[metalfiend666]

Has anybody considered how much of an influence Ross Robinson had on the defining of the Slipknot sound? It's well known that is biased by his love of hardcore punk, hense his dislike of solos. I've read an indepth interview with Mick Thompson in Total Guitar magazine right around the release of Vol. 3. He went into great detail about the recording of the first album.

Before recording, there were many shredding solos in those songs. Ross refused to let Mick record most of them, and those he did were either mixed in virtual inaudibility or broken up so as to be unrecognisable as solos. Listen to that album fairly loudly, and I mean really listen, and you can just about pick out a couple of solos and fragments in there.

Ross also worked to get the band as angry as possible, to get a great deal of aggression on the record. He even went as far as punching Corey in the face prior to a take.

I'm not suggesting that Slipknot got out the acoustics before they recorded that album. They were still an aggressive band, but Ross certainly changed their sound. After all, he is the man who killed the guitar solo and shaped the sound of nu-metal.

[Toshiro]

OMG I'm sick of hearing this.

NUmetal + solos does not = metal.

[The Dark Wolf]

Originally Posted by HateBreeder

I call that "Alienating your fanbase".

Exactly what I was thinking!

Still, I have nothing but respect (generally) for bands that try new things. God, I'd hate for someone to try and pigeonhole me, should I have any sort of success. Think about it... wouldn't you rather decide what kind of music you want to make? What if you make 3 huge death metal albums, or whatever, and everyone goes, "Wow! He's the king of death metal!" and then you wake up one day, and go, "Fuck death metal. I did all I want to do with it." (This is obviously an exagerated hypothetical). Maybe you even think, "I love death metal. But it's stale (or I'm stale, or my band is stale, etc.) I wanna change some shit!" For someone to say you can't, or you 'sold out' if you do, eh... that's bullshit, to me.

I think it's easy to fall into the trap of saying just because something is different, it's 'selling out.' Undoubtedly, people sell out (Metallica comes to mind). But just because an artist tries something new doesn't necesarily mean they have committed that great metaphorical sin of 'selling out.' I think people may pull that trigger too quick sometimes. (Something tells me this is falling on deaf ears )

Here's an example. Our assumptions are often wrong. I've heard people complain about the price of the X-Box. When the first came one out, it was priced similarly as the new one (I think around $400 or so. I bought one, I remember that.) People sometimes assumed it was way overpriced, but in actuality, MS was taking a pretty hefty loss on each unit sold. In fact, people bought X-Box's just because if you bought the same individual computer parts that came with the X-Box, it would cost you a couple of hundred dollars more! Why did they continue to sell them, then? They made up for the loss in licensing/software for the game titles, and plus they were shooting to take market share from Sony. But our implicit assumption is often, "Those greedy bastards! How can they charge so much?!" when in fact, their price may just barely cover the cost to them, if it does at all. But when we hear of Nike charging $100 for a pair of shoes, and that actual manufacturing costs were less than a buck-a-pair, in some sweatshop in China (there's a whole lot more that goes into the price in big corp. products typically than just the manufacturing cost. Much of it is administrative overhead, but I digress there...), well, when we hear that, we think, Ah ha! I knew it! That proves it! But in actuality, a situation like that is probably the exception, rather than the rule.

It's easy to say Slipknot sold out, but much harder to prove it. And of course, impossible to walk in their shoes. What I believe happens in this example is what social psychologists call the fundamental attribution error. What this means is we are often more likely to attribute other's behavior based on what we assume their internal motivations are, instead of considering external situations. You ever trip over something, and say, "It just jumped out at me!" But then you see someone else trip, in another situation, and you maybe go, "What a klutz!" We quickly take into account externals when it concerns ourselves, but are quick to place the brunt of our assumptions on the personality or character of another. The "I'm good, he's lucky." phenomenon.

Any rate, yeah... just what I was thinking, Hatebreeder.

[The Dark Wolf]

Originally Posted by Toshiro

OMG I'm sick of hearing this.

NUmetal + solos does not = metal.

I don't think he was claiming it does

[bostjan]

slipknot is cool. i have one of their discs.

that being said they are nu metal, not death metal. you can say they aren't nu metal, but that's the way they are produced, packaged, and marketted. the first people who introduced them to me were definately nu metal guys who knew little about death metal. i consider myself a death metal guy with diverse tastes, but who knows what everyone else thinks?

i also think their change in style puts them more in the mainstream. good for them, if that's what they want. they may sell more records that way, and they are not going to give a flying fart if won't buy the next one.

[Toshiro]

Originally Posted by The Dark Wolf

I don't think he was claiming it does

That's the atypical arguement though: "They had solos, but were forced to get rid of them, therefore making the band NUmetal/etc."

Then there's the whole arguement that solos make your music somehow weaker, which was the tag line for this band for a while("They wouldn't work in our music"). That made me do this on more than one occasion.

Rusty Cooley could solo on Slipnot's CDs and they would still be NUmetal.

Any image they had, they built themselves with the stupid masks. Making yourself out to be Gwar rejects, then doing ballads/acoustic/anything slow is going to disinfranchise a lot of the "OmGz J00 r0x0rZ" crowd they've built up over the years(well, except the salivating fanboys). If it's a marketing move to "keep up with the times" it's obviosly working, since they're on the radio.

[The Dark Wolf]

Extremely well said, Toshiro. It doesn't hurt to be cynical as far as money and media are concerned, nowadays, either, so I can see what you're saying.

I still think people need to be careful attributing things to Slipknot that may or may not be true, but in the end, humans always seem do it, and even if people are ignorantly wrong more often than not, it doesn't really hurt anyone!

[Pauly]

Originally Posted by bostjan

slipknot is cool. i have one of their discs.

that being said they are nu metal, not death metal. you can say they aren't nu metal, but that's the way they are produced, packaged, and marketted. the first people who introduced them to me were definately nu metal guys who knew little about death metal. i consider myself a death metal guy with diverse tastes, but who knows what everyone else thinks?

i also think their change in style puts them more in the mainstream. good for them, if that's what they want. they may sell more records that way, and they are not going to give a flying fart if won't buy the next one.

They definately have (or had rather) a lot of extreme metal influences in the music. Vocally it might have been similar to Nu-metal but the music had some pretty neat death/thrash sections.

[metalfiend666]

Originally Posted by Toshiro

That's the atypical arguement though: "They had solos, but were forced to get rid of them, therefore making the band NUmetal/etc."

Then there's the whole arguement that solos make your music somehow weaker, which was the tag line for this band for a while("They wouldn't work in our music"). That made me do this on more than one occasion.

Rusty Cooley could solo on Slipnot's CDs and they would still be NUmetal.

Any image they had, they built themselves with the stupid masks. Making yourself out to be Gwar rejects, then doing ballads/acoustic/anything slow is going to disinfranchise a lot of the "OmGz J00 r0x0rZ" crowd they've built up over the years(well, except the salivating fanboys). If it's a marketing move to "keep up with the times" it's obviosly working, since they're on the radio.

I wasn't trying to say they weren't nu-metal. Personally, I don't think they are or ever were nu-metal, but that's another argument.

The point I was trying to get across is the influence the producer and record label marketing types had on the sound of the songs and the image the band projected. Yes, I know the masks are their doing, but the statement that the solo's no longer worked is purely something that was pushed to them. I know from several interviews with him that Mick was furious that they were scrapped.

Regardless what you think about the band, you have to admit Mick and James are highly talented players if you've ever seen or heard they're guest lessons.

[Toshiro]

Originally Posted by metalfiend666

I wasn't trying to say they weren't nu-metal. Personally, I don't think they are or ever were nu-metal, but that's another argument.

The point I was trying to get across is the influence the producer and record label marketing types had on the sound of the songs and the image the band projected. Yes, I know the masks are their doing, but the statement that the solo's no longer worked is purely something that was pushed to them. I know from several interviews with him that Mick was furious that they were scrapped.

Regardless what you think about the band, you have to admit Mick and James are highly talented players if you've ever seen or heard they're guest lessons.

See, I consider them sub-par metal, and the guitarists average at best, but then I have high standards for metal. :p Either way, their talents obviously do not shine in the band, even though "extreme" genres of metal are known for their musicianship. Sort of a paradox, heh.