Slipknot v.s. Mudvayne

[TheBlackSkater]

[FONT=Times New Roman]Slipknot or Mudvayne? these two masked bands rock as hard as any other metal/heavy band. Who's better?[/FONT] :mad:

[The Drizzle]

[COLOR=DarkGreen]yes, both bands are most excellent!

if i had to chose one of them, it would definitely be slipknot. there are much more talented and have a lot better sounding stuff. i haven't seen either one of them live, but from what i have seen on the DVDs slipknot puts on a much better show. there seems to be more talent in slipknot. Joey is amazing on the drums. I have consistently liked all of their albums to date. (im also seeing them on the 30th...YESSS!!)

the bassist from mudvayne is still really good. i really like LD 50 and the bass in it. its independant of the guitars and adds something to the music. all of mudvaynes CDs have gone downhill from LD 50 pretty much...not looking forward to that new CD very much...(i still like the ****ing determined song, it kicks)[/COLOR]

[TheBlackSkater]

Yes i very much agree with you. Mudvayne has not been as good as they used to. SLipknot on the other hand has been fantastic since their first album.

[Nomad]

[COLOR=DimGray][SIZE=1]Slipknot and Mudvayne were fantastic masked bands. Slipknot is still making awsome music (although I did disagree with their choices of what to do on Vol.3), but Mudvayne is no longer masked, they've lost the makeup and have changed their names, but Mudvayne is also still making awsome music. Mudvayne has certainly mellowed out in a way since L.D. 50, but I like the newer stuff alot better than the older, although I do enjoy listening to them at times.

Overall, Slipknot's mainstream appeal and sound has put them over the top. I'll go with Slipknot.[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[TheBlackSkater]

Yeah i know Mudvayne isnt masked anymore. but ya they have mellowed out since L.D. 50, like this morning i was watching, i think Happy, one of their videos. they seemed clean and everyhting. IT talkes place in a medow so you're watching it and like what the hell? why is it in a medow? but it gets destryoed so thats good. but yes i agree that slipknot is better. but they got like nine people, and only like five of them play instruments.

[Annie]

[color=indigo]I am going to have to say between the two, I'd have to lean more towards Slipknot. Don't get me wrong, I love Mudvayne. A wonderful band, really. Some of their songs are awesome, but most of them are just--irritating? And what's more irritating is that Mudvayne is starting to swing into the mechanical-like world of popularity. Meaning, they're starting to sound like everyone else.

While Slipknot, on the other hand, has only proved to be getting better. I've listened to their albums, and they haven't bent over backwards to form to what every other band has. I'm very satisfied with their newest album, Vol.3: Subliminal Verses. They haven't lost their original sound, but they have improved greatly. The lyrics are crazy, clear, and audible. And the good thing about that, the instrumentals is still clear and amazing. [/color]

[TheBlackSkater]

Oh yes i very much agree. Slipknot is the same just as they started, but they have very much improved. They are their own selves and and they've been that way scince the very first. I hope they dont change their style for future come.

[Kamuro]

As for Slipknot, Iowa was awesome, and Slipknot the CD was pretty good, however, Volume 3 sucks, terribly. They went from hardcore metal, to pissy Vermilion. What is that? That is a sell-out my friends. A sell-out, so they can be safely played on the radio and become more mainstream. And I'm sure people will argue massively with this, but I've talked to several SEVERAL Slipknot fans and they all hated Volume 3. I've also checked fan sites and such and each confirms my suspicions of a massive sell-out. Mudvayne, although they were on break for a bit, are now back. L.D. 50 was an amazing cd, and I expect no less from their new one. Masks or no masks, I expect most of you will be swallowing your tongues at the sight of a new Mudvayne.

[TheBlackSkater]

hmm, vol.3 did suck a little, i mean they could do better. but you cant expoect them to continue music like their self-titled cd forever. Mudvayne on the otherhand when they came out with L.P. 50 that was ****. their old cds are better. they look cleaner and their music is softer, wjicj tells me that they'll proboly be over in 3-4yrs. like i said you cant expect them to last forever. maybe after they break up or sumthin they'll cime back for a reunion tour. but this is just my oppinion

[The Drizzle]

[quote name='x kakashi x']As for Slipknot, Iowa was awesome, and Slipknot the CD was pretty good, however, Volume 3 sucks, terribly. They went from hardcore metal, to pissy Vermilion. What is that? That is a sell-out my friends. A sell-out, so they can be safely played on the radio and become more mainstream. And I'm sure people will argue massively with this, but I've talked to several SEVERAL Slipknot fans and they all hated Volume 3. I've also checked fan sites and such and each confirms my suspicions of a massive sell-out. Mudvayne, although they were on break for a bit, are now back. L.D. 50 was an amazing cd, and I expect no less from their new one. Masks or no masks, I expect most of you will be swallowing your tongues at the sight of a new Mudvayne.[/quote]

[COLOR=DarkGreen]well i would be one to disagree with you there, buddy. A lot of my friends happen to be slipknot fans and they enjoyed vol. 3 a lot as well as me. Oh, and were you talkin about vermillion pt 1 or 2? because if youre complaining that they are sell outs just because they can rock an acoustic song that just doesnt make any sense. vol. 3 didnt seem as heavy as the others and there were less f-bombs, but that doesnt mean the music itself wasnt good. i thought that there was more guitar solos and it sounded cool. and i have only heard them on the radio like twice so i dont know what ur talkin about with the radio play...they might have gotten a little more than before, but not that much...

and sorry if im not making sense right now or u interpert it wrong, im tired and working on this paper right now thats due tommorow :sleep:[/COLOR]

[boxybrown305]

[COLOR=DarkRed]Now, i love Slipknot like you wouldn't believe, and although it certainly isn't the best album, i thought Vol. 3 was very good. It isn't any softer then it ever was before, infact all the music on it was, lyricly, as hard as anything they've done before. If you can't look into it and see it for what it is, and just assume that because it's slow, and has no swears then your really missing out on a lot. Besides if you don't like Vermillion, well that's just one (or two if your refering to both versions of Vermillion) song out of fourteen other excellent songs.

As for Mudvayne, all their CD's are all right. I found L.D.50 to be their best album. If anything it's Mudvayne that's becoming more mainstream than Slipknot, but they both are good bands.[/COLOR]

[Kamuro]

Well, first off, Slipknot is not an acoustic band, besides Vermilion, I doubt you'll find another song even comparing to that genre. There are a couple good songs on Volume 3, but it is softer then their first albums, however you look at it. Boxy said lyrically they're the same, but I don't think so. "I don't know what to do, when she makes me sad." is a bit different then "I wanna slit your throat, and **** the wound." Maybe I'm just bitter because I liked the hardcore crazy Slipknot, but Volume 3 just isn't as good as the previous albums, and if thats the direction they're going in, I expect the next to be even worse, which would anger me, because they use to be so good. Sure, Vermillion is acoustic, but Slipknot is not an acoustic band, which is the problem. Why would a band with 9 members play an acoustic song. Its not their style and it never will be.

As for the other comment about how long the bands will be around...who cares? I'd rather judge a band by the music they play rather then their duration in the spotlight. Just because its been done before doesn't make a "metal reunion" a stereotype.

[TheBlackSkater]

You make a good point. But i agree Slipknot is NOT[U] an ACOUSTIC BAND, and tha kinda took me by surprise when i first heard it. To me, their old cds are the best. For Mudvayne their new cd just came out and i plan to buy it, i just hope its better than L.P.50. But i get waht you mean when you say who cares how long the band lasts. I just said that as my own oppinion. I LOVE SLIPKNOT AND I FOREVER WILL.

[Jake of Bodom]

I've been a diehard Slipknot fan since MFKR (Mate Feed Kill Repeat - it's the first album). I love all the albums, but Vol. III threw me for a loop. I hated it at first (Vermillion pt. II? What the hell? On a SLIPKNOT album?). I didn't listen to it for quite a while, but when I gave it a spin again I found this: I love the album, but it's just not Slipknot! Three Nil, Pulse of the Maggots, Before I Forget - these songs are awesome, but there's just something not Slipknot about it all. And yes, they mellowed out like hell, but it doesn't mean they sold out. The second a band starts making money, everyone starts accusing that band of selling out. I don't think Slipknot sold out, they just wanted to try some new stuff. They definately pulled it off well from a songwriting standpoint, but I truly hope they revert back to that raw, primal sound they used to have.

Mudvayne has also undergone some changes since the songs you can hear on the Beginning of All Things to End (an E.P. containing songs they recorded before L.D. 50). I have to say that I, like many Mudvayne fans, hold L.D. 50 closest to my heart. But I got a copy of Lost and Found a couple of weeks before it actually came out (my friend owns a music store ;) ), and I must say, I like what I hear. So what if they look more clean-cut? Since when did that have [I]anything[/I] to do with the music itself? There's this one song on Lost and Found called "IMN" - sounds like it could be straight off L.D. 50, only it's more vicious. The rhythms are complex and mathlike, just like those of the beloved first album. So before you judge the whole thing off "Happy?", the first single, just wait until you hear the full album. And did everyone completely miss the first single off Lost and Found? It's called "Determined", and it's definately not mellow. You can download the whole video at [URL=http://www.hdpvidz.com]HDP Vidz[/URL].

As far as the argument between Mudvayne and Slipknot and who is better, it's quite difficult to compare the two seeing as they are very different. Mudvayne is progressive math metal, whereas Slipknot is shock-and-death-metal infused nu-metal, but I'd have to go with Slipknot. I chose Slipknot simply because their music has meant more to me on an emotional level through the years. I also am a huge death metal fan, so naturally, I like them better.

[Annie]

[quote name='Jake of Bodom']I've been a diehard Slipknot fan since MFKR (Mate Feed Kill Repeat - it's the first album). I love all the albums, but Vol. III threw me for a loop. I hated it at first (Vermillion pt II? What the hell? On a SLIPKNOT album?). I didn't listen to it for quite a while, but when I gave it a spin again I found this: I love the album, but it's just not Slipknot! [/quote]

[color=darkgreen] It [i]is[/i] Slipknot. What's wrong with trying something new? What's wrong with expressing a soft side? Who freakin' cares if it's supposed to be "death metal"; it's healthy to excersise versatility every once in a while. It shows the capability of the band.

I absolutely love it. You have both the hard side of Slipknot, then there's a ray of light through a storm. It's not what you would expect from a band like Slipknot, but that's the beauty of it all. That's what makes them so talented, and one of the better metal bands out there.

Appreciate that.[/color]

[quote]Three Nil, Pulse of the Maggots, Before I Forget - these songs are awesome, but there's just something not Slipknot about it all. And yes, they mellowed out like hell, but it doesn't mean they sold out. The second a band starts making money, everyone starts accusing that band of selling out. I don't think Slipknot sold out, they just wanted to try some new stuff. [/QUOTE]

[color=darkgreen]Exactly. So, "what the hell?" Why is everyone so rash towards the band for playing around with new stuff? Sure, like I said before, it's different. But that doesn't suggest to scold the metal band for releasing a couple of soft songs. Hell, even Ozzy has softer songs.

It's aggravating to see people judging against amazing bands because they aren't used to new music.[/color]

[Jake of Bodom]

Yeah, I guess you're right. It was just a surprise to me having listened to Slipknot for so many years, I NEVER expected anything like that, especially after an album like Iowa. Forgive me.

[Annie]

[color=darkgreen]Hm, nice to know. I would have considered it death metal. At least, compared to something like Godsmack--which is heavy rock, but not metal.

As for Mudvayne, I believe I covered all that I wanted to say about them. A great band, great songs, great music. I'm looking forward to hearing their new album. "Happy" (I believe it's called--I only heard it a couple of times) really sounds great. I hope the rest of their album sounds like that. I really hope they don't sell out like I first assumed. It would be really sad.
[/color]

[TheBlackSkater]

heh, i get ehat you're saying. they wanna try sumthin new let them, ill support them. it just surpriesed me, but after listening to them a couple times i dont really think that their style changed, its just temperarily[sp?] meh i dont care what slipknot does, ill listen to them even if they turn into a jewish band wiht all that stuff. bad example, but you people should get what i mean

[boxybrown305]

[QUOTE=Annie][color=darkgreen] It [i]is[/i] Slipknot. What's wrong with trying something new? What's wrong with expressing a soft side? Who freakin' cares if it's supposed to be "death metal"; it's healthy to excersise versatility every once in a while. It shows the capability of the band.

I absolutely love it. You have both the hard side of Slipknot, then there's a ray of light through a storm. It's not what you would expect from a band like Slipknot, but that's the beauty of it all. That's what makes them so talented, and one of the better metal bands out there.

Appreciate that.[/color][/QUOTE]
[COLOR=DarkRed]That's the exact point i'm trying to make here. They tried something new, and honestly, i think it turned out good. Besides it's not fair to judge a CD on one song of a whole great album. Like i said, i liked it all, yes even Vermillion, but i have a much more wide range of music tastes than it seems some others here do.

As for x kakashi x, i really wasn't reffering to Vermillion when i said that the lyrics were just as hardcore. I mean what about the suicidal message of Duality? And when you say that it shouldn't take nine people to do an accustic song, well your right, cause it didn't. for the two accustic songs of Vol. 3, it was pretty much just Corey and James that did anything.

Also, it kind of suprised me at first that they did an accustic song, but then it grew on me, especially having heard some of Stone Sour's music, which if you dont know has Corey Tyalor, and James Root in it.

Anyway, it's like i said before, Vol. 3 certainly isn't their best, but it's still damn good, and i have quite a few other die hard Slipknot fan friends that would agree.[/COLOR]

[Princess_Keiko]

I like both bands even though slipknot is like one of my favorites and mudvayne reminds me of slipknot in a lot of ways, ah well I like both.

[Kamuro]

trying something new is just fine, however, why fix it if its not broken? As basically everyone has agreed, Iowa and albums like that were much better then Volume 3. Aren't bands supposed to get better with time? Learning more and playing better. In that sense, Slipknot is going downhill, and quickly. I find it that those who liked more softcore and/or acoustic music before Volume 3, enjoyed Volume 3, and thats fan. But thats not Slipknot. I know people have said it is, but its not. If you were a hardcore true Slipknot fan, and you've heard all their albums and songs, then you'd know that Slipknot is not an acoustic band. That is not what they were meant to do. They were meant to play metal. End of story.

As for Boxy, I do agree, some of the lyrics are quite good. Maybe they're just not as blunt as the previous albums. Which is what I liked, they said whatever they wanted to say without worrying about the consequences. It was the no holds barred Slipknot that I loved to listen to.

[silpheedpilot]

[COLOR=Blue][SIZE=1]sLiPkNoT vs. MuDvAyNe?! How can you do that to me! Those are two of my most favorite bands, however, I AM going to have to defend MuDvAyNe on this one because I know more about them and for some odd reason I just like they way their music sounds better than Slipknot, besides I'm not too great with Slipknots choice to have two guys just running around on stange being idiots, honestly. Now I know what you're thinking, "Slipknot and MuDvAyNe both play hard-rock how do they sound different?" but they DO sound different. MuDvAyNe has a distinct bass line that you can use to instantly tell its *them*. Now, I don't care if they each made a "slow" CD, I'd still like MuDvAyNe more because in their earlier CDs', namely, "The End Of All Things To Come" half of the CD was slow, but really good, and got relatively good reactions about it, on the other hand Slipknot's "Vol. 3" got pretty bad reactions due to the fact that the Cd was "too slow", I don't care it was good. I just like MuDvAyNe better, its kinda one of those unsolved mysteries.[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[The Drizzle]

[COLOR=DarkGreen]As for Slipknot and their acousitc songs...I love them but I think that since there is SO much complaining about their acoustic songs that they should just be released through the Stone Sour albums...since, you know, it's just Corey and James doing them(not sure if it's James or not, please don't hate me for getting it wrong!). I mean, Stone Sour released Bother and it sounds like it could have been off of vol. 3. And vice versa for Vermillion and the other one.

Sipknot should stick to the fast hardcore stuff(Im not bashing the new stuff, I sitll think thats cool) and Stone Sour should take care of the slower, it seemed to work before...[/COLOR]

[Jake of Bodom]

[QUOTE=x kakashi x]trying something new is just fine, however, why fix it if its not broken? As basically everyone has agreed, Iowa and albums like that were much better then Volume 3. Aren't bands supposed to get better with time? Learning more and playing better. In that sense, Slipknot is going downhill, and quickly. I find it that those who liked more softcore and/or acoustic music before Volume 3, enjoyed Volume 3, and thats fan. But thats not Slipknot. I know people have said it is, but its not. If you were a hardcore true Slipknot fan, and you've heard all their albums and songs, then you'd know that Slipknot is not an acoustic band. That is not what they were meant to do. They were meant to play metal. End of story.

As for Boxy, I do agree, some of the lyrics are quite good. Maybe they're just not as blunt as the previous albums. Which is what I liked, they said whatever they wanted to say without worrying about the consequences. It was the no holds barred Slipknot that I loved to listen to.[/QUOTE]

Actually, x kakashi x, while I do like Iowa, the self-titled, and MFKR better, to say that Slipknot isn't learning more and getting better is simply an uneducated remark based on you opinion of the [I]sound[/I] of the music, rather than the music itself. Coming from a songwriting standpoint, the songs on Vol. III are actually more complex and difficult to play. I play guitar and love Slipknot (and have since MFKR), so I know what I'm talking about. Like I said before, I like the old stuff much better, but Slipknot has definately reached a new level in the skill department. They're definately not going "downhill" as you previously stated, they're simply going in a different direction. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with an accoustic song or two - the lyrics in Vermillion pt. 2 are just as emotionally charged and well-written as any of the heavier songs they've written. The fact that they stepped outside their normal boundaries shows that, in fact, they are maturing as musicians and learning to appreciate more styles and types of musc.

[boxybrown305]

[COLOR=DarkRed]Once again, my point has been enforced by Bodom this time. However i can see x kakashi x's point as well. Where i do think that Slipknot should stick to their hardcore form, i also think that they have only been getting increasingly better. Go to a concert of theirs now, and their older songs sound even better.

As for what Drizzle said, i agree that they should each stick to their own styles of music, but Stone Sour isn't a slow band. It was just tht one song that was slow, and even that song, unlike Vermillion, had darker lyrics. But in general, Stone Sour is more of a normal rock band, where Slipknot is quite a bit harder.[/COLOR]