Proto-Metal =/= metal. Stuff like Deep Purple, Blue Cheer, and the like, I can understand, but why discuss The Stooges or The Smiths or whatever here when there are more appropriate sections for them? If Velvet Underground is considered close enough to metal to be suitable for discussion here, where exactly do you draw the line? Just being loud, noisy, extreme for their time, etc., shouldn't be enough.

How do you figure anyone would confuse the Smiths or any other 80s band as proto-metal? The line can be drawn where it has always been drawn - 69/70. And the VU are loud, noisy and extreme in any time.

Any discussion of acid rock or the Stooges is appropriate here when it is within the context of metal.

I actually confused the Smiths with the Kinks. Time period shouldn't matter, though. Sure they stop being "proto-metal" if they're from after 74 or something, but whether their music is close enough to metal or not is all that should matter. If there's a new band that plays a similar style of music as a band from the 60s, and they seem out of place in a metal forum, chances are the band they are emulating will as well. Meanwhile, newer non-metal bands like The Devil's Blood enjoy lot's of discussion on metal forums, because the "proto-metal" they're influenced by is. Lucifer's Friend, Uriah Heep or even something with similar themes like Coven, should be fine though. If we're discussing the history of metal or something or discussing influences, it's alright to talk about 60s garage, noise, experimental, prog, proto-punk, and acid stuff, but otherwise it'll just feel out of place. There are better sections to discuss those bands.

We're not going to talk about Venom, Slayer, or Hellhammer on a death metal thread, unless discussing influences or similarities.

My problem with Toki is not that he reviewed VU & Nico. My problem is that it was so superficial and that it wasn't within the context of metal.

He could have talked about the lo-fi production, the fuzztone & feedback, the interplay between Reed's guitar and Cage's viola, the death and drugs and S&M lyrics. Instead he tells how he was "blown away" and that is "sounds wonderful and groundbreaking" without telling us why.

Listened to that one recently myself, and was damn impressed.

If it's anything like Communion it should be awesome.

I'm not gonna speak on behalf of the rest of the Metal forum. But as far as I'm concerned, I never ever say anything serious in this forum and everything I say to you should be taken with enormous amounts of sarcasm. My post was basically a bitching session AGAINST everyone who complained you were posting that in the Metal section, I never meant conflict here.

It shouldn't have taken me this long to listen to 'Colors' by Between the Buried and Me but it's so damn good.

I've hardly been listening to metal from 2011. Should be getting back into it, though. Listening to new Autopsy right now.

How's this for metal from 2011?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oM3fJraOjZs

I don't even want to listen to that.

30 second samples of the album were out on Amazon before the actual thing leaked, and I thought those 30 seconds were as horrible as Morbid Angel could possibly get, but the song actually manages to get worse later on. Proof that it's perfectly reasonable to judge something without listening to it.

Radikult is almost as bad. I wonder where they got the idea that death metal fans would be open to songs that sound like rejects from Static-X, Rammstein and Marilyn Manson albums.

and of course retards like this guy slam death metal fans for not liking it and claiming the new sound is a forward movement for death metal.

http://www.craveonline.com/music/reviews/167487-morbid-angel-illud-divinum-insanus

People like this should be patronized and killed.

There are some good comments for that song.

New Autopsy isn't all that amazing. Just a solid album, but still Dirty Gore Whore? Seriously, Autopsy?

Fleshgod Apocalypse - Agony.
Awesome.