I think you guys are mistaking this place for 4chan. Here, we try to avoid making sweeping insults and generalizations towards people over tiny insignificant things that have no bearing on you except "He likes what I don't like :("
Because it looks like you need it, here's a copy-paste from the Stickpage rules:
If you actually cared about trying to broaden Robeat's perspective on music, you wouldn't be doing it by trying to attack and alienate him from your point of view. The world is full of enough assholes already. Don't add to their numbers.
I wasn't attacking anything. In fact, I specifically said it's very difficult to argue or debate music with someone who has a very narrow scope and has already lost credibility by not understanding how long music has been going for. The thing is, I personally already listen to metal. I listen to the most generic of bands down to Avenged Sevenfold. I just don't put my own opinion or personal preference over just common objectivity. Metal brought nothing new to the world of music aside from a new image. Lots of bad consecutive fifths, generic powerchord riffs, and other things that rhyme with -ifs. Nothing that was done in metal hadn't been done melodically. Some new things were done, but no so much in terms of music, but the representation of that music, whether it be heavy-gain-distortion guitars or just using an electric guitar in a new way. Regardless, that's not anything completely inspirational. Furthermore, the very blanket term of "metal" is very confined and precise. Realistically, adding any shred of differentiation to metal makes it "not-metal." You end up with bands like Avenged Sevenfold who are mocked by metal fans because they add corny influences and unorthodox decisions in instrumentation. The good majority of metal fans criticize them for not being metal, or not being metal enough. That's a problem; it's problem if a genre is desecrated by the addition of strings, or the addition of synths, or some other nuance.
I listen to metal but that's because I listen to a wide variety of music genres. Doesn't mean metal is even close to good/perfect. There's good music in the genre. There's just also a lot of bad music as well. There is an objective sense of good and bad inherent within the actual content of the music that can't be subjective, and that mostly stems from originality and purpose. A sort of example of objectivity vs subjectivity would be saying, this singer is good, as opposed to, this singer is the best or saying you like this singer. Objectively, if a singer can hit notes with accurate tonality and remain a realistically pleasant timbre (among other things), they're a good singer by the very definition of the concept. You can't argue that. You can however argue that you don't like this singer because you personally don't prefer their voice or their singing technique. That's subjective.
Same thing applies to music as a whole. You can objectively call something bad because it can be stale, hackneyed and redone with very little musical content. Chugging a powerchord for 50 minutes objectively has less musical content than a well written symphony. You can choose to like one over the other, but you can't argue which has more content.
And like Obs said, there's plenty of good related music of metal (that remains inventive and unique objectively), but it usually strays from the confinements of what popular metal is. I'm all for Drone Metal, Post Metal and darker metal in general (shit like GY!BE's more current stuff), but I'd hardly call those metal genres.
