jdmasta289
3x Platinum Member
Joined: July 2005
Posts: 3,692
|
Post by jdmasta289 on May 2, 2006 23:03:23 GMT -5
I'm going to have to say I finally agree with penance in that the nu-metal scene really never died. The only difference between that and what is happening in the alternative rock scene in 2006 is the imitator bands that followed those at the "forefront" of the scene are different. In other words, Crazy Town, TRUSTCompany, and Default are being replaced by Yellowcard, She Wants Revenge, & the Arctic Monkeys.
Also, nu-metal is becoming increasingly less popular among alternative stations, so just because Limp Bizkit is basically dead, Disturbed aren't shelling out top 10 hits, and Linkin Park haven't released anything in 3 years, people assume it's over.
I remember my local DJ playing a Linkin Park song back in early 2004 and saying - Linkin Park: the last surviving nu-metal band. Was he ever wrong. Godsmack, Disturbed, & P. Roach continue to shell out AR #1s and go platinum. Now, if we can have some alternative chart-toppers that can go platinum, that didn't form before 1991.
|
|
friday
4x Platinum Member
Joined: September 2004
Posts: 4,792
My Charts
Pronouns: He/Him
|
Post by friday on May 3, 2006 15:27:12 GMT -5
Well, I think nu metal is probably better suited for active rock than alternative anyway. I think radio programmers were trying to sort out what was what after the post-grunge era generally ended around 1999-2000. There was no dominant "alternative" movement, so they latched onto nu metal and that's why you had bands like Disturbed, Papa Roach, and Three Days Grace scoring top 5 hits regularly. But now you have the rise of credible pop-punk bands, British bands like Hard-Fi and Arctic Monkeys, and bands with heavy new wave influence, which was one of the founding roots of the alternative format. As such, bands like Godsmack and Disturbed seem to be on their way out as their music seems to fit in less and less with the other, more truer alternative bands coming in. Alternative programmers finally realize they can leave those bands to the rock and active rock stations where they fit in more naturally. At least that's how I'm seeing it.
|
|
pen
9x Platinum Member
A true gentleman leaves no puzzle unsolved.
Joined: July 2005
Posts: 9,408
|
Post by pen on May 3, 2006 16:46:00 GMT -5
True alternative? That's a laugh. Alternative is whatever is new and different at the time, it seems. And when it becomes a couple years old, it's dropped faster than a slippery jar of worms for the next "fresh and new" thing. Alternative works in trends. It's the "alternative" to everything else, until it becomes everything else. It's an endless paradox.
|
|
Sox5452
New Member
Joined: January 2006
Posts: 74
|
Post by Sox5452 on May 4, 2006 16:42:06 GMT -5
The Numetal bands fit in perfectly with the Active Rock and Rock genres, and theyll continue to do strong on these. Just because they are less popular on Alternative, doesnt mean its dying.
|
|
|
Post by allnightmarelong on May 7, 2006 11:44:53 GMT -5
She Wants Revenge and the Arctic Monkeys has to be some of the worst rock music in years. if this is where rock is going, I'll be very content with not listening to the radio or buying anymore cds. I have no problem with listening to those dead nu-metal bands for the rest of my days.
|
|
jdmasta289
3x Platinum Member
Joined: July 2005
Posts: 3,692
|
Post by jdmasta289 on May 7, 2006 18:03:52 GMT -5
While we're on this nu-metal debate, I just have a few observations to point out, and some questions to ask. I was scrolling through some old topics here, and I found a Limp Bizkit topic, where basically everyone openly criticized (as people always do) their then-new single "Behind Blue Eyes". Then, Nick mentioned that almost everyone gave that album a terrible review at musiccritic website he visited, while Rolling Stone gave it 3 stars. While scrolling through Rolling Stone, I saw that two of their other albums received 3 and 31/2 stars. Also, Creed's albums fared quite well.
I'm a conspiracy theorist, I know, but what was the extent of payola during Limp Bizkit's career (and, in that case, Creed's career?) It would really bother me, reading about Fred Durst's supposed "mafia" scare-tactics associated with his ruthless self-promotion, that he would pay Rolling Stone or radio stations to "treat him well".
|
|
Matt4319
Administrator
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 15,215
Staff
|
Post by Matt4319 on May 7, 2006 18:50:06 GMT -5
Not sure, but I actually liked "Behind Blue Eyes" (after I made an edit that omitted the bridge).
|
|
pen
9x Platinum Member
A true gentleman leaves no puzzle unsolved.
Joined: July 2005
Posts: 9,408
|
Post by pen on May 7, 2006 19:53:21 GMT -5
I think it's more a Rolling Stone thing than a Limp Bizkit thing. Rolling Stone is known for being horribly inconsistent with their reviews. They seem to love giving out three stars as a common rating. I went through Metacritic and I'm not sure I saw a single album that was ranked higher or lower by Rolling Stone.
At the same time, it's also more a nu-metal thing than a Limp Bizkit thing. Nu-metal bands (and post-grunge bands) generally get fairly bad reviews unless they're either huge like Korn and Linkin Park or accepted by the underground like the Deftones, and sometimes not even then. Godsmack's albums have been given consistently bad reviews, although with each new one critics become a little more challenged to decipher why people buy the albums instead of listening to their opinions.
Finally, I've heard the cover of Behind Blue Eyes. It's not horrible until that midsection where Durst starts promoting himself. Replace midsection with about any old noun and that probably describes a lot of Limp Bizkit songs.
|
|
Sox5452
New Member
Joined: January 2006
Posts: 74
|
Post by Sox5452 on May 8, 2006 19:01:22 GMT -5
you cant trust a review to tell you whether a cd is worth buying or not. you just have to listen to it yourself. Reviews are always inconsistant and totally dependent on the person doing the reviewing.
|
|