or artists and give them a try.

If metal is your thing, try looking into some of the local acts from your area. 90% of it is going to be shit, but it's that 10% that you find that can completely jump start the love for whatever genre you enjoy.