are the melvins done for?

Mints · January 30, 2014, 07:31:48 PM

Ah. Thanks.

meezer · January 31, 2014, 07:06:18 AM

I would go to bat for the argument that MEtallica paved the way for the Melvins success. I think the main thing you have to acknowledge is that Metallica is the band that brought a sub-genre of metal (thrash) that combines punk & metal to the most ears, worldwide. What they did after they got on Empty V is their downfall. They have to pay for their sins, so just leave that stuff for another time & place. The greatest aspect of the Melvins is how they combine Punk & Metal effortlessly and at will, better than anyone ever has. The way that Punk/ Metal split changes from album to album, even song to song, is what makes them so great. Take Houdini, The Maggot & (a) Senile Animal. Think about the ratio of Punk to Metal on the overall sound of those albums. Houdini-60/40, Maggot-35/65, S.A.-50/50? I'm just guessing. The more you think of it the more likely you are to get an ice cream headache or drive off the side of the road. Just sayin'.

LuckMach3 · January 31, 2014, 10:00:31 AM

They had just put out H.A.T. the previous year and this made the guy wonder if they were done for. Odd.

bUTTHOLEmAN · January 31, 2014, 10:08:09 AM

Quote from: meezer on January 31, 2014, 07:06:18 AM
I would go to bat for the argument that MEtallica paved the way for the Melvins success.

Mmm nope.

rictus · January 31, 2014, 10:24:16 AM

Metallica gets way too much credit in general IMO.

black stallion · January 31, 2014, 11:58:32 AM

Quote from: rictus on January 31, 2014, 10:24:16 AM
Metallica gets way too much credit in general IMO.

totally

deatheats · January 31, 2014, 01:14:48 PM

I never really heard much of a punk influence with Metallica. Could be just me though.
Of course I've never been much of a metal fan in general and definitely lean towards bands that have more of a punk feel.

To me the biggest difference between punk and metal (I'm generalizing here) is a philosophical difference. Metal tends to focus more on technical playing while punk is more about emotion and not necessarily playing the "right" way.

glen · January 31, 2014, 01:54:41 PM

Quote from: bUTTHOLEmAN on January 31, 2014, 10:08:09 AM
Quote from: meezer on January 31, 2014, 07:06:18 AM
I would go to bat for the argument that MEtallica paved the way for the Melvins success.
Mmm nope.

would you believe... creed? errr... no wait, I got it. godsmack.

meezer · February 01, 2014, 07:42:19 AM

I never said Metallica was the entire reason why the Melvins are here today, or anything like that. The Melvins are my favorite band. Hands down, have been since '96. That's 5 years after I finally got to see Metallica live. Judging how horrible they were live, plus how horrible the black album was, plus how awful their fans were getting, I stopped listening to them for 7 years. Hell, the Melvins formed the year that Metallica released "Kill 'Em All", so nobody is saying that Metallica was from one generation, that was the influencer of the Melvins in the next generation. That's idiotic! Just watch Metallica;Behind The Music. They talk about the influence of Punk music on their sound. They talk about leaving L.A. to get away from Motley Crue & Ratt and moving to the Bay Area to find a Scene that was not into Hair Metal. Finally, look at the Garage Days E.P., why cover punk bands if you don't like Punk Music? There couldn't have been a Jimi Hendrix without Elvis, The Beatles or early Motown.