Viewing Thread:
"Punk vs. Metal"

Well?

Sibs wrote:
> If you listen to old 'hair' metal, then to some 80's hardcore, say
> The Exploited, Black Flag, Minor Threat, it's pretty clear that at
> that time hardcore was much more aggressive and 'angry' than a lot of
> metal...
>

True, compared to hair metal but at the same time as hair metal there were bands like Venom, Death, Morbid Angel, Bathory around or just starting up. There was a lot of death/thrash metal around in the mid to late 80s which was in a whole different league to the likes of Bon Jovi and Van Halen.

Bob_The_Moose wrote:
>
>
> True, compared to hair metal but at the same time as hair metal there
> were bands like Venom, Death, Morbid Angel, Bathory around or just
> starting up. There was a lot of death/thrash metal around in the mid
> to late 80s which was in a whole different league to the likes of Bon
> Jovi and Van Halen.

I've only just realised that. Heh.

Bob_The_Moose wrote:
> Sibs wrote:
> If you listen to old 'hair' metal, then to some 80's hardcore, say
> The Exploited, Black Flag, Minor Threat, it's pretty clear that at
> that time hardcore was much more aggressive and 'angry' than a lot
> of
> metal...
>
>
> True, compared to hair metal but at the same time as hair metal there
> were bands like Venom, Death, Morbid Angel, Bathory around or just
> starting up. There was a lot of death/thrash metal around in the mid
> to late 80s which was in a whole different league to the likes of Bon
> Jovi and Van Halen.


Yeah, there were heavier offshoots of metal at the time, but my point was really in relation to the statement that metal is more aggressive/angry than punk. What genre is more aggressive is dependant on the timescale you're looking at and what sub-section of the genre you look at. In the 80's the prevailing mood of punk was, as I understand it, hardcore, which was certainly more aggressive than the prevailing mood of metal, which as I understand it, was hair metal. Basically my point was that saying one genre is more aggressive/heavy/melodic/technical/whatever depends on the timescale you look at and the prevailing sub-section of that genre at the time (or what you percieve as the prevailing suc-section...)

Meh.

Sibs wrote:
>
>
>
> Yeah, there were heavier offshoots of metal at the time, but my point
> was really in relation to the statement that metal is more
> aggressive/angry than punk. What genre is more aggressive is
> dependant on the timescale you're looking at and what sub-section of
> the genre you look at. In the 80's the prevailing mood of punk was,
> as I understand it, hardcore, which was certainly more aggressive
> than the prevailing mood of metal, which as I understand it, was hair
> metal. Basically my point was that saying one genre is more
> aggressive/heavy/melodic/technical/whatever depends on the timescale
> you look at and the prevailing sub-section of that genre at the time
> (or what you percieve as the prevailing suc-section...)

Bloody Hell that's thoughtful.

There's a way to increase your wordcount.

Like it matters.

The time it took you to write that post is more than the time it would take to scroll past Trevor's post and ignore it.

and yes I see the irony of this post thankyou very much.

Only after you made it.

Nope, actually I wrote "Like it matters" and then added all the rest in the edit.

Sibs wrote:
Basically my point was that saying one genre is more
> aggressive/heavy/melodic/technical/whatever depends on the timescale
> you look at and the prevailing sub-section of that genre at the time
> (or what you percieve as the prevailing suc-section...)
>
> Meh.

Alright fair enough :p
To be honest, despite the name, I see hair metal more as a genre of rock than metal but I guess that's very open to debate.

You got it right in your first paragraph though... it's stupid to compare genres.

Bob_The_Moose wrote:
>
>
> To be honest, despite the name, I see hair metal more as a genre of
> rock than metal but I guess that's very open to debate.

Yeah, me too.

I don't think anyone really cares though.