Slipknot

Thats some real talented stuff there alright, now lets take at the instruementals shall we?




Holy shit!!! that is one intense song I don't think anyone can play that.

 

LMFAO, nice Deadzone. I don't play guitar or any musical instruments, but i know that is not hard (well it would be for me but not for anyone who can play guitar).

 

Lol deadzone guess what! That's one of my favorite songs from them for the Big Mouth Reference which is one of cory's Nick Names.

Btw you have no reason to say it's not talent are you a talent agent?

 

hate slipknot

 

No, but Deadzone has posted some of his guitar vids. They're pretty fucking incredible, not gonna lie. I could play this, and I've taken 1 guitar class in my life. But as much as we're shitting on SlipKnot (as they do deserve it), they're drummer is world class. Not the best, but still the only respectable member of that group. What about the other 8 dudes on the stage? I just can't find a single song when ANY of them is displaying any talent (except MAYBE their tech dude, don't know exactly what job it is).

 

Umm you don't have to be a 'talent agent' to know if someone has talent. Their songs are basic, their lyrics are meaningless so they clearly have no talent.

If you think they have so much talent, tell us why.

 

um why does it feel like I'm the only one defending slipknot?

 

That should seem kinda obvious to you. MAYBE BECAUSE THEY SUCK AND NOBODY ELSE LIKES THEM?!?! [or anyways, can bring up something logical to defend them]

 

Because everyone else who likes Slipknot doesn't know much about music so they want to stay out of this debate so they don't look like a retard.

 

If slipknot is so bad enlighten me. Whats a band that is so much better than them?

I like them and I shouldn't stop listening to them just because some online nerds think there horrible.

 

Here is 3 with similar genre's

1. corrosion of conformity
2. mushroomhead
3. bile

 

This guy that I used to hang out with was really in to them and showed me one of their DVDs from some CD. I honestly couldn't handle it there was nothing interesting, talented or unique that I saw at all. The singer seems like a huge douche and he's got one ugly mug (no wonder they have masks amirite???) To be honest I used to listen to them when I was younger but now that I've grown and know more about music I can see why they suck. and 9 members?? unnecessary, they're all for show

 

See Viper000 defended slipknot and he didn't look like a retard at all.

 

Okay, I can't. But come on - Deadzone showed you that song...I could play those chords :O. And listen to some real guitarists play...

Posers, no more no less. How come Nickelback and fucking Snoop Dogg have multi-platinum albums? They write their music to appeal to a scope of people.

I agree that saying "if you like slipknot, you don't know shit" is quite ignorant. You can like the sound, but to admire their TALENT would imply you don't really know much about music.

Fine. They stole their masks from Mushroomhead, and they stole their riffs from a combo of Pantera and Mushroomhead.

It would be tough to name 20 billion people. Period. So, how am I an ignorant tool? Because I understand something about the art of drumming?

Fine, this was a stupid, ignorant statement.

I'd consider them a combo of rap-metal and thrash-metal tbh. And the thrash part they jacked off Pantera.

Again, you bring out "success" - you do realize that measuring a band by its success is, in fact, what is ignorant? You can't flame someone for LIKING A BAND'S SOUND, you can only flame them for thinking they are talented or more talented than other groups, especially when [this] is far from the truth. If someone likes a band's sound, for reasons unknown to the intelligent population, you can either bring up reasons why the sound should be discredited (such as stealing it from others), or bring up groups they might like more. When they start flaming those bands is when it gets dicey.

Go ahead; shit on Pantera, Anthrax, Disturbed, Darkest Hour, Dark Tranquility, Iron Maiden, Led Zeppelin. Shit on my techno too, while you're at it - Basshunter, DJ Splash, Tiesto. Go ahead. I dare you.

Who said anything about not having diversity? I have 300 artists on my iPod (well, more like 600 if you include the artists for which I have just one song, like collections). All we're saying is, most bands have more TALENT than SlipKnot. And, for us, they sound better and we bring up reasons why. So what's wrong with that?

That's because he knows how to construct an argument, and actually brings up some pretty valid points.

 

An why can't he? I know people who have been playing less than a year and can play better than anything he has produced. On top of that even do you even know him? Can you verify he can't play better than Mick?

Perhaps you should take a look?


As someone else stated the only reason they are so famous is because it was a new fad and everyone had to act "hardcore" just like now everyone has to be a "gangsta" and so on and so forth. it's not because they are a good band or talented it's because they try to aim to appease what the masses want. On top of this it seems like every time I talk about them I realize how much of followers are as they were not even the first band to start this they simply waited until they new what people wanted.

Already stated the reasoning for this.

I would think that I would stand by that statement. You can not simply call a band good or like them because they steal another person work, in which they seem to have based there entire career upon this aspect. Which is not only disrespectful to the original creators it is foolish of a band to not at the very least try to make there own sound. An my opinion may be swayed if this were the case and they did try to be original but obviously that isn't\won't happen.

Let me ask you a question, name one other band that has been around for 10 years or hell lets make it easier even a year and has copied a band so completely like that of slipknots material.

Obviously you have never heard the people he spoke of play, they can play circles around the drummer for slipknot. When musicians speak of him being the only talented thing and seem to speak so highly of him it's because he is about 10x better than the potential of the rest of the band members and shouldn't really even be in the band. But that by no means, mean he is the best.

Most people who dislike slipknot do not dislike the style of music, if you read almost everyone if not everyone who has posted poorly upon slipknot has said in other threads they like mushroomhead, essentially the same genre.

I will name you 5 bands.

1. kreator
2. children of bodom
3. mushroomhead
4. all shall perish
5. anata

When did we say we were so picky on the music we like. I for one would almost guarantee that I have more music than just about anyone on this site in which I enjoy.

Hmm since when was "through the fire and flames" complex? it is simply fast and that is all.

Money, record labels don't just look for talent. They will give you a record deal if you have the money to help produce the copies etc.

The story or what ever it may be is completely bogus. They stole it from mushroomhead plain and simple along with the silly little names they use to go by. They simply make up stupid shit such as a story behind a mask to mask the fact that they stole the idea from another band. You shouldn't be getting into this whole debate of the subject because apparently you know nothing about either bands early early background.

He never said he had little talent, he just said there are many other people better than him perhaps you should get some glasses.

Your analogy makes sense but fails when it comes to music. When bands set out the number one goal in mind on general is to play for the fans etc. the only reason slipknot got so famous is because they sold out early. There are plenty of bands that try to stay undergorund but have enough money to live happily with there families. But most get caught up in all the money and sellout. thus why people dislike sellouts because they give up on there main goals basically lying -I for one don't if I ever decide to progress with my band and try to get famous I plan on getting to the top not stopping halfway-

Led zeppelin is a band not a person... lol

I will give you a word of advice, pickup a instrument and learn it, within 3-4 months you will be able to play anything they have put out, excluding the solo's unless you dedicate yourself. When I was 7 I could already play guitar better than anything mick has created thus far, and within the second month of me learning the bass could do anything the bass player has created.

 

Ok i'll wait for someone to oppose deathzone before i have my say because i don't wanna just repeat whats been said already. All my opinions have been expressed so far apart from this:

Talent is not based on opinion. Talent is basicly how many other people can do the same thing. Oh heres what your missing, the talent has to be something good that the minority of people can do. Trying so hard to be good and still being shit like Slipknot is not a talent.

If you were right saying that talent is opinion then everyone in the world is super damn talented at everything they do. For example:

Lets say someone typed at 5 words per minute, a retard who typed at 1 word per minute would think "fuck this guys talented, hes 5 times better than me". Yet 5 words is not talented, its complete shit.

If you haven't figured out yet, the 5 wpm person is Slipknot. And your the retard that thinks they are awesomely talented because you they are just way better than you.

To help prove my case i'm going to have to bring Soulja Boy into this. Is he talented? No. Is he successful? Yes. Do other music artists hate him and think hes the biggest disgrace to hip hop? Yes.

Soulja Boy and Slipknot are the same. Both suck, both are very successful.
When Soulja Boy came out, all the little mainstream kids bought his music yet everyone else with half a brain realised he sucked major soldier balls. Music artists in Soulja Boy's genre would say Soulja Boy sucked in interviews etc so eventually all these little mainstream kids agreed that Soulja Boy sucked but they still listen to his music and make up some bullshit excuse like it has good bass.

Anyway with Slipknot, same thing happened. All the mainstream listen to it, think its cool. But all the other bands with similiar genres are more underground bands. They were probably saying Slipknot sucked but there was no interviews to change the minds of the mainstream. So these mainstream kids are still listening to Slipknot.

I have one strong point that i'll put forward later, i want to go to bed and i bet no one else wants to read more writing from 1 post. I'll wait for someone to challenge Deadzone even though if anyone has common sence then they won't.

 

Essentially perfect I hate posts like I'm making now, but I couldn't've said it better myself. Epic post tbh Nothing falters. I especially like your disproval of the "success" story - there are two types of "artists" in the world IMO: those who do it for the love of music, and those who do it for the love of money.

I think anyone with half a brain can pick the side SlipKnot believes in. Of course, some bands are able to make a HUGE living by creating their own sound (take, for example, Linkin Park - tons of bands are ripping off their old shit), and then they think they can make it even HUGER by selling out (hence, the album Minutes to Midnight; totally against the style that made them famous). Then, there are bands with global recognition and a ton of money that have focused on their own, true genre and just made them the best in that respective genre (i.e; Dream Theater, Darkest Hour). Then, there are the bands who had mediocre EP's - and mediocre is better than anything they're pumping out now - that got signed early, then converted to "moneymaking" right away (ie; Slipknot, many hip-hop artists, Nickelback).

 

Your post is fairly short so I won't bother breaking it down.

to the statement about tyson's analogy. You simply take what the majority of the world that types on a basis of some kind and the average, below average = pathetic, anything better would be considered talent.

THus we have:

Poor ----------Average-Slipknot belongs here-----------talented

They're above some of the lesser of average people. but overall not very talented at all. lets say 30-40 wpm is average, there at about 45 wpm when most bands are around 55+ wpm

 

Good, Deadzone understood what i was trying to say. I tend to write a lot because i can't think of good words to describe what i'm trying to say.

Deadzone nailed exactly what i meant that talent means better than average. It has nothing to do with opinion. The more above average you are, then the more talented you are. Judging by Slipknots guitar riffs or whatever you call them, they probably couldn't play a song by one of the previously mentioned bands. This means they are less talented, but the problem occurs when Slipknot can't compete with the instrumentals of 95% of the bands. Resulting in Slipknot having no talent.

 

Are you saying talent is subjective? Because talent, by definition, is the ability to do *something*, regardless of what it may be, better than other people *trying to do that same thing.*

We're not drawing comparisons to apples and oranges when it comes to talent. Let's just assume SlipKnot has artists that are talented at playing the guitar and banging drums. Now, we can take another band that has artists that are talented at playing the guitar and banging drums in a similar style (such as Mushroomhead), and compare the two.

Who is an overall more talented group? Most who have heard both of them would argue Mushroomhead, because of the added elements they have in their songs that Slipknot doesn't - they excel better in that specific niche than Slipknot. Not to mention, they were doing it first.