# Dispelling sime Metal misconceptions...or maybe not.



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

*Dispelling some Metal misconceptions...or maybe not.*

I've seen more than one person on these forums make some blanket statements concerning Metal, that I completely disagree with. Statements like: it is uncreative, it is not dynamic, it lacks variety of emotion, it is simple, it is brutal and heavy without subtly, and others.

I perceive these as misconceptions. And I believe they ignore a great deal of the metal that is being made.

I fully accept the many of you will listen to these samples, and come away with the same conclusions you had going in. Not specifically because you are prejudiced against the genre, but because I am not offering anything that you haven't heard, and you still have the same impressions of metal.

These will be 'all over the map' so to speak, so if one doesn't float your boat, the next may.

Blotted Science

Instrumental, highly technical metal lead by guitarist, Ron Jarzombek.

Here, Ron describes the 12-tone system used to write 'Cretaceus Chasm'.






For something completely different, Here's Swedish band Wolverine with the melancholy 'Into the Great Nothing'. More into mood and emotion than technicality.






UneXpecT from Montreal, a city with a long history of avant-garde progressive music.






Aghora from Florida.

Unfortunately, they only have 2 releases and a long rumored 3rd due out. Here's 2 samples.

Existence -






Atmas Heave -






More to follow....

*EDIT: Can't change a typo in the title? Oh well...*


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

More...

Tesseract from the UK.






Orphaned Land from Israel.






Diablo Swing Orchestra from Sweden.

Guerilla Laments -






Vodka Inferno -






Counter-World Experience from Germany.

Boy Meets World -






EDIT: Can't change a typo in the title? Oh well...


----------



## Windowlicker (Mar 1, 2014)

Just thought I'd reaffirm the points prior to this with another exceptional band. Highly dynamic and forward-thinking melodic death metal.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Agalloch - _The Mantle_.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

No matter how creative or innovative metal might be, I'll never like the sound of it. I don't like the guitar tones, and I rarely hear any interesting riffs. And I can't stand the drumming.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Thanks for these very interesting samples of music. Anymore?


----------



## Windowlicker (Mar 1, 2014)

starthrower said:


> No matter how creative or innovative metal might be, I'll never like the sound of it. I don't like the guitar tones, and I rarely hear any interesting riffs. And I can't stand the drumming.


Y'see, this is the kind of opinion I can appreciate, because it stays well within the realms of subjectivity and doesn't make any short-sighted, sweeping statements.
Anything considerably extrovert to our usual listening habits is going to potentially turn us off to some degree, whether that be excessive distortion, complex songwriting, autotune, etc. Because of this, metal music is always going to sound like cacophonous noise unless you find the time to sit down and explore it.

As for why metal is aesthetically pleasing to me, I find the more atmospheric and poignant forms (ie. not the smash-your-teeth-in-with-bricks kind of aesthetic) of metal embody an orchestra quite appropriately, distorted guitars playing sustained notes in particular imitating the sonic roles of both horn and string sections, except with a more refined sense of instrumentation and composition. In fact, there's a huge movement of bands at the moment that are writing what essentially could be considered cinematic or soundtrack music, but with conventional metal instrumentation and then some.
As for harsh vocals (people have a problem with these), they portray a kind of expressive noise and primal catharsis that I haven't found in any other genre of non-extreme music, and accent more aggressive subgenres of music perfectly, almost like a sustained percussion instrument.
Now, as for drums, again, they accent the music in a way which gives the music a sense of drive and power and direction, and are a fairly essential component, a lot of the time*.

*If you want some metal without drums, try exploring the quasi-ambient music niche of doom metal known as 'drone metal', such as Sunn O))) or Utarm; you'll absolutely hate it unconditionally and want to wash your ears afterwards, but it goes to show that metal without any percussion instruments does and can exist.

Anyway, that's my take on the genre.

/rantover



Lope de Aguirre said:


> Thanks for these very interesting samples of music. Anymore?







As a neoclassical music fan myself, see if this is up your street.


----------



## Gilberto (Sep 12, 2013)

starthrower said:


> No matter how creative or innovative metal might be, I'll never like the sound of it. I don't like the guitar tones, and I rarely hear any interesting riffs. And I can't stand the drumming.


hammer -----> head of nail

I'll add that I can't stand the vocals either.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

I appreciate you defending what you like (I would do the same), but the samples above don't really change my views. I wouldn't call it simple or uncreative but it has certain properties that just make it very hard for me to like.


----------



## Windowlicker (Mar 1, 2014)

Oh, of course. Like classical music, it's all acquired taste. It'll leave a bad one in some people's mouths more than others.

Regardless, I think I've said all that can be.










I'll just leave this here, and wish you all a good day!


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

starthrower said:


> No matter how creative or innovative metal might be, I'll never like the sound of it. I don't like the guitar tones, and I rarely hear any interesting riffs. And I can't stand the drumming.


I don't listen to that much metal, but I respect the genre, to each their own but I can't fathom someone not liking it because of a lack of "interesting riffs". Listen to a guitarist like Marty Friedman for example the guy is very creative, he uses a lot of chromaticism, modality etc. he is far more advanced than the vast majority of rock guitarists. I don't know what more a guitar player really could do to be interesting within that format. Perhaps something in the tone of the guitar makes you not notice these highly creative riffs.

*To the OP *- just a small point but when you have more than a couple youtube videos you might want to just post the links instead of the full video as the way you've done it makes the page very slow to load and crashes some browsers.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Gilberto said:


> hammer -----> head of nail
> 
> I'll add that I can't stand the vocals either.


I can completely relate to your opinion. Besides classical, progressive metal, prog rock, avant-garde rock, and fusion, I am also a big jazz fan, but no matter how hard I try, I just can't get into the sound of the traditional hollow body guitars used by greats, such as: Joe Pass, Charley Christian, Wes Montgomery, etc.

There's no questioning their mastery, but I can't get past the guitar sound. So, an entire part of a musical genre that I love is not palatable to me.

As far as your second statement about the vocals, every single video that I posted had quite drastically different styles of vocals, from classically trained female vocals in 'Diablo Swing Orchestra', to emotive male vocals as in 'Tesseract' and 'Wolverine' to an even different style of female vocals in 'Aghora'. And there are even more styles of vocals in metal. Not to mention that 2 of the samples I posted were from bands that are completely instrumental. Quite a few metal bands have vocal styles that would be right at home in other styles of music.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

A while back I listened to an old album by Jason Becker that I think is fantastic. But I stand by my statement that there is a lot of boring, uninteresting heavy riffing. I'm no stranger to complex composition. I've listened to many of the great artists in progressive circles. I need a variety of tone colors and timbres in music as well, so metal just doesn't do it for my ears. 

As far as rock music goes, I like Frank Zappa, Mike Keneally, Adrian Belew, the Dixie Dregs, Gentle Giant, King Crimson, and Canterbury bands like National Health and Egg. I suppose it's just a matter of taste, but I don't like the rigid rhythmic aspect of metal, and I find most of the drummers uninteresting, even if they have mondo technique. But I'm more of a jazz fan, so I like Bill Bruford, Pip Pyle, and Vinnie Colaiuta. Or even Marco Minnemann.

I don't care for the overly dense guitar arrangements, either. I prefer music that breathes a little more. I also enjoy improvisation, which is rarely heard in metal. And idiosyncratic phrasing which you hardly ever hear in metal players. At least the ones I've heard. But I admit I haven't heard a huge amount of metal music.

My longtime girlfriend's son used to blast all of the hardcore 80s stuff in his bedroom when he still lived home. Slayer, Metallica, Megadeth, Testament, Anthrax, Suicidal Tendencies, DRI, etc... But it never floated my boat. And I had a room mate at one point that listened to the instrumental guys like Tony MacAlpine, Vinnie Moore, Paul Gilbert, Yngwie Malmsteen. Now I played guitar for many years, so I know these guys are serious cats, but it just ain't my cuppa. Nothing against the music, I just prefer other stuff.


----------



## Guest (Mar 2, 2014)

Most of the bands in the OP are a misrepresentation of metal. If you didn't enjoy them, don't worry: you definitely don't just hate metal! Metal gets much better than both Unexpect AND the other sort you all seem to know (Megadeth, for instance).


----------



## Guest (Mar 2, 2014)

I wouldn't necessarily recommend this to any of you, and it gets better than even this, but I do love this album. Anyway, I'm mostly posting it because the first few seconds consistently makes the classical fans chuckle


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

DeepR said:


> I appreciate you defending what you like (I would do the same), but the samples above don't really change my views. I wouldn't call it simple or uncreative but it has certain properties that just make it very hard for me to like.


It's aggressive music, so it's easy to see how many don't like it. It can be a bore if you're not in the mood. I hardly listen to much anymore, but I'm still pretty young… and sometimes testosterone calls.


----------



## Guest (Mar 2, 2014)

If metal needs to pretend to be something it's not in the form of these pseudo-"avant-garde" bands, you really don't like metal.

Throw on some of these semi-random selections:

Judas Priest - _Sad Wings Of Destiny_
Mercyful Fate - _Don't Break The Oath_
Hellhammer - _Apocalyptic Raids_
Slayer - _Hell Awaits_
Fates Warning - _Awaken The Guardian_
Morbid Angel - _Altars Of Madness_
Atheist - _Unquestionable Presence_
Demilich - _Nespithe_
Mayhem - _De Mysteriis Dom Sathanas_
Skepticism - _Stormcrowfleet_
Aeternus - _Beyond The Wandering Moon_

If you can't seem to appreciate ANY of those, don't bother trying to dress your metal up in half-assed genre fusions. It doesn't make you a metal fan.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

arcaneholocaust said:


> If metal needs to pretend to be something it's not in the form of these pseudo-"avant-garde" bands, you really don't like metal.
> 
> Throw on some of these semi-random selections:
> 
> ...


Good thing the ultimate critic found his way into this tiny corridor of the internet to grace a few with such absolute knowledge.

Not many can hope to be such a sectarian.


----------



## Guest (Mar 2, 2014)

Not sure what you're talking about.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

I'm flabbergasted….


----------



## Guest (Mar 2, 2014)

You should get that looked at.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

*Krallice - (2012) Years Past Matter*

Opinions please, fellas.


----------



## Guest (Mar 2, 2014)

The notion that you aren't really a fan of a genre when you can only tolerate it when it strays so far from its standards and ideals that it's no longer recognizable - doesn't seem like just a random opinion to me, honestly.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Arcane is right. Please listen to him, he obviously has experience.

The problem with "avant-garde" metal is that it mostly sounds like a bunch of screamy Mr. Bungle clones. It seems to be for artschool types who think "hey, metal is a novel counterculture thing I'd like to appropriate, but... it doesn't remind me of my experimental rock!" It's almost as if metal evolved in its own cultural context and developed some necessary character flaws that kind of distinguish it, eh? It's obvious why these bands like UneXpect just kinda fizzle out and their albums are forgotten... there's nothing _there_, it's appropriation of the metal aesthetic to ornament Zappa-like antics.

If you don't like big, conceptual stuff, masculine attitudes and a bit of unironic comic book campiness, then maybe metal is not for you! Just like if you can't stand hearing a musician solo for an extended period of time, jazz might just not be for you.

Also, I really have a chip on my shoulder about all the "tech" bands people bring up to "validate" metal, as if something being difficult to play inherently makes it a good composition.
I think this is "deep" metal:




Because of its deepening mood and the way the riffs emotionally relate. It feels ancient, there's a grandeur about it. There's a melodic language to it that feels utterly distinct to the band.

This:




is tryhard nonsense for people who spend too much time on guitar forums. It blabs on and on and says nothing in the process.

I have no need for the latest neat "psychedelic black metal" album that "proves" the "maturity" of metal. To me this is psychedelic:




... and it manages to be psychedelic purely accidentally, by using its own genetic material to its advantage and blurring the tremolo parts into a romantic swelling ambience, not by shoehorning in warmed over shoegaze elements!

METAL IS UNFASHIONABLE AND HAIRY! IF YOU ARE A FALSE, DO NOT ENTRY!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Arcaneholocaust & Regressivetransphobe pretty much hit it on the head for me.

The fact that any people in a pop / rock genre immediately address comment on the genre explaining in detail, its depth, its musical "sophistication," the profundity of its compositional techniques, then I can be fairly certain that whatever there was of the original genre has already flat out left the building. Intellectualizing about the genre and of the genre is contrary to its being.

And then there is that weirdly off-putting near apologetic aspect of explaining to us peasants, peasants on the street as well as us peasants in the classical building, that this music is _complex_ and _sophisticated_ (wow  and somehow, it is a tacit plea to "legitimize" the genre and nearly or directly approve of it as being either "classical" or the equal of.... and I can not think of any more appropriate or as resonant a death-knell for a pop genre.

When I read of distortion as being, not distortion, mind you, but something _highly expressive_, and tending to act in place of brass and string sections, I tend to burst out in gales of laughter. It is distortion people, has an effect of being, uh, distorted 

P.s. Although _neoclassical_ is understood within a general pop music context as a style, the word has been misappropriated from classical, where it means something very specific and other than how it is applied to pop music... just so any pop fans who did not know this do not put their foot in their mouth at a classical stand-up cocktail party, for example. When we meet there, you can tell me if you think that string quartet playing the best of punk tunes is any more off than an overdeveloped metal fusion, far away from its basic intent.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Simon Moon said:


> it is not dynamic, it lacks variety of emotion, it is brutal and heavy without subtly


The supposed musical/compositional creativity, depth, complexity etc. that is put into metal is in a way hindered by the loud, heavy drumming and loud, heavy distorted guitar playing; the very things that pretty much define the genre. There isn't much you can do anymore with the music in terms of expressiveness and dynamics when these sounds are so loud, thick and prominent in the mix that anything else has to be loud as well in order to be heard (such as the singing). 
The only real variation in dynamics is coming from a few quiet moments (intros, breaks and such). Generally, every part is being played at pretty much similar volumes continuously. So I think metal is limited in what it expresses in the first place because of the lack of dynamic nuance from the (unsubtle and loud) way the instruments are being played and the type of sounds and recording techniques being used... which doesn't make it any different from most pop music.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

tdc said:


> I don't listen to that much metal, but I respect the genre, to each their own but I can't fathom someone not liking it because of a lack of "interesting riffs". Listen to a guitarist like Marty Friedman for example the guy is very creative, he uses a lot of chromaticism, modality etc. he is far more advanced than the vast majority of rock guitarists.


I've often heard similar opinions about Friedman, maybe it's because I know his work only superficially but there's nothing that caught my ear in that sense (and I don't like at all the album of Cacophony). I can think only of his little acoustic solo on holy wars, but that wasn't something complex. Don't get me wrong, for instance I think that his solo on Tornado of souls is great, but when I hear that harmonically he's a superior player I think I'm missing something. Can you give me examples? I'm very curious.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

norman bates said:


> I've often heard similar opinions about Friedman, maybe it's because I know his work only superficially but there's nothing that caught my ear in that sense (and I don't like at all the album of Cacophony). I can think only of his little acoustic solo on holy wars, but that wasn't something complex. Don't get me wrong, for instance I think that his solo on Tornado of souls is great, but when I hear that harmonically he's a superior player I think I'm missing something. Can you give me examples? I'm very curious.


Well, he was just one example, I'm not claiming he is the only harmonically interesting player in heavy metal. Personally I feel a lot of metal players have interesting riffs harmonically - Dimebag Darrell and Randy Rhoads being two other notable examples. Keep in mind I'm comparing these players to other guitarists in rock and pop music, a lot of which is mostly just pentatonic scale based. A lot of this just comes down to what a person subjectively considers an 'interesting riff'. I'm sure examples can be shown of classical and jazz players that are more innovative and complex, but I don't think those things are always necessary to make 'interesting riffs'.

The reasons I find Friedman interesting as a player can be summed up fairly well on his wiki page:

"_Friedman is known for his improvisation and for *fusing Eastern music with Western music and other styles*, such as neo-classical, thrash metal and later progressive rock. When playing, he often uses arpeggiated chords and *various customized scales and arpeggios, some of which relate to Asian (Chinese and Japanese), Middle Eastern and other exotic scales, which are different from the typical minor/major pentatonic and 7 modes based on the Major scale.* He also occasionally uses sweep picking, displayed in his famous "Tornado of Souls" solo.

Friedman, a right-handed guitar player, has an *unorthodox picking technique;* the angle in which his hand is clenched goes against the conventional palm mute frequently used in Metal music. He also frequently uses the upstroke as opposed to the down stroke, especially on the high strings (strings B and E). His *solos tend to target certain notes that relate to the rhythm chords played underneath his leads*. He utilizes *vocal-like bending techniques and Asian influenced note-bends(including rapid pre-bend, double bend,slow release and bending from an 'outside note'), rather than just hitting the target note itself. These qualities make Friedman's solos unique and hard to duplicate* using an alternate picking approach. Friedman often approaches fast licks with an upstroke and rather than strictly pick from the elbow or wrist, he'll also pick moving his fingers_."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marty_Friedman


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Opinions please, fellas.


,

All I got, five minutes in and having to jump from spot to spot, was serious banality all dressed up with decibels and distortion... there was nothing to in any way sustain my interest.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

I don't think that his picking technique (that refers just to the angle of his pick, I guess he and George Benson have a similar way to pick) is very important in the definition of his style. About those "exotic" scales I suspect that he's referring exactly to that kind of arab (I guess) scale he use in the holy wars clean solo. If it's that, there's nothing terribly complex about it (certainly anything that could be compared to the complexity of the harmony used by many jazz guitarists, but also something not very complex comparing it to what many rock guitarist do), but as I've said I could be wrong and there are pieces that I don't know. Also the bending stuff and the movement of the fingers to pick are not unusual at all. Sometimes those wiki pages written by fans should be read with a grain of salt. Anyway, if I'm giving this impression I'm not saying he's a bad guitarist (I wish I have his technique!), it's only this thing that everybody says that he's so harmonically advanced and unique that makes me perplexed.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

by the way, talking of harmonically advanced guitarist, I like how Holdsworth sounds in a heavy metal contest. The song is not exactly memorable but the contrast between the heavy riffing of Zakk Wylde and the Holdsworth solo is very interesting and something that goes in that technical thrash direction opened by bands like Megadeth, Annihilator, Voivod etc. Usually I'm not exactly a big fan of those bamds that today are doing that kind of hyper technical stuff (Animals as leaders, the aforementioned Ron Jarzombek and all his projects, and I don't like even those so called "jazz-metal" bands like Atheist or Meshuggah) but Holdsworth can still teach a lot to those guys in terms of harmony.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Personally I have little use for Heavy Metal... but I like classic Bluegrass, Country, and Blues, yet I'm not about to attempt to justify this by suggesting that Johnny Cash, Hank Williams, or the Louvin Brothers could sing with as much sophistication as an opera vocalist, nor will I aim to suggest that Elmore James or Muddy Waters could play guitar with as much complexity as Paganini, Bach, or Beethoven demands of a violinist. 

Sophistication and complexity are not the end-all/be-all of art.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Personally I have little use for Heavy Metal... but I like classic Bluegrass, Country, and Blues, yet I'm not about to attempt to justify this by suggesting that Johnny Cash, Hank Williams, or the Louvin Brothers could sing with as much sophistication as an opera vocalist


that's because you don't know Iris DeMent!  
seriously, she clearly could not sing the part of a coloratura soprano, but she's so expressive that I prefer her voice to that of the vast majority of classical singers I know of, so I would not say that she is a less sophisticad singer, but probably that's a matter of what one means with "sophistication".


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Actually I know Iris DeMent quite well... yet I wouldn't feel the need to prove her merits by attempting to compare her with Maria Callas or any other classical singer.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Actually I know Iris DeMent quite well... yet I wouldn't feel the need to prove her merits by attempting to compare her with Maria Callas or any other classical singer.


well, technically it's obvious that Maria Callas is far superior, but both are outstanding singers with different qualities in my opinion. But maybe we're saying the same thing in different ways.


----------



## Guest (Mar 2, 2014)

norman bates said:


> by the way, talking of harmonically advanced guitarist, I like how Holdsworth sounds in a heavy metal contest. The song is not exactly memorable but the contrast between the heavy riffing of Zakk Wylde and the Holdsworth solo is very interesting and something that goes in that technical thrash direction opened by bands like Megadeth, Annihilator, Voivod etc. Usually I'm not exactly a big fan of those bamds that today are doing that kind of hyper technical stuff (Animals as leaders, the aforementioned Ron Jarzombek and all his projects, and I don't like even those so called "jazz-metal" bands like Atheist or Meshuggah) but Holdsworth can still teach a lot to those guys in terms of harmony.


I've been a fan of Holdsworth since his Gong days,






though I prefer him in restrained mode. Saw him live a few years back with Chad Wackerman and his own compositions left something to be desired.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

MacLeod said:


> I've been a fan of Holdsworth since his Gong days,
> 
> though I prefer him in restrained mode.


Actually me too, my favorite aspect of his playing is his "futuristic impressionism", when he plays those background of chords like in House of mirrors, Tokyio dream, Funnels or the first part of Shallow sea (those two minutes at the beginning are incredible, the greatest two minutes of new age/ambient I've ever heard). And I've also criticized him in a previous discussion on this board because of his endless solos, but harmonically there are no doubts that he his one of the most creative guitarists ever.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

MacLeod said:


> I've been a fan of Holdsworth since his Gong days,
> 
> though I prefer him in restrained mode. Saw him live a few years back with Chad Wackerman and his own compositions left something to be desired.


I've read this sentiment so many times by fans only casually acquainted with Holdsworth's compositions. I completely disagree. I've listened to all of his albums dozens of times, and I've studied his book, Reaching For The Uncommon Chord. My conclusion is that his compositions are brilliantly constructed with beautiful and unique chord voicings and melodies. And he can create other spontaneous melodies with a remarkable continuity when he takes a solo. Whether it's your musical cup of tea is another matter.

It can be a bit much to try an absorb and make sense of this music hearing it one time in a live situation. He doesn't play familiar chord changes and guitar licks that your brain is already acquainted with. Also, the fast tempos can make it more difficult to absorb. I really started hearing the depth of his harmonic brilliance when I began to play some of the tunes myself from his book. And much of it was physically impossible for my small, weak hands to pull off.


----------



## Guest (Mar 2, 2014)

starthrower said:


> I've read this sentiment so many times by fans only casually acquainted with Holdsworth's compositions. I completely disagree. I've listened to all of his albums dozens of times, and I've studied his book, Reaching For The Uncommon Chord. My conclusion is that his compositions are brilliantly constructed with beautiful and unique chord voicings and melodies. And he can create other spontaneous melodies with a remarkable continuity when he takes a solo. Whether it's your musical cup of tea is another matter.
> 
> It can be a bit much to try an absorb and make sense of this music hearing it one time in a live situation. He doesn't play familiar chord changes and guitar licks that your brain is already acquainted with. Also, the fast tempos can make it more difficult to absorb. I really started hearing the depth of his harmonic brilliance when I began to play some of the tunes myself from his book. And much of it was physically impossible for my small, weak hands to pull off.


You are of course entitled to your opinion, but I guess I missed two words out of my previous post...

...left something to be desired _by me_.

No, I'm not intimately acquainted with his later work, but I'm not casually acquainted either.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

starthrower said:


> I've read this sentiment so many times by fans only casually acquainted with Holdsworth's compositions. I completely disagree. I've listened to all of his albums dozens of times, and I've studied his book, Reaching For The Uncommon Chord. My conclusion is that his compositions are brilliantly constructed with beautiful and unique chord voicings and melodies.


I agree. Sure, he should learn to edit a lot of his music and his solos.



starthrower said:


> I began to play some of the tunes myself from his book. And much of it was physically impossible for my small, weak hands to pull off.


it's something like the experience pianists have when they have to play Rachmaninoff I guess


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

norman bates said:


> I agree. Sure, he should learn to edit a lot of his music and his solos.


Listening to the studio recordings, it's obvious that he's done that. There are some long solos, but I wouldn't want anything changed. The solos on Devil Take The Hindmost; Three Sheets To The wind; 4:15 Bradford Executive; Zarabeth are all brilliant, imo. His longest piece, The Unmerry Go Round is beautifully arranged with two sublime guitar solos.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

arcaneholocaust said:


> If metal needs to pretend to be something it's not in the form of these pseudo-"avant-garde" bands, you really don't like metal.
> 
> Throw on some of these semi-random selections:
> 
> ...


Yeah, you caught me. I'm not a metal fan.

I am a fan of music that is complex, well played and imaginative. Some of said music seems to me to have quite a bit of the attributes of what is described as metal. If you disagree, I really don't care.

So tell me, at just what point of does metal stop being metal, and start being something else? Do you have a check list?

And even if does stop being metal and becomes something else, why should I care?

I have 4 Fates Warning and 3 Atheist cd's in my collection. Am I a metal fan now?


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

arcaneholocaust said:


> Fates Warning - _Awaken The Guardian_
> 
> Atheist - _Unquestionable Presence_


I find it kind of interesting that you list these 2 bands, when Fates Warning is considered one of the grandfathers or progressive metal, and Atheist is considered one of the grandfathers of technical metal.

"Atheist are noted for their highly technical playing style, often reminiscent of jazz. Their seminal album Unquestionable Presence released in 1991 is widely regarded as a landmark of the genre."

In your definition of what is not metal, these guys seem to be, "dressed up in half-assed genre fusions."


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

*Zevious - (2013) Passing Through the Wall*

I discovered this trio recently. I think they are more progressive rock than metal but they sure beat all the 'sophisticated' metal I've heard thus far. These guys are masters of their instruments and they can compose. Please have a listen...


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> I discovered this trio recently. I think they are more progressive rock than metal but they sure beat all the 'sophisticated' metal I've heard thus far. These guys are masters of their instruments and they can compose. Please have a listen...


Quite familiar with them. Seen 'em live several times.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> I discovered this trio recently. I think they are more progressive rock than metal but they sure beat all the 'sophisticated' metal I've heard thus far. These guys are masters of their instruments and they can compose. Please have a listen...


this reminds more of certain math rock things or bands like Massacre and their Killing time





And now talking of heavy bands with that kind of approach I've remembered the Dazzling Killmen too


----------



## lupinix (Jan 9, 2014)

I'm very interested, gonna watch the videos when I've got time


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Simon Moon said:


> Quite familiar with them. Seen 'em live several times.


Nice. How were they?


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

norman bates said:


> it's only this thing that everybody says that he's so harmonically advanced and unique that makes me perplexed.


Well I never made that claim, just that he was good enough to play riffs that I would consider very 'interesting'. 'Inspiring' would be another word for it. You seem to use Holdsworth often as an example for a harmonically advanced player, and while I certainly don't disagree, I don't think its fair to use this one player as a standard for players across different genres, where if they aren't cutting edge in this same way then they can't be considered interesting or unique as players. I find a lot of harmonically simple players quite interesting and unique - the edge from u2 for example. I agree with St. lukes point that complexity and innovation aren't the be-all/ end-all in art.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

tdc said:


> Well I never made that claim, just that he was good enough to play riffs that I would consider very 'interesting'. 'Inspiring' would be another word for it. You seem to use Holdsworth often as an example for a harmonically advanced player, and while I certainly don't disagree, I don't think its fair to use this one player as a standard for players across different genres, where if they aren't cutting edge in this same way then they can't be considered interesting or unique as players. I find a lot of harmonically simple players quite interesting and unique - the edge from u2 for example. I agree with St. lukes point that complexity and innovation aren't the be-all/ end-all in art.


but I agree that is not necessary to do harmonically complex thing to be interesting, some of my very favorite bands and guitarists did music using one or two chords. But they are sophisticated in a different way. In fact I have many problems with the idea of sophistication expressed here, I don't think that it could be valued only considering the complexity of the harmony or the structure of a piece.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

starthrower said:


> A while back I listened to an old album by Jason Becker that I think is fantastic. But I stand by my statement that there is a lot of boring, uninteresting heavy riffing. I'm no stranger to complex composition. I've listened to many of the great artists in progressive circles. I need a variety of tone colors and timbres in music as well, so metal just doesn't do it for my ears.
> 
> As far as rock music goes, I like Frank Zappa, Mike Keneally, Adrian Belew, the Dixie Dregs, Gentle Giant, King Crimson, and Canterbury bands like National Health and Egg. I suppose it's just a matter of taste, but I don't like the rigid rhythmic aspect of metal, and I find most of the drummers uninteresting, even if they have mondo technique. But I'm more of a jazz fan, so I like Bill Bruford, Pip Pyle, and Vinnie Colaiuta. Or even Marco Minnemann.
> 
> ...


Well we have slightly different tastes in music, but you bring up some valid points. I really admire your passion for music and I've been exposed to some great music from your suggestions, so thanks for that!


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Nice. How were they?


Loved them.

With a band like them, it all comes down to the drummer. If the drummer is able to hold them together through all the twists and turns, the rest of he musicians can do their thing.

Their drummer, while not an all out chops master like Virgil Donati or Marco Minnemann, is able to play these complex patterns, with subtle shifts in time and tempo, all while still staying in the pocket.

Very cool band to see live.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

starthrower said:


> As far as rock music goes, I like Frank Zappa, Mike Keneally, Adrian Belew, the Dixie Dregs, Gentle Giant, King Crimson, and Canterbury bands like National Health and Egg. I suppose it's just a matter of taste, but I don't like the rigid rhythmic aspect of metal, and I find most of the drummers uninteresting, even if they have mondo technique. But I'm more of a jazz fan, so I like Bill Bruford, Pip Pyle, and Vinnie Colaiuta. Or even Marco Minnemann.


This paragraph contains some of my all time favorite musicians.

I am seeing Kenneally in a couple of weeks, I've seen the Dregs probable more times than any other band, Gentle Giant is in my top 10, I loved KC in all their incarnations (looking forward to Fripp's new 7 piece incarnation).



> And I had a room mate at one point that listened to the instrumental guys like Tony MacAlpine, Vinnie Moore, Paul Gilbert, Yngwie Malmsteen. Now I played guitar for many years, so I know these guys are serious cats, but it just ain't my cuppa. Nothing against the music, I just prefer other stuff.


Those guys bore the heck out of me.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

arcaneholocaust said:


> The notion that you aren't really a fan of a genre when you can only tolerate it when it strays so far from its standards and ideals that it's no longer recognizable - doesn't seem like just a random opinion to me, honestly.


Yes, this is reasonable. I don't know if you're commenting towards me again or not, but I'm highly familiar with Black, Death, Thrash… all the ugly brutality of Metal, as I used to listen to it quite heavily. I also think that the "Avant-Garde" has it's place as well. There is enough room for all of the noise.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Yngwie Malmsteen = Musical wankery.


----------



## Guest (Mar 3, 2014)

Simon Moon said:


> I find it kind of interesting that you list these 2 bands, when Fates Warning is considered one of the grandfathers or progressive metal, and Atheist is considered one of the grandfathers of technical metal.
> 
> "Atheist are noted for their highly technical playing style, often reminiscent of jazz. Their seminal album Unquestionable Presence released in 1991 is widely regarded as a landmark of the genre."
> 
> In your definition of what is not metal, these guys seem to be, "dressed up in half-assed genre fusions."


There is a difference between haphazard, clumsy genre mash-ups and legitimately progressive bands.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Simon Moon said:


> I've seen more than one person on these forums make some blanket statements concerning Metal, that I completely disagree with. Statements like: it is uncreative, it is not dynamic, it lacks variety of emotion, it is simple, it is brutal and heavy without subtly, and others.


People always have misconceptions about stuff they don't know, and I suppose don't want to know. If they wanted to know more they'd get out there and make an effort to understand another style. If they don't then why bother, they can listen to other stuff they have bothered with. Music is made how musicians want it and not to order for a particular listener even if they have the ego to think it should be. The listener has to go to the music and not the music to them. But I suppose a good way to flatter people is to say recommend something for me, but I don't see how anybody can give you the listening experience, you do it yourself. Maybe you can give something watered down and middle of the road enough for people to then imagine they get something, even if they don't. People can go and explore music they actually like, which is just fine.

The only problem is people want to talk like they have knowledge about something when they don't have any at all. They feel their opinion is vastly important even when it has the flimsiest experience to back it up. So the only problem is it's a waste of time having to read those opinions.


----------



## Guest (Mar 3, 2014)

starry said:


> Some People always have misconceptions about stuff they don't know, and I suppose don't want to know. If they wanted to know more they'd get out there and make an effort to understand another style. If they don't then why bother, they can listen to other stuff they have bothered with. Music is often/sometimes made how some musicians want it and not to order for a particular listener even if they have the ego to think it should be. The listener sometimes has to go to the music and not the music to them. But I suppose a good way to flatter people is to say recommend something for me, but I don't see how anybody can give you the listening experience, you do it yourself. Maybe you can give something watered down and middle of the road enough for people to then imagine they get something, even if they don't. People can go and explore music they actually like, which is just fine.
> 
> The only problem is some people want to talk like they have knowledge about something when they don't have any at all. They feel their opinion is vastly important even when it has the flimsiest experience to back it up. So the only problem is it's a waste of time having to read those opinions.


I don't think you should be quite so sweeping or definitive...so note suggestions in green!


----------



## Guest (Mar 3, 2014)

I don't feel I have any misconceptions about metal. I just don't like it. I have no doubt that there are some highly skilled musicians that play metal. I have no doubt that there are some that weave very intricate ideas into their music. And yet I still don't like it. The frequent yelling, or grunting, or whatever they call that mixture of grunting and screaming - I have heard some call it the Cookie Monster voice - is extremely off-putting to me. The genres of death and black metal incorporate ideas that really just turn me off. The need to be deliberately provocative with anti-social imagery and lyrics is off-putting to me. The heavy and frenetic drumming. I know there are more melodic variants, and more avant-garde. And I have sampled a good deal of it. None of that, or this discussion, has brought anything new to my attention, other than a few more obscure bands that still do absolutely nothing for me. 

Go ahead and enjoy it, if that is what appeals to you. I just don't understand the continue need to try and justify metal music to classical music enthusiasts. Who cares that there may be some crossover in the musicality - no doubt you can find some overlap between virtually all kinds of music. That is thoroughly uninteresting to me.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

arcaneholocaust said:


> There is a difference between haphazard, clumsy genre mash-ups and legitimately progressive bands.


So you have said.

Could you please provide me with a method so I will be able to determine what that difference is? Something other than your subjective opinion, that is.


----------



## Guest (Mar 3, 2014)

Fluent songwriting is hardly a subjective thing. Try the Opeth song "The Twilight Is My Robe" for examples of poor songwriting (no matter how much I enjoy some of the melodies). Now imagine the disjointed sections just being used as a poor method of displaying ideas like "oh, here's an irrelevant jazz section". You'll get the idea. 

Now please tell me how these copy-and-paste mash-ups are more interesting than a well-written, expressive song, regardless of genre or complexity. Something other than your subjective opinion, that is.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Opeth is a terrible band but they're held in high regard by most metal fans. Dream Theater might be even worse in terms of songwriting and taste. Zevious puts them both to shame.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

DeepR said:


> The supposed musical/compositional creativity, depth, complexity etc. that is put into metal is in a way hindered by the loud, heavy drumming and loud, heavy distorted guitar playing; the very things that pretty much define the genre. There isn't much you can do anymore with the music in terms of expressiveness and dynamics when these sounds are so loud, thick and prominent in the mix that anything else has to be loud as well in order to be heard (such as the singing).
> The only real variation in dynamics is coming from a few quiet moments (intros, breaks and such). Generally, every part is being played at pretty much similar volumes continuously. So I think metal is limited in what it expresses in the first place because of the lack of dynamic nuance from the (unsubtle and loud) way the instruments are being played and the type of sounds and recording techniques being used... which doesn't make it any different from most pop music.


You act as if volume is the definition of complexity. It isn't.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette (Nov 7, 2013)

Gilberto said:


> hammer -----> head of nail
> 
> I'll add that I can't stand the vocals either.


I think it's a case of 'horses for courses'. I loved metal as a student and also loved some substances I now wouldn't touch with a barge pole. I grew up or, rather, changed as I grew up so I'm not knocking anyone who still loves metal or substance use some might call abuse. I listened to an LP of Machine Head and the first Black Sabbath album last week having heard neither in a decade or more and, guess what, I found them an uncomfortable listen albeit after some Teleman. I then listened to some Pink Floyd which I still found agreeable so tried the Sabbath stuff again but still found that hard going. Maybe I need re-educating to appreciate the nuances I seemed to miss or maybe I just 'grew out of that'.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette (Nov 7, 2013)

DeepR said:


> I appreciate you defending what you like (I would do the same), but the samples above don't really change my views. I wouldn't call it simple or uncreative but it has certain properties that just make it very hard for me to like.


I'd try some Progressive Rock first such as 'Focus III' penned by your own countryfolk as that may prove more agreeable to you if expanding your horizons musically.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette (Nov 7, 2013)

regressivetransphobe said:


> METAL IS UNFASHIONABLE AND HAIRY! IF YOU ARE A FALSE, DO NOT ENTRY!


Damn, I've now realised why I don't like metal anymore as when I was a student I was hairy, 'very hairy very unhumble'


----------



## Svelte Silhouette (Nov 7, 2013)

Simon Moon said:


> So tell me, at just what point of does metal stop being metal, and start being something else?


I believe if you heat it up it becomes a liquid though mercury is I guess too hot already.


----------



## Guest (Mar 4, 2014)

Metal stops being metal when it no longer has the characteristics of metal. Thank god there are more characteristics of metal than distorted guitars and mean vocalists, because that would make a LOT of alternative rock "metal".


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Opeth is a terrible band but they're held in high regard by most metal fans. Dream Theater might be even worse in terms of songwriting and taste. Zevious puts them both to shame.


Aww man, Opeth is pretty awesome. I'm not too crazy about Dream Theatre though... I'll have to check out Zevious.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Here's the problem with Rock and its sub-genres: Too many bands/musicians and not nearly enough talent to go around.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Rock bands are sort of a drag nowadays. Much prefer the psychedelic rock of the 60s-70s.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Haut Parleur said:


> I'd try some Progressive Rock first such as 'Focus III' penned by your own countryfolk as that may prove more agreeable to you if expanding your horizons musically.


Focus were/are one of the greats!

The song, 'Sylvia', alone is worth the price of Focus III.

Jan Akkerman is one of the best and most underrated guitarists in all of prog. Chops, taste, feel. He has the full package.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Well I felt like sharing some really beautiful metal tunes that I think are very interesting music.

Black Sabbath - A Bit of Finger / Sleeping Village / Warning





Sunn O))) - Bathory Erzsebet





Iron Maiden - The Prisoner





Slipknot - Prosthetics


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Here's the problem with Rock and its sub-genres: Too many bands/musicians and not nearly enough talent to go around.


Right, because that isn't true of every other kind of music.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

BurningDesire said:


> You act as if volume is the definition of complexity. It isn't.


Well then you completely misunderstood my post. I was talking about expression not complexity.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

DeepR said:


> Well then you completely misunderstood my post. I was talking about expression not complexity.


You're still wrong. Dynamics aren't the only element of music that constitute expression.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

It's taken me this long to realise that there isn't actually a genre of music called Sime Metal....


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Ingélou said:


> It's taken me this long to realise that there isn't actually a genre of music called Sime Metal....


:lol:...:lol:...:lol:...


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Crudblud said:


> Right, because that isn't true of every other kind of music.


it must be said that there's no other subgenre of music with so much sub-subgenres. I still like metal, probably because it's a genre focused on an important aspect of human nature (violence, that it's something that has been removed by classical music), but I think that it's absolutely true that it's also a kind of music victim of too many cliches. Basically every sub-subgenre determines a new set of rules so you have black metal with the blast beats, doom metal with the slow power chords etc... not something that I would relate with great creativity.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

norman bates said:


> I still like metal, probably because it's a genre focused on an important aspect of human nature (violence, that it's something that has been removed by classical music).


Are you referring to just the lyrics here, or something in the music itself?

There are classical pieces that are related to violence though (ie- Biber's Battalia a 10, Penderecki's Threnody etc). I don't think any aspect of human nature has been "removed by classical music".


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

tdc said:


> Are you referring to just the lyrics here, or something in the music itself?
> 
> There are classical pieces that are related to violence though (ie- Biber's Battalia a 10, Penderecki's Threnody etc). I don't think any aspect of human nature has been "removed by classical music".


I know the Threnody and I think even Battalia (if it's the piece with the first example of bitonality) and I could mention other pieces, but in general I think that classical music has removed the body, the visceral aspect, sexuality and also violence. Sure there are exceptions but usually you don't find that dionisiac approach typical of rock music.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

norman bates said:


> I know the Threnody and I think even Battalia (if it's the piece with the first example of bitonality) and I could mention other pieces, but in general I think that classical music has removed the body, the visceral aspect, sexuality
> 
> 
> 
> also violence. Sure there are exceptions but usually you don't find that dionisiac approach typical of rock music.


Good point. Though I am not sure that music should cater to base human instinct. We're already doing a fine enough job of killing each other. Music is a very powerful/influential medium.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

norman bates said:


> I know the Threnody and I think even Battalia (if it's the piece with the first example of bitonality) and I could mention other pieces, but in general I think that classical music has removed the body, the visceral aspect, sexuality and also violence. Sure there are exceptions but usually you don't find that dionisiac approach typical of rock music.


Interesting observation. Most Rock, Metal, Pop, Punk, etc… definitely focuses heavily on personal desires and fears.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Ingélou said:


> It's taken me this long to realise that there isn't actually a genre of music called Sime Metal....


Couldn't edit the typo in the thread title after I posted it.

Didn't feel like deleting it and posting it again.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Simon Moon said:


> Couldn't edit the typo in the thread title after I posted it.
> 
> Didn't feel like deleting it and reposting.


Gives new meaning to the word "dispelling."


----------



## Guest (Mar 4, 2014)

Original post summarized: Give metal a chance because there's some "metal" that doesn't sound like metal, so you don't have to like metal to like "metal".

Alternate version by yours truly: If you don't like metal, don't listen to metal.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

arcaneholocaust said:


> Original post summarized: Give metal a chance because there's some "metal" that doesn't sound like metal, so you don't have to like metal to like "metal".
> 
> Alternate version by yours truly: If you don't like metal, don't listen to metal.


So, it seems like your main problem, is with my label of these various types bands as 'metal'.

From now on, as to not claim that I am listening to metal, I will refer to them as 'metal influenced' bands. Or how about, 'bands that play something other than metal, but have some metal attributes'?

I really want your approval as to the term I use, in order to avoid the impression that I like metal.


----------



## Guest (Mar 5, 2014)

All of those terms will do, bud. I'm not sure as to whether or not I would go as far as to say your every example is NOT metal, but they are most certainly NOT representative of metal. 

Sort of like the ongoing wars about soundtracks as classical music. While many of us are a little fuzzy on whether or not we want to boldly state that no soundtrack is classical music, we can all agree that the Final Fantasy soundtracks have no place in the "greatest works of all time".

You feel me, bro?


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

arcaneholocaust said:


> All of those terms will do, bud. I'm not sure as to whether or not I would go as far as to say your every example is NOT metal, but they are most certainly NOT representative of metal.
> 
> Sort of like the ongoing wars about soundtracks as classical music. While many of us are a little fuzzy on whether or not we want to boldly state that no soundtrack is classical music, we can all agree that the Final Fantasy soundtracks have no place in the "greatest works of all time".
> 
> You feel me, bro?


Your ideology is claustrophobic as hell. Lighten up a little… What an utterly dull hobby of managing the propriety of musical genres.


----------



## Guest (Mar 6, 2014)

I'm merely posting on a forum. I'm beginning to reconsider that though, so you're in luck.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

If you're merely posting on a forum, then what would you say I'm doing? Don't expect a hug if you're going to be brash… crushing poor ole moon's spirit for pennies.


P.S. - I hope you're not taking this too much to heart. I'm pretty forgetful, so I won't remember not to like you tomorrow. 
:tiphat:


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Vesuvius said:


> Interesting observation. Most Rock, Metal, Pop, Punk, etc… definitely focuses heavily on personal desires and fears.


Pop and rock, young people's music to be sure, is all about celebrating the ego. It is rowdy, it is brash, it caters to the most basic of the visceral -- as it should because that is what it is -- the right stuff at the completely appropriate life-phase.

When we have people past their mid twenties still 'doing it,' i.e. the musicians, well, who is going to tell a success in their field to get another career?

When we have the same set as consumer only, in their mid twenties or later, spouting intellectual arguments for the music as being profound, great, complex, on a par with classical, all I can think of is a sort of pathetic nostalgia tied up with wanting approval for being stuck in one's earlier youth. [This is similar to the guy who used to play sports in high school or college, now well past those years, vicariously re-living those earlier times while, pot-bellied, out of shape, surrounded by beers and snacks, sits on his sectional sofa and watches a group of radically in shape pro players.]


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

PetrB said:


> Pop and rock, young people's music to be sure, is all about celebrating the ego. It is rowdy, it is brash, it caters to the most basic of the visceral -- as it should because that is what it is -- the right stuff at the completely appropriate life-phase.
> 
> When we have people past their mid twenties still 'doing it,' i.e. the musicians, well, who is going to tell a success in their field to get another career?
> 
> When we have the same set as consumer only, in their mid twenties or later, spouting intellectual arguments for the music as being profound, great, complex, on a par with classical, all I can think of is a sort of pathetic nostalgia tied up with wanting approval for being stuck in one's earlier youth. [That reminds me of the guy who used to play sports in high school or college, now well past those years, vicariously re-living those earlier times while, pot-bellied, out of shape, surrounded by beers and snacks, sitting on the sectional sofa watching a group of radically in shape pro players.]


lol, this is the most snobbish post I've seen in a long time. That's why you like Boulez!
To pretend that we don't have a body and that art has to be only about the mind is like going back before Freud.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Pop and rock, young people's music to be sure, is all about celebrating the ego. It is rowdy, it is brash, it caters to the most basic of the visceral -- as it should because that is what it is -- the right stuff at the completely appropriate life-phase.
> 
> When we have people past their mid twenties still 'doing it,' i.e. the musicians, well, who is going to tell a success in their field to get another career?
> 
> When we have the same set as consumer only, in their mid twenties or later, spouting intellectual arguments for the music as being profound, great, complex, on a par with classical, all I can think of is a sort of pathetic nostalgia tied up with wanting approval for being stuck in one's earlier youth. [That reminds me of the guy who used to play sports in high school or college, now well past those years, vicariously re-living those earlier times while, pot-bellied, out of shape, surrounded by beers and snacks, sitting on the sectional sofa watching a group of radically in shape pro players.]


There's something to this, but it's still trying to quantify things much greater than it's grasp. Of course there is something a bit silly about a mature adult still listening to Ratt or Slayer, but there are definitely plenty of bands out there that cater to the more introspective.

I've known a few very intelligent people to still enjoy the occasional Rock/Blues/Metal album. It really boils down to how strongly one identifies with it. Some carry this youthful identity around in a desperate attempt to regain vitality, and that is pathetic. But it's also pathetic to shun entire genres of music based on some delusional idea of maturity.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

PetrB said:


> Pop and rock, young people's music to be sure, is all about celebrating the ego. It is rowdy, it is brash, it caters to the most basic of the visceral -- as it should because that is what it is -- the right stuff at the completely appropriate life-phase.
> 
> When we have people past their mid twenties still 'doing it,' i.e. the musicians, well, who is going to tell a success in their field to get another career?
> 
> When we have the same set as consumer only, in their mid twenties or later, spouting intellectual arguments for the music as being profound, great, complex, on a par with classical, all I can think of is a sort of pathetic nostalgia tied up with wanting approval for being stuck in one's earlier youth. [That reminds me of the guy who used to play sports in high school or college, now well past those years, vicariously re-living those earlier times while, pot-bellied, out of shape, surrounded by beers and snacks, sitting on the sectional sofa watching a group of radically in shape pro players.]


What a load of rubbish. Are you Bill O'Reilly in real life?


----------



## Guest (Mar 6, 2014)

Vesuvius said:


> Of course there is something a bit silly about a mature adult still listening to Ratt or Slayer


Odd juxtaposition here. Ratt is silly at any age, while Slayer's '83-'86 run is as sincere as it gets. Sure, the lyrics are over-the-top, but that kinda comes with the whole "metal" thing. Slayer's early days are almost universally regarded as one of the most influential series of albums of all time within the metal realm. Judas Priest definitely did more to evolve and influence the genre from '76 to '78, but otherwise you could argue that Slayer's overall mark on the genre is unmatched.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

arcaneholocaust said:


> Odd juxtaposition here. Ratt is silly at any age, while Slayer's '83-'86 run is as sincere as it gets. Sure, the lyrics are over-the-top, but that kinda comes with the whole "metal" thing. Slayer's early days are almost universally regarded as one of the most influential series of albums of all time within the metal realm. Judas Priest definitely did more to evolve and influence the genre from '76 to '78, but otherwise you could argue that Slayer's overall mark on the genre is unmatched.


Yea, I was just using them as examples. Slayer definitely had a huge impact on the Metal community as giants of Thrash. Ratt was a goofy, party Hair Metal group.


----------



## Guest (Mar 6, 2014)

Yeah, fair enough. I understand why exactly people lump Slayer into "silly" because of their shock-value (and the fact that they're, well, you know - thrash metal), but, especially when you see all these tribute albums with death metal giants of the '90s covering Slayer left and right, I feel they're short-changed, at least for their early material. For the record, I can hardly stand to listen to more than a small handful of thrash metal bands any more, and I'm not terribly old. The entire genre of thrash was a transitional phase in metal, so it's even more rare to find unique voices.


----------



## Guest (Mar 6, 2014)

PetrB said:


> Pop and rock, young people's music to be sure, is all about celebrating the ego. It is rowdy, it is brash, it caters to the most basic of the visceral -- as it should because that is what it is -- the right stuff at the completely appropriate life-phase.





Vesuvius said:


> Of course there is something a bit silly about a mature adult still listening to Ratt or Slayer, but there are definitely plenty of bands out there that cater to the more introspective.
> 
> I've known a few very intelligent people to still enjoy the occasional Rock/Blues/Metal album. It really boils down to how strongly one identifies with it. Some carry this youthful identity around in a desperate attempt to regain vitality, and that is pathetic. But it's also pathetic to shun entire genres of music based on some delusional idea of maturity.


More exhortations about what kinds of music people should or shouldn't listen to...

There are no rules. If the over 60s want to listen to Rock/Metal/Whatever, I see no reason on grounds of age or intelligence, the state of their mind or body that says they shouldn't. And Young People can listen to Sober and Intelligent - they're not restricted to brash, visceral Pop!

Neither PetrB nor Vesuvius can justify their apparent prejudice.


----------



## Guest (Mar 6, 2014)

I'm 53, listen to Slayer and am a bit silly.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> More exhortations about what kinds of music people should or shouldn't listen to...
> 
> There are no rules. If the over 60s want to listen to Rock/Metal/Whatever, I see no reason on grounds of age or intelligence, the state of their mind or body that says they shouldn't. And Young People can listen to Sober and Intelligent - they're not restricted to brash, visceral Pop!
> 
> Neither PetrB nor Vesuvius can justify their apparent prejudice.


I feel you haven't fully comprehended what I said. I said what I wanted to convey, so maybe reread if you're inclined towards clarity.



gog said:


> I'm 53, listen to Slayer and am a bit silly.


Of course you are, but so am I in many ways.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

You gotta love the assumptions that young people are inherently less intelligent than old people, and that classical music fans are inherently more intelligent than other music fans. Such snobbery and elitism.


----------



## Guest (Mar 7, 2014)

I wouldn't say that the young are inherently less intelligent, but as a population, they are more lacking in wisdom, experience, education, and taste than older people.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Vesuvius said:


> If you're merely posting on a forum, then what would you say I'm doing? Don't expect a hug if you're going to be brash… crushing poor ole moon's spirit for pennies.


He's not crushing my spirit, Far from it.

I knew going in to this thread that most would not like much of the samples I posted. All I was trying to do was show the majority here that metal wasn't all brutish, unsophisticated, unchallenging, and uncreative. I was a little surprised that those attributes would cause some to assert that what I was listening to was no longer metal, because of them.

I've always listened to music that is out of the mainstream, and that very few people know about, let alone enjoy. So, I am used to reactions like some of what I received on this thread.


----------



## Guest (Mar 9, 2014)

You seem to have misinterpreted everything I said. My critiques were of the sorts of bands you posted, not of metal that isn't "brutish, unsophisticated, unchallenging, and uncreative". There is such a thing as interesting and creative metal that doesn't rely on weak genre fusions to achieve something worthwhile.


----------



## Guest (Mar 9, 2014)

In other words, I'm not taking a jab at your tastes. I was simply annoyed that you came here to denounce all metal that doesn't use out-of-place genre fusions and pseudo-avant-garde elements as essentially crap.


----------

