didn't like enought bands on the mayhemfest lineup to bother going. and ozzfest skipped wpb so whatever. bring on american carnage!
Skull And Crossbones wrote:
Yes cause Gayhem fest with a nu metal headliner from the 90s is better.
Glam metal is a huge black eye in metal and everything that can be done should be done to act like it never exsisted. By the looks of some of these shows it looks like those who still like it are starting to get too old to go.
And nu-metal is not? Dude go back to listening to Korn and rock out to wannabe hardcore bands like Atreyu and Norma Jean.
The fact is that a lot of the first nu-metal bands didn't get into metal to get laid and make money like almost all glam metal bands did. Glam metal was based on everything metal should be against. Now I will admit I'm not the biggest fan of the Mayhem lineup but at least it is some what current with the contemprary metal scene. I mean honestly Motley Crue?
So you know what every band's motivation was for starting up? How about they liked that kind of music and wanted to play it? I"m not one to call this band and that band a sellout for wanting to make some money, but how can you say nu metal bands did not try to make money? The whole point of the genre was to have a mainstream form of metal to appeal to a much wider fanbase and to appeal to fans that dont' like metal in the traditional sense. You don't have to like glam metal, but it's certainly not a black eye on metal. It was just a different genre of metal that had a completely different fanbase than the heavier type of metal. And yes the majority of the base is in their 40's now but they are still coming to the shows. 40 or 50 years old is not too old to go to a concert. I went to the m3 rockfest in MD that had all hair bands with the scorps headlining and they sold the place out with older people and younger people as well, so whether you like it or not, there's still a base for it.
im gonna have to disagree with some of the things you said here. 1. i have no problem calling metallica sell outs because after they sued napster it was clear to me that money has a lot to do with their motivation of making more music, i dont wanna say money is the only reason, but its a big part of it in my opinion. don't get me wrong though, i love metallica, its just they what they did was bullshit, cause first off any metal band should be playing metal for the love of the music, not money. i mean yeah, they need money to keep the band going, but it should be more about the love of the music than making money. and any metal band should just be happy that people are listening to their music even if they are downloading it for free, but again they do need money to keep the band going, but honestly, metallica is one of, if not THE most succesful metal band out there, do they really need more money? the other things i disagree with are that i dont think any metal band now a days start playing metal to make money, metal is not mainstream with the exception of bands like metallica, ac/dc and the occasional nu metal band like Korn, Godsmack, or Slipknot. maybe metal was more mainstream in the mid 80s, but not anymore. and lastly, i was always under the impression that most metal bands play a certain style because they like the way it sounds, not because its popular. and im not knocking glam metal here, cause i do like twisted sister, im just stating my opinion.
you almost make it sound like metal should be a hobby for rich guys in their spare time. bands gotta eat, keep a roof over their head, not to mention if they have children. your priorities change when you get older. but metallica still shouldn't have sued napster. lars and his whiney piehole