 |
| "Their new stuff sucks, but I like their old stuff. Yeah, their old stuff is good." |
The genius of the old stuff argument is that it can be said in reference to any band at all. From Slayer to Slipknot, you can almost always claim that a band's earlier material was vastly superior to their more recent work, and as such it isn't really appropriate to consider a band's recent activity when judging their entire metal merit. The old stuff defense is especially effective when you take a band's demo work into consideration, as most people are unfamiliar, and therefore feel they have no basis for argument. I of course, think that the old stuff defense is a bullshit tactic, and anguish at how it still continues to be a effective means of supporting one's opinion.
The following is a typical exchange between two metal heads where the "old stuff" defense is put into play, with devastating results:
Metalhead: "Five Finger Death Punch sucks. A lot."
Douchehead: "Yeah, but I like their old stuff, their old stuff was good."
Metalhead: "Okay."
Here's where the conversation typically stops, because it ends with a mutual agreement where everyone walks away happy. Doesn't sound very metal to me. Your "suck" statement should be made with the intent of hurting feelings, passing judgement and boldly claiming your metal superiority! Here's how it should really go:
Metalhead: "Five Finger Death Punch sucks."
Douchehead: "Yeah, but their old stuff was good".
Metalhead: "It's too bad I didn't say 'sucked' or else you would have had a good reason to open your stupid suck hole. Nice pink mohawk, by the way. Did your boyfriend help you dye it while you were both rocking out to some old school Five Finger Butt Punch?"
Let's put this into perspective... Pretend you're at a restaurant and your waitress brings you your steak freezing cold. When you complain to her about it, she replies "well it was a really tasty steak twenty minutes ago", as if it were a legitimate argument. Would that make any sense to you? If not, then why would it make sense for Exodus to get away with Shovel Headed Kill Machine just because they released Bonded by Blood twenty years prior?
So let me go ahead and make mention of the fat, smelly, has-been elephant sitting in the room: Kill Em' All, Ride the Lightning, Master of Puppets, and (arguably) And Justice for All... These albums no longer matter. They are outnumbered by the five inexcusably terrible albums that followed them. There is officially more bad than good material, so we're just going to have to face hard facts, join hands across the nation and admit it...
Metallica sucks.
Metalhead: "Five Finger Death Punch sucks."
Douchehead: "Yeah, but their old stuff was good".
Metalhead: "It's too bad I didn't say 'sucked' or else you would have had a good reason to open your stupid suck hole. Nice pink mohawk, by the way. Did your boyfriend help you dye it while you were both rocking out to some old school Five Finger Butt Punch?"
Let's put this into perspective... Pretend you're at a restaurant and your waitress brings you your steak freezing cold. When you complain to her about it, she replies "well it was a really tasty steak twenty minutes ago", as if it were a legitimate argument. Would that make any sense to you? If not, then why would it make sense for Exodus to get away with Shovel Headed Kill Machine just because they released Bonded by Blood twenty years prior?
So let me go ahead and make mention of the fat, smelly, has-been elephant sitting in the room: Kill Em' All, Ride the Lightning, Master of Puppets, and (arguably) And Justice for All... These albums no longer matter. They are outnumbered by the five inexcusably terrible albums that followed them. There is officially more bad than good material, so we're just going to have to face hard facts, join hands across the nation and admit it...
Metallica sucks.
