The Corroseum forum (new design under construction)

... of glorious 80's actually sound?

Heck yeah, another topic in which every Corroseumer could participate.

If the spirit of 80's metal is inside you, you don't have to copy the 80's bands or at least try to sound like them. You WILL sound like them if that feeling inside you is real. I hope you know what i mean.

ION BRITTON wrote:

If the spirit of 80's metal is inside you, you don't have to copy the 80's bands or at least try to sound like them. You WILL sound like them if that feeling inside you is real. I hope you know what i mean.

I know what you mean. But I have to admit that this is not enough. At least it doesn't seem to me. In my opinion one also needs hella lot of knowledge. There are too many parameters one has to be at least aware of. And so on ad nauseam...

With polls I don't want to proove anything. I am only interested what those who knew the genre and its vibe best have to say. I wonder what is acceptable for them. What I'd like to see the most is a little more diversity in revival still-not-yet-movement. 80's were phenomenal. From 1980 to 1989 (1991 in certain places) the pallette of different was so broad it seems untouchable. Today maybe it is still is very broad, but how do the bands sound. Devoid content. Minimaslist. Post-modernist. Metal bands post-modernist??? They are.

All "ways" in the above poll are not "right", but I be damned if I know which is or which are more so.

Sure you need lots of knowledge,It helps to hear every band possible,many bands today are clones because they follow one person who knows that they are going to clone a band and they blindly follow or some people just set out to try to cash in on sounds which they think might sell again,I think its impossible to capture the sounds of the 80's I've searched far and wide for such bands and they just don't do it for me,you have to take the bands for what they are, you can't expect them to fit the 80's and that took me a long time to realize,I honestly believe some people force themselves to believe they like newer bands just because they want a band to see live on a regular basis, perhaps I am hopeless but I have a very low opinion of new bands or bands on a local level as I've heard far too many clones or bands who experiment far too much to work or bands that sound too chaotic in the name of sounding "original" or "unique".

I voted the first option, simple: you wanna play 80's style, well then play it

The Sentinel wrote:I voted the first option, simple: you wanna play 80's style, well then play it

agreed!

I guess it depends on what you really wany with the band. Maybe you want to do let's say an 80s Thrash band, then what you have to do is try to sound like those bands, but there's the risk of ending up being nothing but a copy which by many is a good thing and might be nice for a live band, but in my ears is not a good thing. I think a band must stand on it's own no matter what.
With my band what I (try to) do is just play influenced by the bands I listen to, but not thinking "this riff doesn't sound old school". Of course, since most of the bands I hear are old bands it sounds like a lot of them, but at the same time doesn't sound like we're copycats, or at least I hope so. I think that's the best way to make a band. Having a certain sound in mind, but being able to let things flow and see what comes up in rehearsals, jams, etc. I guess that's what 80's bands did to have their sound and what new bands should do to have their own. I hope I made myself clear, sometimes I get to messy trying to make a point in English.

Well, for me the catch is that I don't want a band recording in 2009 to try and just copycat something that was recorded in 1983. It's fine to try and capture some aspect of 80s metal, but the 80s are over, and we've had countless bands since try to just ape the sound, look, style, cover art, lyrics, etc etc. 99% of the time I'm not really interested in listening to a new band try and pass themselves off as a Manila Road cover band (not picking on MR, insert any 80s Metal band name and the statement remains true). They never sound as good, so if I want to hear Manilla Road, I'll just listen to Manilla Road, rather than Manilla Road 2.0

Perfect example: Ironsword versus The Gates of Slumber. I've heard one album from each. Ironsword just try to look and sound like Manilla Road. Yawn. I found their album boring and downright cheesy. TGoS have some clear influences like MR and Cirith Ungol, and at times they sound like them, but overall they use their influences to create their own sound. It may not be an entirely original sound, but it's a much more interesting approach than just copycatting a band that existed 20 years ago.

That's my take on it.

Revive metal? Fuck off to people who approach it with that attitude I'd say.

I you want to play real heavy metal you can be original, you just have to play it heavy and don't add g@y studio effects and/or horrible modern day productions. Natural and analog's the way to go.

Don't get someone like Andy Sneap to produce the album & don't sign with a label like Earache or NB...

Where's the "80's Metal should not be revived" option?

Honestly, especially regarding the more recent "Retro-Thrash" movement, these bands sound so tired and uninteresting to me.

Influences are fine, but clones, I could care less about.

Metal should just be left as it was and I feel that these bands should attempt to go on and start something new which could potentially 20 years down the road be regarded as "classic" material.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, with the vast amount of Metal from the glory days out there that is yet to be explored by myself, I'd rather focus my attention, interest and money to uncovering these potential gems rather then everything new released that's not an actual contributor to what the genre really was.

If you want to sound like you are from year X, limit your influences to the years up to the year X-1. That includes music of course, but also television, books, etc. Now, do the same for the technology in your surroundings. Musical equipment for sure, but also those things such as transportation and communication which will affect the more organizational aspects of your band.

It's really that easy. I'm amazed that no band has accomplished it.

I chose the last option. I don't understand the question. Is HM dead and needs to be revived? People should just play what's in their hearts and the pieces should fall where they may.

But I do have this point of view to offer: when I think of Heavy Metal I think about individuality, honesty, extremity, singular vision, passion... I don't think of '80's metal staples'. So what I want from Heavy Metal in 2009 (which is not related to what the bands should do, just wishful thinking as a reader) is not for it to fit into some safe assumption of what that would be, I want to to be challenging and risky and real. Honesty, vision, passion, that sort of thing makes it Heavy Metal for me, not sounding like Brocas Helm all over again.

Helm wrote:Honesty, vision, passion, that sort of thing makes it Heavy Metal for me, not sounding like Brocas Helm all over again.

Agreed! So if you'd like to recreate the genius of Brocas Helm be sure to do it unintentionally!

I somehow feel that rabid fans of the Brocas/Cirith/Manilla trinity would be better off focusing on other styles of music if they want to express themselves in a musical way. And having the Shark guesting on your records doesn't help either, does it? Sad, innit?

Yeah personally though I do see the appeal of getting your hero to guest for you it doesn't flatter a band if they do and they actually sound like Manilla Road. I can listen to Crystal Logic if I want to hit that spot after all.