# Metal Music (Death Metal, Black Metal, Thrash Metal, Doom Metal, etc)



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

I am a huge classical music fan, being into composers like Stravinsky, Tchaikovsky, Beethoven, Carl Orff, Arvo Part, Paul Ducas, Penderecki, etc., but I want to start a thread on my favorite genre of music. Heavy Metal.

Heavy Metal is possibly the most controversial form of music today, as well as one of the most unpopular, and pure. You may ask why pure? The answer is this. The form of music, yet very unpopular, continues to have so many extremely passionate followers, and musicians who create some of the most technical music in the world. Some would be suprised to hear this, but do you want to know why this form of music is so technical, like these songs?













 (opening is simple)

One of heavy metal's oldest ancestors is classical music. Most metal musicians have had training classical music for just as long, if not, more than metal training.

Discuss the genre here, and what you think about it.


----------



## David C Coleman

Hi There!
Well I watched your postings..To me, although I appreciate the musicianship, It seems like a raucous row...(Sorry don't cuss me - please!!)..I do listen to the older hard rock stuff sometimes..But with a bit more of a tune thrown in.. I guees it takes all sorts to make a world! ...


----------



## Dividend

Metal Head: Metal and classical has that in common that both are able to create emotions that are strong, mighty and sublime. Almost no other music can do that.

I love metal. It is the best way of channeling strength by art.
(Together with much classical of course)

Do you like Sabaton?


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent

PanterA - Cemetery Gates got me hooked
Extreme - Nuno Bettencourt is just an amazing guitarist
Metal was really good from the 70's-90's everything has kind of gone down the simple road.
Now I know there are still some decent bands but they probably started between the 70's - 90's. I like Metallica but I dont love Metallica after the napster thing they have lost their flare. I like Down, Crowbar , and Corrosion Of Conformity which would fit in the Sludge/Doom/Stoner metal genres


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> Metal Head: Metal and classical has that in common that both are able to create emotions that are strong, mighty and sublime. Almost no other music can do that.


Since when could heavy Metal create sweet beauty?


----------



## Dividend

Yagan Kiely said:


> Since when could heavy Metal create sweet beauty?


I never said it could.

(Nothing else matters, metallica?)


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> Metal and classical has that in common that both are able to create emotions that are strong, mighty and sublime.





> I never said it could.


Hmm?

*add words so post is not too short*


----------



## Mark Harwood

Yagan Kiely said:


> Since when could heavy Metal create sweet beauty?


Black Sabbath: "Snowblind"
Crowbar: "Scattered Pieces Lay"


----------



## Sanctus493

Yagan Kiely said:


> Since when could heavy Metal create sweet beauty?


 ?!?! Erm... Dirge For November by Opeth, 50 Million Year Trip by Kyuss, Life by Devin Townsend, Pink Maggit by Deftones, Vermillion Pt. 2 by Slipknot (yes, that's right, _Slipknot_  ), Black Hole Sun by Soundgarden...

While we're comparing classical and metal, what does everyone think of Apocalyptica? For those that may not know, they basically play Metallica covers on four cellos.


----------



## missmaestro

hey everyone check out Savatage
particularly "Mozart and Madness"
is a mix of melodic metal and clasical!!


----------



## Cyclops

Well I'm not really a fan of metal but I do like Gary Numan, and his new stuff is very dark, guitar based stuff, a la Manson/Nine Inch nails.


----------



## Methodistgirl

I live in an area where you have hard rock bands like Leonard Skynard, and
other southern rock bands as well as Elvis inpersonaters. I just love Freebird.
judy tooley


----------



## Cyclops

Methodistgirl said:


> I live in an area where you have hard rock bands like Leonard Skynard, and
> other southern rock bands as well as Elvis inpersonaters. I just love Freebird.
> judy tooley


Ah yea Lynnyrd Skynnyrd were big in the 70s (they did the song Sweet Home Alabama)
I cant stand Elvis, way over rated, and all the impersonators always do him when he was in the 70s with the big white suit, way over the top.


----------



## Methodistgirl

I never cared for Elvis either. I like the softer rock. Ask Krummhorn.
judy tooley


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

Yagan Kiely said:


> Since when could heavy Metal create sweet beauty?


Ummm, the last time I checked, ever since it began mate. 

Check these out.


----------



## Rondo

Metal Head...

Are you a big fan of Metallica's _S&M_ album? If so, how about Malmsteen?


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent

I like malmsteen pretty well.
Black star is probably my favorite.


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

Rondo said:


> Metal Head...
> 
> Are you a big fan of Metallica's _S&M_ album? If so, how about Malmsteen?


Metallica is okay. I always found them a bit overrated though.


----------



## Adhesive Ninja

Metalheadwholovesclasical said:


> Metallica is okay. I always found them a bit overrated though.


I hear you. One of my friends is completly obsessed with them. Personally i've always liked bands like Testament, Overkill & Exodus more.


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

Adhesive Ninja said:


> I hear you. One of my friends is completly obsessed with them. Personally i've always liked bands like Testament, Overkill & Exodus more.


Sir, I love your taste in metal!


----------



## evillspell

I admit I adore the mix between classical and metal music like Hollenthon, Therion, but also love heavy metal like Iron Maiden, this music has so much power and lyrics are demonic, mysterious, they creates unreality feeling...


----------



## Cyclops

Metalheadwholovesclasical said:


> Sir, I love your taste in metal!


lol, taste and metal.


----------



## missmaestro

children of Bodom anyone?


----------



## Rmac58

Cyclops said:


> Well I'm not really a fan of metal but I do like Gary Numan, and his new stuff is very dark, guitar based stuff, a la Manson/Nine Inch nails.


That's good!
Didn't realize he was still producing.


----------



## Rmac58

Adhesive Ninja said:


> I hear you. One of my friends is completly obsessed with them. Personally i've always liked bands like Testament, Overkill & Exodus more.


Never heard of any of 'em, Fight anyone?


----------



## Breogan

Yagan Kiely said:


> Since when could heavy Metal create sweet beauty?


I would recommend looking into Opeth's work. Someone had previously mentioned them and rightfully so.

This is one of the wonderful aspects of the progressive metal sub-genre, and particularly the music Opeth has produced. You listen to "To Bid You Farewell", "Patterns in the Ivy (both parts)", "Isolation Years", "Face of Melinda", "Hours of Wealth", "Benighted", "Credence", or the entire "Damnation" set and then try to tell me that the gentler emotions cannot be conveyed by a metal band. The idea that all metal bands are rowdy boozers who know nothing beyond screaming and partying is, frankly, archaic.


----------



## Sanctus493

Breogan said:


> I would recommend looking into Opeth's work. Someone had previously mentioned them and rightfully so.
> 
> This is one of the wonderful aspects of the progressive metal sub-genre, and particularly the music Opeth has produced. You listen to "To Bid You Farewell", "Patterns in the Ivy (both parts)", "Isolation Years", "Face of Melinda", "Hours of Wealth", "Benighted", "Credence", or the entire "Damnation" set and then try to tell me that the gentler emotions cannot be conveyed by a metal band. The idea that all metal bands are rowdy boozers who know nothing beyond screaming and partying is, frankly, archaic.


Thank you! Couldn't agree more. 

If you want to explore beyond the stereotypical image that most people have of metal, I would also recommend Dream Theater, Tool, and The Mars Volta. Also, Sepultura, while not really what you would call sweetly beautiful (they are very much "thrash/death metal"), they are/were groundbreaking in their use of tribal percussion and world music elements, and also the intelligent subject matter of their lyrics is a bit different from your average metal band. Ditto System Of A Down, and the Deftones.


----------



## Conservationist

For classical listeners, try:

At the Gates "The Red in the Sky is Ours" (w/violin, natch)
Deicide "Legion"
Morbid Angel "Blessed Are the Sick"
Demilich "Nespithe"
Burzum "Det Som Engang Var"
Gorguts "Obscura"
Sacramentum "Far Away From the Sun"
Gorgoroth "Antichrist"
Enslaved "Vikinglgr Veldi"


----------



## Planetary Eulogy

Conservationist said:


> For classical listeners, try:
> 
> At the Gates "The Red in the Sky is Ours" (w/violin, natch)
> Deicide "Legion"
> Morbid Angel "Blessed Are the Sick"
> Demilich "Nespithe"
> Burzum "Det Som Engang Var"
> Gorguts "Obscura"
> Sacramentum "Far Away From the Sun"
> Gorgoroth "Antichrist"
> Enslaved "Vikinglgr Veldi"


Definitely the best answer so far.

And seriously, folks, Opeth?!! You might as well list Yanni while you're at it.


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

Opeth is by far one of the greatest death metal bands to date. Absolutely austouding combination of Death Metal, Progressive Rock, and Classical Music. Morningrise was an absolute masterpiece.

For people who like Opeth, check these out.










Also here are just some death metal songs i felt like posting.


----------



## Edward Elgar

I was disscussing with a friend the different genres of music. I said you can usually tell how a genre is going to sound by the way it rhymes. How so? he asks. Well, you've got "Thrash" which is trash, "Rap" which is crap. What about Romantic? - Fantastic! Classical? - Magical! Oooh yeah!

A metal music follower can parade good technique at us till the cows come home, but all I see are egocentric nutters that are stuck in an identity crisis! Turn the distortion down guys! Let us hear the "beauty" of you're amazing craft!


----------



## Conservationist

Edward Elgar said:


> A metal music follower can parade good technique at us till the cows come home, but all I see are egocentric nutters that are stuck in an identity crisis! Turn the distortion down guys! Let us hear the "beauty" of you're amazing craft!


"You're amazing craft"?

LOL

You need to look at the best of the genre, not the mainstream stuff.


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

Edward Elgar said:


> I was disscussing with a friend the different genres of music. I said you can usually tell how a genre is going to sound by the way it rhymes. How so? he asks. Well, you've got "Thrash" which is trash, "Rap" which is crap. What about Romantic? - Fantastic! Classical? - Magical! Oooh yeah!
> 
> A metal music follower can parade good technique at us till the cows come home, but all I see are egocentric nutters that are stuck in an identity crisis! Turn the distortion down guys! Let us hear the "beauty" of you're amazing craft!


So how does distortion prevent beauty? I think distortion can be a great effect, especially in the extreme metal genres. Distortion is just used to add intensity, like Penderecki's opening to "Threnody's For The Victims Of Hiroshima" they used some distortion aamof.


----------



## Edward Elgar

Oh I'm sure distortion is beautiful, but the fact still remains that metalical based musicians get more money than they deserve. In addition, their music is harmfull, I went to a gig in York and it nearly burst my eardrums! I had to wear earplugs the whole time! People are entitled to like what they want, but I'm not prepared to risk my hearing for some mediocre composition screamed out of a bearded oaf!


----------



## Conservationist

Edward Elgar said:


> Oh I'm sure distortion is beautiful, but the fact still remains that metalical based musicians get more money than they deserve.


You need to separate mainstream metal from underground metal.

I guarantee that underground metal musicians make no money, and many of them promote classical.

Instead of trying to start needless enmity, why not work on those connections?

As far as mainstream metal -- it's rock music, and all rock music is trash designed to amuse morons so they can go back to flipping burgers, filing expense reports, picking cotton, etc.


----------



## natas

Edward Elgar said:


> I was disscussing with a friend the different genres of music. I said you can usually tell how a genre is going to sound by the way it rhymes. How so? he asks. Well, you've got "Thrash" which is trash, "Rap" which is crap. What about Romantic? - Fantastic! Classical? - Magical! Oooh yeah!
> 
> A metal music follower can parade good technique at us till the cows come home, but all I see are egocentric nutters that are stuck in an identity crisis! Turn the distortion down guys! Let us hear the "beauty" of you're amazing craft!


The music is about sentimetallity and intellectuallity

http://www.anus.com/metal/hall/index.php/topic,3123.0.html

Actually as long as the music is based around structural composition it is good, it does not matter which instruments and distorti0nz do they use to make the music

so you have:
-electro/ambient(Kraftwerk, DCD, Tangerine Dream.........)
-prog rock(King Crimson, all others, I would like to add Doors here)
-extreme metal(good black and death)
-classical music


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

Edward Elgar said:


> Oh I'm sure distortion is beautiful, but the fact still remains that metalical based musicians get more money than they deserve. In addition, their music is harmfull, I went to a gig in York and it nearly burst my eardrums! I had to wear earplugs the whole time! People are entitled to like what they want, but I'm not prepared to risk my hearing for some mediocre composition screamed out of a bearded oaf!


You are confused between metalcore and mallcore. Metal musicians BARELY MAKE ANY MONEY. In fact, most of them are of the lowest class in most European countries. There are few metal bands who actually do make money, like Metallica, Slayer, Megadeth, Iron Maiden, Black Sabbath, etc.

These "metal bands" as you call them are not metal. They are of the genres Screamo, Metalcore, and Mallcore.

If you say metal is dangerous, that means classical music is as well because of how closely related they are. If you do not believe this, take your time to compare the guitar work of these songs:









to symphonic classical works like these:









Anyone with a musically trained ear can hear the similarities between the two pieces.


----------



## Edward Elgar

Oh dear! 

I can hear relentless drums and distortion in each and I don't think those vocals can be catogarised as singing! Not much variation at all.

In the other two peices I can hear well thought-out melodies, harmonies and interesting orchestral colour variations.

I think if a person was trying to develop their musical ear they would listen to the later of the two on that basis. I would strongly advise them to stay away from anything that had a huge lack of artistic merit.


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

All because there is a lot of distortion and a lot of drums instantly means that it is not a good form of music? Who are you to judge that? I am sure you would not be able to write any metal music as good as those musicians do. 

I can say the same about classical music as well. I can say "Oh I hear a lot of violins and such, so it instantly sucks" and you will think that that is stupid, but you saying the same kind of thing about metal is on the same exact level or idiocy.


----------



## Edward Elgar

I assure you, distortion and drums are totally not what make these compositions bad. It's the total lack of variation which make the music bland and tepid after about 30 seconds. Also, I'd be very suprised if any of that music was written down in any way. It seems as though a bunch of guys have got together and worked out a painfully simple chord structure (if that even) and some lyrics that will appeal to those suffering from an identity crisis. I admit there is some technically appealing guitar work, but this is overshadowed by the overall mediocraty of the rest of the work.


----------



## Conservationist

Edward Elgar said:


> mediocraty


HAHAHAHAHA


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

Your post Edward Elgar was very amusing due to your lack of understanding on the heavy metal genre.

First: Lack Of Variation
Lack of variation? What do you mean? There is no riff in most of these songs. They go by the same structure as classical music, in other words, instead of basing a song around a riff, they surround a specific motif. There are many exceptions however, due to the fact that many heavy metal bands prefer the jazz structure over the classical. A few genres that go by the classical structure the most commonly are Death Metal, Black Metal, Progressive Metal, and obviously, Symphonic Metal.

Second: Writing
Haha, yes it was written. The songs are carefully written and thought out. I hope you have heard of tablature. A place to check out the tabs of most of these bands is www.riversofgore.com to see the writing for primarily guitar work, but there are drum tablature works in there as well. Considering, I, myself, am in a Death Metal band (me being the vocalist) I assure you we carefully write songs, rearrange them, etc. until we are perfectly satisfied. One song for us usually takes around 6 months get done with writing, and another 3 months of revising, perhaps more.

Third: Plainly simple chord Structure
HAHA that is quite amusing. Does this look like a simple chord structure to you?

















I will get on the drums while I am at it as well. Drum work is pretty much fast forward Jazz drumming the way I see it. Usually though, Jazz drumming serpasses Metal's drumming technicallity.












This one is in the process of writing still, so no one has played it yet





Fourth: Lyrics

Lyrics in metal vary a lot. It depends on which genre really, but that does not limit the topics. There are just ones commonly used.

Traditional Metal (NWOBHM)
-War
-Anger
-Rebellion

Power Metal
-Mythology
-Confidence
-Rebellion

Doom Metal
-Depression
-Suicide
-Armaggedon

Thrash Metal
-War
-Political Issues
-Anger

Black Metal
-Evil
-Darkness
-Satanism/Paganism/Anti-Religious

Death Metal
-Death
-Political Issues
-Social Issues
-Symbolic Lyrics

Fifth: Mediocraty In Instruments

Like what? Can you tell me what you exactly mean? I see plenty. of technical ability and performance in all of the instruments. Examples would help your cause.


----------



## Edward Elgar

The examples you gave to support ur theory of interesting chord progressions were all examples of extended riffs, the only thing I complemented the genre on! I think all that distortion has had an effect on your brain!

I also find it amusing that your metallical ilk try to pedal your trash or thrash or death-related metal on the folk with healthy tastes in music.


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

Did you even watch the entire videos? I think not, because it most certainly is not all chord progressions. If you are saying that about metal, you are saying the same about classical, since they share the same exact guitar style.
What is your definition of a chord structure? THIS is a chord structure.





Yes, on a few of the songs I posted, there were some for a few seconds, but what about the rest? You cannot judge the technicallity of the music based on a selected clip. I could say Ludwig Van Beethoven's 9th Symphony was nontechnical because of the final movement "Ode To Joy" because it was repetitive in simple. Of course, you would find that silly. That is the same case you are using here.

What is a healthy taste in music may I ask? Once again, I can say the same about classical being unhealthy for you. All of those violins are going to your head!


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

And speaking of classical music and metal combinations, this is a must listen. This is a black metal group from France called Peste Noire, or, in English, The Bubonic Plague. This song has a very calming and beautiful acoustic/classical opening and cuts to pure, raw, angry black metal. A few of you may like this as well.




 It is absolutely beautiful and depressive.


----------



## Conservationist

For those of us who love both, it's not an either/or. It's an AND, but a highly selective one.

Not all that's "classical" is good... Mendelssohn sucks, for example. And the post-1950s stuff is a joke. Clearly our culture is in decline.

Metal (good metal) escapes classical to reform modern music from within. It can be healthy, if you're listening to Immortal, Deicide, Demilich, Asphyx, Profanatica, Incantation, Averse Sefira or Demoncy.

The rest is just rock music, and rock music is for morons.


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

Conservationist said:


> For those of us who love both, it's not an either/or. It's an AND, but a highly selective one.
> 
> Not all that's "classical" is good... Mendelssohn sucks, for example. And the post-1950s stuff is a joke. Clearly our culture is in decline.
> 
> Metal (good metal) escapes classical to reform modern music from within. It can be healthy, if you're listening to Immortal, Deicide, Demilich, Asphyx, Profanatica, Incantation, Averse Sefira or Demoncy.
> 
> The rest is just rock music, and rock music is for morons.


I agree, but rock music is not for morons. Pink Floyd is among one of my favorite bands. You cannot beat the classic "Another Brick in the Wall."


----------



## Conservationist

Not a big fan, actually. Pink Floyd, like Rush, is one of those bands I've never been able to find any depth in.

Yes and King Crimson, maybe Jethro Tull, I can stand, but why? Rock music represents everything I detest.


----------



## Elaryad

I'm a big heavy metal fan. I've been listening to:

Death:
Morbid Angel
Coldworker
Cannibal Corpse
Necrophagist
Martyr

Black:
Nachtmystium
Orcivus
Mayhem (hell, yeah)
Merrimack (and a lot of french BM bands)
A lot of LLN bands

Heavy:
Manilla Road (last album is great)
Omen 
Angel Witch
Iron Maiden

Ambient:
Nordvargr
Nortt
Apoptose

Doom:
Discombobulation
Electric Wizard
The Gates of Slumber
Candlemass

Thrash:
Slayer (old)
Onslaught
Tankard

etc etc etc

I'm keeping updated (I love to read Terrorizer mag.) but I still prefer the old "classics".
Keep the flame alive boys


----------



## Ramamaiden

wow, great thread.

well, my music journey it all began with metal music. Iron Maiden was and is the best for me. That was the band that completly changed my point of view towards music. After that i starting listening to a lot of metal. Irona Maiden, Metallica, Megadeth, Helloween, Yngwie Malmsteen, Stratovarius, Rhapsody, Pantera, Slayer, Judas Priest, etc....
There is an amazing influence of classical music on a lot of metal bands, specially yngwie, stratovarius, rhapsody, so that was my link to my interest on classical.

Right now bands that i most like are Iron Maiden, Pink Floyd, Rush, Yes, Jethrotull, Porcupine Tree, Led Zepellin, Tool, Opeth, etc...

Here is a link to an Iron Maiden song that is just beautiful, i love it . Just listen to those solos 






or this one, and a very underrated maiden song that is one of my favorites






who said that metal cant do beautiful songs?? xD






this song of porcupine tree is amazing....beautiful


----------



## Elaryad

I think you would like *Pelican - City of Echoes *(2007).
It's instrumental, experimental and metal.


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

Elaryad said:


> I'm a big heavy metal fan. I've been listening to:
> 
> Death:
> *Morbid Angel*
> Coldworker
> *Cannibal Corpse*
> *Necrophagist*
> *Martyr*
> 
> Black:
> *Nachtmystium*
> Orcivus
> *Mayhem (hell, yeah)*
> Merrimack (and a lot of french BM bands)
> A lot of LLN bands
> 
> Heavy:
> Manilla Road (last album is great)
> Omen
> *Angel Witch*
> *Iron Maiden*
> 
> Ambient:
> Nordvargr
> *Nortt*
> Apoptose
> 
> Doom:
> Discombobulation
> *Electric Wizard*
> The Gates of Slumber
> *Candlemass*
> 
> Thrash:
> *Slayer (old)*
> *Onslaught*
> Tankard
> 
> etc etc etc
> 
> I'm keeping updated (I love to read Terrorizer mag.) but I still prefer the old "classics".
> Keep the flame alive boys


Good sir, I love your taste in metal!


----------



## nickgray

I started listening to music from metal bands quite a long time ago. Listened to almost every metal genre from hard rock'ish heavy metal to funeral doom/true black metal. Now I listen to metal only occasionaly, here's a couple of bands I'm still listening to:

Pain of Salvation
Ayreon
Diablo
Novembre
Esoteric
Shape of Despair
Skepticism
Blind Guardian

Mostly the first three  Although sometimes I can turn on some stuff I enjoyed (and still enjoy now) a couple years ago from the nostalgic reasons


----------



## fox_druid

Beauty? I just saw the devil inside them


----------



## Lang

I hesitate to post this, because surely everybody is aware of it, but if not, then it does explain why we are having a discussion of heavy metal on a classical music forum. 

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/itn/20080907/ten-music-taste-linked-to-personality-ea4616c.html


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

fox_druid said:


> Beauty? I just saw the devil inside them


Even if a band has satanic lyrics, how does that block it from being beautiful?


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

Lang said:


> I hesitate to post this, because surely everybody is aware of it, but if not, then it does explain why we are having a discussion of heavy metal on a classical music forum.
> 
> http://uk.news.yahoo.com/itn/20080907/ten-music-taste-linked-to-personality-ea4616c.html


These kind of studies are for the most part ********, because they are just making sweeping generalizations, and I cannot really imagine heavy metal listeners as a whole "gentle." I would mainly call metal fans angry and rebellious if you want to generalize.

The article reminds me of one I read a few months back.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2007/03/21/nmetal21.xml


----------



## Planetary Eulogy

Metalheadwholovesclasical said:


> These kind of studies are for the most part ********, because they are just making sweeping generalizations, and I cannot really imagine heavy metal listeners as a whole "gentle." I would mainly call metal fans angry and rebellious if you want to generalize.


On the other hand, when was the last time you saw a bunch of heshers beating the **** out of one dude? Now think about how often you've seen some ******** in hip hop regalia doing it, or ******* punkers?

Yeah, that's what I thought.


----------



## Zombo

I don't think metal is more unpopular than classical, at least not on the Internet. I cannot find any info of many classical pieces, but I can mostly find what I want for metal.

Right now I'm listening a lot to Icon by Benighted. Sick album.

Oh, I play in a metal band BTW.

www.myspace.com/profaneanthem


----------



## Bach

I hate all manners of pop music, but metal is the worst. I laugh in the face of you who call it art. It's anti-art. Moronism at its most potent.

And about as musical as a bloody bus engine..


----------



## Zombo

Bach said:


> I hate all manners of pop music, but metal is the worst. I laugh in the face of you who call it art. It's anti-art. Moronism at its most potent.
> 
> And about as musical as a bloody bus engine..


ouch brutal generalization but I agree with you* if and only if* you're referring to the so-called metal from mainstream media because that's what you seem to be going for by comparing with pop music...otherwise you don't know what you're talking about...


----------



## Bach

Popular music, pop music - I'm talking about that worthless junk with electric guitars and amplified vocals. Whether it's actually popular or accessible or not, I couldn't care less.

Those pieces posted at the beginning of this thread require no emotive sensibility and cannot possibly be anymore than a series of robotic movements that could be mastered by anyone - musical or not. And look at the type of person that performs it - hardly a scholar - drugged out teenagers with the mental agility of a newly born sloth.

There's more artistic interest in me dropping a pen from 10 centimeters onto my desk and recording the result.


----------



## Zombo

ah...

well what the OP posted is a niche subgenre called "Technical Death Metal". It focuses on emotions like anger, hate and themes like violence, gore and destruction. So to say that it's emotionless is incorrect.

The objective of technical death metal is mostly to study guitar techniques, irregular metre, and the harsh physical demands imposed on the drummer.

I agree that not many people can enjoy that kind of music, but the same goes for several subgenres of classical music.

Furthermore, like Classical music, the domain that Metal music encompasses is so vast you cannot infer a generalize opinion on the whole genre based on a small sample.

The first assumption you made "I'm talking about that worthless junk with electric guitars and amplified vocals" is already wrong.

While the core of metal is usually a drum, one or two guitars, a bass, and vocals, it is perfectly plausible to not include of these elements.

Let me give two counter-examples: Enemite is a solo project classified as "Ambient Black Metal". It has no drums, no guitars, no bass. Vocals are sparse and used as background "noise" if you will. The music is mostly atmospheric and relies on traditional chinese instruments. However it's deep, dark and disturbing atmosphere puts it in the Black Metal category.

The album "Dauði Baldrs" by Burzum is composed entirely on synthesizers. 




To say that amplified vocals is part of the definition for metal is wrong too. Rather, it is a technical requirement since the music is much much louder than what an orchestra can usually produce. If the music isn't so loud, amplification may not be required.

Example: The "Damnation" album by Opeth. Opeth is considered "Extreme Progressive Metal". 




Blind Guardian's "Skalds and Shadows" - 



 (of course in this he uses a microphone, because the guitars are also mic'ed ) Blind Guardian is classified somewhere between Power Metal and Speed Metal.

Furthermore you try to analyze metal music from the perspective of classical music. That is simply not going to work since they are different paradigms. That would be like judging the performance of a romantic piece using the rigor of classical standards. I know the strengths and limitations of both classical and metal music and my standards and expectations differ. They serve different purposes musically to me.

Also as the OP pointed out, it seems metalheads are more likely to appreciate classical music than vice versa. If you look at metal bands, there are many crossovers with classical whereas the opposite is not really true (Apocalyptica is a rare example).

Some examples of such crossover:

- Rhapsody: a band of the genre "Symphonic Power Metal". In this genre, we exploit the bombastic features of classical music to combine with energetic metal elements to great effect. The objective of this kind of music is to create epic, majestic music on fantasy themes. 




- Haggard: this band is of the genre "symphonic metal". This band uses a lot of classical structures like menuet, courante, gavotte, etc. 




- Winds: This band uses a lot of classical arrangements. It is considered "Progressive Metal" 




- Blind Guardian: 




- Opera singing has a prominent role in many bands, especially in the classification called "Gothic Metal". I'm not going to say they have better technique than real opera singers, because they don't. Furthermore, they don't sing 100% of the time in the opera registers. But the ability to rely on Opera singing when needed is very important.

- The band Therion has created quite a few albums which rely on choirs and such: 




Nightwish is the prime example: 



Tristania: 



After Forever: 




- Ynwgie Malmsteem plays a brand of metal called "Neoclassical metal" which employs a lot of classical structures and orchestration. Many of his pieces are essentially concerto works for electric guitar. 




- Progressive metal focuses on complex song structures with virtuoso music playing. Elaborate stravinskian rhythms are often employed along with contrapuntal writing. The works are often divided in multiple movements. Their themes are often intellectual or historical, such as philosophy, mythology, physics, etc.

Symphony X: 



 - A retelling of Homer's Odyssey.

Dream Theater: 



 (I love the instrumental section of this song)

Spiral Architect: 




Threshold: 




Also "drugged out teenagers" is inaccurate. Many bands have graduate members.


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

Bach said:


> Popular music, pop music - I'm talking about that worthless junk with electric guitars and amplified vocals. Whether it's actually popular or accessible or not, I couldn't care less.
> 
> Those pieces posted at the beginning of this thread require no emotive sensibility and cannot possibly be anymore than a series of robotic movements that could be mastered by anyone - musical or not. And look at the type of person that performs it - hardly a scholar - drugged out teenagers with the mental agility of a newly born sloth.
> 
> There's more artistic interest in me dropping a pen from 10 centimeters onto my desk and recording the result.


You obviously are both misinformed and ignorant. To say those songs don't have a feeling of anger are deaf.

Metal definately has emotion. The same amount that classical possess.
Bolt Thrower-The IVth Crusade: 



Opeth-Porcelain Heart" 



Death-Crystal Mountain: 



Metallica-The Master Of Puppets: 



Black Sabbath-Black Sabbath: 



Candlemass-Solitude: 




Yeah, that's enough for now.


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

Bach said:


> Popular music, pop music - I'm talking about that worthless junk with electric guitars and amplified vocals. Whether it's actually popular or accessible or not, I couldn't care less.
> 
> Those pieces posted at the beginning of this thread require no emotive sensibility and cannot possibly be anymore than a series of robotic movements that could be mastered by anyone - musical or not. And look at the type of person that performs it - hardly a scholar - drugged out teenagers with the mental agility of a newly born sloth.
> 
> There's more artistic interest in me dropping a pen from 10 centimeters onto my desk and recording the result.


I also hope you realize the same can be said about classical music. When these things are said, you will say the person looks stupid, well, you look stupid right now also.


----------



## Isabelle

I really like black metal myself actually, my favorites include but aren´t limited to: Urfaust, Emperor, Burzum, Immortal, Leviathan, Xasthur, Azrael Deathspell Omega and bands that are a bit too underground to mention.. I like the atmosphere but enjoy it for very different reasons then classical, but then again I like a lot of genres that most people wouldn´t think one person could all like.


----------



## Bach

Jks. I actually read music it Oxford (which means I'm a fairly reliable source), and I don't like 'classical' music that is unabashedly crowd pleasing.

Listen: Saying Shakespeare is rubbish - that's stupid. Saying Bach is rubbish - that's stupid. Why? Because such people are revered as genius in their respective artistic fields by scholars of high repute. Metal music is not something that genius can emerge from simply because it has no intrinsic worth as a genre. You wouldn't find a highly regarded music scholar condoning metal (I should know, I speak with leading music academics on a daily basis). Similarly, you cannot have a genius shelf-stacker or cleaner because the act of stacking shelves and cleaning have no lasting value. 

What I'm saying is, I cannot possibly be ignorant for dismissing metal as it is not a respected art form from an academic perspective. It can't be studied in detail because there is no musical or thematic depth. 

In my third year at Oxford, I have to write a research thesis - funnily enough 'metal' (or any other popular music) is not on the list of potential topics. Why do you think that is? A music course at one of the most respected institutions of higher education doesn't include metal? Well, it's much the same as if I was studying English Literature: I wouldn't be able to write my thesis on J.K. Rowling because her novels are not considered to be of any artistic value. Are you beginning to comprehend the point?


----------



## Zombo

Ok first of all you say that Metal is worthless because it is not studied academically. I have my reservations on that. My university had a class that established parallels between Metal and Opera. Unfortunately I did not take the course but a music prof mentioned it to me.

Finally why does it matter? How can you come to the conclusion that metal has no depth from the mere fact that it's not studied? Metal is a young genre that took its roots in the 60's. In my opinion, the music was quite primitive until the early 90's where complexity was added.

Surely it is also possible that academica is not as quick to revise their program to look at the remarkable development of metal in the past 15 years? Couldn't that be a valid reason? Or maybe that no student/prof was interested enough in metal to study it?

Finally, why is only studied music worth listening? If that were true, the only purpose of listening to music... is studying it?!

Can't you listen to different genres for different purposes? As I explained previously, you do NOT listen to metal the same way you listen to classical.


----------



## Bach

> Surely it is also possible that academica is not as quick to revise their program to look at the remarkable development of metal in the past 15 years? Couldn't that be a valid reason? Or maybe that no student/prof was interested enough in metal to study it?


Would a chef study McDonald's? No. Would a scholar study metal? No.

By the way, you're treating metal like some innovative style that's not related to any other. Metal is essentially rock with a bite and rock is essentially just a simple verse-chorus-verse pop song (and its derivatives). Not really anything to be said.

No thought goes into structure or harmony, it's simple and brutal music. Anyone can see that. It's completely diatonic. Theoretically it could have been written in the Baroque, there is nothing musically radical (or interesting) about any popular styles (that includes metal, rock, indie, pop etc).

Plus, it sounds horrid.


----------



## Isabelle

I get the feeling you haven´t heared a lot of metal, the metal that is actually in the public is indeed boring of structure and has nothing to it but there are some undergrond black metal bands that write very interesting dissonant music, often bordering on the edge of harmony but never resolving which leads to the music draging on, its quite interesting.

I don´t think you should compare metal to mc donalds, maybe the populair metal that makes it to the radio and tv but there is too much good in the underground that I doubt you heared. Ofcourse there is some boringly written metal out there but that goes for most genres, there is enough good to find if you take the time to look because its not very generally apealing music, especially not the more dissonant and harsh bands, but thats where the beauty of it lies.


----------



## Isabelle

Zombo said:


> Tristania:
> 
> 
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> Maybe slightly off topic, but while I´m not a great fan of Gothic Metal, I like how bands like Tristania give room for a vocalist like Vibeke Stene. She has a small voice, light mezzo, that is far too small for opera or other solo classical, yet in that band the music is for a great part adjusted to her voice giving her a chance to show the beautiful tone of her voice to the world. I like that.


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

Bach said:


> Would a chef study McDonald's? No. Would a scholar study metal? No.
> 
> By the way, you're treating metal like some innovative style that's not related to any other. Metal is essentially rock with a bite and rock is essentially just a simple verse-chorus-verse pop song (and its derivatives). Not really anything to be said.
> 
> No thought goes into structure or harmony, it's simple and brutal music. Anyone can see that. It's completely diatonic. Theoretically it could have been written in the Baroque, there is nothing musically radical (or interesting) about any popular styles (that includes metal, rock, indie, pop etc).
> 
> Plus, it sounds horrid.


You are treating metal as if it is of low quality, while you really have no official stance why this is. You are just blurting out statements based off of stereotypes you have heard from metal, and the mainstream scene, which is metal's burden. The underground is where you will find the beauty. Metal is not just rock with a simple structure. Metal's structure (primarily when you go deeper in the the extremes (Doom Metal, Thrash Metal, Black Metal, and the most famous for this, Death Metal) the structure is often VERY closely related to Classical music, though at times it also takes Jazz's structure. You are sounding like a colossal moron right now. You obviously have no apparent clue what metal is. No thought in the structure or harmony? Well I suppose you think the same of classical music and jazz. What in God's name are you doing on a Classical Music forum? Considering I am a musician in a Death Metal band, I will tell you this. It is nowhere near easy. It takes nearly a month for me to write the basic structure for the song with the main riffs. Then it takes another 2 months to write the drum tabs, bass, time signature changes, tempo changes, solos, etc. Stop talking out your ***.

Classical Structure Metal:




 (Cry of the Blackbirds by Amon Amarth, Melodic Death Metal)




 (Phalenes Et Pestilence by Peste Noire, Anti-Humanity Black Metal)




 (Stabwound by Necrophagist, Technical Death Metal)

Jazz Structure Metal:




 (Dimension to the Blackest Dark by Forgotten Woods, Raw Black Metal)




 (Prog Metal Compliation)




 (Coil by Opeth, Progressive Death Metal)

Rock Structured Metal:




 (Run To The Hills by Iron Maiden, New Wave Of British Heavy Metal)




 (Iron Man by Black Sabbath, Early Metal)




 (Before The Dawn by Judas Priest, New Wave Of British Heavy Metal)

NOW, the metal YOU are thinking of, the **** mainstream.




 (Spit It Out by Slipknot)




 (Chop Suey by System of a Down)




 (Break Stuff by Limp Bizkit)


----------



## Bach

> Doom Metal, Thrash Metal, Black Metal, and the most famous for this, Death Metal.


Those names alone should give you an indication to why I won't be clicking any of those links, actually I take that back - I will click the links, but that doesn't excuse what I can only describe as the most pathetic group of pretentious, gothic, apocalyptic nonsense I've ever read.



> Well I suppose you think the same of classical music and jazz.


I like music that makes me think, is structurally ordered, makes use of motivic development, implements interesting harmonies or beautiful melodies and it definitely has to avoid electronic instruments that sound like circular saws. All metal makes me think of is how vulgar and perturbed the world has become.

Having said that, I will click your links and give you a full response.


----------



## Bach

Okay, the first link: Riffs sounded quite poppy (accessible) and the vocal was laughable. Literally. I laughed.

Second link: I actually quite enjoyed the little acoustic guitar bit at the beginning: but when the rest of the band started - well, need I say any more? Interestingly I don't think that particular piece would be easy to play at all - but just because it's fast doesn't make it musically complex. Still not entirely sure why you think it uses classical structure.. 

Third link: still diatonic, but wow - that drumming is fairly incredible. Technically (unless it's been sped up, which I doubt) it's fairly impressive and I may have even listened to it as a novelty if it wasn't for the ridiculous vocal. Again, I laughed a little. Sounds like burping the alphabet. 

4th link: Bit repetitive, not particularly interesting.

5th link: Again, fine - quite difficult to play - but sounds like all the others.

6th link: Sounds like a pop song

7th link: boring and headachy. Not even particularly technical.

8th link: I already know of this track - not complex music. Basically just pop.

9th link: Fine, but the opening chord sequence is just diatonic based around e minor. Nothing radical or interesting here.

The so called '****' stuff: doesn't sound significantly different from any of the 'good' stuff.

I suspect this is a genre you'll grow out of, especially as you seem to be a fairly bright person.


----------



## Isabelle

Urfaust:




 (best!! sample)




 (harsh sample)




 (even more harsh on the ears and experimental)




 (folky sample)

I´m putting this above because this can´t be compared to anything I´m going to write about below. Its a dutch black metal project, mainly by one man who writes all of this. It has mostly clean vocals, as in the guy just sings, quite unconventional but in the Netherlands he´s not the only one singing like that. I´ll start with warning this is nót technical, nor is it overly interesting in terms of harmony, also, its quite repetative. No its none of that this music should have it strength from, its the atmosphere and the mental images it creates. There´s a feeling to every single work of this band that is extremely amazing and I dare to say this is my favorite thing in music that exists.

Now on to everything else I actually typed prior to putting the urfaust sample on top:

Death metal can in fact be very technical and very interestingly structured and for strange harmonic and more beautiful things in metal I can still suggest the black metal that keeps on the edge of dissonant. Unfortunately the metal I listen to is so incredibly unknown I can´t actually find an internet link, but to someone who can´t even tell a significant difference between what metalheadwholovesclassical posted as good and bad I fear if I´d look for a sample I´d just be wasting my time. Actually I´m just going to try because to be honest there hasn´t been a proper black metal sample between here, while that is in my opinion the genre with the most feeling attached to it.

Technically, its not that impressive, but the use of dissonants is rather intresting in some bands, they keep coming close but never resolving a line making it feel like a dragging on depressing thing, which you might not líke but it is very interesting. Unfortunately the really good bands in this specific subgroup of black metal are not to be found on the internet like that, often give out their music very limited so I´ll have to show the bands that got more populair in this scene, which are NOT the best examples, but the only ones I can easily find.

Xasthur:




 (no vocals on this one, but a lot of distortion. This is what I mean by good use of dissonance.)

Leviathan:




 (simple structure, very strong in its atmopshere, sounds like what apathic depression feels like)

Then there´s good quality black metal that is technically a lot more interesting then the above named examples of atmopshere, even if the above annoyed and bored you, this is something completely different.

Emperor:




 (do listen to all of it!)




 (old emperor work)




 (if it bored you, skip to 1.30m and listen on atleast 2 minutes from there, thats the interesting part of this track)

Absu (technical with an amazing drummer)




 (this one sample really says it all, this is good! Seriously good.)

Edit: Also for other people who haven´t heared black metal yet and want to see what cán be intersting and approach this with an open mind, not purely posted to convince one person, this contains a lot of my personal favorites)


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

Bach said:


> Okay, the first link: Riffs sounded quite poppy (accessible) and the vocal was laughable. Literally. I laughed.
> 
> Second link: I actually quite enjoyed the little acoustic guitar bit at the beginning: but when the rest of the band started - well, need I say any more? Interestingly I don't think that particular piece would be easy to play at all - but just because it's fast doesn't make it musically complex. Still not entirely sure why you think it uses classical structure..
> 
> Third link: still diatonic, but wow - that drumming is fairly incredible. Technically (unless it's been sped up, which I doubt) it's fairly impressive and I may have even listened to it as a novelty if it wasn't for the ridiculous vocal. Again, I laughed a little. Sounds like burping the alphabet.
> 
> 4th link: Bit repetitive, not particularly interesting.
> 
> 5th link: Again, fine - quite difficult to play - but sounds like all the others.
> 
> 6th link: Sounds like a pop song
> 
> 7th link: boring and headachy. Not even particularly technical.
> 
> 8th link: I already know of this track - not complex music. Basically just pop.
> 
> 9th link: Fine, but the opening chord sequence is just diatonic based around e minor. Nothing radical or interesting here.
> 
> The so called '****' stuff: doesn't sound significantly different from any of the 'good' stuff.
> 
> I suspect this is a genre you'll grow out of, especially as you seem to be a fairly bright person.


The first link does not contain any pop in the least bit. Pop guitar styles are usually based on power chord repititions, and nothing else. (see Jonas Brothers)

The second piece is among one of my favorite black metal songs. It is not sped up, and really, this particular song is actually easy to play, tbh. And of course if something is fast does not mean it is technical, I never said that. There is classical in this one for numerous reasons. As listeners of classical music we know that classical does not surround its structure on a particular riff, but rather a motif, which is what this song does for the most part. Yes, it repeats some parts, but not to the extent where it would be called rock or something. And the guitar work to me as a whole reminds me of classical.

Third piece- I see you don't really like the death metal vocal style. Lol, that is normal. Most people don't. It is an aquired taste, and I personally like it. I used to not like it, but I started to like it after getting used to it (from being around my best friend, who has been a metal fan his entire life)

The fourth song- Yes, is repetitive, but you really should admit that the riff is certainly great and catchy. I always found the song a bit depressing sounding, but that could be because the leader of the band is a really depressed person, lol

The fifth (compliation)- Really? I do not see how it sounds like all the others personally. Most subgenres in any form of music (besides Classical) sound closely alike, but still different in many ways. That is one thing I love about Classical music, unlike most forms, you will ALWAYS hear something new pretty much.

The sixth song is a lighter song written by a Death Metal band, it does not really sound like Pop at all. If you compare something like this to Brittney Spears, Jonas Brothers, or Justin Timberlake, it sounds nothing like them. This particular song is a Death Metal, Progressive Metal, Doom Metal, and Folk music combination.

The seventh-The rock structured songs are never really that technical, I was just putting them up so you could see how wide of a genre metal can be. Though I often times love the Rock structured and find them very catchy, yes, it often times is very untechnical, but of course, technicallity is not what makes a song good.

The eighth- What?! Poppy? I seriously do not see it. I am not really sure if you have listened to much pop (and you are lucky. Because it's hell.) The riff is yes, simple and repetitive, but it because one of the most famous riffs in music history.

The ninth- I like it personally. It seems like you don't find the rock structured metal very interesting, and for the most part I agree with you. There are many bands that I have shrugged off from this structure as well as bands I have praised.

The **** Stuff- It actually sounds very different structure wise. THIS is what sounds more like pop music to me. Repetitive power chords, trying to hard to be "hardcore," and stuff that would only really interest adolescent, angsty teenage boys who are trying to hard to be hardcore.

I highly doubt I will grow out of metal. Metal was the form of music that made me open my eyes and actually want to look deeper into the musical world. I used to be a close minded kid about pretty much all music except Jazz, Rock, and Classical, which for most of my life, I have listened to. My parents were very religeous and taught me that Metal music was talentless, and was satan's music. I then made a friend by the name of Brendan at my school who happened to be a metal listener. Though we had very distinct views on metal, he had similar tastes of music to me. After hanging out with him awile, I became interested in exploring metal. After giving me suggestions, I absolutely fell in love with the music, and opened my eyes to many other forms, Folk, Country, Rap, Blues, etc. Most people who get into metal actually never really get out of it. Metal is a huge part of my life, and has been for years, I suspect it will be my whole life.


----------



## Bach

I'm glad you're passionate about all manners of music, I probably come across as an old fart but good for you. I personally won't be going down the slippery road of various 'popular' genres - I often find that there are a great many stereotypes attached which I'd rather steer clear of. I like my music more serene and meaningful than loud and angry, so I don't think metal will ever be my thing.


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

To Isabelle: (did not quote because the post is very long)

I like your taste in Black Metal. Yeah, it is too bad most of the musicians decide to be as underground as humanly possibly, lol, but that is the way it is. Most of the underground black metal world is absolutely beautiful.

Xasthur is pretty good band, I never really got into them though. There are a few tracks however that I love.

Leviathan is great at exhibiting emotion in their songs and what depression is.

Emperor are the gods of Black Metal. Their thick symphonic influence should really interest anyone on this forum.

I have never listened to Absu, and my God, that is amazing. The drum work I would not call too technical though. Most of it is blast beats, but it is still very good!


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

Bach said:


> I'm glad you're passionate about all manners of music, I probably come across as an old fart but good for you. I personally won't be going down the slippery road of various 'popular' genres - I often find that there are a great many stereotypes attached which I'd rather steer clear of. I like my music more serene and meaningful than loud and angry, so I don't think metal will ever be my thing.


Metal is an aquired taste, it is either you absolutely LOVE it, or you downright hate it. I have never seen anyone in between. Metal is actually not very popular though. In my area, me and my friend are the only people who listen to metal. Most people are unaware of what Metal is and look at screamo and other popular bands as metal. Metal is serene and meaningful, just usually in a more violent sounding way. At first glance a lot dont see it, and alot do. I did not see it at first glance but after hanging with my friend for so long I saw it.


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

Also, a bit off topic, but I saw this commercial on YouTube and found it rather funny. I never really liked this band though. The drummer is pretty good though.


----------



## Elaryad

Isabelle said:


> I get the feeling you haven´t heared a lot of metal, the metal that is actually in the public is indeed boring of structure and has nothing to it but there are some undergrond black metal bands that write very interesting dissonant music, often bordering on the edge of harmony but never resolving which leads to the music draging on, its quite interesting.
> 
> I don´t think you should compare metal to mc donalds, maybe the populair metal that makes it to the radio and tv but there is too much good in the underground that I doubt you heared. Ofcourse there is some boringly written metal out there but that goes for most genres, there is enough good to find if you take the time to look because its not very generally apealing music, especially not the more dissonant and harsh bands, but thats where the beauty of it lies.


When I read this it came to my mind Blut Aus Nort. Not a personal favourite though...
But I would never expect to find here someone who likes (or even knows) Urfaust.
I think the beauty and soul of metal lies (the most) in underground bands. Try to listen to Corpus Christii. Or perhaps you know them quite well. 
Have you haver listened to Darkspace or Nortt? It's something I'm falling in love with.
But as I posted above, I'm not a one-genre-listener person. I love all kinds of metal, all of them have quite special bands and works. Of course I'm not including hardcore, nu-metal and related bands.
I love Necrophagist also, the brilliance of those guitars stuns me.
Is there any kind of music that wanders between pop and erudite music? Why things have to be black or white?


----------



## Mr. Terrible

When I moved from London to Cambridge at the age of 15 I sought out the Cambridge branch of the MU as soon as I arrived.
I was welcomed most pleasantly by all and sundry, since most of my work up till then had been in Jazz bands,
Coincidentally, a member of the Cambridge MU had tabled a motion that ll rock and roll musicinas be denied membership in the MU as they "weren`t proper musicians"
Within a year, the proposer and many of his less blinkered colleagues (who deserved better) were hanging on to what little work they could still get by their torn bleeding fingertips.
Me? I bought a guitar and an amplifier & within 6 months was working with Ludovic Kennedy in a Cambridgeshire Youth Orchestras concert series.
Funny old world, isn`t it?

I hate almost all metal myself but I support your entitlement to respect for whatever your chosen genre of music may be.
Nothing worse than a closed mind.


----------



## Zombo

Please look at some of the links I posted earlier.

Metal is definitely not ONLY simple structure on diatonic melodies.

Modal scales are very common and present in any decent band.

Furthermore, check out a band like Gorguts. Their later works are atonal.

As far as structure is concerned, this is probably where metal can be most complex. Progressive metal excels at making epic songs spanning 10-20 minutes. The longest song I've seen is Delìrium Còrdia by Fantômas at around 74 minutes. Also Light of day, Day of darkness by Green Carnation (1 hour).

It feels like you're assessing the merits of metal music on a small subset which is faulty. This is like saying all classical music sound like Vivaldi and that the limits of music of classical music ends there.

Furthermore, you say that growling is ridiculous. I'd love hear your opinion of sprechstimme then. To me, all vocal types are acceptable if used properly.

As for subgenres of metal, I agree the names are cheesy like Brutal Death Metal and such, but I think this is more a relic of the primitive roots of metal. We could rename them, but it's more trouble that anything since we already know them well.

I'm not saying Metal for anyone, I just want to clear misconceptions on the limits of Metal.


----------



## Bach

Atonal metal, that sounds like a treat.


----------



## jurianbai

i read the whole thread with great enthusiast because i am into these two kind of music.

i understand Bach's point on how "laughable" the metal music is. if i thinking about 4 peoples with long haired jammed together in the band singing "slay the dragon" theme with a cacthy eye axe (term for guitar in metal), i also can';t help myself.

i listen classical actually after i become bore with "non classical" stuff. it is a different world to compare and i personally think the professor who analyze Bach's pieces will choke to die to see a metal stuff which only 3 chords to go in 4 minutes solo (Yngwie can jammed in harmony minor scale in only one chord for a whole day...)

but i appreciate the all metal music and i admit them as an art. i enjoy Nightwish as new metal force in 2000s . i also admire Steve Vai or Michael angelo batio to make guitar like no boundary instrument.


----------



## Elaryad

Bach said:


> Atonal metal, that sounds like a treat.


I wouldn't say atonal but there's a lot of dissonant metal these days. It is called avant-garde metal. A few examples are Virus and Ved Buens Ende... And you can find some good examples on some Deathspell Omega and Blut Aus Nort approaches.


----------



## jurianbai

just to continue the discussion.

it's seems that some popular Metal/Rock band implement orchestration to their song, so anyone can check on this sample :

*Dream Theater *- From Score DVD - the song is called Six Degrees of Inner Turbulence - i. Overture. Dream Theater is mainstream progressive metal, the core members are from Berklee - Boston . The latest member, Jordan Rudess, was trained in Julliard and seem after he is on board Dream Theater going more into orchestration.






*Steve Vai* - He is a prominent guitar instrumentalis nowdays. Vai also from Berklee and in his early carrer works as transcriber for guitarist Frank Zappa. Famous for his contribution on "Crossroad" movie. He is Grammy nominated.

song : For the Love of God





Salamander in the Sun 





Lotus Feet





*Yngwie Malmsteen *- As I remember he never been to formal music study, but heavily influence by classical music. A leading in guitar superiority orientated metal (or "shred" ). He even make a full album called "Concerto Suite for Electric Guitar" with original guitar playing accompanied by orchestra. Take a glance to his performance done in Classical style.

Icarus Suite :





Far Beyond the Sun:





any comments , thanks .


----------



## WalterJ

If you like Steve Vai you may want to check out his one time guitar teacher Joe Satriani


----------



## jurianbai

WalterJ said:


> If you like Steve Vai you may want to check out his one time guitar teacher Joe Satriani


You are very true. Indeed I like Satriani more, he is more a conventional in song writing, straight rock/funk/blues feel. while Vai is explored much to experimental area.

Both of them enjoy on stage collaboration in G3 , Satriani + Vai + third guitarist like Yngwie, Eric Johnson, Petrucci (Dream Theater) etc.


----------



## phoenixshade

*To Mr. Bach -*

- if you are still lurking about here -



Bach said:


> Popular music, pop music - I'm talking about that worthless junk with electric guitars and amplified vocals. Whether it's actually popular or accessible or not, I couldn't care less.
> [. . .]
> There's more artistic interest in me dropping a pen from 10 centimeters onto my desk and recording the result.


Jesus, stereotype much??

The following examples should give you something to think about. First is a guitar lesson from Joe Satriani, whom I'd be willing to bet you've never even heard of (let alone listened to).

*Joe Satriani on Modes*
*Satch on Modes, part 2*

In these videos, he talks about his composition technique based on modes, which involves key changes to build and relieve tension - far more than the simple I-IV-V progression that you seem to think ALL rock music is built upon. This man knows his theory, and you'd have to be daft to deny it.

If you actually dare to give his "worthless junk with electric guitars" a listen, try this one:

*Joe Satriani - Echo*

Tell me that there isn't any "artistic interest" happening there, and I'll tell you that you are so closed-minded that you don't recognize your own prejudices - and furthermore that you are reinforcing the negative stereotypes that many young people have about classical music listeners (stodgy, pompous, reactionary old men with superiority complexes).

Have a nice day.


----------



## Bach

I'm 17, and I'm not trying to be pompous, I'm simply trying to convey what pieces of modern music contribute to our western canon of human achievement (which also contains Shakespeare's plays, Beethoven's symphonies, Da Vinci's paintings and Mozart's operas) and what constitutes the product of self indulgent, self righteous teenage culture. (and in the case of the Satriani bloke, mid-life-crisis culture) 

I know of Joe Satriani - but just because he can talk about David Bowie and blues scales for eight and a half minutes doesn't make him a musicologist - I suspect his written knowledge of western harmony doesn't go beyond what I knew when I was 13.. 

That Echo song sounded like the fusion of an eighties video game theme with elevator music. Seriously. There is no artistic interest AT ALL. I would advise you to stop trying to convince yourself otherwise. 

If you want artistic interest, listen to Bartok's quartets or Birtwistle's operas (you won't find many old people who would tolerate those) - these are pieces of modern music that will comfortably sit beside Hamlet, King Lear, Don Giovanni and the Mona Lisa - not some bald blokes sorry attempt at improvisation.


----------



## phoenixshade

OK, mister master of western harmony... you seem quick to brag about your knowlege at age 13. You've now had nearly a quarter of your life since that time to do something with it, so please... tell me where I can listen to some of _your_ compostions. In fact, you should probably be on some label's catalogue or in the repertoire of a respectable orchestra by now.

Thanks for the advice, but I think I'd prefer to let my ear guide my opinions on music, rather than the closed-minded _ad hominem_ of some anonymous self-proclaimed expert on teh intarweb.

Seriously, who are you to determine what constitutes "artistic interest," anyway? History is the judge of that, not theory; not the opinion of musicologists. One need look no further than one of the most widely performed operas today, Bizet's _Carmen_. In 1876, everyone hated it, including the musicologists. The first modern musicologist, Eduard Hanslick, thought that Wagner never wrote a note that could be considered "music." So much for the "musicologists."

PS - I am quite familiar with Bartók, thank you very much. Much of his output is composed around the harmonies of pentatonic Hungarian folk music, no more complex than Satriani's pitch-axis technique.


----------



## Bach

I would say Carmen was light entertainment. Musicologists only criticized Wagner in the same way they criticized Beethoven's late quartets - because they couldn't really comprehend the language. 

Bartok's harmonic language is only informed by the tonality of folk music - it's hardly defined by it. 

As far as seventeen year olds go, I am quite a successful composer - I've had lessons from Sir Peter Maxwell Davis and Robert Saxton - who you've probably heard of, won two national competitions and have had three pieces performed - two by a professional string quartet and one by the choir of Christ Church College, Oxford. So you can stick that in your pipe and smoke it.  

I'm not saying all popular music will be disregarded by history, but if metal is - that would be a small mercy.


----------



## phoenixshade

Bach said:


> I would say Carmen was light entertainment.


<sarcasm> Yeah, light entertainment is _always_ regarded by the masses as a scandalous attack on commonly held contemporary values. </sarcasm>



Bach said:


> Musicologists only criticized Wagner in the same way they criticized Beethoven's late quartets - because they couldn't really comprehend the language.


In between your lessons with Davi*e*s and Saxton, I assume you had some time to squeeze in some history. Hanslick (who I mentioned by name in the previous post) did not criticize Wagner because he "couldn't comprehend the language." He criticized him solely on the basis of his own personal prejudices (and those of the circle with whom he chose to associate). There was nothing fundamentally new about Wagner's harmonies. He composed thoroughly within the confines of the Romantic idiom. By universally branding "popular music" as "wothless junk," you are guilty of exactly the same type of prejudice as Hanslick.

If all your other boastings are true (I've yet to see any _proof_), the reason suddenly becomes clear... you are a child of privilege who can't see beyond the end of your silver spoon... in which case, I have no interest in persuing this discussion any further. If you see no value in the music, don't bother posting in a thread dedicated to it.


----------



## Bach

I'm surprised somebody as seemingly well versed as yourself can tolerate that elevator music you linked me to, it's difficult to imagine somebody who can appreciate Bartok's Quartets and Wagner's operas and still value this rock stuff - never really come across that before. 

I'm not a child of privilege, but a lucky child indeed. From a London working class background, living in fairly dirty conditions (something that much of my immediate family still battle with) I was saved by music. I won a scholarship to study at the Yehudi Menuin School outside london and subsequently entered sixth form in top London school based on my high grades etc. Music saved my life, and I find it difficult to understand how people can blast their brains away and be satisfied with commercialised, cliched noise that, frankly, gives the whole notion of music a bad name. I can't understand someone without the desire to better themselves, extracting as much merit out of a world largely devoid of merit as is humanly possible. That is why I despise popular music.

Besides metal is incredible pretentious - it's for middle class ***** who enjoy reveling in their own faux, self-indulgent anguish, people that wouldn't know hardship if it materialised and slapped them across their ridiculous blacked up faces - the genre takes itself really seriously, unlike rap and dance which I can understand the appeal of.


----------



## phoenixshade

Bach said:


> I'm surprised somebody as seemingly well versed as yourself can tolerate that elevator music you linked me to, it's difficult to imagine somebody who can appreciate Bartok's Quartets and Wagner's operas and still value this rock stuff - never really come across that before.


I listen to a wide variety of music. There is some music that demands my full attention (such as the aforementioned Bartók quartets). When I listen to it, my activity is purely _listening_... I am incapable of dividing my attention, and I hear new nuances at almost every listening. Indeed, sometimes a piece that on first listening sounds downright _un_musical grows on me over time. There was a time when I couldn't stand Ligeti (and there is still *some stuff* that I don't think I'll ever classify as music), but I occasionally enjoy him now.

On the other hand, some music accentuates a particular mood. While I listen, my attention can drift to areas of my life with which I am satisfied (or dissatisfied)... and in fact the music or lyrics often encourage such lines of thought. There is yet other music that I can put on and practically forget about it - "acoustic wallpaper" that makes my environment more pleasant while I work or play.

These generalizations don't have strictly defined boundaries; it's more of a continuous spectrum. For me, Satriani falls between the first and second category. In my judgement, he creates original melodies and harmonies that - while not nearly as complex as those of someone like Janaček - still provide unexpected turns. (There is a fair amount of "heavier" music that also falls between the first two. I suspect that you will disagree, but the band Anthrax is one such example, for me at least.)

I respect personal differences of opinion... after all, I have quite a few friends who don't like Satriani for the _opposite_ of the reasoning you give; they think it's too cerebral; too intellectualized. I have to say that you are the first person I've ever heard draw a comparison to "elevator music."

By the way, I'd say that quite a bit of rap takes itself pretty seriously, too. Perhaps a bit _too_ seriously... Tupac and Biggie Smalls, case in point.

In any case, I apologize for my caustic tone especially in the last paragraph of my previous post. But I do stand by my assertion that the reason you see no merit in this genre has at least as much to do with your own prejudices as it does with anything objective, and I still wonder what you hope to accomplish by posting in a thread dedicated to a genre for which you have no respect.

Here's to broadening horizons. Cheers.


----------



## Bach

Helping people see the errors of their ways? 

Well, I'm not going to pretend I know much about rap, but I know that some of the kids I grew up with could really relate to the lyrics - it helped them through their otherwise bleak day. _That_ I can respect, it's not pretending to be something that it's not and it's saving people from insanity. Just as art music did for me.

I think it's probably the feeble and petulant complaining middle class aspect that pisses me off about rock and metal.

Broadening horizons indeed!


----------



## phoenixshade

*Bartók vs. Satriani*

I hate to bring up old stuff again, but I've been examining Bartók more closely lately (in part due to this thread; in part due to this one in the Identifying Music subforum), and discovered something that resonated with our discussion here. Earlier, you said:



Bach said:


> That Echo song [by Joe Satriani] sounded like the fusion of an eighties video game theme with elevator music. Seriously. There is no artistic interest AT ALL. I would advise you to stop trying to convince yourself otherwise.
> 
> If you want artistic interest, listen to Bartok's quartets...


Interesting that you chose Bartók, of all people.

Now, the first red flag went up when I was going over the sheet music for Bartók's _Mikrokosmos_. A number of these piano exercises are built on (and named after) various modes, which led me to suspect that these were an essential part of his composition technique.









------------------------------------------








------------------------------------------








_Selections from Bartók's _Mikrokosmos_: Nos. 32, 34, and 37._

The next came when I discovered this article, attributing a technique known as polymodal chromaticism to Bartók - confirming my suspicion. Polymodal chromaticism is quite similar to Satriani's pitch axis theory, which he discusses in the video link I gave you, despite your assertion that he only talks "about David Bowie and blues scales for eight and a half minutes."

And there's more. Musicologist Erno Lendvai, in studying the music of Bartók, proposed a method of tonal analysis that he called the axis system. I don't think it is any accident that Satriani's compositional tool- the pitch axis theory- has a similar name to this analytical one. There are far too many parallels for it to be mere coincidence. It is much more likely that Satriani is familiar with the theories of both Bartók and Lendvai, and draws upon these sources to compose his music.

I also don't think it is any accident that I enjoy (and find "artistic interest") in both.



Bach said:


> So you can stick that in your pipe and smoke it.


I don't think I need to add any more.


----------



## Planetary Eulogy

Meh. Technique is not and never will be artistry. Technique is a tool, nothing more, and like any tool it can be used for good, but most will use it only for ye olde ego wank. Satriani fails as an artist, not because he fails to use the right technique, but rather, for the same reason that everyone from Pantera to ELP to Schoenberg failed: he has nothing meaningful to say.


----------



## phoenixshade

Planetary Eulogy said:


> Meh. Technique is not and never will be artistry.


Perhaps not, but the remainder of your post consists entirely of your opinion, which is not to be mistaken for fact. Besides, if you read the thread you'll see that I was also responding to "Bach's" implication that Satriani has only slight knowlege of music theory.



> Satriani fails [. . .] for the same reason [. . .] Schoenberg failed: he has nothing meaningful to say.


Schoenberg had nothing to say? Try _A Survivor from Warsaw_. Perhaps he was merely speaking a language that you don't understand.


----------



## Planetary Eulogy

He speaks to nothing beyond technique: there is no inner ideal to convey. This is craft, not art, and I'm not buying.

The larger point stands: technique isn't important in and of itself, and only hopeless nerds care. Content is what matters, not form.


----------



## phoenixshade

Planetary Eulogy said:


> He speaks to nothing beyond technique: there is no inner ideal to convey. This is craft, not art, and I'm not buying.


Still _your opinion_, not fact. You are entitled to that opinion. But don't confuse snobbery with objectivity. To do so makes you look pompous and arrogant.



> The larger point stands: technique isn't important in and of itself, and only hopeless nerds care. Content is what matters, not form.


The even larger point still stands that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." If you don't appreciate Satriani (or Shoenberg, for that matter) as art, so be it; as you said, don't buy. But just because I hold a different opinion (and at least I recognize it as such) doesn't make me a "hopeless nerd."


----------



## Planetary Eulogy

phoenixshade said:


> Still _your opinion_, not fact. You are entitled to that opinion. But don't confuse snobbery with objectivity. To do so makes you look pompous and arrogant.


I mean, how awful of me to hold the _correct_ opinion about bad music. If that makes me 'arrogant,' so be it. It also makes me smarter than you, so I suppose I'll have to settle for the socially-incongenial but reality-consistent virtue. Being right is more important than being liked.



> The even larger point still stands that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." If you don't appreciate Satriani (or Shoenberg, for that matter) as art, so be it; as you said, don't buy. But just because I hold a different opinion (and at least I recognize it as such) doesn't make me a "hopeless nerd."


And the even larger reality beyond the cliche is that some eyes are keener than others. Mine for instance.

Yours? Not so much.


----------



## WalterJ

Bach said:


> I'm 17, and I'm not trying to be pompous,


I knew everything when I was 17 too. Now that I am working on 17 for the 3rd time I must have forgotten something somewhere along the way because I just don't seem to know everything anymore.

It would be interesting to hear what you thought and if those thoughts were the same say 34 years from now.


----------



## phoenixshade

Planetary Eulogy said:


> I mean, how awful of me to hold the _correct_ opinion about bad music. If that makes me 'arrogant,' so be it. It also makes me smarter than you, so I suppose I'll have to settle for the socially-incongenial but reality-consistent virtue. Being right is more important than being liked.
> 
> And the even larger reality beyond the cliche is that some eyes are keener than others. Mine for instance.
> 
> Yours? Not so much.


_Ad hominem_, in its entirety.

Nor did you address your obvious inability to distiguish between subjectivity and objectivity... in fact, your post served only to highlight that inability. Keen eyes would be able to tell the difference - yours apparently can't. Hardly something to boast about, and hardly "reality-consistent."

Summarily dismissed, on both counts.


----------



## Planetary Eulogy

phoenixshade said:


> _Ad hominem_, in its entirety.
> 
> Nor did you address your obvious inability to distiguish between subjectivity and objectivity... in fact, your post served only to highlight that inability. Keen eyes would be able to tell the difference - yours apparently can't. Hardly something to boast about, and hardly "reality-consistent."
> 
> Summarily dismissed, on both counts.


There is only reality: "subjectivity" was invented by those too dumb to handle it. The smart people, on the other hand, simply know the truth.

Too bad you're not one of them. 

In related news, satire isn't your strong suit, is it?


----------



## phoenixshade

Planetary Eulogy said:


> There is only reality: "subjectivity" was invented by those too dumb to handle it. The smart people, on the other hand, simply know the truth.


That is the most retarded comment you've made so far. Perception of sound _is_ a purely subjective means of _interpreting_ the objective reality of compressional waves travelling through air. The actual experience of sound as perceived by the listener is completely an artifact of the physical organ that senses it and the neurological pathways that carry and interpret this signal. (Volumes have been written on psychoacoustics. Maybe you should read once in a while, rather than self-importantly bragging about how much smarter you are than everyone else.)

I could imagine an organ that is far superior to our ear that is much more directional. Such an organ could create an "aural image" that the brain could assemble into something similar to our sense of sight. To such a being, your interpretation of music as "good" or "bad" would be utterly meaningless. Hence, this classification is _purely subjective_ on your part, and has nothing to do with "reality," unless you choose to redefine the term to mean "reality as perceived by Planetary Eulogy," in which case the word loses all authority.

Conversely, I don't _have_ to imagine beings that are only slightly capable of perceiving sound at all. I live not very far from Gallaudet University, so I see them all the time. The music that they subjectively deem to be "good" has way too much bass and tends to be very repetitive. Is their judgement somehow "wrong" because I have better ears? Should I automatically conclude that I must be smarter than them?

If the artistic value of music is purely objective, then we should see universal agreement by all educated people on what constitutes good music, throughout all of history. Yet people have always had disagreements about music, even the supposed "experts." In fact, we should furthermore have a computer algorithm that analyzes music and spits out a value judgement that is 100% accurate. Music critics should be a thing of the past.

You're not representing your supposed intelligence very well at all. Maybe you should quit before you dig yourself in any deeper.


----------



## phoenixshade

Planetary Eulogy said:


> In related news, satire isn't your strong suit, is it?


You've been called out. Don't try to hide behind the shield of "satire" now. Your entire string of posts had not the faintest hint of satire, and this post is perfectly in line with the rest of them. Had you posted this last one without the lead-in and escalation, I might have chalked it up to satire. But this last edit reeks of disingenuousness. You can't bring yourself to admit that your position is indefensible, so you pretend instead that it was some kind of joke.

Sorry, I'm not buying it.


----------



## Planetary Eulogy

> Conversely, I don't have to imagine beings that are only slightly capable of perceiving sound at all. I live not very far from Gallaudet University, so I see them all the time. The music that they subjectively deem to be "good" has way too much bass and tends to be very repetitive. Is their judgement somehow "wrong" because I have better ears? Should I automatically conclude that I must be smarter than them?


You were smart enough not to be deaf, weren't you?

You might want to make an effort to actually be on board the next time the get it train leaves the station...


----------



## Planetary Eulogy

phoenixshade said:


> You've been called out. Don't try to hide behind the shield of "satire" now. Your entire string of posts had not the faintest hint of satire, and this post is perfectly in line with the rest of them. Had you posted this last one without the lead-in and escalation, I might have chalked it up to satire. But this last edit reeks of disingenuousness. You can't bring yourself to admit that your position is indefensible, so you pretend instead that it was some kind of joke.
> 
> Sorry, I'm not buying it.


Of course you aren't. If functional intelligence were GDP, you'd be Bangladesh.

If you don't see the mockery of certain other recent posters, I can't help you.


----------



## phoenixshade

I leave it to future readers of this thread to judge whether your posts were satire. Not only do I not see the mockery, but I see quite a few personal insults being hurled (in violation of the forum rules, by the way, but I can handle it without resorting to heavy-handed reporting tactics), which was not true of the earlier posters whom you allege to mock.

Satire requires sufficient similarity to the source material to be recognizable as such. Your "satire" didn't echo earlier posters in either content or tone, nor did it contain comedy or irony; rather it carried with it the voice of an independent position. You're just playing the "satire" card to try to get out of defending that position without actually admitting that you might be wrong... rather transparently, I might add.


----------



## Planetary Eulogy

The "tone" of the discussion - for several pages, I might add - has been "I'm an expert with expert credentials that you need not examine too closely (pay no attention to the undergrad behind the curtain), you must accept my judgments, mortals!" I'm just playing along, _reductio ad absurdum_ etcetera, etcetera, etfuckingcetera.

Although, to be fair, it certainly _is_ my opinion the music theory obsession is still total geek ****, and my suspicion is that it remains a popular mode of analysis in some quarters because it allows for the illusion of mastery and competence without requiring a more abstract understanding of the material. If what you're looking for is the appearance of commanding knowledge, without having to formulate the sort of opinions that might require an actual defense, it is invaluable.

To most people though, it's just boring.


----------



## Bach

My opinion is thus: there is a difference between high art and low art, high culture and low culture - metal fits into the low option of both categories. 

There is a great collection of books known as the western canon featuring the greatest works of literature, art and music. Although there is much debate concerning what is valuable enough to be read and taught - it goes without saying that metal does not feature.


----------



## WalterJ

Stereotype much

Very judgmental and insulting for 17 and so much intolerance….. You do have much learn young skywalker


----------



## WalterJ

Britain is not the world and I am not in Britain nor have I ever been there, been a few places but never Britain


----------



## Bach

Great.


...
.


----------



## jurianbai

agree, stereotype.

here sample on request. as I write in this thread page no.6, mr.Bach, just a sample that some of mainstream metal musicians do have explored into orchestration. and if you free enough please drop a comment.

http://www.talkclassical.com/2824-metal-music-death-metal-6.html


----------



## Planetary Eulogy

Tolerance ruined classical music, too.


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

Ok, everyone arguing, hush down please. The fact is metal takes just as much talent as any other music. Its not less or more valid than classical, and they have similar techniques. If you don't like metal, it does not mean its talentless or tasteless or crap period and is a fact. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Thank you.


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

Bach said:


> My opinion is thus: there is a difference between high art and low art, high culture and low culture - metal fits into the low option of both categories.
> 
> There is a great collection of books known as the western canon featuring the greatest works of literature, art and music. Although there is much debate concerning what is valuable enough to be read and taught - it goes without saying that metal does not feature.


There is no such thing as high or low art. There is such thing as one's opinion, which you do not seem to understand. Metal may not appeal to you, but that does not mean it is a watered-down version of art, nor does it mean its a high class version of art. Metal is on the same level as classical and every other genre. Its just a different style of music the musician decides to perform. None takes more talent than the other really. I am sure a classical musician cannot write a metal song as much as a metal musical cannot write a classical piece. There are professionals in every genre.


----------



## Bach

I'm pretty sure I could write a metal song, but I'm 100% sure that a metal band couldn't write a four part fugue. 

Classical is not even a genre. How can one put the works of Francis Poulenc and Pierre Boulez (contemporaries from the same country) into one category? It's not really possible. Classical is a far broader genre, on the same level as 'popular' or 'traditional'. Much like 'popular' encompasses a wide range of subgenres such as metal, rap, rock, pop etc. classical encompasses a wide range of eras, styles and forms.


----------



## Lang

Planetary Eulogy said:


> I mean, how awful of me to hold the _correct_ opinion about bad music. If that makes me 'arrogant,' so be it. It also makes me smarter than you, so I suppose I'll have to settle for the socially-incongenial but reality-consistent virtue. Being right is more important than being liked.


Yes, arrogant, but also very, _very_ foolish.


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

Bach said:


> I'm pretty sure I could write a metal song, but I'm 100% sure that a metal band couldn't write a four part fugue.
> 
> Classical is not even a genre. How can one put the works of Francis Poulenc and Pierre Boulez (contemporaries from the same country) into one category? It's not really possible. Classical is a far broader genre, on the same level as 'popular' or 'traditional'. Much like 'popular' encompasses a wide range of subgenres such as metal, rap, rock, pop etc. classical encompasses a wide range of eras, styles and forms.


That happens to be one of the most foolish comments you have presented so far. Metal and rock are not subgenres of popular music. Pop is Pop, plain and simple. Metal is metal, rock is rock. Metal is in no way a popular genre, there are bands that claim to be metal but truly are not, such as Bullet For My Valentine, Slipknot, Korn, new Metallica, etc. Real metal is strictly underground. I highly doubt you could write something like this:






or this






or this






And really metal is as broad of a genre as Classical, if not, broader. I agree that you cant really classify Classical either, but it is just grouping it up, like how we use the term metal. Metal's subgenres even have subgenres of their own. I will list some out of the top of my head.

NWOBHM (New Wave Of British Heavy Metal)
Early Metal
Speed Metal
Thrash Metal
Crossover Thrash Metal
Progressive Thrash Metal
Deaththrash
Blackened Thrash
Death Metal
Brutal Death Metal
Technical Death Metal
Progressive Death Metal
Melodic Death Metal
Symphonic Death Metal
Blackened Death Metal
Black Metal
First Wave of Black Metal
Second Wave of Black Metal
Melodic Black Metal
Progressive Black Metal
Depressive Black Metal
Suicidal Black Metal
Doom Death Metal
Doom Black Metal
Traditional Doom Metal
Funeral Doom Metal
Sludge Doom
Drone Doom
Blackened Drone Doom
Ambient Drone
Stoner Metal
Acid Metal
Grindcore
Cybergrind
Deathgrind
Blackgrind
Technical Grindcore
Brutal Grind
Goregrind
Pornogrind

those are just some out of the top of my head, and I am sure that there are plenty more. Just to give you a taste of the variety metal has to offer. If you want examples of a lot of these genres, I would be glad.


----------



## Bach

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genres_(popular_music)#Rock

Wikipedia even puts metal as a subgenre of rock.. I was being generous.


----------



## Guest

Bach said:


> I'm pretty sure I could write a metal song, but I'm 100% sure that a metal band couldn't write a four part fugue.


But could you write a _good_ metal song? Clearly not since you don't seem to really understand the vast variety and complexity in the genre. I could write a classical piece, in fact I've already written several, in addition to many metal, hard rock, funk, even electronically based techno songs. I'd say that my metal compositions would be of a better quality than my others, but why? Because I spend the most time listening to and writing in that genre. I don't consider myself a metal musician, just a *musician*. And I think that's something more people should try to aspire to, to write what feels good and not confine themselves to simplistic specific boundaries. Oh and if you look hard, you'll find that a good few metal bands have written extraordinarily good Classical works themselves in addition to their other work. The people who write these film soundtracks are the same people who write symphonic metal. Sure, you could write a metal song. Anyone can write any type of song with a basic instruction in song writing. But writing _good_ songs is a true talent. My own classical pieces aren't very amazing, simply because there's so much variety already to compare it to. I find the same with metal - when I write something, it has to be original, but since theres so much good material out there its hard to be original AND decent. When I find something that HASN'T been done before, I'm very happy, because it took alot of perseverance to find and perfect.

And I find the comments such as "Metal contains no harmony" just too silly to even comprehend. As is the idea that it's just "choose a scale and play random 16th notes in it repeatedly for 3 minutes". That's what it may appear to be, and for all intense and purposes if you're not used to listening to certain genres, then the musical benefit you gain from it will be as if it really WAS as random and unplanned as that. But just for a 2 and a half minute work I've been doing recently, I've spent SIX HOURS editing it and i'm still FAR from satisfied, and it's not NEARLY as technical as a huge range of bands right now. I prefer a more melodious but still technical/heavy approach to the music I write, which is a hard balance to get, and a balance which the average person seems to miss, sadly, because it DOES exist in certain albums, certain songs. I can understand that view if you've only looked at the original videos though, and coming from a completely green background this is understandable. Technical death metal is an EXTREMELY niche sub-genre as someone has already stated, and isn't perhaps the best example for "showing off" the genres qualities. It takes ALOT of experience and time to appreciate the qualities of genres. And it's EXACTLY the same as with classical music. If you show a random person on a street two different classical compositions, one moderately simplistic and the other extremely complex they'll be hard pressed to say whats "better" or took more musical ability, because they themselves have not practiced performing and composing that type of music. Just as in that case, if your only knowledge of metal is "Enter Sandman", listening to a band like Nile straight afterwards will probably leave you thinking "This has no musical quality to it, and the only skill involved is extremely fast picking." Completely untrue. I'll give you an example. A few years ago before I got into "heavy" music, someone first showed me the song "Raining blood" by Slayer. What did I say? "I can't hear anything but fast drumming and really fast notes, what's the appeal?" Yet if i listened to that today, i'd be HUMMING ALONG to the riffs. Yes, Slayer writes riff that are CATCHY. Slayer are EXTREMELY catchy compared to alot of the more extreme bands, but you won't appreciate the "catchiness" unless you're used to the music, knowledgeable in it enough to discern the structure of it.

I completely disagree about "metal" being nothing but "brutal". For a start, it is TOO wide a genre to make such a wide reaching statement about. You might as well the same thing about "Literature", it's just TOO wide a scope with too much variety to say that. There IS harmony in metal, there IS melody in it. You have to find GOOD metal. Unfortunately most of the more accessible (referring to what i said earlier about the time it takes to "get used to things") tends to be dumbed down to either a straight hair metal/hardrockish/pop rock approach or just simplistic brutality such as Slipknot. (No offense intended, it was just the first band that sprung to mind when thinking of that style - if you like thats fine, just not my cup of tea.)

I won't go into how millions of songs are composed using varieties of time signatures, tempos, harmonic minor scales and melodic minor scales and such because I'm sure you know of the varieties already in classical music, and because I myself am not the most confident with theory. But if you showed two different songs to a completely musically illiterate person would they have a clue about any of those things? Of course not. Whether that song was Classical or Metal, they wouldn't know. And it's the same when you cross the two forms of music. If you listen to and study a lot of Metal AND Classical you will see the similarities and understand how a certain piece is composed. But if you devote yourself entirely to one then it will be harder to find similarities in the other. I never listened to classical at all, before I got into metal. When I DID get into metal, i discovered classical THROUGH metal and was amazed at the similarities. It's a REAL shame that a vast majority of die hard classical fans aren't as open minded to make the opposite leap. If you can appreciate the musical quality and similarities but it just isn't your thing because of the sound or speed or aggression of certain bands that's your choice, but to condemn an entire art form on the basis of ignorance and a complete lack of knowledge of the subject is just hysterically pathetic.

If you're looking for NON-CLICHE harmony, melody and emotion, look no further than Death. Chuck Schneider was TRULY a genius, and whatever "shelf-stacking" analogies you may wish to apply to metal (completely absurd by the way to suggest something has no artistic merit because it's not studied), he WAS a genius. And if you look into bands such as these you will see the folly in trying to contain all of metal to this simplistic brutal idea. And you will see that classical music and metal compositions have A LOT more in common than you may think. Convert the guitars to strings, and convert t he drumming to orchestral percussion and what do you have? A "Classical" song. I'll give you an example. A keyboardist friend of mine, who is a great fan of classical AND metal, made this symphonic version of a Death song. In this video I added the original Death version after his symphonic adapation, so you can compare the two (apologies for the poor titles and video quality, I hastily put this together a few minutes ago for this post)






Heres the original version on its own in case the above video dissappears: 





From then on, the only way to decide which to prefer (which is hard, since I love both versions - but the solos, the timely vocals, and of course the brilliant bass work in the Death version which makes it stand out from my friends brilliant adaptation.) is simply a choice between what style of instrumentation you prefer, distorted, strings, lacking vocals, with or without the solos, whatever you want. Doesn't change the quality of the composition AT ALL. The fact that many metal songs (Think Iron Maiden, Death, etc) Could EASILY be converted to a "Classical" piece and if you didn't have previous knowledge you would honestly say "Now here is an amazing piece of modern classical music." I have PLENTY of melodious examples NOT limited to the standard power metal fare which can get quite cheesy and boring which will give you a wonderful example of how metal can truly be an art.

An example of the more operatic/orchestral metal is a song such as this, that any fan of Classical music and Opera, and metal should really check out. It's based upon Homers epic poem, the Illiad, and is really brilliantly written.






This is a great example of how Metal and Classical music are not only similar but can be crossed over. Not only do I love the instrumentation and composition of this piece, but the vocals are astounding. It may not be "your thing" which is fine, but that doesn't take away its artistic merit. I like classical music, however I like metal more. I see metal as being "heavy/dark classical" It uses the instruments and some of the structure of pop music, and the vocal aspect, but it is composed with the same skill and incredible quality of classical music, and for the modern age, this quality of composition combined with the power modern instruments can convey, it is truly an inspiring music.

I myself listen to metal for the "feel" it gives. It's an amazing adrenaline rush and can send shivers down your spine with it's "epic"ness and the images and emotions it can convey, and the ONLY genre that does this for me other than metal is Classical. I get extremely emotional reactions from plenty of other bands/songs but not that same "epic" feel. They are a personal feel. But ONLY metal and Classical give me that "epic" dark mood. It's very hard to explain, but you'll know the feeling if you've experienced it. If you don't first "get" metal it certainly doesn't mean you won't ever "get" it. It takes time, and a good metalhead will be patient in nurturing a prospective fan and hopefully point them towards the better examples of the genre. If at the end of the day you still don't think it's your cup of tea because of the vocals, or the heaviness, etc, no harm done.

PS - Sorry for the WALL OF TEXT, but I've been up all night, and when I'm tired I tend to lose all restraint with my writing, plus I've had nothing else to do all day so I decided to make my first post here a rather lengthy one


----------



## Bach

I'm only joking, I'm actually the worlds most avid metalhead.


----------



## phoenixshade

Bach said:


> I'm only joking, I'm actually the worlds most avid metalhead.


I like you. You make me laugh.


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

Bach said:


> I'm only joking, I'm actually the worlds most avid metalhead.


I have a strange feeling that THAT is a joke lol


----------



## Adhesive Ninja

Metalheadwholovesclasical said:


> Ok, everyone arguing, hush down please. The fact is metal takes just as much talent as any other music. Its not less or more valid than classical, and they have similar techniques. If you don't like metal, it does not mean its talentless or tasteless or crap period and is a fact. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Thank you.


Well said. Although your pic just reminds me that due to no cash I missed Cryptopsy in Glasgow. Bugger!


----------



## dumbass2311

Love it! Do you listen to Cannibal Corpse? Slayer?


----------



## dumbass2311

Metal is not a subgenre of rock! The two are very different.


----------



## Bach

Wikipedia disagrees, and I disagree. Only a connoisseur (if such a word can apply to such a load of old rot) would be able to tell them apart.


----------



## dumbass2311

I wouldn't trust Wikipedia. I looked up the Civil War, and half of the information was wrong.

Three Days Grace (Rock) guitar cover:





Slayer (Thrash Metal) guitar cover:


----------



## Conservationist

Bach said:


> Wikipedia disagrees, and I disagree.


Wikipedia is not a respected source of information, for good reason!


----------



## Herzeleide

As far as I'm concerned metal is tasteless, crude rubbish. If I want technical, complex music I'll go to Ferneyhough:



















Or Carter. Any relationship between metal and classical is wholly factitious.


----------



## Herzeleide

Metalheadwholovesclasical said:


> There is no such thing as high or low art. There is such thing as one's opinion, which you do not seem to understand. Metal may not appeal to you, but that does not mean it is a watered-down version of art, nor does it mean its a high class version of art. Metal is on the same level as classical and every other genre. Its just a different style of music the musician decides to perform. None takes more talent than the other really. I am sure a classical musician cannot write a metal song as much as a metal musical cannot write a classical piece. There are professionals in every genre.


Oh dear lord someone is using the old postmodern subjectivist 'everything is opinion, nothing is right or wrong' argument for the squillionth time...

I'm sure any self-respecting classical musician wouldn't want to write a metal song.

There certainly are such things as high-brow and low-brow.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> Wikipedia is not a respected source of information, for good reason!


I do understand that this is OT, but studies have gone to prove that Wikipedia is between 95% and more accurate than Britannica, and it has the up side of being able to be corrected quickly. If there is an obvious error in it that you are aware of, why not correct it and make it better? Then you can't complain about it.

Now please get back to discussion.... um.... music?


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

Herzeleide said:


> Oh dear lord someone is using the old postmodern subjectivist 'everything is opinion, nothing is right or wrong' argument for the squillionth time...
> 
> I'm sure any self-respecting classical musician wouldn't want to write a metal song.
> 
> There certainly are such things as high-brow and low-brow.


You obviously have a very distorted world perception. If you believe metal is tasteless, so is classical, considering their structure is amazingly similar. I could also in the same way say classical is tasteless and means the same thing. I can find just as many "flaws" in classical as there are in metal.


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

Herzeleide said:


> As far as I'm concerned metal is tasteless, crude rubbish. If I want technical, complex music I'll go to Ferneyhough:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or Carter. Any relationship between metal and classical is wholly factitious.


Well guess what, metal is not tasteless in the least bit.

I dont consider this tasteless




 (3:04 is where to start to hear vocals)
This song is incredibly emotional and tasteful, this is pure art. This is an artist putting all his emotions in his work. That IS art.

I dont call this tasteless also (If you wanna skip the ambient beginning, skip to 1:58)





I don't consider this tasteless either.





Or this





Or this





If you can explain how any of these are tasteless in a valid, true, reasonable way, perhaps I will listen to you. But I will tell you right now, if you believe there is no emotional or artistic value to these pieces, you either are deaf, incredibly close minded, an idiot, or a classical fan trying to sound as sophisticated as you can by saying metal is not music and classical is. (Yes, I have met many people like that in the classical genre as well with jazz)


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

Oh yes, I forgot to add, metal and classical are indeed related. Compare something like Spawn of Possessions "Inner Conflict" with Johann Sebastian Bach's "Toccatta and Fugue in D Minor" you WILL see the similarities. Metal music takes a lot of its classical influence from Wagner as well.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> Oh yes, I forgot to add, metal and classical are indeed related. Compare something like Spawn of Possessions "Inner Conflict" with Johann Sebastian Bach's "Toccatta and Fugue in D Minor" you WILL see the similarities. Metal music takes a lot of its classical influence from Wagner as well.


Indeed. But bands like Korn give you such a bad name.


----------



## Ciel_Rouge

Well, if you are a "Metalhead who loves clasical" then I suppose you also listen to the classical and NOT only the best known pieces like Toccata and Fugue. I also used to like metal - I still find pieces by Embraced or Cradle of Filth to be rather good and inspired, I also liked Nightwish. BUT: since I started listening to more classical, the "operatic" metal voices just sound "sort of" operatic to me as I have come to hear how much more capability, expression and stability the real operatic voices may have. Similarly, it is possible to compose pieces which sort of resemble the classical but those are quickly swept away by playing real Bach or Beethoven on electric guitars  Still, this is a thread for non-classical musings so any further examples of extremely creative metal might be appreciated. Let's just not fill it with personal ping-pong style attacks.

Just to clear the atmosphere a little bit, let me add that even though I have turned to the classical completely (with some addition of jazz and ethnic) I sort of appreciate this piece by Epica:






It has variety and a bit of dynamic range, does not keep repeating a "loop" throughout the piece (well, not as much as other things), has decent vocals and the lyrics are not that bad - if you know more things of this sort I might be curious enough to take an occasional look at that.

I also like this piece by Stolen Babies:






This by Dimmu Borgir:






and this by Kamelot:






and this one also puts a smile on my face:






As in any other popular genre, there is a lot of cliche crap but also occasionally some pretty inspired and innovative stuff.


----------



## Herzeleide

Metalheadwholovesclasical said:


> You obviously have a very distorted world perception. If you believe metal is tasteless, so is classical, considering their structure is amazingly similar.


I'm talking about general aesthetic, rather than 'structure'. How are they structurally similar? Are there sonata-form metal pieces, constructed with periods, phrases, sections, developments etc. that aren't crappy pastiches of classical?


----------



## Yagan Kiely

I agree with Herzeleide to a degree. Although there are obvious similarities and obvious influences from 'Classical' Music, they are so strikingly different if you ever look at the forest at all. They are (mostly) over-simplifications of classical traditions and the harmonies of Metal will never be as complex as Wagner regardless of how much they are influenced by a similar expressive style. Everything in (good) classical music, every note every rest haas so much education and knowledge behind it, every singly tiny thing is done for a reason. You can talk about a bar of a Bach Choral, or a phrase of a Schoenberg quote for a whole book, there just isn't the same amount of information or scope (or time and effort put into it) in Metal.

That said, the same can go for the Beatles (most of what I said coincidentally), and they are argually the best band ever and certainly my favourite.


----------



## jhar26

Well, rock will never be as complex as Wagner or Schoenberg. It doesn't have to be and doesn't aim to be as complex either. Nothing to do with metal, but take for example the guitar intro from the Stones' "Honky Tonk Women." It doesn't get any simpler than that - but as guitar riffs in rock songs go, it doesn't get any better either. Making it more complicated would only make it less effective. I guess that what I try to say is that the music of rock artists (or of those from any other genre for that matter) must be judged by how it compares to the music of other rock artists and not by how it compares to classical music.


----------



## Bach

No, it doesn't compare - sadly some deluded individuals think they're on equal terms. Dostoyevsky isn't on equal terms with JK Rowling, Picasso isn't on equal terms with Banksy, Wagner isn't on the same terms as metal. Accept this simple truth.


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

Ciel_Rouge said:


> Well, if you are a "Metalhead who loves clasical" then I suppose you also listen to the classical and NOT only the best known pieces like Toccata and Fugue. I also used to like metal - I still find pieces by Embraced or Cradle of Filth to be rather good and inspired, I also liked Nightwish. BUT: since I started listening to more classical, the "operatic" metal voices just sound "sort of" operatic to me as I have come to hear how much more capability, expression and stability the real operatic voices may have. Similarly, it is possible to compose pieces which sort of resemble the classical but those are quickly swept away by playing real Bach or Beethoven on electric guitars  Still, this is a thread for non-classical musings so any further examples of extremely creative metal might be appreciated. Let's just not fill it with personal ping-pong style attacks.
> 
> Just to clear the atmosphere a little bit, let me add that even though I have turned to the classical completely (with some addition of jazz and ethnic) I sort of appreciate this piece by Epica:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has variety and a bit of dynamic range, does not keep repeating a "loop" throughout the piece (well, not as much as other things), has decent vocals and the lyrics are not that bad - if you know more things of this sort I might be curious enough to take an occasional look at that.
> 
> I also like this piece by Stolen Babies:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This by Dimmu Borgir:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and this by Kamelot:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and this one also puts a smile on my face:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As in any other popular genre, there is a lot of cliche crap but also occasionally some pretty inspired and innovative stuff.


Of course I listen to more than the greats. I was raised on classical music since I was a little boy and learned to enjoy it before any other music. I soon expanded to other music as well as I became a teenager, and the primary genres of these are Metal, Jazz, and Psychedelic/Prog Rock. Most the bands you have listed I have never particularly enjoyed. I find them rather generic and boring, especially Cradle of Filth and Dimmu Borgir. I would not exactly call metal a popular genre, but yes, there is crap in it (Slipknot, Korn, System of a Down) and there is the beauty in it (Immortal, Candlemass, Dismember, Peste Noire)


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

Herzeleide said:


> I'm talking about general aesthetic, rather than 'structure'. How are they structurally similar? Are there sonata-form metal pieces, constructed with periods, phrases, sections, developments etc. that aren't crappy pastiches of classical?


Here are some examples of the common similarities between metal and classical.





I can find this becoming a classical song, just replacing the guitars with violins, violas, etc, and the bass guitar with the bass violin and cello. The only thing that would have to get rid of is the vocals.

Another dead give away that metal and classical structure are similar is the fact that NUMEROUS metal bands like to do covers of classical music songs. Here are a few.

Toccata and Fugue Cover





O Fortuna





Requiem For A Dream





Turkish March





Just a few I found rather quickly.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

I'm sure Herzeleide know there are similarities, as he admitted there were in his post, although he described them as crappy pastiches.


----------



## Herzeleide

Okay, find me a metal song which features the following:

Double, triple, quadruple and quintuple invertible counterpoint (the latter you can find in, for example, the last movement of Mozart's Jupiter Symphony).

Thematic development, transformation, combination of themes. Augmentation, inversion and diminution of themes in combination with other forms of a given theme - all the stuff you find in a Bach fugue.

Uses applied dominants, augmented sixths, Neapolitan sixths, modulation to the dominant, mediant, flattened submediant - prolonged counterpoint, prolonged harmonic areas. Sonata form movements, rondo movements, deceptive cadence, perfect cadence, plagal cadence.

Hexachordal combinatoriality, isorhythmic canon.

I'm afraid you're going to have to be a bit more thorough in pointing out stylistic similarities, rather than 'I can find this becoming a classical song...'.

And what exactly is 'metal' about the cover of 'Toccata and Fugue'? The fact that it was played on the electric guitar? Please - give me a break.

The fact is classical music is worlds away and of inifinite more subtlety with many more nuances. Perhaps if you spent many years studying harmony, counterpoint, analysis (i.e. that of Schenker) you would realise that the two genres are worlds apart.


----------



## Herzeleide

Yagan Kiely said:


> I'm sure Herzeleide know there are similarities, as he admitted there were in his post, although he described them as crappy pastiches.


Indeed - take Yngwie Malmsteen. Anyone could write was he does. Many students in universities and conservatoires write pastiches of Baroque, Classical and Romantic music! And they are just that - _pastiches_. No serious contemporary classical composer writes in that style, so any attempt now to do it must have a didactic purpose (learning harmony and counterpoint) otherwise, it's just artificial and plain fake.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> And what exactly is 'metal' about the cover of 'Toccata and Fugue'? The fact that it was played on the electric guitar? Please - give me a break.


Indeed! If you play Bach's cello suites on a saxophone, it is still Baroque. If Armstrong uses a theme from a cello suite, there is a high chance it will be Jazz. I personally don't believe 3rd stream composition can work. Classical music and the rest are just so stark in what _is_ dissimilar. The harmonies of Jazz simply stand out too much.



> The fact is classical music is worlds away and of inifinite more subtlety with many more nuances. Perhaps if you spent many years studying harmony, counterpoint, analysis (i.e. that of Schenker) you would realise that the two genres are worlds apart.


I don't believe Schenkerian analysis is that important. I'm pretty sure Bach, Mozart and Beethoven made do without it.



> And they are just that - _pastiches_. No serious contemporary classical composer writes in that style, so any attempt now to do it must have a didactic purpose (learning harmony and counterpoint) otherwise, it's just artificial and plain fake.


What if you pastiche two different composers, combine their 'styles' and form a new style. What is that?
Also, not just harmony and counterpoint, everyone is influenced by what they hear, you may as well capitalise on that fact.


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

Herzeleide said:


> Okay, find me a metal song which features the following:
> 
> Double, triple, quadruple and quintuple invertible counterpoint (the latter you can find in, for example, the last movement of Mozart's Jupiter Symphony).
> 
> Thematic development, transformation, combination of themes. Augmentation, inversion and diminution of themes in combination with other forms of a given theme - all the stuff you find in a Bach fugue.
> 
> Uses applied dominants, augmented sixths, Neapolitan sixths, modulation to the dominant, mediant, flattened submediant - prolonged counterpoint, prolonged harmonic areas. Sonata form movements, rondo movements, deceptive cadence, perfect cadence, plagal cadence.
> 
> Hexachordal combinatoriality, isorhythmic canon.
> 
> I'm afraid you're going to have to be a bit more thorough in pointing out stylistic similarities, rather than 'I can find this becoming a classical song...'.
> 
> And what exactly is 'metal' about the cover of 'Toccata and Fugue'? The fact that it was played on the electric guitar? Please - give me a break.
> 
> The fact is classical music is worlds away and of inifinite more subtlety with many more nuances. Perhaps if you spent many years studying harmony, counterpoint, analysis (i.e. that of Schenker) you would realise that the two genres are worlds apart.


For one, the Toccatta and Fugue cover would be considered metal not because it is played on the electric guitar, but because it SOUNDS metallic. However, I would still not necessarily consider it metal, but still classical. I am just showing similarities. If you listened to metal long enough along with classical music, you will find the similarities. For example, you can compare Tocatta and Fugue to one of Deicide's guitar solos from "Stench of Redemption" for example. 



 (solo at 2:29) To say it sounds metal because it is played on an electric guitar is absolutely foolish. I would not call it metal (the cover) it is to show that metal and classical when you break it all down, sould quite similar instrumental wise, which points that it is related to classical music (hint: the word "related" there are other influences in metal as well including progressive rock, jazz, and blues) Of course, classical most of the time is more complex then metal (there are exceptions however) because metal also has other influence from genres that are not as complex as classical music (rock, jazz, blues etc aren't anywhere near classical music's complexity) I do hate however that a lot of people (especially classical listeners) tend to think their music is more artsy and superior to other genres because their genre is more complex, when that isn't true. It's the heart, passion and soul put into the music.

Now, metal that matches your descriptions:

Almost anything by Spawn of Possession, Cryptopsy, Psycroptic, Cynic, and mainly the Technical Death Metal genre as a whole could fit your bill. Symphonic metal bands as well will fit. Here are some songs that I would say fit what you are looking for.













 (sorry bad quality to sound)





This song I have found a lot of classical relation more than other influence, some disagree with me, but I do for some reason see a lot of classical here.





Those are some that I think may fit what you are looking for.


----------



## Bach

Yeah, but metal isn't artsy at all - it's depressive and geeky. Drawing influence from silly post-apocalyptic fantasy.. Stench of Redemption, Spawn of Possession - pretentious much?


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

Bach said:


> Yeah, but metal isn't artsy at all - it's depressive and geeky. Drawing influence from silly post-apocalyptic fantasy.. Stench of Redemption, Spawn of Possession - pretentious much?


Different bands have different tones. Bands like Iron Maiden, Led Zeppelin, Manowar, and Judas Priest have more of a happier tone.

Bands like Ahab, Candlemass, Abysmal Sorrow, Black Sabbath, and Mirror of Deception are depressive.

Bands like Cannibal Corpse, Cryptopsy, Spawn of Possession, Deicide, and Dismember have an angry tone.


----------



## Bach

How can you not see how cringe those names are? So childish!


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> So childish!


Yes, I agree they are immature but the 'Beatles' isn't exactly the beacon of mature names (yes, I know it is different it is, but a comparison can be made). If every composer were forced to have a name for themselves (not a surname), I'm sure many would come up with some pretty immature (to today's audiences anyway) names also. That said... they are VERY funny how bad the names of many Metal bands are, quite unimaginative and very conservative (within their culture).

With regard to Cannibal Corpse... there is nothing remotely classical about all I have heard. It is so dismembered (forgive the pun), from classical music that although research and in depth study could produce similarities, they are inaudible.





 hilarious.

Not to mention, the lyrics of a Wagner opera (yes even him), are ever so slightly less '6 year old boy who recently discovered a bunch a foul words'....


----------



## dumbass2311

Dude, look at Apocalyptica. It's a quartet of classically trained cellists. The name doesn't mean anything to me, and I think you are rather stupid if it does. A real ****** metal band would be Bullet for My Valentine (Psh, are they even metal?). Then there's Tarja Turunen, ex-lead singer of the symphonic/power metal band Nightwish. She's a classically trained soprano. There is also Simone Simons from the symphonic/gothic metal band Epica. She is a classically trained mezzo-sporano. Also the thrash metal band Hevein. Their genre is a mixture of thrash, neo-classical, and symphonic.

Don't tell me that metal musicians can't be classically trained.


----------



## dumbass2311

Remember, Cannibal Corpse is a death metal band. That's how they're supposed to sound! Different types of metal have different sounds. Just like classical music. Cannibal Corpse is also my favorite band, above classical music.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> Different types of metal have different sounds. J


OMG dude, really?



> Just like classical music.


Yes, but all classical music is music so therein lies a major difference between Death Metal and Classical.



> The name doesn't mean anything to me, and I think you are rather stupid if it does.


Thankyou for being such a nice person!



> Don't tell me that metal musicians can't be classically trained.


Wait... what? I had forgotten we had. Indeed that is a stupid comment. Luckily none said it hmm?


----------



## Tal

Hi..
I read some of the posts here.
I am not a big fan of metal music.
I come from the classical-music too.
However I saw some people here who just wrote their messages to degrade metal and metal-lovers.
I think that this is useless thing to do.
If we spend time to speak with people who like other kind of music, it would be better to really come with open-minds.
I am going to try some of the links which were added here.


----------



## Bach

Yeah, but I'm a prime elitist cock.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> However I saw some people here who just wrote their messages to degrade metal and metal-lovers.
> I think that this is useless thing to do.


Me? Or others?


----------



## nickgray

Herzeleide said:


> Okay, find me a metal song which features the following:
> 
> Double, triple, quadruple and quintuple invertible counterpoint (the latter you can find in, for example, the last movement of Mozart's Jupiter Symphony).
> 
> Thematic development, transformation, combination of themes. Augmentation, inversion and diminution of themes in combination with other forms of a given theme - all the stuff you find in a Bach fugue.
> 
> Uses applied dominants, augmented sixths, Neapolitan sixths, modulation to the dominant, mediant, flattened submediant - prolonged counterpoint, prolonged harmonic areas. Sonata form movements, rondo movements, deceptive cadence, perfect cadence, plagal cadence.
> 
> Hexachordal combinatoriality, isorhythmic canon.


Oh my... Well, let's say you use a first inversion of neapolitan chord in your music. So what? Suddenly your track becomes better? Yes, the complexity of some classical compositions is light years away from any music, not just metal. So what? More complex doesn't mean better.


----------



## Bach

It means depth which for me is better.


----------



## nickgray

Bach said:


> It means depth which for me is better.


Hm... So is the microtonal chromatic music with headbreaking time signatures and tempo changes have more depth than regular c major composition for some solo instrument in 4/4? The is argument build on the same "It means depth which for me is better" logic you just used.


----------



## jhar26

More complicated doesn't always mean better in my opinion - sometimes there's beauty in simplicity. As far as pop or rock goes over-complicating things often takes away from it's impact. In principle I'm not against bands experimenting and taking their music into (for rock) unusual areas - and there no doubt are examples where the results are interesting. But, say, prog-rock bands often sound as though they try to build a skyscraper on the foundations of a one storey building so to speak. 

I think that superior technical ability gives the classical composer/musician more expressive posibilities and a bigger palette of colours to work with. I love pop, rock, soul and what have you also though - but I see no need to compare the Beatles with Mozart, Pink Floyd with Bach or Aretha Franklin with Maria Callas - that all sounds a bit absurd to me. I don't understand why that's so important to people anyway. Why not appreciate each genre for what it is, respect each artist for his/her achievements in his/her own genre and leave it at that?

All of the above in my modest opinion.


----------



## nickgray

jhar26 said:


> I think that superior technical ability gives the classical composer/musician more expressive posibilities and a bigger palette of colours to work with. I love pop, rock, soul and what have you also though - but I see no need to compare the Beatles with Mozart, Pink Floyd with Bach or Aretha Franklin with Maria Callas - that all sounds a bit absurd to me. I don't understand why that's so important to people anyway. Why not appreciate each genre for what it is, respect each artist for his/her achievements in his/her own genre and leave it at that?


Agreed. There is little point in claiming superiority of one type of music over another, because they're inherently different. And where one will draw the line that will decide which music deserves a place in a garbage can and which deserves a place in history? All in all - don't compare a chicken to a frog (yeah, I know, it's a horrible example), it is stupid, but remember that they're both animals. damn... I couldn't think of a better um... metaphor, sorry


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> Yes, the complexity of some classical compositions is light years away from any music, not just metal. So what? More complex doesn't mean better.


What it means, is that the composer has more tools at his disposal to make the music more interesting and expressive. When all you know is I IV V, it can get limited after a while (pop more so than metal). And what this means, is that in the end the music is better because the composer _can_ make it 'better'.



> All in all - don't compare a chicken to a frog (yeah, I know, it's a horrible example), it is stupid, but remember that they're both animals. damn... I couldn't think of a better um... metaphor, sorry


Apple and orange?

Anyway, both use the exact same foundations, the exact same methods and the exact same methods of critique. Because of this, they can be critiqued against each other. They aren't apples and oranges, Music is the Apple, and Poetry is the Orange (Painting/Photography the Banana etc.); Classical music is a Granny Smith, and Metal is Pink Lady (etc.).


----------



## Tal

Yagan Kiely said:


> Me? Or others?


The one who asks, know the answere


----------



## jurianbai

Jon Lord of Deep Purple fame has long produced music in classical style. For those curious visit :

his blog - http://jonlord.org/
Durham concerto on myspace


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> The one who asks, know the answere


Well I honestly don't know. I have defended metal and pointed out some shortcomings. I certainly have not degraded(? - I can't remember what you said, was this it?) metal.


----------



## Herzeleide

Metalheadwholovesclasical said:


> Now, metal that matches your descriptions:
> 
> Almost anything by Spawn of Possession, Cryptopsy, Psycroptic, Cynic, and mainly the Technical Death Metal genre as a whole could fit your bill. Symphonic metal bands as well will fit. Here are some songs that I would say fit what you are looking for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (sorry bad quality to sound)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This song I have found a lot of classical relation more than other influence, some disagree with me, but I do for some reason see a lot of classical here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those are some that I think may fit what you are looking for.


None of those clips you posted featured any of the following:

'Double, triple, quadruple and quintuple invertible counterpoint (the latter you can find in, for example, the last movement of Mozart's Jupiter Symphony).

Thematic development, transformation, combination of themes. Augmentation, inversion and diminution of themes in combination with other forms of a given theme - all the stuff you find in a Bach fugue.

Uses applied dominants, augmented sixths, Neapolitan sixths, modulation to the dominant, mediant, flattened submediant - prolonged counterpoint, prolonged harmonic areas. Sonata form movements, rondo movements, deceptive cadence, perfect cadence, plagal cadence.

Hexachordal combinatoriality, isorhythmic canon.'

Hence, the clips are fundamentally different from classical music. Moreover, they were crude and primitive - same dynamic throughout, rhythmically dull and repetitive.

Try actually _studying_ classical music. Find out what it is all about, how it is constructed and its fundamental aspects. Study harmony, counterpoint, fugue and analysis. If you do all of this, whilst immersing yourself in classical music, your only option would be to concede that metal has little, if indeed anything, in common with classical music.

If you wish to once again confute me, my suggestion is that you find metal music that _specifically_ features the aforesaid fundamental characteristics that makes classical music, from the medieval era to the modern, what it is.


----------



## Herzeleide

nickgray said:


> Oh my... Well, let's say you use a first inversion of neapolitan chord in your music. So what? Suddenly your track becomes better? Yes, the complexity of some classical compositions is light years away from any music, not just metal. So what? More complex doesn't mean better.


You seem to have missed the point. I was not asserting that classical music was more complex than metal - that is of little interest to me. I was merely pointing out some of the major characteristics of various forms of classical music that define it, and in doing so, separate it from metal.


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

Herzeleide said:


> None of those clips you posted featured any of the following:
> 
> 'Double, triple, quadruple and quintuple invertible counterpoint (the latter you can find in, for example, the last movement of Mozart's Jupiter Symphony).
> 
> Thematic development, transformation, combination of themes. Augmentation, inversion and diminution of themes in combination with other forms of a given theme - all the stuff you find in a Bach fugue.
> 
> Uses applied dominants, augmented sixths, Neapolitan sixths, modulation to the dominant, mediant, flattened submediant - prolonged counterpoint, prolonged harmonic areas. Sonata form movements, rondo movements, deceptive cadence, perfect cadence, plagal cadence.
> 
> Hexachordal combinatoriality, isorhythmic canon.'
> 
> Hence, the clips are fundamentally different from classical music. Moreover, they were crude and primitive - same dynamic throughout, rhythmically dull and repetitive.
> 
> Try actually _studying_ classical music. Find out what it is all about, how it is constructed and its fundamental aspects. Study harmony, counterpoint, fugue and analysis. If you do all of this, whilst immersing yourself in classical music, your only option would be to concede that metal has little, if indeed anything, in common with classical music.
> 
> If you wish to once again confute me, my suggestion is that you find metal music that _specifically_ features the aforesaid fundamental characteristics that makes classical music, from the medieval era to the modern, what it is.


Yeah I don't really study classical music (too busy studying school work and preparing for college, no time to study music in between that, and my friends and family, and of course my girlfriend) so ultimately, I am not too sure what you eman by those particular terms, I said classical music and metal are related, not the same, which you appear to be thinking is what I am saying. They do have relations, you can hear in the music. You can also hear the jazz and rock influence in it. I found a rather good post comparing the two forms of music on another site.

http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/archive/index.php/t-241396.html

And it is repetitive? Really? Mind explaining why? I find it just as "repetitive" as classical music really.


----------



## Conservationist

Yagan Kiely said:


> I do understand that this is OT, but studies have gone to prove that Wikipedia is between 95% and more accurate than Britannica


"Studies" are often wrong


----------



## Conservationist

Herzeleide said:


> Try actually _studying_ classical music. Find out what it is all about, how it is constructed and its fundamental aspects. Study harmony, counterpoint, fugue and analysis. If you do all of this, whilst immersing yourself in classical music, your only option would be to concede that metal has little, if indeed anything, in common with classical music.


Typical internet pretense, here: "You don't know anything, do I my way, so I can dominate you."

Study metal and you'll see the similarities outnumber the differences.


----------



## Conservationist

Metalheadwholovesclasical said:


> I said classical music and metal are related, not the same, which you appear to be thinking is what I am saying. They do have relations, you can hear in the music.


For the love of God... they structure songs in the same way! Unlike all the repetitive pop/jazz/rock/blues, they use narrative poetic structures and counterpoint.

You're running into false elitism here by some of the people here who I think you'll find have failed at life, are bitter, and compensate by dicking over people on the internet to feel better.

Modern society is such a WIN! it produces a non-stop stream of embittered angry little men who won't lift a finger to fix collective problems.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

We have a nice conversation... and then this turns up ruining it.


> "Studies" are often wrong


And of course, the chances of these studies being wrong is much higher than you being wrong.



> You're running into false elitism here by some of the people here who I think you'll find have failed at life, are bitter, and compensate by dicking over people on the internet to feel better.


What a comprehensive argument (ignoring the incomprehensible grammar midway)!



> Modern society is such a WIN! it produces a non-stop stream of embittered angry little men who won't lift a finger to fix collective problems.


Again, absolutely shot down arguments with your Ad Hominem congratulations. After such obviously destructive arguments on your part (that even so, do not actually related to arguments at all), it's obvious that no one will ever think that there is any differences between the two. I mean metal is almost the same.

Jeez, I hate people who are so blindly bias and arrogant that they through around ad homs (and countless other fallacies), are precisely hypocritical to what they say (in this thread), just to win a point in there own head....


----------



## Herzeleide

Conservationist said:


> Typical internet pretense, here: "You don't know anything, do I my way, so I can dominate you."
> 
> Study metal and you'll see the similarities outnumber the differences.


'Do I my way'? 

I'd never be responsible for such an unclear utterance. 

Similarities outnumber the differences? I once again must direct you towards the acid test. Find me a metal song which features some of the following:

'Double, triple, quadruple and quintuple invertible counterpoint (the latter you can find in, for example, the last movement of Mozart's Jupiter Symphony).

Thematic development, transformation, combination of themes. Augmentation, inversion and diminution of themes in combination with other forms of a given theme - all the stuff you find in a Bach fugue.

Uses applied dominants, augmented sixths, Neapolitan sixths, modulation to the dominant, mediant, flattened submediant - prolonged counterpoint, prolonged harmonic areas. Sonata form movements, rondo movements, deceptive cadence, perfect cadence, plagal cadence.

Hexachordal combinatoriality, isorhythmic canon.'

From the pieces I've heard, generally they fall at the first hurdle by not having a texture which is either implicitly or explicitly contrapuntal. I can tell this from listening.


----------



## Herzeleide

Conservationist said:


> Unlike all the repetitive pop/jazz/rock/blues


Jazz, repetitive? LOL! 

Read this:

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

The chord changes for 'Giant Steps' by John Coltrane are anything but repetitive! The piece is about 300 BPM with arcane harmonic progressions throughout that constantly change key.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

Speaking about Coltrane, I hate him. Unmusical and incomprehensible. That said, I love his melodies but he then goes ahead and ruins them.


----------



## Herzeleide

Yagan Kiely said:


> Speaking about Coltrane, I hate him. Unmusical and incomprehensible. That said, I love his melodies but he then goes ahead and ruins them.


Your perspicacity is breath-taking. Ever thought about becoming a critic?


----------



## Conservationist

Herzeleide said:


> Jazz, repetitive? LOL!
> 
> Read this:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coltrane_changes
> 
> The chord changes for 'Giant Steps' by John Coltrane are anything but repetitive! The piece is about 300 BPM with arcane harmonic progressions throughout that constantly change key.


Yeah, repetitive. Sounds like he found a technique and applies it regardless of circumstance. This technique was not unknown to classical musicians as a possibility, but they chose not to pursue it. You're celebrating a non-hero in Coltrane.


----------



## Conservationist

Herzeleide said:


> Your perspicacity is breath-taking. Ever thought about becoming a critic?


Dude, you're behaving like a pompous prick. It's behavior like that which makes the internet a bunch of monkeys throwing poo. Do you mind?

:angry: :angry: :angry:


----------



## Conservationist

Yagan Kiely said:


> We have a nice conversation... and then this turns up ruining it.
> And of course, the chances of these studies being wrong is much higher than you being wrong.


There are studies and counter-studies, and so there's no firm truth at this time, so I'm picking resources that have withstood the test of time.

Here's a good compilation of reasons Wikipedia fails, including research pointing out its inaccuracy:

http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/

Stop claiming half of the story is a whole.


----------



## Conservationist

Herzeleide said:


> From the pieces I've heard, generally they fall at the first hurdle by not having a texture which is either implicitly or explicitly contrapuntal. I can tell this from listening.


Oops, we may have a sample problem.

WHAT HAVE YOU HEARD?

Thx.


----------



## Herzeleide

Conservationist said:


> Yeah, repetitive. Sounds like he found a technique and applies it regardless of circumstance. This technique was not unknown to classical musicians as a possibility, but they chose not to pursue it. You're celebrating a non-hero in Coltrane.


'Sounds like'. You're wrong. And it's obviously the opposite of repetitive, as is most the music Coltrane followed up with, in a more modal approach. In fact, the latter approach produced something much freer, with far less repetition than almost all metal.

Many approaches have indeed been known to Classical musicians. A fair amount of classical music has been influenced by jazz. Funny, not much classical music has been influenced by metal.


----------



## Herzeleide

Conservationist said:


> Oops, we may have a sample problem.
> 
> WHAT HAVE YOU HEARD?
> 
> Thx.


All the clips posted on this thread as well as other things.


----------



## Herzeleide

Conservationist said:


> Dude, you're behaving like a pompous prick. It's behavior like that which makes the internet a bunch of monkeys throwing poo. Do you mind?
> 
> :angry: :angry: :angry:


I'd rather act like that than swear and be vulgar.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> Your perspicacity is breath-taking. Ever thought about becoming a critic?


Just an opinion. Get used to them, they can be different from yours.



> http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/


My god, way to point out a completely biased website... I checked that out ages ago. It really failed at proving anything in it's arguments. It's as bias and blatantly untrue as that google watch site.



> I'd rather act like that than swear and be vulgar.


Just because you don't swear, doesn't mean you aren't vulgar - which you are.


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

These arguments are getting rather annoying to me right now. There are too many, what I call "classical pricks" (people who for the most part limit themselves to only classical music and dont have any broad taste in music and tend to think their taste is superior over everyone elses) crying to those with a wider taste in music over the fact that both metal and classical music are related because they don't like the music. It is a known fact that metal has a good amount of influence from classical, along with other genres. You may not choose to hear it, but it is there. If you listened to both classical music and metal as long as I have (and several other posters here) you will hear the similarities. Now, that being said, because metal HAS INFLUENCE from classical, it does not mean they are the same, which means some things you find in classical will not be found, and there are things in metal you cant find in metal. The same goes for the other genres that influenced metal, including jazz, progressive and psychedelic rock, old blues, etc. Many people need to get over it.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> There are too many, what I call "classical pricks" (people who for the most part limit themselves to only classical music and dont have any broad taste in music and tend to think their taste is superior over everyone elses) crying to those with a wider taste in music over the fact that both metal and classical music are related because they don't like the music.


Fallacious. Just because you have a 'wider' taste doesn't meant anything at all. That doesn't mean you are wrong however, it just doesn't support you argument at all.

Also, I enjoy (some) Jazz, I enjoy 60/70s pop (rare amount of 80s), and a couple now-a-days. I enjoy folk music as well. Just because we don't listen to Metal, doesn't mean we only listen to classical. What's with all these false assumptions and b ad generalisations?



> It is a known fact that metal has a good amount of influence from classical, along with other genres. You may not choose to hear it, but it is there.


And everyone is agreeing with that, everyone has SAID that? Have you read anything?



> Many people need to get over it.


I apologise, I didn';t know I *HAD* to _LOVE_ metal....


----------



## Herzeleide

Metalheadwholovesclasical said:


> It is a known fact that metal has a good amount of influence from classical, along with other genres. You may not choose to hear it, but it is there.


Please outline these similarities and influences.


----------



## Conservationist

Yagan Kiely said:


> Just because you don't swear, doesn't mean you aren't vulgar - which you are.


I have to agree there.

There are better Wikipedia critiques, but honestly, I'm too worn out on the issue to think about it right now. They detest the resource I manage and won't give reasons why, so about a year ago I did thorough research and now it all just seems obvious to me.

Wikipedia's great for summaries of stuff that don't require experts or are so widely distributed they can be plagiarized. But for any questions of finer discernment, run away as fast as you can.


----------



## Conservationist

Herzeleide said:


> Please outline these similarities and influences.


Narrative composition and Faustian spirit.


----------



## Herzeleide

Conservationist said:


> Narrative composition and Faustian spirit.


That has no impact whatsoever on how the music sounds, since 'narrative composition' has no consistent, definable quality about it (and, needless to say, 'Faustian spirit' cannot be defined musically).


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

Yagan Kiely said:


> Fallacious. Just because you have a 'wider' taste doesn't meant anything at all. That doesn't mean you are wrong however, it just doesn't support you argument at all.
> 
> Also, I enjoy (some) Jazz, I enjoy 60/70s pop (rare amount of 80s), and a couple now-a-days. I enjoy folk music as well. Just because we don't listen to Metal, doesn't mean we only listen to classical. What's with all these false assumptions and b ad generalisations?
> 
> And everyone is agreeing with that, everyone has SAID that? Have you read anything?
> 
> I apologise, I didn';t know I *HAD* to _LOVE_ metal....


There are too many people on this site who listen to only classical and are constantly putting down other types of music. My old music teachers were like this as well. I constantly hear (especially on this particular thread) people are always saying "Genre A is always so simple and boring blah blah blah" and need to shut their traps, enjoy it if they want, but if you dont like it, leave it the hell alone. That means if you don't like metal, stay away from the thread. Plain and simple. Many classical fans seem to look at other music as inferior because it is not as complex or technical as their music, when complexity does not impact quality at all. I am saying people who only like classical music and nothing else are MOST OF THE TIME ignorant to other genres of music and think it is always inferior. I am saying they need to get over it.

Trust me, there are a LOT of people here who only listen to classical.

Most are, but there are still many not agreeing to the fact. (see Herzidile, or what his name is, too lazy to look)

And when did I ever say you had to LIKE metal? I never once said that. Read my posts carefully and you will see I never said that. I said people need to accept the fact metal and classical have related material.


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

Herzeleide said:


> That has no impact whatsoever on how the music sounds, since 'narrative composition' has no consistent, definable quality about it (and, needless to say, 'Faustian spirit' cannot be defined musically).


The relations are definate. One example is that both music forms do not surround a particular riff, but a motif rather. (riffs are in Rock music and Pop), however, metal a lot of times still do base themselves on riffs, usually pending on the genre (Thrash and Traditional Metal are based on riffs) and there are other genres, like classical, surround themselves on a motif (Symphonic Metal, most Death Metal, a lot of Black Metal, a lot of Doom Metal, etc.) and there are times they combine the idea of surrounding themselves around a motif and a riff at the same time, it is difficult to explain.

Next is the attitude and the tone of the music. Both metal and classical perform the most extreme of emotions, depression, horror, anger, and even pure joy. Although all music seems to do this, both metal and classical are the most aggressive at showing these emotions.

Next are the time signature changes, both use very similar types of changes in pace and in time signatures. There are a few more as well, but I can try to pull up a few sites a little later to add to the discussion.


----------



## Herzeleide

Funny, I've never heard that music forms 'surround' a particular riff or motif.  
Similarly, I don't think I've heard motivic or thematic development in metal as I've heard in classical, such as augmentation, retrograde, inversion, invertible counterpoint (i.e. two motives which can appear either above or below each other) etc. But if you think you have, please show me. Incidentally, regarding my tastes in music I would regard myself as catholic, having a penchant for a great deal of Western Classical music from its genesis to the most contemporary music, as well as a myriad of Oriental and non-Western Classical music. In addition to this, I also have listened to (and love) a great deal of Jazz and Jazz-Fusion. Pop and Rock are of course inescapable, and I have indeed listened to various types of Metal. The accusation of pomposity is tiresome and trite, often being used on this forum when someone can't think of anything else to say.

I'll just leave you and the other deluded guy talk nonsense and make factitious and non-musical comparisons without offering any evidence! 

Tchüssie!


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> I said people need to accept the fact metal and classical have related material.


*Everyone already has....*



> "Genre A is always so simple and boring blah blah blah" and need to shut their traps, enjoy it if they want, but if you dont like it, leave it the hell alone.


I love music enough to want to discuss all aspects about it. I don't care if you want to take that away from me, you can't.


----------



## nickgray

Metalheadwholovesclasical said:


> There are too many people on this site who listen to only classical and are constantly putting down other types of music.


Who cares? There are tons of people in every genre who think the same way - their genre IS the best, and they're quite sure about it. There are quite many people in (almost) every genre who think they're smart and intelligent just because they're listening to complicated (in their opinion) music. Again, who the hell cares?

Anyway, metal is pretty much uncomplicated genre (yep, even prog. metal) compared to classical music. But it doesn't mean that it's bad. It's just less complicated musically, that's it, because using the same logic (complicated=better) you can just say that classical music sucks too compared to some crazy avantgarde. Just... listen to music, not the counterpoints. It kinda reminds me of crazy audiophile guys who spend tons (almost literally) of money into their hi-fi system, including cables for 100$ per cm (or something like that), uber valve amps for 20000$+, etc. (I'm not gonna go into how stupid it is to buy all that stuff, just google it). Now what do they listen to? Music? Or their speakers?


----------



## Yagan Kiely

Never said Metal was bad. My gripe with Metal, is that every piece I have heard is often not very subtle (musically and with the text/names etc.), and often has lyrics that sound like potty mouthed children (again that isn't the music). I don't know the term for this style of singing, but I can't stand that 'noise' singing where you can't understand a word they are saying. It is pointless and distracting from the music.

Let's analyse that; I dislike 1 small thing about the music (no biggie), I hate one thing about the text (not the music though), and I hate another thing which is more to do with the performers than the music.

Complexity doesn't = better by default, but if a composer has a larger pallet, then he can create more expressive music. That is obvious. And I while I think Classical Music is far more varied (thus making it better IMO), classical music can't express some of the same things that the Beatles can, or even some metal groups.


----------



## nickgray

Yagan Kiely said:


> My gripe with Metal, is that every piece I have heard is often not very subtle (musically and with the text/names etc.), and often has lyrics that sound like potty mouthed children (again that isn't the music).


Try those:
Pain of Salvation (The Perfect Element, Pt.I, Remedy Lane, Be).
http://www.darklyrics.com/p/painofsalvation.html





 (Live)




 (Live)

Same two songs, but from the album.














Megadeth:













Dream Theater:

















Cynic:


----------



## Yagan Kiely

Will do, but later in the week. Got a bunch of stuff do do.


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

Herzeleide said:


> Funny, I've never heard that music forms 'surround' a particular riff or motif.
> Similarly, I don't think I've heard motivic or thematic development in metal as I've heard in classical, such as augmentation, retrograde, inversion, invertible counterpoint (i.e. two motives which can appear either above or below each other) etc. But if you think you have, please show me. Incidentally, regarding my tastes in music I would regard myself as catholic, having a penchant for a great deal of Western Classical music from its genesis to the most contemporary music, as well as a myriad of Oriental and non-Western Classical music. In addition to this, I also have listened to (and love) a great deal of Jazz and Jazz-Fusion. Pop and Rock are of course inescapable, and I have indeed listened to various types of Metal. The accusation of pomposity is tiresome and trite, often being used on this forum when someone can't think of anything else to say.
> 
> I'll just leave you and the other deluded guy talk nonsense and make factitious and non-musical comparisons without offering any evidence!
> 
> Tchüssie!


Surrounding a riff=Something like rock and pop with the instrumentals, where they play the same combination of notes over and over again.

Surrounding a motif=Not repeating parts at all, or as much, much like a story, the sounds are trying to express some story in a way if that makes sense. Most classical music surrounds a motif, while for the most part all rock music surrounds a riff.

I would also agree that classical music expresses emotion more than metal, mainly because of the amount of training in the musicians background and usually the kinds of lives or experiences the musicians had. That does not mean metal is not expressive at all, metal definitely is expressive. Whatever, I am not exactly musically trained so I cannot exactly explain the similarities, but listening to both forms of music as long as I have I and many other classical and metal fans see the similarities. And nope, just a bit tired of people who keep denying it, it gets mainly frustrating to me because I am not what I call "musically trained."


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

Yagan Kiely said:


> *Everyone already has....*
> 
> I love music enough to want to discuss all aspects about it. I don't care if you want to take that away from me, you can't.


You can have an opinion, just don't be an *** about it.


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

nickgray said:


> Who cares? There are tons of people in every genre who think the same way - their genre IS the best, and they're quite sure about it. There are quite many people in (almost) every genre who think they're smart and intelligent just because they're listening to complicated (in their opinion) music. Again, who the hell cares?
> 
> Anyway, metal is pretty much uncomplicated genre (yep, even prog. metal) compared to classical music. But it doesn't mean that it's bad. It's just less complicated musically, that's it, because using the same logic (complicated=better) you can just say that classical music sucks too compared to some crazy avantgarde. Just... listen to music, not the counterpoints. It kinda reminds me of crazy audiophile guys who spend tons (almost literally) of money into their hi-fi system, including cables for 100$ per cm (or something like that), uber valve amps for 20000$+, etc. (I'm not gonna go into how stupid it is to buy all that stuff, just google it). Now what do they listen to? Music? Or their speakers?


There is no such thing as a better genre. Its an opinion, and an opinion on a genre of music or a film is never fact. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Yes, metal is uncomplicated compared to classical, and of course it does not mean its bad, I LOVE metal music, and I LOVE classical. (However frankly this past month I have been primarily listening to classical more than metal) The complexity of a form of music is never a factor for whether or not I like the music.


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

Yagan Kiely said:


> Never said Metal was bad. My gripe with Metal, is that every piece I have heard is often not very subtle (musically and with the text/names etc.), and often has lyrics that sound like potty mouthed children (again that isn't the music). I don't know the term for this style of singing, but I can't stand that 'noise' singing where you can't understand a word they are saying. It is pointless and distracting from the music.
> 
> Let's analyse that; I dislike 1 small thing about the music (no biggie), I hate one thing about the text (not the music though), and I hate another thing which is more to do with the performers than the music.
> 
> Complexity doesn't = better by default, but if a composer has a larger pallet, then he can create more expressive music. That is obvious. And I while I think Classical Music is far more varied (thus making it better IMO), classical music can't express some of the same things that the Beatles can, or even some metal groups.


I don't really agree with what you think about metal really (but it is your opinion) but I agree 100% on complexity not defining quality on music.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> You can have an opinion, just don't be an *** about it.


While I've expressed my distaste in certain areas of metal, I have been one of the few of the 'dislikes' who as actually backed up metal as a whole. So please go back and read that, just because I dislike aspects doesn't mean anything.



> Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.


Not quite true. In regard to a man being attractive to a woman, a high cheekbone is often considered attractive (a la Knightly if I remember correctly). Obviously there are small differences between people and some have fetishes, but this is often a result of external stimuli. Beauty can be explained (a lot of it; not all, yet) scientifically, so can music. So stop making blanket statements that only put a false barriers in how people can approach this argument.


----------



## Conservationist

Herzeleide said:


> I also have listened to (and love) a great deal of Jazz and Jazz-Fusion.


OK, you hit the idiot file.


----------



## Conservationist

Metalheadwholovesclasical said:


> There are too many people on this site who listen to only classical and are constantly putting down other types of music.


I think to many classical listeners, classical is the original western tradition and relative to it, anything else is dumbed down.

For the most part, I agree; on the other hand, metal is the inheritor of classical music past 1950 or so, because "new music" sucks and is a scam.

Anyone who claims to listen to classical and jazz both... is probably just a pompous jerk. No offense, but I've seen the egodrama before, and there's no reason to listen to both if you understand classical.

I think there are some people here who are just jerking off their egos because they've failed at life. They hit the idiot file.


----------



## Conservationist

nickgray said:


> Hm... So is the microtonal chromatic music with headbreaking time signatures and tempo changes have more depth than regular c major composition for some solo instrument in 4/4? The is argument build on the same "It means depth which for me is better" logic you just used.


While I think Bach's argument is bunk as you correctly noted, I think you've forgotten that music isn't just technique -- it's songwriting, namely structure, which is what classical and metal have in common. Why does riff A lead to riffs B,C,D,E,G,H,A1-A7,C2 etc and in what order? Metal is more complex than pop, rap, jazz, blues, techno, fusion, etc. in structure -- more like prog rock, but since it relies on power chords and not open chords, more inclined toward melodic-phrasal composition which emphasizes a narrative type of song structure.

More on this topic here:

http://www.anus.com/metal/about/metal/assimilation/


----------



## Conservationist

Metalheadwholovesclasical said:


> Spawn of Possession, Cryptopsy, Psycroptic, Cynic


No, dear gods, no -- those are the dilettantes.

Please try these:

Darkthrone - Transilvanian Hunger
At the Gates - The Red in the Sky is Ours
Gorguts - Obscura
Emperor - Wrath of the Tyrant
Atheist - Unquestionable Presence
Incantation - Onward to Golgotha

Quite honestly, Cynic is second-rate jazz-fusion with metal riffs, Cryptopsy is sped-up heavy metal, and Psycroptic/Spawn of Possession are more about rhythm than composition. Sorry to sound like a dick but I think that's an honest ****-lysis.


----------



## Bach

Conservationist said:


> I think to many classical listeners, classical is the original western tradition and relative to it, anything else is dumbed down.
> 
> For the most part, I agree; on the other hand, metal is the inheritor of classical music past 1950 or so, because "new music" sucks and is a scam.
> 
> Anyone who claims to listen to classical and jazz both... is probably just a pompous jerk. No offense, but I've seen the egodrama before, and there's no reason to listen to both if you understand classical.


That's a load of rubbish. You get completely different sensations from a Finnissy work and a Michael Brecker tune. Some people like to hear intense improvisations and funky riffs as well as complex polyphony.


----------



## Arnold Schoenberg

I don't particularly enjoy black metal, most of it is badly produced and too high-end, with the exceptions of more modern-black bands such as Immortal, Dimmu Borgir and Emperor. Thrash metal is not really my thing either, although from time-to-time I do enjoy Anthrax, Municipal Waste and the like. In terms of doom metal, I like My Dying Bride, Paradise Lost, Crowbar, Anathema, Saint Vitus and The Obsessed. Death metal wise, I like Cannibal Corpse, Dying Fetus, Skinless among others. I also like post-punk and goth music such as The Cure, Christian Death etc. What are your opinions on the Emo genre? Personally I think it should be destroyed, along with its followers.


----------



## Bach

Emo, metal, heavy rock - all sounds the same to me. Degenerate, unmusical rot.


----------



## nickgray

> Emo, metal, heavy rock - all sounds the same to me. Degenerate, unmusical rot.


How... intelligent. Kinda reminds me of a situation: imagine a big hall with lots of people, all covered in **** from toes to ears, and this guy comes in, wearing a white jacket and a white gloves. 
Nothing personal, just my humble opinion.


----------



## Bach

It is a lot like that.


----------



## Conservationist

Bach said:


> Some people like to hear intense improvisations and funky riffs as well as complex polyphony.


Art is not "equal" to its technique. You're shopping for sounds, not journeys. That is sad.


----------



## Conservationist

Arnold Schoenberg said:


> Emo genre? Personally I think it should be destroyed, along with its followers.


Yes, by fire, if possible.


----------



## Bach

Conservationist said:


> Art is not "equal" to its technique. You're shopping for sounds, not journeys. That is sad.


Who are you to tell me what I'm looking for?


----------



## Herzeleide

Hmmmmmm...



Conservationist said:


> Anyone who claims to listen to classical and jazz both... is probably just a pompous jerk. No offense, but I've seen the egodrama before, and there's no reason to listen to both if you understand classical.





Herzeleide said:


> The accusation of pomposity is tiresome and trite, often being used on this forum when someone can't think of anything else to say.





Herzeleide said:


> A fair amount of classical music has been influenced by jazz. Funny, not much classical music has been influenced by metal.





Conservationist said:


> I think there are some people here who are just jerking off their egos because they've failed at life. They hit the idiot file.





Herzeleide said:


> I'd rather act like that than swear and be vulgar.


----------



## Herzeleide

Bach said:


> Who are you to tell me what I'm looking for?


Indeed. It would be wrong to go to metal if one is 'shopping' for mere _sounds_, because the _sounds_ themselves are utterly repulsive.


----------



## Herzeleide

Conservationist said:


> Sorry to sound like a dick but I think that's an honest ****-lysis.


Crude and scatological imagery there. As in prose, so in musical taste!


----------



## Herzeleide

Conservationist said:


> power chords


Acme of the harmonically illiterate.


----------



## Conservationist

Bach said:


> Who are you to tell me what I'm looking for?


I'm just repeating what you told me.

Is everyone here bitter life-failures who are looking to the internet for some payback?


----------



## Dedrater

On Wikipedia:

Article relevance is determined by an arbitrary set of criteria upheld by its progenitors, mostly predicated on Western cultural preconceptions related to equality, fairness, _argumentum ad populum,_ etc. Further, it is anti-meritocratic, so unlike even conventionally accepted academic institutional standards, the only credentials one needs for posting are those related to income -- prove that you're wealthy enough to purchase networking equipment, and any capitalistic service provider will provision you with an IP address usable virtually anywhere on the Internet. Meritocratic alternatives to Wikipedia exist, but for the most part it, like YouTube and Google, holds a virtual monopoly over what is essentially a public service. Finally, the notions that information is A. useful to anyone who has access to it and B. a purely quantitative facet of human life are completely unjustified.

Moving on.

Classical: A blanket term that generally encompasses 'official' European music, with an arbitrary start date of some time either in the 17th or 18th centuries, depending on whether the person using this meaningless word is also including Baroque music. The term often extends into the Romantic era, though it doesn't have to, since it has no definition -- sort of like 'God'. Sometimes, based almost purely on aesthetics, it can be stretched to include Mission Impossible soundtracks.

Honestly, I'd easily opt for Renaissance music over something completely boring like Schoenberg, but a lot of people have a problem with Renaissance music being categorized as 'Classical'. It, like a lot of metal, has more to do with Romantic or Baroque music than it does with John Cage banging on a piano or Steve Reich playing out-of-synch clapping noises -- or, say, John Coltrane noodling away. If John Cage can be considered part of the minimalism branch of Classical, then just about anything can make the cut. An admission is on order, even if it doesn't particularly mean much: the greatest of modern metal has more to do with Bach than it does with Elvis Presley.

I think that 'metal' is a similarly arbitrary term, which is why it's important to name your bands/composers while discussing this topic. In any case, relishing technique, or critiquing an entire, somewhat poorly defined genre (genres in general are bound together by aesthetics, unless 'tradition' is involved somehow) for things like repetition, simplistic counterpoint, etc. seems to indicate some sort of pedantic fascination with the myriad of ways in which music can be organized. This is akin to upgrading your video card to the latest version just to play a few video games, then proceeding to declare your computer a 'better' one than any with a poorer video card; unbeknownst to the geek, the video card is a means to an end. Let's stay focused on that point rather than getting lobotomized by the technique/technology.



Herzeleide said:


> Crude and scatological imagery there. As in prose, so in musical taste!


Hold on. Didn't you just say:



> The accusation of pomposity is tiresome and trite, often being used on this forum when someone can't think of anything else to say.


Nice symbolic association of the poster's music 'taste' with his words preference. Anyone who uses English symbols in a manner not academically accepted by Merriam-Webster -- in this case, to facetiously evoke imagery of something everyone alive has to experience just to continue living -- is a degenerate cretin with no sense of musicality! And anyone wearing a sideways baseball cap is always a criminal, right? This is unjustified, silly, based completely on appearance, individual-centric, and beside the discussion.

Anyway, just for the fun of it:

Metal with above-average technique:


















Metal/music composed by 'metal' musicians with more obvious Classical influence:

Gregorian chant






Synthesized strings in short excerpts


----------



## Herzeleide

Hmm... this is your first post, Dedrater?

Why has Conservationist opened another account?


----------



## Conservationist

Herzeleide said:


> Why has Conservationist opened another account?


You are so typically English -- literal-minded, self-impressed and depthless -- that it's just about a punchline.


----------



## Conservationist

Dedrater said:


> I think that 'metal' is a similarly arbitrary term, which is why it's important to name your bands/composers while discussing this topic.


It makes no sense that Cannibal Corpse, Suffocation, Burzum and AC/DC are from the same genre.


----------



## Herzeleide

Conservationist said:


> You are so typically English -- literal-minded, self-impressed and depthless -- that it's just about a punchline.


Sorry Dedrater.


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

Sorry, just had to post this. It is amazing, haha


----------



## jurianbai

LOL, very good , appreciate that.


----------



## Arnold Schoenberg

Conservationist said:


> Anyone who claims to listen to classical and jazz both... is probably just a pompous jerk. No offense, but I've seen the egodrama before, and there's no reason to listen to both if you understand classical.


That is the most pointless, biased argument I have ever heard in my life! One who solely listens to classical music has *much* more of a limited view than someone who listens to jazz, rock, rap, hip-hop, dance, techno, experimental, atonal... I don't, and have *never* understood why die-hard classical fans have such a narrow-minded view on the subject of music. Why should one listen to one genre, just because it is the 'traditional western music'? Thats a great argument that is, becuase you are essentially being _musically_ racist! If you opened your eyes and listened to a variety of genres, your compsing would be much better, and your understanding of music would be better as a whole.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> That is the most pointless, biased argument I have ever heard in my life!


Absolutely agree.



> One who solely listens to classical music has *much* more of a limited view than someone who listens to jazz, rock, rap, hip-hop, dance, techno, experimental, atonal...


Well.... one must appreciate and understand all of them (except rap... ), one doesn't have to enjoy, like or actively listen to them; just understand and appreciate. Forcing someone to 'enjoy everything!!!!' (or suffer retribution by people like you*) is as oppressive as the argument (you later said) is 'musically racist'.



> Why should one listen to one genre, just because it is the 'traditional western music'?


Very few argue that obviously flawed argument... in fact, I can't think of a more stupid argument.

*This, is *not* meant in a derogative term (so _please_, don't take it such). I have great respect for you enjoy all of them, but that doesn't mean I have to enjoy every form of music under the sun.


----------



## Conservationist

Arnold Schoenberg said:


> One who solely listens to classical music has *much* more of a limited view than someone who listens to jazz, rock, rap, hip-hop, dance, techno, experimental, atonal...


Everything in music was invented in classical. Everything else is just a dumbed-down, linear, more consistent use of techniques invented in classical. Everything other than classical is also of a shorter attention span, and so fragments your understanding where single-minded study would reward it.

Name something other genres have that classical does not. You will find out, if you analyze this topic, that you're full of **** (I mean that in the nicest possible way).


----------



## Herzeleide

Conservationist said:


> You will find out, if you analyze this topic, that you're full of **** (I mean that in the nicest possible way).


It appears Dedrater/Conservationist is a Professor of Scatology.


----------



## nickgray

Um... guys, I posted several vids from youtube recently
http://www.talkclassical.com/2824-metal-music-death-metal-14.html#post39462
And nobody really listened to this, I guess...

It's just that after those most intelligent sites:


> The Best of Underground Metal +
> Metal Culture
> --------------------------------------
> = the Dark Legions Archive


I kinda decided to remind you about my post


----------



## Conservationist

NickGray,

Thanks for the recommendations. I'm more of a fan of Cynic than anything else in that list, but there's some great guitar work in there.

Here's some other outlooks --

This is the kind of future of metal I can really dig -- guitar-intensive songs using the classical style of narrative composition, but with the pure balls of metal:

* Metallica - Orion
* Burzum - My Journey to the Stars
* Metallica - Call of Ktulu
* Asphyx - Depths of Eternity
* Dismember - Override of the Overtures
* Atheist - An Incarnation's Dream
* Therion - The Way
* Hellhammer - Triumph of Death
* Enslaved - Norvegr
* Rigor Mortis - Six Feet Under

http://www.anus.com/metal/about/metal/assimilation/

I wish more bands made material like this.


----------



## Bach

www.anus.com

Yummy. I'll definitely be clicking on that.


----------



## Conservationist

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/anus.com


----------



## Arnold Schoenberg

Conservationist said:


> Everything in music was invented in classical.


That is wrong! Classical music istelf is an evolved form of earlier music, possibly only percussive music! How *dare* you even suggest that classical music was the first type of music? Since the dawn of time, classical music has existed then has it? That is infuriating! 



Conservationist said:


> You will find out, if you analyze this topic, that you're full of **** (I mean that in the nicest possible way).


Obviously verbally abusing me is the _best_ way to back up your argument? That makes me chuckle!


----------



## Arnold Schoenberg

Yagan Kiely said:


> One must appreciate and understand all of them, one doesn't have to enjoy, like or actively listen to them; just understand and appreciate.


Yes, maybe I could have rephrased that, I do agree with that statement.



Yagan Kiely said:


> Very few argue that obviously flawed argument... in fact, I can't think of a more stupid argument.


It may be flawed, but I have heard *many* people say that _this_ is why they like classical music, however I should not have used that in the thread.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> It may be flawed, but I have heard *many* people say that _this_ is why they like classical music, however I should not have used that in the thread.


Wow, guess I'm lucky. Never met anyone like that... :S I can't understand people like that.


----------



## Conservationist

Arnold Schoenberg said:


> Classical music istelf is an evolved form of earlier music, possibly only percussive music! How *dare* you even suggest that classical music was the first type of music?


Classical music is its full evolution.

Everything since, a devolution.

Why is a pattern of rise and fall hard for you to understand?


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> Classical music is its full evolution.
> 
> Everything since, a devolution.
> 
> Why is a pattern of rise and fall hard for you to understand?


Which part of classical music is the full evolution? Perotin? Mozart? Varese? Beethoven? Bach? Hildegard of Bingen? Debussy? Stravinsky? Schönberg? Pärt? Which of these ridiculously different forms of classical music is it's full evolution? And how come, after once reaching it's full evolution (whereever that may be), it continued to evolve and change?



> Everything since, a devolution.


Okay, so we have established that 'full evolution' _has_ already happened. Okay. So all contemporary compositions in the classical idiom are obviously devolution. They can't remain the 'full evolution' because they have changed styles already.

By the definition of evolution, if it is not better (for lack of imagination for a better word - it's 2am!), it would die out. Yet Beatles, Armstrong, Ellington are still strong. Certainly the Beatles are stronger than (almost?) all of 'full evolution'. By the rules of evolution, this couldn't happen.


----------



## Conservationist

Music is a communication.

It's not just style, but structure of the communication.

The Beatles? Ellington? Blemishes on the *** of history.


----------



## Bach

Don't you listen to metal? Duke Ellington is a lad!


----------



## Yagan Kiely

You didn't answer one single question. You did not even post in a related stream of argument, you just completely ignored all of it.... All you did is repeat your, frankly; crude, subjective opinion with not even the whimper of an argument to actually support your opinion.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> Don't you listen to metal? Duke Ellington is a lad!


I don't understand?


----------



## Bach

I was talking to that Conservationist bloke who thinks the Beatles and Ellington are a waste of time - I thought that somewhere he was standing up for metal (which, of course, is a far greater musical blemish than The Beatles or Duke Ellington who are actually rather good)


----------



## Yagan Kiely

Ahhh, okay. Fair enough.


----------



## Conservationist

Yagan Kiely said:


> You didn't answer one single question. You did not even post in a related stream of argument, you just completely ignored all of it.... All you did is repeat your, frankly; crude, subjective opinion with not even the whimper of an argument to actually support your opinion.


There was no argument in the post to which I was replying -- merely some unrelated questions.

What am I supposed to do, take every question seriously? **** that, I'm no man's slave.

You want a good response -- write a logical argument. No internet bloviation. That's for losers and kiddies.


----------



## Conservationist

Bach said:


> metal (which, of course, is a far greater musical blemish than The Beatles or Duke Ellington who are actually rather good)


Not everyone agrees. Can you handle that?


----------



## Conservationist

Yagan Kiely said:


> Which of these ridiculously different forms of classical music is it's full evolution?


You want me to take this seriously when you cannot even handle the basic rules of English grammar?

ITS FULL EVOLUTION

not

IT'S FULL EVOLUTION

Classical music as a whole contains all of our musical knowledge.

Everything else is aesthetic window-dressing.

Technically, you haven't offered a counter-argument, and I deal in logic, not internet-style "arguments" where people shout emotions at each other.

Are we clear?


----------



## Bach

I don't feel particularly passionate about either but I can't think of any metalists more musical than Duke Ellington or John Lennon. Not many muso's actually like metal.. simply because it's not especially musical.


----------



## Conservationist

Bach said:


> Not many muso's actually like metal.. simply because it's not especially musical.


So it's bigotry to say that classical music is the peak of music, but it's not bigotry to say metal is unmusical.

Uh-huh


----------



## Bach

What do you even mean when you say classical? Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven? Or all art music? The pinnacle of music something I'm particularly interested in finding (although Beethoven's C sharp minor quartet is probably the closest thing)


----------



## nickgray

Bach said:


> simply because it's not especially musical.


Well, if you listen to some mainstream nu metal stuff or brutal death (or a couple of other subgenres) - yeah.


----------



## Bach

I've listened to quite a lot of it. It's just not very musical. Some of it might require very fast finger work or ridiculous speed drumming but even that doesn't seem very rhythmical next to a comparatively slow funk groove or traditional african cross rhythms. 

In the most part, the electric guitar solos don't appear to have any melodic direction or musicality (again, I'm aware that they're highly technical) when compared to the improvisations of Mingus or Charlie Parker.


----------



## Conservationist

Bach said:


> What do you even mean when you say classical? Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven? Or all art music? The pinnacle of music something I'm particularly interested in finding (although Beethoven's C sharp minor quartet is probably the closest thing)


I agree on the Beethoven.

In English, "classical" means all genres lumped under classical -- Classical, Romantic, Baroque, Modern, some early music, etc.

Classical means the Classical era of classical music.

This is probably how your local newspaper uses the term. We need standard terms to communicate.

However, taking classical as a whole, or even just the Romantic period: it was the apex of music, and every musical technique was explored there.

Since then, it has been downhill.

Yes, I like metal -- SOME metal. Most of it is drivel like the rest.

There are a few elegant, insightful, poetic, intelligent exceptions.


----------



## Conservationist

Bach said:


> I've listened to quite a lot of it.


You have to open your mind to a style of music where rhythm lead guitar is the primary melodic voice. Riffs are not like rock riffs at all... the combination of riffs is how the song moves, and drums follow that. Different from rock, et al.

Have you heard:

* Immortal - Pure Holocaust
* Demilich - Nespithe
* Atheist - Unquestionable Presence
* Incantation - Onward to Golgotha
* Burzum - Filosofem
* Suffocation - Effigy of the Forgotten
* Averse Sefira - Advent Parallax

These are a good place to start.

I agree with NickGray that nu-metal/metalcore are sonic horrors.


----------



## Bach

Can I please hear them? (I'm expecting something genuinely excellent from someone who appreciates the late quartets  )


----------



## nickgray

Bach said:


> Some of it might require very fast finger work or ridiculous speed drumming


Meh... Those are boring. Impressive (sometimes very impressive), but boring.



> * Immortal - Pure Holocaust
> * Demilich - Nespithe
> * Atheist - Unquestionable Presence
> * Incantation - Onward to Golgotha
> * Burzum - Filosofem
> * Suffocation - Effigy of the Forgotten
> * Averse Sefira - Advent Parallax


It's the so-called "extreme" metal. Burzum is definitely not technical or interesting, but very atmospheric and minimalistic. Immortal' PH is a typical early norwegian black, I wouldn't call it interesting. Atheist is a jazzy death, afair... Others I either never heard or don't really remember. Anyway, as I said, "it's the so-called "extreme" metal", contains growling, agressive guitar work and drums, not really uh... yeah, not really "musical".


----------



## Conservationist

Bach said:


> Can I please hear them? (I'm expecting something genuinely excellent from someone who appreciates the late quartets  )


Well... the beauty is there, if the mind seeks it.

What's a good way for you to hear these? I can put together something like this:

http://metal.anus.com/

...which was an attempt to find "newer" metal that didn't suck ***, with mixed results.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

Oh my.... what is the point in even talking to you? You say it is full evolution, but fail to define that. Well, I say the classical music is bylotikots*! And that means just as much as what you said. I asked you realistic questions, and because you can't actually answer them you bring up same lame excuse for not. Fine. But why are you bothering to be in this thread?

*I made up this word.


----------



## GageClawson

Hey there everyone. First of all, I'm not here to argue with you, but I must say I disagree with people saying that metal can't be beautiful, there's some really good metal, that's not just incredibly aggressive. Some examples are:

*Wintersun*:






*Ensiferum (Folk Metal)*:











*Blind Guardian*:


----------



## Conservationist

Anyone else into Slayer? What would Anton Bruckner have thought of Slayer?

http://www.nationaldayofslayer.org/


----------



## Bach

I don't suspect he would be too keen.


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

nickgray said:


> Well, if you listen to some mainstream nu metal stuff or brutal death (or a couple of other subgenres) - yeah.


Agreed 100%. Metal does have subgenres that are just complete **** stains, the main ones being nu metal, metalcore, brutal death metal (some I can find tolerable), most grindcore genres, and pop metal/glam metal. The true genres that are incredibly artistic are Death Metal, Thrash Metal, Black Metal, Doom Metal, Traditional Metal, Symphonic Metal, Old School Grindcore, Power Metal, and many others.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

How come half of the metals have such pointlessly aggressive names? Are they trying to be cool or something? Death Metal.... it doesn't explain the style and it just sounds pathetic. Power Metal, explains it however.


----------



## nickgray

Yagan Kiely said:


> How come half of the metals have such pointlessly aggressive names?


Aggressive names? Well, if you're playing some brutal death you wouldn't call your band Sunshine, right? Mostly "aggressive" names are used in the "aggressive" genres. Also, what names do you consider aggressive? Except for some extreme death metal bands I can't really recall any. Unless you find names such as Grave Digger, Hypocrisy, Bolt Thrower, Diablo, etc. aggressive.

Btw, there aren't actually a lot (well, relatively) of really good and original bands out there, mostly there are just tons and tons of copycats. That was the main reason of why I stopped listening to it (2-4 years ago or something, I don't remember) - I listened to the most original and interesting stuff, all that's left for me was to explore lesser known bands in hopes of finding maybe one or two good albums per month or so.


----------



## Herzeleide

Yagan Kiely said:


> How come half of the metals have such pointlessly aggressive names? Are they trying to be cool or something?


I find these names comical. They're ripe for parody. They also hit on something Roger Scruton has said: 'Metal expresses frustration in the same way someone honking their car horn expresses frustration'.



Bach said:


> In the most part, the electric guitar solos don't appear to have any melodic direction or musicality (again, I'm aware that they're highly technical) when compared to the improvisations of Mingus or Charlie Parker.


If you want electric guitar solos of immense musicality, originality and supreme virtuosity used to absolutely musical ends, I can recommend the incomparable jazz-fusion guitarist Allan Holdsworth:






In guitar circles he's known for his extremely original harmonic language, using hitherto totally foreign chord voicings for the electric guitar, many of which require very large and painful left hand stretches (which also occur in his solos... ouch!)


----------



## Conservationist

Herzeleide said:


> They also hit on something Roger Scruton has said: 'Metal expresses frustration in the same way someone honking their car horn expresses frustration'.


He sounds like an idiot.

Metal bands aren't there to express "frustration." For that, you need pointless circular music like Alan Holdsworth.


----------



## Herzeleide

Conservationist said:


> Metal bands aren't there to express "frustration."


No... they just exemplify it.


----------



## Arnold Schoenberg

Conservationist said:


> Classical music is its full evolution.
> Everything since, a devolution.
> Why is a pattern of rise and fall hard for you to understand?


What proof do you have that anything since classical music is a devolution? Further, what proof do you have that classical music is the full evolution? You are treating your opinion of music as a fact, as opposed to an opinion, which is what it should be. If I were to say 'metal music is the full evolution' purely because I like it with no further evidence to prove this, then what argument do I have? Furthermore, do you only see classical music as the full evolution because of the amount of instruments used? You may want to take into account that lots of pathetic classical music exists, which would be pretty strange for a 'full' evolution.


----------



## Bach

Nobody with an ounce of musicality believes in 'full evolution' what a pointless argument.


----------



## Conservationist

Arnold Schoenberg said:


> What proof do you have that anything since classical music is a devolution? Further, what proof do you have that classical music is the full evolution? You are treating your opinion of music as a fact, as opposed to an opinion, which is what it should be.


What proof do you have that it isn't?

Oh, so yours is an opinion, too.

Glad we got that tautology out in the open! What a clever game of categories this is.


----------



## Bach

Music is largely fact, but there is no 'full evolution'


----------



## Arnold Schoenberg

Conservationist said:


> What proof do you have that it isn't?


So we are now playing the game of _'if two arguments exist, and one side cannot be proven, then the other argument music be true'_. I thought *ad-hominems* were not allowed on this forum!



Conservationist said:


> Oh, so yours is an opinion, too.


Yes it is, however I did not make the claim that classical music is *not* the full evolution, only that there is no proof either way. *You*, however stated that it is the full evolution as a *downright fact*, which it clearly is *not*.



Conservationist said:


> Glad we got that tautology out in the open! What a clever game of categories this is.


Aye


----------



## Conservationist

Arnold Schoenberg said:


> Yes it is, however I did not make the claim that classical music is *not* the full evolution, only that there is no proof either way.


Which by default, is a counter-argument. Come on, don't be a trivialist here.


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

Pretty good metal cover of Ode To Joy. Thought some here may like it. It was kinda rough and annoying in some areas to me, but overall I find it pretty good.


----------



## nickgray

Pretty unimaginative, to be honest. And they seem to be a bit off tune with keyboardist.


----------



## Praine

I view music as an art, and if I were to judge a great deal of metal by their attributions towards 'art', I'm afraid many will fall short. To shut off the entire metal genre off as a whole by saying it's unimaginative, talentless or pointless is foolish at best. Metal definately has it's fair share of gems that are full of artistic beauty. For the most part, I can't get into death or thrash metal as the lyrics are typically very violent and musicians are involved in the drinking/drugs/party scene, which I cannot respect as art. I suppose some progressive metal is quite good, as Opeth's _My Arms, Your Hearse_ is a great, emotive and atmospheric gem. I'm not going to say Roadrunner was the cause of Opeth going downhill, but I will say that I did not enjoy the albums they put out while on that label. I also wasn't fond of their first two albums, but everything else they did seems to be pretty enjoyable stuff.

The majority of the metal I listen to is most likely black metal/ambient. I despise "kvlt" black metal bands that have an extremely low intellectuality level and follow the hordes of other black metal bands worshipping Satan and wearing inverted crosses. When they have a strong devotion towards nature and have intelligent lyrics (Wolves in the Thron Room, for example) I can get into them, as long as it does show respectable musical qualities and is pleasing to the ear.

As I can respect these bands, I believe I have now sort of left my passion for metal in the dust and focused primarily on classical music. Classical music shoes true art through music as it is intended to be and causes nostalgic memories in my head mixed with old vintage houses and a very 'classy' atmosphere. This is intellectual music at it's greatest peak.


----------



## Herzeleide

Reign of Praine said:


> Classical music shoes true art through music as it is intended to be and causes nostalgic memories in my head mixed with old vintage houses and a very 'classy' atmosphere.


Yeah, that's exactly how I feel listening to Xenakis.


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

nickgray said:


> Pretty unimaginative, to be honest. And they seem to be a bit off tune with keyboardist.


Yeah, the keyboard was annoying to me, just I thought it would be something cool to post here. The beginning I am not too fond of either.


----------



## Vegg

Bach, most of the stuff posted in this thread is fairly harsh and, to be honest, quite uninspired.

Have a (close) listen to these, and tell me there isn't at least some semblance musicality and talent:


























Just letting know that there ARE metal bands out there that a capable of subtly and beauty. Metal is the same as any other genre, in the fact that 99% of it is pure crap. If you know where to look though, there are some seriously talented musicians that fall under that genre.


----------



## jurianbai

this was posted in ultimateguitar site :

http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/columns/junkyard/metal_versus_the_world.html


----------



## Bach

Vegg said:


> Bach, most of the stuff posted in this thread is fairly harsh and, to be honest, quite uninspired.


r u jking m8, I'm like one of the most cleverest people of my generation, son.


----------



## Vegg

Bach said:


> r u jking m8, I'm like one of the most cleverest people of my generation, son.


Apparently not, because I was referring to the music in this thread not your posts. 

I mean c'mon... People are posting Amon Amarth and Necrophagist to try at prove Metal's artistic merit?

There are metal artists out there that are far more talented than most of stuff in this thread.


----------



## Bach

Vegg said:


>


I don't really see how that one is metal (just because it might be performed by metal musicians). It just sounds like light minimalism..



Vegg said:


>


Seriously? That was pathetic. Sounds like an eastern block eurovision entry with a £4 budget.



Vegg said:


>


Someone takes themselves a little too seriously. I can't get behind this aesthetic at all - So geeky and bombastic!



Vegg said:


>


Sounds like an 80's video game theme. NEXT!



Vegg said:


>


What the hell is the point in this? It's laughably pretentious! At best it sounds like an Einaudi pastiche unhealthily blended with Il Divo and at worst it sounds like another slavic eurovision entry..

like this one:


----------



## jurianbai

aiya, again the bands introduced by these latest post are not popular within the metal listener itself.


----------



## Contrapunctus666

Vegg said:


> Bach, most of the stuff posted in this thread is fairly harsh and, to be honest, quite uninspired.
> 
> Have a (close) listen to these, and tell me there isn't at least some semblance musicality and talent:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just letting know that there ARE metal bands out there that a capable of subtly and beauty. Metal is the same as any other genre, in the fact that 99% of it is pure crap. If you know where to look though, there are some seriously talented musicians that fall under that genre.


That 99% includes those 5 links.


----------



## Vegg

Contrapunctus666 said:


> That 99% includes those 5 links.


Well, these people would beg to differ:

http://www.sputnikmusic.com/album.php?albumid=4189

http://www.metal-observer.com/articles.php?lid=1&sid=1&id=7464

http://www.progarchives.com/album.asp?id=6402

http://www.seaoftranquility.org/reviews.php?op=showcontent&id=1705

http://www.revelationz.net/index.asp?ID=1316

http://www.metal-observer.com/articles.php?lid=1&sid=1&id=7290

http://www.sputnikmusic.com/album.php?albumid=1817

http://www.chroniclesofchaos.com/reviews/albums/2-1956_opeth_blackwater_park.aspx

http://www.metalstorm.ee/pub/review.php?review_id=24&page=&message_id=

Seriously, try to find one bad review of those albums. And don't think I base my musical taste on other people's reviews. I'm just using these to reinforce my point of view.



Bach said:


> You're just saying that because what I say has more than a teaspoon of truth, and it hurts.


No. I'm saying that because your criticisms against those songs are completely subjective, yet you pass them off as some kind of universal truth.

Maybe if you could see past your inflated, elitist ego, you'd notice that they are in fact skilled musicians that you simply don't enjoy. Which is fine. Just don't try to tell me that anything falling outside of your narrow umbrella of musical taste is inferior to the music you listen to.

Anyway, if you have any appreciation for rhythmic complexity, you might at least see the skilled involved in this:





You'll probably try to say something about it not being musical, just rythmical. Well, I believe the great Bob Dylan once said that music is just sound. Thus, if the composition in the link above took skill to make, and people enjoy it... It's good music. It's just a matter of liking it or not.

Moral of the story: who cares what music anyone listens to? If you enjoy it then why would you NOT listen to it?

And that concludes my rambling, nonsensical post. Good day sir.


----------



## Bach

It's elongated, harmonically illiterate pop music with a laughable sense of grandeur performed by delusional, materialistic drug addicts.



> narrow umbrella of musical taste


What do you know of my musical taste? One thing, to be precise. The fact that I can't abide melodramatic, self inflated dross. Don't make assertions - my knowledge and taste for music is broad. There is only one criteria - it has to be technically good. (and don't give me a rubbishy subjectivist retort because good and bad art is largely based on fact and is only down to opinion at a very high level. A level that your metal isn't even in the same galaxy as)


----------



## Vegg

Bach said:


> It's elongated, harmonically illiterate pop music with a laughable sense of grandeur performed by delusional, materialistic drug addicts.


Well, that just proves how dismissive you are towards this genre. Many of them are classically trained musicians with decades of experience.



Bach said:


> What do you know of my musical taste?


I know that you reject music simply on the basis of imaginary boundaries. (ie Genres) All I'm saying is you can't judge metal as a whole, because it's just so diverse. It's like me hearing a score for a low budget movie and dismissing all art music as terrible.



Bach said:


> One thing, to be precise. The fact that I can't abide melodramatic, self inflated dross. Don't make assertions - my knowledge and taste for music is broad. There is only one criteria - it has to be technically good. (and don't give me a rubbishy subjectivist retort because good and bad art is largely based on fact and is only down to opinion at a very high level. A level that your metal isn't even in the same galaxy as)


So you're an elitist as well? Hm.

Anyway, I just want to say one last thing: those songs I posted (particularly the ones by Pain of Salvation) really need to be put into the context of their entire albums to be appreciated.

The reason I enjoy Pain of Salvation's "Be" album so much is that it seamlessly integrates so many styles of music into one coherent concept(Everything from celtic music to something that sounds like it's out of a Broadway musical). It may come off as cheesy at first, but at the same time I find the album's concept to be quite profound TBH.

Whatever, I don't expect you to suddenly start enjoying this stuff. Go have fun with your broad musical knowledge and taste.

BTW, here's an interesting news story:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2008/sep/08/classical.metal.fans.study


----------



## Bach

> I know that you reject music simply on the basis of imaginary boundaries. (ie Genres) All I'm saying is you can't judge metal as a whole, because it's just so diverse. It's like me hearing a score for a low budget movie and dismissing all art music as terrible.


No it's not, because people have been recommending me the so-called 'good stuff'. I've listened to it and come to the conclusion that it's musically illiterate and emotionally pretentious.

All the people I know who like metal are neeks with no social skills and about as musical as a plank of wood. The more musical pop fans tend to like soul or R&B because they often implement Jazz harmony and good vocalists. (which of course was influenced by Wagner and Debussy's harmony and is therefore more classical than metal.)


----------



## Vegg

Bach said:


> No it's not, because people have been recommending me the so-called 'good stuff'. I've listened to it and come to the conclusion that it's musically illiterate and emotionally pretentious.
> 
> All the people I know who like metal are neeks with no social skills and about as musical as a plank of wood. The more musical pop fans tend to like soul or R&B because they often implement Jazz harmony and good vocalists. (which of course was influenced by Wagner and Debussy's harmony and is therefore more classical than metal.)


You do know that there are tons of metal bands that implement jazz harmonies and rhythm? In fact there are bands out there that are maybe 80% jazz/fusion and 20% metal. Many would consider Mahavishnu Orchestra partially metal.

Anyway, why don't we just agree to disagree? 

Just know that I listen to (what I consider good) metal because It offers elements that I don't find in other music, and most of all, I enjoy it immensely. I probably have hundreds of genres in my collection, but I still don't see a reason to stop listening to metal.

And c'mon, it's not like I'm going to be listening to Vivaldi while I'm lifting in the gym. 

Edit: Some more performances





 (Teaches at the Berkeley College of Music)





 (A simpler song from them, but it's one of my favorites that doesn't have harsh vocals, which I'm guessing you aren't a fan of. And yes, the de-tuning at the end was done on purpose.)





 (more of a prog rock band, but they've lately been heavily influenced by metal)





 (hard stuff to get into, but the sheer technical talent is insane)

These are basically randomly selected, so they're definitively not the most impressive works out there, but I hope you at least see why someone might enjoy listening to such music.


----------



## Herzeleide

Vegg said:


> Many would consider Mahavishnu Orchestra partially metal.


And they would be wrong.


----------



## Bach

> And c'mon, it's not like I'm going to be listening to Vivaldi while I'm lifting in the gym.


If I was to recommend a gym-lifting composer, Vivaldi would be pretty suitable, I'd say..


----------



## Contrapunctus666

Vegg said:


> Well, these people would beg to differ:
> 
> http://www.sputnikmusic.com/album.php?albumid=4189
> 
> http://www.metal-observer.com/articles.php?lid=1&sid=1&id=7464
> 
> http://www.progarchives.com/album.asp?id=6402
> 
> http://www.seaoftranquility.org/reviews.php?op=showcontent&id=1705
> 
> http://www.revelationz.net/index.asp?ID=1316
> 
> http://www.metal-observer.com/articles.php?lid=1&sid=1&id=7290
> 
> http://www.sputnikmusic.com/album.php?albumid=1817
> 
> http://www.chroniclesofchaos.com/reviews/albums/2-1956_opeth_blackwater_park.aspx
> 
> http://www.metalstorm.ee/pub/review.php?review_id=24&page=&message_id=
> 
> Seriously, try to find one bad review of those albums.


Those reviews have been written by people who are not experienced in metal. If you are interested into good metal that has a message and is not hipster and/or verse-chorus crap visit this:

http://www.anus.com/metal (also check out some articles, personal favourite.

Check out "the best of" lists and try those albums. Personal favorites: Demilich, Morbid Angel, Deicide, At the Gates, Enslaved, Burzum and Immortal.

When you understand those bands you will understand that DT/PoS/wintersun SUCK.

P.S. If you can't understand the music and the message of the extreme metal, then stick to classical. It is the best music anyway but it doesn't have any good message(because it has been composed long ago and the system was much better than today(capitalism/globalism), not because it "sucks")

Anyway both Bach and Vegg are wrong. Bach says that metal is **** and Vegg recommends wrong metal. Double fail.


----------



## Bach

> because it has been composed long ago


I just listened to the recording of a work finished last week.


----------



## Vegg

Contrapunctus666 said:


> Those reviews have been written by people who are not experienced in metal. If you are interested into good metal that has a message and is not hipster and/or verse-chorus crap visit this:
> 
> http://www.anus.com/metal (also check out some articles, personal favourite.
> 
> Check out "the best of" lists and try those albums. Personal favorites: Demilich, Morbid Angel, Deicide, At the Gates, Enslaved, Burzum and Immortal.


Yeah, uh... I listen to all of those. And lol @ "verse/chorus crap". The bands I posted usually have more complex song structures that most of those ones you listed.



Contrapunctus666 said:


> When you understand those bands you will understand that DT/PoS/wintersun SUCK.


Dream Theater, yes. PoS and Wintersun, no.



Contrapunctus666 said:


> P.S. If you can't understand the music and the message of the extreme metal, then stick to classical. It is the best music anyway but it doesn't have any good message(because it has been composed long ago and the system was much better than today(capitalism/globalism), not because it "sucks")


Ok, so for metal to be considered good, it has to convey a certain "message"? Nice argument you complete dolt.

P.S. I play extreme metal.



Contrapunctus666 said:


> Anyway both Bach and Vegg are wrong. Bach says that metal is **** and Vegg recommends wrong metal. Double fail.


I guess I'm just not KVLT enough to be a true metalhead.

Here's some more wrong metal:






























 (I lol'd, weirdest video ever)


----------



## Contrapunctus666

Vegg said:


> Yeah, uh... I listen to all of those. And lol @ "verse/chorus crap". *The bands I posted usually have more complex song structures that most of those ones you listed.*


I won't even bother to try to explain that you are wrong. It is obvious I guess(unless you really lack some intelligence)



Vegg said:


> Ok, so for metal to be considered good, it has to convey a certain "message"? Nice argument you complete dolt.
> 
> P.S. I play extreme metal.


1.Yes it has. It is pointless to listen to pointless music.

2.So what? Learn the basics first.


----------



## Bach

Contrapunctus666 said:


> It is pointless to listen to pointless music.


Irony..


----------



## Herzeleide

Why the hell are the moderators still letting either Conversationalist or his retarded epigones persist in orchestrating this pathetic charade?


----------



## Herzeleide

Contrapunctus666 said:


> http://www.anus.com/metal


Ooo I wonder where we've seen this website before...


----------



## Vegg

Contrapunctus666 said:


> I won't even bother to try to explain that you are wrong. It is obvious I guess(unless you really lack some intelligence)


Do it. I'd love to hear it. I fail to see how bands like Morbid Angel and Enslaved are more complex than Meshuggah, Blotted Science, and Pain of Salvation. Maybe you just don't understand the polyryhthms, changing time-signatures, and rhythm modulation that these band routinely exhibit. I'd go as far as to say that half of the bands you posted are simplistic and easy to play at best.



Contrapunctus666 said:


> 1.Yes it has. It is pointless to listen to pointless music.
> 
> 2.So what? Learn the basics first.


1. Those bands do have a certain message in their lyrics. In fact, PoS has a lyrical concept spread over a series of albums. And the point is that it sounds good to me and I enjoy it.

2. Tell me, what are the basics? That I should write nonsensical evil-sounding lyrics? That my band should try to as nonconformist as possible? If I wanted that I would listen to hardore punk.

You obviously derive your infallible opinions from the true grim kult subculture of metal, and some site called anus.com, so I really don't see a point in arguing with you anymore.


----------



## Contrapunctus666

Vegg said:


> Do it. I'd love to hear it. I fail to see how bands like Morbid Angel and Enslaved are more complex than Meshuggah, Blotted Science, and Pain of Salvation. Maybe you just don't understand the polyryhthms, changing time-signatures, and rhythm modulation that these band routinely exhibit. I'd go as far as to say that half of the bands you posted are simplistic and easy to play at best.
> 
> 1. Those bands do have a certain message in their lyrics. In fact, PoS has a lyrical concept spread over a series of albums. And the point is that it sounds good to me and I enjoy it.
> 
> 2. Tell me, what are the basics? That I should write nonsensical evil-sounding lyrics? That my band should try to as nonconformist as possible? If I wanted that I would listen to hardore punk.
> 
> You obviously derive your infallible opinions from the true grim kult subculture of metal, and some site called anus.com, so I really don't see a point in arguing with you anymore.


You think that I am someone who has never listened to PoS wintersun or your other **** bands. I have heard all of them and used to like them but after I found ENSLAVED and MORBID ANGEL it took me a month or so to understand that pos, wintersun, "progressive/symphonic" metal sucks.

It is important to WRITE good music and it notes per second don't matter, sorry. Compleexity is important and nothing else.

@Herzeleide: I am not Conservationist, I am someone who understands his views. Are You Jealous?


----------



## Vegg

Contrapunctus666 said:


> You think that I am someone who has never listened to PoS wintersun or your other **** bands. I have heard all of them and used to like them but after I found ENSLAVED and MORBID ANGEL it took me a month or so to understand that pos, wintersun, "progressive/symphonic" metal sucks.


Good for you. It was the other way around for me, except I still occasionally enjoy Morbid Angel, etc. Also, not even a quarter of the metal I posted was symphonic, and most of the metal we BOTH posted is progressive.



Contrapunctus666 said:


> It is important to WRITE good music and it notes per second don't matter, sorry. Compleexity is important and nothing else.


Uh... What? I seriously don't think you understood anything I said. Complexity is the only thing that matters? Alrighty then.


----------



## Contrapunctus666

> Good for you. It was the other way around for me, except I still occasionally enjoy Morbid Angel, etc. Also, not even a quarter of the metal I posted was symphonic, and most of the metal we BOTH posted is progressive.


There is a difference between progressive and "progressive".



> Uh... What? I seriously don't think you understood anything I said. Complexity is the only thing that matters? Alrighty then.


I meant that complexity is the thing you should care about instead of technicality.


----------



## Breogan

When the day comes where two individuals can discuss metal without allowing the exchange take an inevitable nosedive into the uttermost of lowbrow discourse, I will genuinely be impressed.


----------



## Bach

Contrapunctus666 said:


> There is a difference between progressive and "progressive".
> 
> I meant that complexity is the thing you should care about instead of technicality.


If one really cares about musical complexity then I doubt any kind of pop music would satisfy them..


----------



## Contrapunctus666

Looks like Beherit - Engram is getting some high marks:



> Beherit - Engram
> Release: April 9, 2009
> 
> From what people have been hinting, this is quite the album. Like a return to form for black metal, and then taking it to the next dimension past Burzum's Hvis Lyset Tar Oss. Really raw but really structured, with a deepening mood.
> 
> Anyone else looking forward to what could be the first classic of the black metal revival? Black metal has been so stale and boring for the last fifteen years, it's awesome to have something to look forward to with excitement again.


Beherit - Engram review


----------



## nickgray

> Anyone else looking forward to what could be the first classic of the black metal revival?


Who needs it?... Emperor-Burzum-Darkthrone, that's it. Nobody couldn't even clone these guys, not to mention make something original.


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

Bach said:


> No it's not, because people have been recommending me the so-called 'good stuff'. I've listened to it and come to the conclusion that it's musically illiterate and emotionally pretentious.


You're a fool.

Opinions are opinions. We like our stuff, you don't like it. You most likely listen to music I would call "illiterate and emotionally pretentious" as well. What have you been trying to prove throughout all of your posts? It seems like all you have been doing is bitch about how you don't like metal.


----------



## Vegg

Metalheadwholovesclasical said:


> You're a fool.
> 
> Opinions are opinions. We like our stuff, you don't like it. You most likely listen to music I would call "illiterate and emotionally pretentious" as well. What have you been trying to prove throughout all of your posts? It seems like all you have been doing is bitch about how you don't like metal.


I agree. I think videogames vs. film would make a good analogy here. Sure, film is a "higher" art form as most snobby critics would assert, but at the same time many people find videogames more enjoyable and entertaining than any film. It all comes down to what you like, not which one is "better".

And Bach, why do you keep calling metal "pop"? Outside of the mainstream it's at the complete opposite end of the spectrum.


----------



## Bach

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genres_(popular_music)

Because it is. Pop is short for popular music and that's what it is. As opposed to traditional (oral folk) or art music (classical music and opera)



> You most likely listen to music I would call "illiterate and emotionally pretentious" as well.


Yes, but if you did, then you'd be wrong.


----------



## Herzeleide

Whatever pretentious metalheads try to claim, metal is a form of popular music. It is indeed a form of popular music: it is mentioned in the New Grove entry under the title 'popular music'. The Grove says of popular music: 'A term used widely in everyday discourse, generally to refer to types of music that are considered to be of lower value and complexity than art music, and to be readily accessible to large numbers of musically uneducated listeners rather than to an élite.'


----------



## Vegg

Yes, metal evolved from popular music such as jazz, rock, etc. But you are confused. "Popular music" does not equal "pop". Pop is a specific subgenre.

"The term "pop music" was first used in 1926 in the sense of "having popular appeal" (see popular music), but since the 1950s it has been used in the sense of a musical genre, originally characterized as a lighter alternative to rock and roll."

"Common variants are the verse-chorus form and the thirty-two-bar form, with a focus on melodies and catchy hooks, and a chorus that contrasts melodically, rhythmically and harmonically with the verse. Lyrics in pop music are frequently about love, relationships and life experiences. The primary objectives of the pop music genre are audience enjoyment and commercial success. This of course does not imply that those goals are achieved by every song in this genre."


----------



## Bach

Yes, 'pop', 'popular' - irrelevant - you're avoiding the point. 

And metal is one of the very worst forms of pop music because it encourages a nasty degenerate lifestyle of introversion and self loathing - pop artists such as Stevie Wonder and Michael Jackson produce brilliant little songs - nice and funky with pleasing voices and agreeable lyrics. And FYI, through all metal's facade of 'seriousness', a Stevie Wonder song is far more harmonically advanced.


----------



## PartisanRanger

Bach said:


> And metal is one of the very worst forms of pop music because it encourages a nasty degenerate lifestyle of introversion and self loathing


Nice sweeping statement there. What does the morality of the lyrics have to do with the quality of the music anyway?


----------



## Bach

But we've already established that the music is shyte. I think everybody's in agreement over that.


----------



## Vegg

Bach said:


> Yes, 'pop', 'popular' - irrelevant - you're avoiding the point.


What point? I've come to the conclusion that you're just trying to pass off your musical sensibilities as some kind of gospel truth.



Bach said:


> And metal is one of the very worst forms of pop music because it encourages a nasty degenerate lifestyle of introversion and self loathing


Oh come off it. The metal musicians and fans that I've met are some of the nicest and most intelligent people around. Then again, you're obviously still in high school. I can see where you would get those views, considering every social group in high school is made up of idiots.



Bach said:


> - pop artists such as Stevie Wonder and Michael Jackson produce brilliant little songs - nice and funky with pleasing voices and agreeable lyrics.


All subjective. I could use "nice and funky with pleasing voices and agreeable lyrics" to describe some of my favorite metal. There are also many people that find Stevie Wonder and Micheal Jackson unlistenable.



Bach said:


> And FYI, through all metal's facade of 'seriousness', a Stevie Wonder song is far more harmonically advanced.


Most metal, yes. At the same time most metal is more rhythmically advanced than Stevie Wonder.

Also, have you stopped to think that some of the bands in this thread actually are harmonically talented, they just produce harmonies and melodies that YOU don't enjoy?

Sheesh, I've never met anyone as pompous and pretentious as you. Unbelievable.


----------



## Bach

No, power fifths and mock-modal harmony isn't advanced or compositionally thought out.



> you're just trying to pass off your musical sensibilities as some kind of gospel truth.


In the most part, it is. My opinions are largely informed by the canon and contemporary scholarship.


----------



## Herzeleide

Vegg said:


> Yes, metal evolved from popular music such as jazz, rock, etc. But you are confused. "Popular music" does not equal "pop". Pop is a specific subgenre.


Metal and pop still come under the same umbrella term of popular music, which, to quote again:

'A term used widely in everyday discourse, generally to refer to types of music that are considered to be of lower value and complexity than art music, and to be readily accessible to large numbers of musically uneducated listeners rather than to an élite.'

Oh, and metal has very little (if any) connection with jazz.


----------



## Vegg

Herzeleide said:


> Oh, and metal has very little (if any) connection with jazz.


Most of the stuff I listen to does.




















 (music is a bit of a cliche, but still fun)


----------



## Bach

I'm afraid that all of the music you posted there is utter ********. I'm dreadfully sorry! Don't give up though, where there's a will there's a way as they say in the trade!

No, I'm kidding - the last clip is actually rather good.


----------



## PartisanRanger

Bach said:


> But we've already established that the music is shyte. I think everybody's in agreement over that.


Easier just to bypass the question then, I guess. And no, I don't think you'd find very many in agreement with you.



Herzeleide said:


> Metal and pop still come under the same umbrella term of popular music, which, to quote again:
> 
> 'A term used widely in everyday discourse, generally to refer to types of music that are considered to be of lower value and complexity than art music, and to be readily accessible to large numbers of musically uneducated listeners rather than to an élite.'


This definition epitomizes the snobbery of the so-called music cognoscenti. So metal is inferior music because it is considered to have lower value? By who? The self-proclaimed musical elite? What a bunch of hogwash.


----------



## Herzeleide

PartisanRanger said:


> This definition epitomizes the snobbery of the so-called music cognoscenti. So metal is inferior music because it is considered to have lower value? By who? The self-proclaimed musical elite? What a bunch of hogwash.


Not self-proclaimed but rather _self-won_; by dint of great study and understanding of Western Art music, instilling a sense of taste that militates against the vulgar and crude monstrosities of metal.

I've just discovered from googling 'monsters and metal' that there are DVDs called 'Monsters of Metal'.

Monsters indeed! Proud in their uglyness and vulgarity; wholly decadent, epitomizing the kind of twisted, inverse postmodern youth culture where 'wicked' and 'bad' mean the opposite of what they're meant to.

I'm afraid metal is arrant rubbish and deserves to be showered with disapprobation.


----------



## Tapkaara

Herzeleide said:


> Monsters indeed! Proud in their uglyness and vulgarity; wholly decadent, epitomizing the kind of twisted, inverse postmodern youth culture where 'wicked' and 'bad' mean the opposite of what they're meant to.


For a while there, I though we were talking about the 2nd Viennese School!


----------



## Herzeleide

Tapkaara said:


> For a while there, I though we were talking about the 2nd Viennese School!


Demonstrative of someone who hasn't listened much thereto (or understood it, for that matter).


----------



## PartisanRanger

Herzeleide said:


> Not self-proclaimed but rather _self-won_; by dint of great study and understanding of Western Art music, instilling a sense of taste that militates against the vulgar and crude monstrosities of metal.
> 
> I've just discovered from googling 'monsters and metal' that there are DVDs called 'Monsters of Metal'.
> 
> Monsters indeed! Proud in their uglyness and vulgarity; wholly decadent, epitomizing the kind of twisted, inverse postmodern youth culture where 'wicked' and 'bad' mean the opposite of what they're meant to.
> 
> I'm afraid metal is arrant rubbish and deserves to be showered with disapprobation.


So the people with the most valid musical opinions have done the most musical study? Good to know.

Just curious, what quality of metal makes it less legitimate than classical music? The difference between them is literally only instrumentation. "Metal" encompasses a wide variety of music, including the progressive kinds that don't adhere to popular song conventions.


----------



## Herzeleide

PartisanRanger said:


> The difference between them is literally only instrumentation


Ohhh dear.

Having made this bonkers statement, your credibility has been defenestrated.


----------



## sam richards

Herzeleide said:


> Not self-proclaimed but rather _self-won_; by dint of great study and understanding of Western Art music, instilling a sense of taste that militates against the vulgar and crude monstrosities of metal.
> 
> I've just discovered from googling 'monsters and metal' that there are DVDs called 'Monsters of Metal'.
> 
> Monsters indeed! Proud in their uglyness and vulgarity; wholly decadent, epitomizing the kind of twisted, inverse postmodern youth culture where 'wicked' and 'bad' mean the opposite of what they're meant to.
> 
> I'm afraid metal is arrant rubbish and deserves to be showered with disapprobation.


Wow, I haven't seen such erratic logic in years. You got offended by the inclusion of a simple word? So if I was to say, "Microsoft is a monster in the world of software companies.", would you be offended? I'd advise you to learn to appreciate the effort put behind in the music. Showering hate at a genre of music you clearly even don't know is sheer ignorance.
Although, as you believe in a religion based upon a fairy tale about a cosmic zombie, logical thinking cannot be expected of you.

Also, "uglyness" isn't even a word, further showing your ignorance.

Have a nice day,

Sam


----------



## Contrapunctus666

> Monsters indeed!


Liberal indeed!

Bach, thanks for making my day, you are probably the funniest guy I have ever seen. Jackson is good and metal is not? I won't even bother to explain that you are wrong since you are too closed-minded(closed-mindness is usually good but not in your case), I will just say ROFL.

Btw, stop sharing your opinions. I don't need to listen to every inexperienced individual, I want to share the truth with you. Accept it. I am giving it for free. Instead of trying to say that the true metalheads are wrong, better say this: "I lack experience, so I will try to understand you, if I see that it is mission impossible I will say that I suck and that you are right".


----------



## Herzeleide

Contrapunctus666 said:


> Liberal indeed!
> 
> Bach, thanks for making my day, you are probably the funniest guy I have ever seen. Jackson is good and metal is not? I won't even bother to explain that you are wrong since you are too closed-minded(closed-mindness is usually good but not in your case), I will just say ROFL.


I must say, some of Michael Jackson's early music is rather good - some rather nice jazzy harmonies. It exudes a kind of organic soulfulness (which is not to say that it doesn't have its own pitfalls), as opposed to rebarbative aggression.

I fail to see how my dislike of metal is somehow illiberal.


----------



## sam richards

Herzeleide, can you please elaborate your hatred for heavy metal music? What elements of the genre makes you dislike the genre too much? Heavy metal was the music which inspired me to play the guitar and discover jazz and classical music. Michael Jackson is just simple music for simple-minded people.
I cannot understand your irrational hate for Heavy Metal, it is much more complex and beautiful than other forms of popular music. How can you like Michael Jackson and hate Heavy Metal music?


----------



## Herzeleide

sam richards said:


> How can you like Michael Jackson and hate Heavy Metal music?


I've already said. But I will also add that the vocals are far better.


----------



## Bach

> Michael Jackson is just simple music for simple-minded people.


No, no, silly.. Michael Jackson's music is masterfully recorded and produced - altogether memorable, unpretentious, open, funky and musical - all qualities one should look for in popular music - yet not one of these qualities can be found in metal.


----------



## jhar26

Bach said:


> No, no, silly.. Michael Jackson's music is masterfully recorded and produced - altogether memorable, unpretentious, open, funky and musical - all qualities one should look for in popular music.


Agreed. I'm not going to comment one way or the other on metal though, because I don't know enough about it. I love Led Zeppelin, but that almost sounds like easy-listening compared to what's around today.


----------



## Contrapunctus666

All music without a narrative structure are easy-listen.

Bach wins again.

Just heard the new Beherit for the first time. Pretty good although it is still not as nearly as good as their awesome ambient album Electric Doom Synthesis.


----------



## Bach

Bach always wins, my favourite fugal satanist.. Bach always wins.


----------



## PartisanRanger

Herzeleide said:


> Ohhh dear.
> 
> Having made this bonkers statement, your credibility has been defenestrated.


The terms are so broad that it's true. There is no requisite angst and self-loating in metal, contrary to what you might believe.



sam richards said:


> Michael Jackson is just simple music for simple-minded people.


I don't even know why I bother coming in here when so much ignorance abounds.


----------



## Vegg

This thread is fun.

Anyway... Back on topic. Anyone else a fan of Opeth?


----------



## Bach

big fan, big fan. I love 'A Fair Judgement', I just feel so fairly judged after listening.. and 'A Drapery Falls' .. unforgettable.. you would never expect music to so perfectly encapsulate your emotional response to curtains coming loose from the rail.. and 'Bleak' well.. "is there anybody out there? Do I have any friend in the world?" makes me weep.


----------



## Vegg

Contrapunctus666 said:


> (closed-mindness is usually good but not in your case)


Wait, what?


----------



## Contrapunctus666

Opeth=AIDS.

Probably the most boring band of all metal bands. Also directionless.

NP - Sacramentum - Blood Shall Be Spilled! **** yeah!


----------



## Aramis

> Opeth=AIDS.
> 
> Probably the most boring band of all metal bands. Also directionless.
> 
> NP - Sacramentum - Blood Shall Be Spilled! **** yeah!


Why won't you go with this to some metal forum? I guess nobody here will response "yeah, you're so cool and true, you listen to real, ambitious metal, not those pussies, ave satan 6668443856763, hey, you know what, let's go out for dinner and fighting wicked christianity, I'm glad to meet someone like you; open-minded, clever, someone who understand this world and is sensitive to metal massage, we should stick together pal, I have no friends in my real life, damn, I got no real life at all, but metal makes me stronger, I know that I am someone eminent, because only eminent people can listen to metal, everyone listens to crap music, they are lost and manipulated by mass culture and media, only we can see what is goin' on here, everybody laughs at me, but they all are blind and can't understand me, I belive in METAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! \m/ WE SHALL OVERCOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ".


----------



## Vegg

Aramis said:


> Why won't you go with this to some metal forum? I guess nobody here will response "yeah, you're so cool and true, you listen to real, ambitious metal, not those pussies, ave satan 6668443856763, hey, you know what, let's go out for dinner and fighting wicked christianity, I'm glad to meet someone like you; open-minded, clever, someone who understand this world and is sensitive to metal massage, we should stick together pal, I have no friends in my real life, damn, I got no real life at all, but metal makes me stronger, I know that I am someone eminent, because only eminent people can listen to metal, everyone listens to crap music, they are lost and manipulated by mass culture and media, only we can see what is goin' on here, everybody laughs at me, but they all are blind and can't understand me, I belive in METAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! \m/ WE SHALL OVERCOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ".


I lol'd.

Btw Contrapunctus, I find most black metal boring as hell. Also, I love how you think that it actually has a message. Most of the lyrics are just made up to sound cool and "evil".


----------



## Contrapunctus666

> I find most black metal boring as hell


Your problem or my problem?



> Also, I love how you think that it actually has a message


I love how I know that it actually has a message.



> Most of the lyrics are just made up to sound cool and "evil".


You have described the modern black and death metal.


----------



## Bach

> I love how I know that it actually has a message.


What is the message then, my darling?


----------



## Contrapunctus666

Only death is real. - probably the main message

Also, the philosophy of Nietzsche, Evola, Linkola (against the modern world) etc.


----------



## Bgroovy2

Death is obviously a part of life, but I think music should bring out other qualities of llife besides death. Life is also real. Have you really studied Nietzsche? He was so depressed as are all existentialists! One man looks out of his cell and sees the mud, the other, the sky. I chose to look at the sky!

BTW. The ultimate existentialist song was on Hee Haw; gloom, dispare and agony on me. Deep dark depressin, exsesive misory. If it weren't for bad luck, I'd have not luck at all. Gloom, dispare and agony on me! BooHoo


----------



## Bach

Can you not see how frightfully tasteless and pretentious it is to have low art, popular music, deal with such topics?


----------



## Aramis

Contrapunctus666 said:


> Also, the philosophy of Nietzsche, Evola, Linkola (against the modern world) etc.


Rather simplyfy of those philosophy. In fact, many metalheads are losers and people with great problems in their lifes, who turns intro extreme music and extremely pessimistic thoughts, simply because they can't deal with those problems. Violent, brutal music made by sad, lost people.


----------



## sam richards

Aramis said:


> Rather simplyfy of those philosophy. In fact, many metalheads are losers and people with great problems in their lifes, who turns intro extreme music and extremely pessimistic thoughts, simply because they can't deal with those problems. Violent, brutal music made by sad, lost people.


Wow, just wow.


----------



## Contrapunctus666

Bach said:


> Can you not see how frightfully tasteless and pretentious it is to have low art, popular music, deal with such topics?


Yes it is.

The problem is that good metal is high art, so therefore your question is totally off-topic.


----------



## Aramis

sam richards said:


> Wow, just wow.


Yeah. Per Yngve Ohlin, Varg Vikernes, and the others - "just wow".


----------



## Bach

Contrapunctus666 said:


> Yes it is.
> 
> The problem is that good metal is high art, so therefore your question is totally off-topic.


No, it's not. No academic would agree with you.


----------



## Contrapunctus666

I don't care about your education. I know many of those IRL, they listen to the music I have ****** off long ago.

I understood the truth with my own experience, I don't need someone else to tell me that "this is so and so".

They think that if they educate themselves that they will be smarter. They are smarter than me in terms of the music theory, but they don't know which music has quality, because of the only reason - they lack experience(and view music as entertainment and not as art)


----------



## Bach

I'm telling you metal isn't high art. Just as an iPod isn't a car.


----------



## Herzeleide

Funny how half the people waffling on in this thread, defending their particular variety of metal, have hardly contributed to any thread regarding actual classical music. And one chap - Partisansomethingorother - seriously thinks that the only difference between a Palestrina mass, Bach fugue, Beethoven quartet or Debussy sonata and whatever variant of dismal metal he likes is -wait for it- instrumentation!

Given all of the preceding information, it's transparent that none of these geeks have the slightest clue about classical music and have very little to no interest in discussing it or thinking about it.


----------



## Bach

I know - delusional morons at their most entertaining!


----------



## Herzeleide

Contrapunctus666 said:


> I don't care about your education. I know many of those IRL, they listen to the music I have ****** off long ago.
> 
> I understood the truth with my own experience, I don't need someone else to tell me that "this is so and so".
> 
> They think that if they educate themselves that they will be smarter. They are smarter than me in terms of the music theory, but they don't know which music has quality, because of the only reason - they lack experience(and view music as entertainment and not as art)


ROFL 

'Listen to the music I have ****** off long ago' - such a paragon of eloquence.

Bach, Beethoven etc. didn't waste their time studying underground and arcane forms of popular music like metal, they studied the classics and thus achieved a profound insight into music. That is, by studying _classical_ music. This is precisely what it means to view music as an art, not some nauseating vehicle through which to express half-baked amateur philosophy and silly, fake ideas of 'sophisticated' structure.


----------



## Vegg

For the sake of science, let's compare the lyrics of some of "Contra's" Metal to some of "my" metal:

Contra's:
Gene dead from birth
God's holy ****
Canonized but of no use to me
Human ****, waste begone from my earth!!


Mine:
It is a mere destiny I thought, a threshold I had crossed before.
The rain was waving goodbye, and when the night came
the forest folded its branches around me.
Something passed by, and I went into a dream.
She, laughing and weeping at once: "take me away".

Contra's:
Kill the christian, kill the christian
Kill the christian, kill the christian
Kill the christian, kill the christian
Kill the christian (Taken from a Deicide song)


Mine:
I embrace my desire to
feel the rhythm, to feel connected
enough to step aside and weep like a widow
to feel inspired, to fathom the power,
to witness the beauty, to bathe in the fountain,
to swing on the spiral
of our divinity and still be a human.

Contra's:
Almost flying to the toilet
trying to puke something green
But your stomach wants to get inside your mouth with large
intestine (Oh wow... Demilich is definitely high art...) 

Mine:
The sigh of summer upon my return
Fifteen alike since I was here
Bathed in deep fog, blurring my trail
Snuffing the first morning rays


As you can see, it is possible to empirically deduce that my metal is better. 


And Aramis, I disagree. Most people I know listen to metal just because they enjoy it, and nothing more.


----------



## Herzeleide

Bloody hell, Seamus Heaney must be quaking in his boots with such formidable wordsmiths about...


----------



## Bach

Yucky, affected, inorganic materialism.


----------



## Bach

> This is precisely what it means to view music as an art, not some nauseating vehicle through which to express half-baked amateur philosophy and silly, fake ideas of 'sophisticaed' structure.


That requires repetition.


----------



## Vegg

Herzeleide said:


> ROFL
> 
> 'Listen to the music I have ****** off long ago' - such a paragon of eloquence.
> 
> Bach, Beethoven etc. didn't waste their time studying underground and arcane forms of popular music like metal, they studied the classics and thus achieved a profound insight into music. That is, by studying _classical_ music. This is precisely what it means to view music as an art, not some nauseating vehicle through which to express half-baked amateur philosophy and silly, fake ideas of 'sophisticated' structure.


So you're saying we should close ourselves off from forms of music other than classical in order to achieve a higher understanding of music?

As I've stated a million times before, I simply ENJOY metal, there's nothing else to it. Here's another analogy:

The making of fine wine takes more skill than the brewing of beer, right? Wine making and tasting is considered an art by the high-class connoisseurs, while the brewing of beer is not. However, if I prefer the taste of beer to wine, what does it matter?


----------



## Herzeleide

Vegg said:


> So you're saying we should close ourselves off from forms of music other than classical in order to achieve a higher understanding of music?


No. Haydn, Beethoven, Mozart etc. were aware of folk and popular musics of their time, and sometimes incorporated it into their music.

However, I'm sure they were selective in this process, and had there been something as down-right rebarbative as metal in their time, they would have doubtless ignored it.

It is no coincidence that classical composers of our epoch -the twentieth and twenty-first centuries- have been more influenced by jazz than other types of popular music. I can't think of any classical music that is influenced by metal.


----------



## Contrapunctus666

> And one chap - Partisansomethingorother - knows that the only difference between a Palestrina mass, Bach fugue, Beethoven quartet or Debussy sonata and whatever variant of dismal metal he likes is -wait for it- instrumentation!


Fixed.


> Bach, Beethoven etc. didn't waste their time studying underground and arcane forms of popular music like metal


Was there any metal back then?

The other posts are so ignorant that I won't even bother responding to them.


----------



## Aramis

Those songs made me change my mind. Metal is DEEP:


----------



## Vegg

Aramis said:


> Those songs made me change my mind. Metal is DEEP:


Haha, I've always wanted to parody black metal. I just need to think of a "TRV GR1M KULT" stage name.

It's undoubtedly the funniest metal sub-genre.


----------



## Contrapunctus666

> It's undoubtedly the funniest metal sub-genre.


Your posts are more funny.


----------



## sam richards

Vegg said:


> Haha, I've always wanted to parody black metal. I just need to think of a "TRV GR1M KULT" stage name.
> 
> It's undoubtedly the funniest metal sub-genre.


I agree with you completely, my friend. 
Black Metal and the tr00 gr1m kvlt mentality is a disgrace to metal.


----------



## Bach

which in turn is a disgrace to the human senses.


----------



## Herzeleide

Contrapunctus666 said:


> Was there any metal back then?


No, society was less decadent and corrupt back then.

Still, I assume that there were various underground kinds of popular/folk music.


----------



## Herzeleide

> And one chap - Partisansomethingorother - knows that the only difference between a Palestrina mass, Bach fugue, Beethoven quartet or Debussy sonata and whatever variant of dismal metal he likes is -wait for it- instrumentation!


Post me a clip of some metal utilising quadruple invertible counterpoint, with a constantly imitative texture. Or something in sonata form. Or something where tonic and dominant harmonies are prolonged to effect a large-scale tonal structure of I-V-I.

If not, we will have no choice but to throw your opinion in the 'worthless ordure' bucket.


----------



## Bach

Or indeed metal that implements chromatic harmony like jazz so frequently exhibits..


----------



## Vegg

Bach said:


> Or indeed metal that implements chromatic harmony like jazz so frequently exhibits..


Meshuggah and other technical/jazz-fusion bands often incorporate chromatic harmonies.


----------



## Bach

Oh dear, no.






Are you actually trying to persuade me that this is good? Sort your bloody life out.


----------



## Vegg

Bach said:


> Are you actually trying to persuade me that this is good?


No, I'm trying to convince you that there's a reason _I_ like it.

Then again, Meshuggah is widely regarded as some of the most rhythmically complex music in the world, so I guess there is some objectivity to my opinion.


----------



## Bach

Well there's a silly comment if I ever heard one - evidence? Who said that? (were they drunk?) Stop weasel-wording. That song I just heard some of is no more rhythmically complex than a Sousa march..

This is rhythmically complex:

http://stephaniedelacey.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/ferneyhough-etudes.jpg


----------



## PartisanRanger

Herzeleide said:


> Funny how half the people waffling on in this thread, defending their particular variety of metal, have hardly contributed to any thread regarding actual classical music. And one chap - Partisansomethingorother - seriously thinks that the only difference between a Palestrina mass, Bach fugue, Beethoven quartet or Debussy sonata and whatever variant of dismal metal he likes is -wait for it- instrumentation!
> 
> Given all of the preceding information, it's transparent that none of these geeks have the slightest clue about classical music and have very little to no interest in discussing it or thinking about it.


Classical music is still very new to me and I'm trying to learn as I go. Hence, I don't have that much to contribute. Still, when I see comments like yours and Bach's in this thread I can't help but be taken aback at how absurd your notions about music are. I imagine you're something like the hooligans that rioted at the debut of the Rite of Spring.



Herzeleide said:


> No, society was less decadent and corrupt back then.


This is unbelievable.


----------



## Vegg

PartisanRanger said:


> Still, when I see comments like yours and Bach's in this thread I can't help but be taken aback at how absurd your notions about music are.


I agree. But it seems to be a normality among people who take their music too seriously.


----------



## Bach

PartisanRanger said:


> Classical music is still very new to me and I'm trying to learn as I go. Hence, I don't have that much to contribute. Still, when I see comments like yours and Bach's in this thread I can't help but be taken aback at how absurd your notions about music are. I imagine you're something like the hooligans that rioted at the debut of the Rite of Spring.


I think Herzeleide and I are two of few who truly understand the relative value of art.*

*Interestingly - such people, from my experience, are musicians more frequently than other artists (such as writers or painters) because there is far more worthless music than painting or literature. (I suppose that's due to the greater popularity and commercialisation of music to the lesser of the aforementioned art forms..)


----------



## sam richards

I cannot take anyone who has 666 in his username seriously.

On the other hand, I cannot take bach seriously too. I doubt that you know anything about music. For me, all music is art and a way to express. You may not be accustomed to harsh metal, but Meshuggah's music is complex, you can't deny it. For more jazz-influenced metal, look up cynic, thier use of dissonance is amazing.


----------



## Vegg

sam richards said:


> I cannot anyone take anyone who 666 is his username seriously.
> 
> On the other hand, I cannot take bach seriously too. I doubt that you know anything about music. For me, all music is art and a way to express. You may not be accustomed to harsh metal, but Meshuggah's music is complex, you can't deny it. For more jazz-influenced metal, look up cynic, thier use of dissonance is amazing.


Couldn't have said it better myself. I don't believe in classifying music as either art, popular, or folk. Music is music, and you either like it or you don't.

btw, I actually posted some Cynic a while back. Traced in Air is great.


----------



## Bach

sam richards said:


> I cannot take anyone who has 666 in his username seriously.
> 
> On the other hand, I cannot take bach seriously too. I doubt that you know anything about music.


Yep, that's what Professor Joanna Bullivant said when she offered me a scholarship to read MUSIC at University College, Oxford. You prick.


----------



## PartisanRanger

Bach said:


> I think Herzeleide and I are two of few who truly understand the relative value of art.


Oh, so you and Herzeleide have the _right_ opinions. Thanks for clarifying.


----------



## sam richards

Bach said:


> Yep, that's what Professor Joanna Bullivant said when she offered me a scholarship to read MUSIC at University College, Oxford. You prick.


Yeah, and I am Jesus Christ.


----------



## Vegg

Mmmm... Drums.





 (I believe his kit was something like $80,000)
















That last guy is well known as one of the world's greatest drummers and the king of four-limb polyrhythms. ...And he plays metal.

Edit:

Here's an interesting quote I found. It basically expands on what I was getting at earlier:

"Neat divisions between 'folk' and 'popular', and 'popular' and 'art', are impossible to find ... arbitrary criteria [are used] to define the complement of 'popular'. 'Art' music, for example, is generally regarded as by nature complex, difficult, demanding; 'popular' music then has to be defined as 'simple', 'accessible', 'facile'. But many pieces commonly thought of as 'art' (Handel's 'Hallelujah Chorus', many Schubert songs, many Verdi arias) have qualities of simplicity; conversely, it is by no means obvious that the Sex Pistols' records were 'accessible', Frank Zappa's work 'simple', or Billie Holiday's 'facile'."


----------



## Contrapunctus666

> I think Herzeleide and I are two of few who truly understand the relative value of art.


And I truly understand that you are wrong. (if relative means that everyone can say what is good and what is not)



> I don't believe in classifying music as either art, popular, or folk


But I do, and I am 100% sure. So what?

Meshuggah is empty. It has no soul, no emotions.



> No, society was less decadent and corrupt back then.


So there was no need for metal.


----------



## Vegg

Contrapunctus666 said:


> Meshuggah is empty. It has no soul, no emotions.


Then you need to listen harder. I find emotional expression in their groove, rawness, and yes, even vocals and lyrics.

Try listening to something like Straws Pulled At Random. The ending is isn't as atonal as their other stuff, and it's actually quite nice and jazzy.


----------



## Conservationist

Bach said:


> Yep, that's what Professor Joanna Bullivant said when she offered me a scholarship to read MUSIC at University College, Oxford. You prick.


From my experience:

Never post anything that can be used to personally identify you on the net.


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

Bach said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genres_(popular_music)
> 
> Because it is. Pop is short for popular music and that's what it is. As opposed to traditional (oral folk) or art music (classical music and opera)
> 
> Yes, but if you did, then you'd be wrong.


Metal is nowhere near popular. And don't even bother talking about Slipknot, Korn, or any of those fools, real metal is strictly underground and has passionate musicians. I would consider classical music a lot more popular than metal, so does that mean classical is pop?


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

There is too much ignorance from anti-metal fighters or whatever you want to call them right now to the point I don't see why we should be fighting, haha, Bach, Herzidizle (whatever his name is) and others are just being too unbelievable right now.

Now, in relation to metal and not bitching about it, has anyone listened to the new Peste Noire album? They have taken a new approach, they are more slow, and more depressive than they usually are.


----------



## Vegg

Metalheadwholovesclasical said:


> Metal is nowhere near popular. And don't even bother talking about Slipknot, Korn, or any of those fools, real metal is strictly underground and has passionate musicians. I would consider classical music a lot more popular than metal, so does that mean classical is pop?


Yes, as mentioned in that quote I posted, the three defining features of popular music (NOT pop, bach) are that it must be simple, accessible, and facile. I don't believe good metal is any of those things.


----------



## Contrapunctus666

> Then you need to listen harder.


Obviously you need to listen to ENSLAVED and MORBID ANGEL harder.



> Metal is nowhere near popular.


Metal is considered popular because it is easy to get into metal aesthetics. It is easy because metal evolved slowly(and from rock, which is popular crappy music) and because of, lets say, Iron Maiden and Metallica it was not hard to get into Black Metal and Death Metal aethetics. Plus, it had finished its evolution in 1990 or so, probably the only truly good metal album before that was "Reign in Blood".

If something like Pure Holocaust was released in 1970, 5% of the people who like it today would like it.

Compare with, lets say, Paganini's 24 Caprices. People would love it if there has been some pop music with violin. But there is not so it is harder to get into violin sound.


----------



## Bach

Metalheadwholovesclasical said:


> Metal is nowhere near popular. And don't even bother talking about Slipknot, Korn, or any of those fools, real metal is strictly underground and has passionate musicians. I would consider classical music a lot more popular than metal, so does that mean classical is pop?


I has no relation to popularity. I could write a rock song that nobody ever hears (other than myself) and it would still be pop.


----------



## Herzeleide

Vegg said:


> Then again, Meshuggah is widely regarded as some of the most rhythmically complex music in the world, so I guess there is some objectivity to my opinion.


Look back on the Ferneyhough score I posted many pages ago.

Anyway it's a moot point because complexity manifestly does not equal quality.


----------



## Herzeleide

PartisanRanger said:


> I imagine you're something like the hooligans that rioted at the debut of the Rite of Spring.


Why?



PartisanRanger said:


> This is unbelievable.


No, it's true.


----------



## Herzeleide

Contrapunctus666 said:


> And I truly understand that you are wrong.




What a risibly pretentious way of saying 'I think you're wrong'.

I've made several arguments, none of which have been rebutted yet. All the intellectually-challenged metalheads should go and take a look at them.


----------



## Herzeleide

Contrapunctus666 said:


> Compare with, lets say, Paganini's 24 Caprices.


And note the attention paid to voice leading, tonal structure, harmonic logic and myriad of nuances, compared with the crude musical eructation that is metal.


----------



## Aramis

Couldn't you write this in one post?


----------



## Herzeleide

Metalheadwholovesclasical said:


> real metal is strictly underground and has passionate musicians. I would consider classical music a lot more popular than metal, so does that mean classical is pop?


The musical ancestry metal has puts it firmly in the sphere of popular music, regardless of the actual popularity - as Bach has pointed out, one can be totally unknown and yet still be playing popular music.


----------



## Contrapunctus666

> one can be totally unknown and yet still be playing popular music


The problem is that you can't realize that good metal(1-2% of metal) is not popular music. People like it because there are accessible bands with similar aesthetics.



> And note the attention paid to voice leading, tonal structure, harmonic logic and myriad of nuances, compared with the crude musical eructation that is metal.


The only important thing is the actual quality and the soul, that is why 2-riff band like Ildjarn beats 100-riff band like Opeth without any problem


----------



## Herzeleide

Contrapunctus666 said:


> The problem is that you can't realize that good metal(1-2% of metal) is not popular music. People like it because there are accessible bands with similar aesthetics.


Metal ultimately stems from bands like Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath. In other words, popular music. There is a reason that metal is grouped under popular music in music dictionaries.



Contrapunctus666 said:


> The only important thing is the actual quality and the soul


I agree. And good-quality music pays attention to voice-leading, large-scale harmonic structure and all other such things. Which I'm afraid none of the metal that I have heard does do.

There's no point in having soul without technique, obviously. Giving someone a piano and telling them to _express_ themself is pointless unless they've learnt the technique first.


----------



## Vegg

Herzeleide said:


> Anyway it's a moot point because complexity manifestly does not equal quality.


That's NOT the point. The point is that _I_ enjoy it, and thus there is no reason for me to stop listening to it. Why can't you understand that?

Honestly, your arguements mean nothing, because I DO appreciate art music. I realize that most composers have vastly superior musical knowledge than most metal artists. It's just that metal provides things for me that classical doesn't. (For one thing, I love drums, and some of the most talented drummers in the world happen to play metal.)

Why are you so feverishly attacking this thread anyway? Don't you have better things to do?


----------



## Vegg

Contrapunctus666 said:


> The only important thing is the actual quality and the soul, that is why 2-riff band like Ildjarn beats 100-riff band like Opeth without any problem


LOL. Don't you remember saying "the only thing that matters is complexity" a few pages back?


----------



## Contrapunctus666

> There is a reason that metal is grouped under popular music in music dictionaries.


Who wrote those dictionaries? Some liberals or christians?



> Which I'm afraid none of the metal that I have heard does do.


2 possibilities:
-you haven't heard any great metal
-you care about aesthetics(the least important part in the music)



> LOL. Don't you remember saying "the only thing that matters is complexity" a few pages back?


both have the same point



> I realize that most composers have vastly superior musical knowledge than most metal artists.


Yeah. Music knowledge HELPS but it is not ESSENTIAL. Proof=death and especially black metal.



> The point is that I enjoy it, and thus there is no reason for me to stop listening to it.


Nobody forces anyone to listen to something. However those that say that Meshuggah is good or are simply not able to judge the quality of music


----------



## PartisanRanger

Herzeleide said:


> Why?


Because you lash out at music that doesn't fit into your predetermined idea of what music should sound like. You're as bad as the metalheads who refuse to admit there's anything to music outside of Metallica and Judas Priest.


----------



## Vegg

Contrapunctus666 said:


> However those that say that Meshuggah is good or are simply not able to judge the quality of music


...You can't be serious.

My God, has NO ONE on this forum heard of subjectivity? Hint: It means I look for different qualities in music than you do.


----------



## Aramis

Vegg said:


> Hint: It means I look for different qualities in music than you do.


Hint: The Mongolians will create siege machines able to burn your base. Try not to build up arround your main buildings.


----------



## sam richards

Contrapunctus666 said:


> Yeah. Music knowledge HELPS but it is not ESSENTIAL. Proof=death and especially black metal.


You clearly don't have any idea about metal, do you? Most death metal bands have a good knowledge of music theory. Read any interview of death metal guitarists. Some Black Metal does have classical influence.



Contrapunctus666 said:


> Nobody forces anyone to listen to something. However those that say that Meshuggah is good or are simply not able to judge the quality of music


You say Meshuggah has no soul? "Soul" and "feeling" are PURELY SUBJECTIVE. By the way, it's you who is not able to judge the quality of music by saying that Opeth and Meshuggah are worse than your tr00 kvlt bands who bang on guitars and drums and shriek about Satan and how evil they are. MOST Black metal songs are just retards banging on power chords and tremolo picking which a beginner could play with ease. I bet you are a teenage boy trying to be cool on the internet, I bet don't you listen to classical as well. Learn to play a musical instrument, then you will know how unmusical, simple and boring MOST black metal really is. Nobody cares about your misinformed opinions, you're what a metalhead would call "a poser".

On the topic of Meshuggah, here is some information from the Wikipedia



> Meshuggah is a Swedish five-piece experimental metal band formed in 1987. Meshuggah's line-up has primarily consisted of founding members vocalist Jens Kidman and guitarist Fredrik Thordendal, drummer Tomas Haake, who joined in 1990, and rhythm guitarist Mårten Hagström, who joined in 1994. The band has gone through a number of bassists, but the position has been held by Dick Lövgren since 2004.
> 
> Meshuggah first attracted international attention with the 1995 release Destroy Erase Improve for its fusion of fast-tempo death metal, thrash metal and progressive metal. Since its 2002 album Nothing, Meshuggah has used eight-string guitars and downtuned, groovy riffs. Meshuggah has become known for complex, polyrhythmic song structures and precise musicianship. It was labeled as one of the ten most important hard and heavy bands by Rolling Stone and as the most important band in metal by Alternative Press. Meshuggah has found little mainstream success as of yet, but is a significant act in extreme underground music.





> Trademarks and characteristics that define Meshuggah's sound and complex songwriting include polyrhythmic structure, odd riff cycles, complex "rotating" time signatures, rhythmic syncopation, rapid key and tempo changes and neo-jazz chromatics.
> 
> A trademark of Thordendal is free jazz-like soloing and lead guitar. He is also known for the usage of a "breath controller" device. Haake is known for his precise cross-rhythm drumming with "jazzlike cadence".[f] The vocal style of Jens Kidman varies between hardcore-style shouts[13] and "robotic" death metal vocals.
> 
> In a typical polyrhythm by Meshuggah, the guitars might play in odd meters such as 5/16 or 17/16, while drums play in normal 4/4.[20] An example of Haake's dual rhythms is a 4/4 and 23/16 rhythm. He keeps the hi-hat and ride cymbal in simple 4/4 time but uses the snare and double bass drums for 23/16 rhythm.[6][30] On "Rational Gaze" (from Nothing), Haake plays simple 4/4 time, hitting the snare on each third beat, for 16 bars. At the same time, the guitars and bass are playing the same quarter notes, albeit in a different time signature, and eventually both sides meet up again at the 64th beat.


This is for you bach:


> In its review of Nothing, Allmusic describes Meshuggah as "masterminds of cosmic calculus metal-call it Einstein metal if you want".Meshuggah creates a recognizable sonic imprint and a distinct style.
> 
> *In 2007, Meshuggah earned an in-depth analysis by the academic journal Music Theory Spectrum.* Meshuggah has found little mainstream success but is a significant act in extreme underground music and an influence for many modern metal bands.[73]


Tell me now that Meshuggah isn't musical, though even scholars accept it. You sir, need to broaden your horizons.


----------



## Contrapunctus666

> which a beginner could play with ease.


So what? Just because some awesome albums like Transilvanian Hunger by Darkthrone has been made in 2 weeks does that mean that it is ****? Here is the quote of that stupid moron:



> you go to MY space to **** in my pool?
> 
> i made AND recorded trans hunger in 2 WEEKS.
> 
> now i use 2-3 months to write one song. primitive is difficult. 90s black metal is easy and more or less for little kid.
> 
> go die.
> 
> fenriz


discussion


> Tell me now that Meshuggah isn't musical, though even scholars accept it.


So what if they accept it. Do you have any proof that the scholars are smarter than me?



> Hint: It means I look for different qualities in music than you do.


What qualities? ************ on the instruments? That is quality? (hint: not of course)


----------



## sam richards

Contrapunctus666 said:


> So what if they accept it. Do you have any proof that the scholars are smarter than me.



Come on, its really obvious by now.
Everyone here is smarter than you. Your language, attitude and everything just oozes stupidity. 
Also, this was for Bach.

You're an idiot and/or a troll. I'm going to ignore you from now on. Mods, please look into this.


Contrapunctus666 said:


> What qualities? ************ on the instruments? That is quality? (hint: not of course)


It's called playing your instrument well.

You anus.com people are really stupid. Most them are kids and are self-appointed critics with no knowledge of music. Well, that is the disadvantage of the internet; no matter how much of an idiot you are, you can easily find fellow idiots online. Shed your kvlt mentality, grow up and think for yourself, kid.

Also, that Darkthrone album was really awful and repetitive. Listen to some good black metal like Burzum, Xasthur, 1347 and wolves in the throne room.


----------



## Contrapunctus666

> Listen to some good black metal like Burzum, Xasthur, 1347 and wolves in the throne room.


Sadly, only one of them is good. (guess which one)


> Everyone here is smarter than you.


Everyone here is not able to understand me.


> You're an idiot and/or a troll.


Definitely not an idiot. Maybe a troll(what do you consider as trolling?)
If the troll is someone who wants to share the truth with people then please call me a troll


----------



## nickgray

> Also, that *Darkthrone* album was *really awful and repetitive*. Listen to some good black metal like *Burzum*, Xasthur, 1347 and wolves in the throne room.


Uhhh... Lol? Darkthrone is repetitive, but Burzum? He's uber-repetitive. Its more of an ambient than music.


----------



## sam richards

Yes. But he does it tastefully to create hypnotic textures. Darkthrone seems to be amateur "music" with poor production so as to hide thier inability to play. Purely in my opinion though; I am not like that contra666 guy.

Btw check out anus.com, it is really funny.


----------



## Herzeleide

Vegg said:


> That's NOT the point. The point is that _I_ enjoy it, and thus there is no reason for me to stop listening to it. Why can't you understand that?


Your judgement must be poor. False consciousness. Inverted, decadent society, one begins to love ugliness.



Vegg said:


> (For one thing, I love drums, and some of the most talented drummers in the world happen to play metal.)


There's percussion music written by classical composers of infinite more subtlety of rhythm and timbre than any metal I've heard.


----------



## Herzeleide

Contrapunctus666 said:


> Who wrote those dictionaries? Some liberals or christians?


Musicologists.



Contrapunctus666 said:


> 2 possibilities:
> -you haven't heard any great metal
> -you care about aesthetics(the least important part in the music)


I care about what my ears tell me.


----------



## Herzeleide

PartisanRanger said:


> Because you lash out at music that doesn't fit into your predetermined idea of what music should sound like.


Not really. I have immense appreciation of avant-garde composers like Brian Ferneyhough and James Dillon.


----------



## Bach

I also don't like how metal is associated with a (very ugly) fashion style. You can be a Jazz or Classical musician and dress completely neutrally, but I challenge anyone to find a metal musician performing without looking like a Satanist ****.


----------



## Herzeleide

Indeed. That's why most the literature I've read on popular music (including metal) is sociological in nature, concentrating on the 'attitude' of popular musicians, what kind of thoughts they propound in their lyrics, what they wear, personalities etc. Much of it boils down to various ideologies.


There's no real ideology in, for example, the BBC Music Magazine. Sure, it's pitched at a certain level, but it does gently introduce bits of theory. Contrast this with some of the magazines on metal, however...


----------



## Vegg

Bach said:


> I also don't like how metal is associated with a (very ugly) fashion style. You can be a Jazz or Classical musician and dress completely neutrally, but I challenge anyone to find a metal musician performing without looking like a Satanist ****.


Really? Because, out of the countless metal bands I've seen live, VERY few of them fit under that description. I've gone to shows wearing shorts and a sports sweater and not looked out of place. The "scene" shown in many magazines is merely a way to market terrible metal to angst-filled teens.


----------



## Vegg

Herzeleide said:


> Your judgement must be poor. False consciousness. Inverted, decadent society, one begins to love ugliness.


Or maybe I find beauty in music that you are incapable of enjoying.



Herzeleide said:


> There's percussion music written by classical composers of infinite more subtlety of rhythm and timbre than any metal I've heard.


And yet many talented metal drummers such as Thomas Haake, Danny Carey, and Mike Mangini are frequently featured in distinguished percussion magazines. The latter even teaches at Berklee and is considered by many to be the most talented drummer who has ever lived.

You still didn't answer my last question, anyway. Is your life so devoid of meaning that you must fervently attack a genre you clearly know nothing about? Don't you have some "higher" art to go critique?


----------



## Herzeleide

Vegg said:


> And yet many talented metal drummers such as Thomas Haake, Danny Carey, and Mike Mangini are frequently featured in distinguished percussion magazines. The latter even teaches at Berklee and is considered by many to be the most talented drummer who has ever lived.


Show me some of this great metal percussion writing.


----------



## Vegg

Herzeleide said:


> Show me some of this great metal percussion writing.


Mike Mangini:

1981: Won 1st Chair in the NAJE All-East U.S.A. Orchestra, 1st Chair in the All-Massachusetts Concert Band, 1st Chair in the All-Mass. Jazz Ensemble, 1st Chair in N.E. District Concert Band, 1st Chair in the N.E. District Jazz Ensemble; was given the Special Citation awards at the UNH Jazz Festival, the NAJE Jazz Combo Festival, the Mass. All-State Jazz Ensemble Competition and the Mass. NE District Jazz Ensemble Competition; was given the Waltham High School Louis Armstrong Jazz Award and the John Philip Sousa Concert Band Award.

2000,1999: Made Top 5 Best Progressive Drummer in All Readers Poles in N. America and Europe; (Mikes Books), Rhythm Knowledge Volumes 1 & 2 finished #2 as well.

2003-2001: is an Associate Professor at Berklee College of Music, tours as an International Clinician, has a private teaching business in Boston, MA.

2003: Made top 5 in Modern Drummer Magazines and Drum Magazines top 3 best clinician category, Zildjian ZBT line-including Trashformer cymbal, wins in Modern Drummer gear review pole, Mike broke the W.F.Ds official traditional grip with sticks fastest hands World Record of 1,116, with 1,126 beats in 1 minute at the summer NAMM show in Nashville, TN, Mike appointed to Berklee College of Musics Education committee for the Percussion Dept.


----------



## sam richards

Bach said:


> I also don't like how metal is associated with a (very ugly) fashion style. You can be a Jazz or Classical musician and dress completely neutrally, but I challenge anyone to find a metal musician performing without looking like a Satanist ****.


Since when a musician's appearance had an effect on the music? Beethoven was a really shabby person, yet he was a legend and a is favorite composer of mine (after J S Bach).

Also, what do you think of Meshuggah now? Thier composition techniques are studied by scholars, as explained in the earlier post.


----------



## Herzeleide

Vegg said:


> Mike Mangini:
> 
> 1981: Won 1st Chair in the NAJE All-East U.S.A. Orchestra, 1st Chair in the All-Massachusetts Concert Band, 1st Chair in the All-Mass. Jazz Ensemble, 1st Chair in N.E. District Concert Band, 1st Chair in the N.E. District Jazz Ensemble; was given the Special Citation awards at the UNH Jazz Festival, the NAJE Jazz Combo Festival, the Mass. All-State Jazz Ensemble Competition and the Mass. NE District Jazz Ensemble Competition; was given the Waltham High School Louis Armstrong Jazz Award and the John Philip Sousa Concert Band Award.
> 
> 2000,1999: Made Top 5 Best Progressive Drummer in All Readers Poles in N. America and Europe; (Mikes Books), Rhythm Knowledge Volumes 1 & 2 finished #2 as well.
> 
> 2003-2001: is an Associate Professor at Berklee College of Music, tours as an International Clinician, has a private teaching business in Boston, MA.
> 
> 2003: Made top 5 in Modern Drummer Magazines and Drum Magazines top 3 best clinician category, Zildjian ZBT line-including Trashformer cymbal, wins in Modern Drummer gear review pole, Mike broke the W.F.Ds official traditional grip with sticks fastest hands World Record of 1,116, with 1,126 beats in 1 minute at the summer NAMM show in Nashville, TN, Mike appointed to Berklee College of Musics Education committee for the Percussion Dept.


I couldn't care less about honorifics.

I said _show_ me.


----------



## Bach

> Beethoven was a really shabby person


How do you work that one out?


----------



## Bach

The Berklee College of Music is not a particularly respected institution. It's not a serious conservatoire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berklee_College_of_Music

I know someone who went there who could barely string a sentence and probably wouldn't recognise the key signature of A major.. three sharps, for all you metalheads..


----------



## Vegg

Herzeleide said:


> I couldn't care less about honorifics.
> 
> I said _show_ me.


I'm taking that to mean either notation or said magazine articles. How on earth am I supposed to show you either?


----------



## Herzeleide

Vegg said:


> I'm taking that to mean either notation or said magazine articles. How on earth am I supposed to show you either?


Has the invention of the video/internet audio file not reached you yet?


----------



## Vegg

Herzeleide said:


> Has the invention of the video/internet audio file not reached you yet?


*Sigh* I posted numerous videos of his playing in previous pages.

But just for you, here they are again:










 (Oh no! Metal that's not about satan! Not really drum oriented at all, but I posted it because I felt like it)


----------



## Bach

Well then post them again, son..


----------



## sam richards

Bach said:


> How do you work that one out?


 you call yourself a classical fan and dont know this? I'm gonna stop taking you seriously from now on then.

Edit: You are an 17-year old, go read a book about him, idiot. And I go to Berklee and I can assure that it is one of the most premier institutes in America (aka the only country that matters). 
*sigh* Why I am even talking to a kid?


----------



## Contrapunctus666

> Musicologists.


Which are christians and/or liberals and won't include the metal because it was a revolt against the modern world, democracy, liberalism. They are afraid of the truth. It is never pleasant, you know.


----------



## Aramis

Contrapunctus666 said:


> Which are christians and/or liberals and won't include the metal because it was a revolt against the modern world, democracy, liberalism. They are afraid of the truth. It is never pleasant, you know.


Yes, New World Order is about to come... <disappears in the mist>


----------



## Bach

I've written six dissertations on the late quartets of Beethoven - I know a great deal about him and 'shabby' (as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary: in poor condition through long or hard use or lack of care) would not be an adjective I would associate. 

The top American conservatories include: Curtis Institute of Music, Eastman School of Music, the Peabody Institute, the Boston Conservatory of Music and the Juilliard School. Many of my American friends are quite snobby about Berklee.. 

Oh, that and I'm eighteen now.


----------



## Vegg

Interesting Meshuggah fact: It took Thomas Haake more than six months of training to be able to play the song "Bleed" from start to finish.


----------



## sam richards

You are quite intelligent, I'll give you that. 
However Beethovan was known for not taking care of himself; there is a story about him forgetting to change his clothes until they became so dirty that his friends had to secretly change the clothes in his wardrobe and the great composer didn't even notice. He was also what most people will call a loser. 

He was a crazy genius. Realise that some of the most beautiful music comes through pain and suffering. Read his biography, it's really interesting. 

I'm not gonna comment on the other comment because it'll not be objective.

Vegg, what do you think of the new mastodon album?


----------



## Vegg

Edit: I remember a while back saying Dream Theater wasn't great. Well, I gotta take that back. Sure, they might be cheesy and pretentious, but what's wrong with a little virtuosity once in a while?




This guy's one of the reasons I decided to take up piano/keyboard. I was surprised to see him playing with a jazz band on TV once, considering ALL metal musicians are devoid of any talent, right?



sam richards said:


> Vegg, what do you think of the new mastodon album?


Haha, we really _are_ on the same page... I was going to mention that album as well.

I think it's brilliant, and a huge step above everything else they've done. Neat concept too.


----------



## Contrapunctus666

> Interesting Meshuggah fact: It took Thomas Haake more than six months of training to be able to play the song "Bleed" from start to finish.


too bad it sucks.



> Once upon a time, black metal had a mystical component. Its bands tried to write songs about an idea, and shied away from writing songs that were variations on a known form.
> 
> This is a split as big as the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning for rock music, which got popular because it's easy for anyone to make a variant on a template. That way, everyone could participate.
> 
> People now like to act as if black metal is still a mystical genre. They take themselves seriously, use ancient and blasphemous language, and claim grand importance for CDs that sell to 50 people who can't tell them apart from any of their other CDs.
> 
> There is no unity in the genre, just a lot of people using it for their own ends, namely to have something to do and some reason to claim they're important. "But I am Gezagorath of Impietorturous Blasphemic **** Mayehm!"
> 
> I think it's time to just declare it rock 'n roll. It's no longer far from rock music in structure or theory; it's variations on the pop song format with pentatonic solos, minor/major shifting, and three-chord riffs about the same handful of tired symbols. Not even grandmothers are frightened by Satan and corpsepaint anymore.
> 
> It's also changed in outlook. It used to be the genre of the frontier, of singing about that which was both lawless and a terrifying confrontation with mortality, but also permitted exploration outside the narrow-minded humanist herd mentality. Now people say blatantly humanistic things to keep their music safe, and wonder why we're all bored.
> 
> Yep, it's just all rock 'n roll to me now. I don't see the point pretending the post-1994 black metal is anything more than another variation on hardcore punk, a genre which also lost its mystique and got really normal only a few years after blossoming.
> 
> Everyone can participate, and so there is nothing mysterious or unusual about black metal now. We need to start treating it like any other rock or punk music, and stop posturing and pretending we're true to some ideal that ended long ago. Burn all the idols, not just the convenient ones.
> 
> http://penetrate.blogspot.com/2009/04/its-all-rock-n-roll-to-me.html





> Either you make music to communicate something unique, in which case form is shaped by substance, or you make music to fit within the form that's popular, in which case substance is shaped by form.
> 
> The paradox is that all substance comes from observing the world, not from within the self (a form), so the only substance comes from reality itself. Songs about self-motivations are about the form of human beings, not the profundity of life itself. They're narcissistic and fall into the same problem as songs where substance is shaped by any other type of form.
> 
> Black metal is now in the throes of that narcissistic wet dream. These are songs about being in black metal bands, about participating, about imitating the past... about the ego, not about the world or any kind of response to it. We might as well just call black metal a degraded form of R&B and call it a day.


----------



## sam richards

I think we have now provided sufficient evidence about the musicality of metal.
By the way, don't trust the guys from anus. that conservationist guy posts the same threads everywhere. They are trolls and a laughing stock in most metalhead circles.

Proof:
http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1105582&page=1&pp=20
http://www.metalhordes.com/forum/showthread.php?p=103526
And he also posted a similiar thread here.

http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/forum/showthread.php?t=949567
http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1078665

Though Google showed much more results, I rest my case.
Anus=fail trolls who have no life.
I rest my case.

Also notice how most of the metalheads are laughing and ridiculing them.


----------



## Contrapunctus666

> By the way, don't trust the guys from anus.


Unless your IQ is high.


> Also notice how most of the metalheads are laughing and ridiculing them.


Ever noticed that they don't give a **** about those inferior open-minded metalheads?


> Anus=fail trolls who have no life.


Do you know how much time it takes to post one post?


----------



## Vegg

Contrapunctus666 said:


> Unless your IQ is high.


Uh oh... I think mine just dropped a few points from reading that drivel you posted.


> inferior open-minded metalheads


That's laughable on so many levels.


----------



## Herzeleide

Vegg said:


>


Unfortunately I'm not keen on Steve Vai. Percussion-wise this is quite limited, there's no tuned percussion. And it's not as impressive as someone playing something by the likes of Elliott Carter or Brian Ferneyhough.

For some reason the second video is not available in my country.



Vegg said:


>


This is quite banal. Fairly regular rhythmically. Some times he plays on the off beat, some times against the beat etc. And they cheer when he's simply doing a tremelo on one snare drum!

Seriously, you should research more modern/contemporary classical. If this drummer impresses you, then you should be amazed by the rhythmic language of some of the more complex of today's composers, and modern classical in general.
Also, the Ars Subtilior of the late fourteenth century still poses a problem for performers, owing to its great rhythmic sophistication.


----------



## Herzeleide

Contrapunctus666 said:


> Which are christians and/or liberals and won't include the metal because it was a revolt against the modern world, democracy, liberalism. They are afraid of the truth. It is never pleasant, you know.


I know many musicologists who are neither Christians nor Liberals. Their ideology is irrelevant anyway - it's the music which they care about, whether it's interesting and sounds good.

I am aware of the pathetic pseudo-Nietzschean posturing of your type. I once knew someone into Black/Death metal and he was exactly the same.

Funny thing is Nietzsche never paid attention to lower/vernacular/'underground'/popular forms of music and adored classical.


----------



## Contrapunctus666

The fact: metal is not a lower form of music.


----------



## Herzeleide

Contrapunctus666 said:


> The fact: metal is not a lower form of music.


Unfortunately those who have devoted their lives to music, listened to it extensively, studied it extensively, in other words the musical aristocracy, say otherwise.


----------



## Vegg

Herzeleide said:


> Unfortunately I'm not keen on Steve Vai. Percussion-wise this is quite limited, there's no tuned percussion. And it's not as impressive as someone playing something by the likes of Elliott Carter or Brian Ferneyhough.


Well, modern drum sets aren't meant to be tuned in that way.



Herzeleide said:


> This is quite banal. Fairly regular rhythmically. Some times he plays on the off beat, some times against the beat etc. And they cheer when he's simply doing a tremelo on one snare drum!


1. That solo is showing off his ability to co-ordinate all four limbs. Very hard stuff to do.
2. They're probably cheering at the snare part because he happens to be the fastest drummer alive. 



Herzeleide said:


> Seriously, you should research more modern/contemporary classical. If this drummer impresses you, then you should be amazed by the rhythmic language of some of the more complex of today's composers, and modern classical in general.
> Also, the Ars Subtilior of the late fourteenth century still poses a problem for performers, owing to its great rhythmic sophistication.


Yeah, I am definitely amazed by the rhythmic complexity of many classical pieces, it's just that modern drumming is something altogether different and complex in it's own way. (Namely the coordination involved.)


----------



## Contrapunctus666

> Unfortunately those who have devoted their lives to music, listened to it extensively, studied it extensively, in other words the musical aristocracy, say otherwise.


Give them Opeth and Ildjarn. They would say that Opeth is better. Conclusion: they are wrong


----------



## Bach

I don't think they would comment on either.


----------



## Bach

I find your comments rather silly Contrapunctus - I mean, I know I'm responsible for a bit of superficial banter.. but, you know.. you sound rather like a thirteen year old Dragonball Z fan..


----------



## Vegg

Contrapunctus666 said:


> they are wrong


Again with the absolutes... Are you completely or just partially retarded?

Bach, I believe they would comment. Even my mom, a classical and world music fan, likes Opeth.


----------



## PartisanRanger

Herzeleide said:


> Not really. I have immense appreciation of avant-garde composers like Brian Ferneyhough and James Dillon.


You're missing the point. It doesn't matter that you can appreciate some avant-garde classical composers. You're dismissing an entire genre of music on totally superficial and ridiculous grounds.


----------



## sam richards

Please read my earlier post concerning anus.com; it's better for us to ignore Contrapunctus and continue our discussion.


----------



## Vegg

sam richards said:


> Please read my earlier post concerning anus.com; it's better for us to ignore Contrapunctus and continue our discussion.


Yep.

Btw, do you happen to listen to Devin Townsend? He just released "Ki", which is meant to be a taste of what's to come for the next two albums he's releasing this year. It's fairly simple(some of it is just a live jam in the studio), but it's nice and groovy and has some very cool parts.

Can't wait for the next two!


----------



## sam richards

He is a truly multi-talented man. Though I preferred him in strapping young lad, he's solo material is pretty good.
I've heard that the next two albums are really going to be different. One of them will be ambient, I hear.


----------



## Vegg

sam richards said:


> He is a truly multi-talented man. Though I preferred him in strapping young lad, he's solo material is pretty good.
> I've heard that the next two albums are really going to be different. One of them will be ambient, I hear.


Yeah, SYL is awesome. Also, regarding the final album of the series, he says it's "the heaviest music he's ever created". Hmm... More SYL type stuff?


----------



## sam richards

Maybe, but the man keeps me guessing, and I like it. 
He is a big fan of Meshuggah as well, so I'm hoping for some more Meshuggah-inspired material. 
By the way, what are your favorite metal artists?


----------



## Vegg

Aside from everything I've mentioned in this thread, I'm a fan of Gojira, Tool, Cult of Luna, Riverside, etc. Stuff like Nile and Bloodbath is also fun...
But Opeth, Pain of Salvation, and Devin Townsend/SYL are probably at the top. With the release of Ne Obliviscaris' first album, all that could change though...

(I'm not really big on "favorites" though. I just listen to whatever I'm in the mood for.)


----------



## Contrapunctus666

> Bach, I believe they would comment. Even my mom, a classical and world music fan, likes Opeth


What an argument...


----------



## Conservationist

sam richards said:


> By the way, don't trust the guys from anus. that conservationist guy posts the same threads everywhere. They are trolls and a laughing stock in most metalhead circles.


Actually, they're the oldest metal site on the net, and seem to be highly respected by those they interview at least:

http://www.anus.com/metal/about/interviews

Did they hurt your feelings? Are you butthurt? Give it up and talk about metal -- it's more fun.


----------



## Herzeleide

PartisanRanger said:


> You're missing the point. It doesn't matter that you can appreciate some avant-garde classical composers. You're dismissing an entire genre of music on totally superficial and ridiculous grounds.


The original charge was that I was just like the people who booed at the premier of The Rite of Spring - which was avant-garde during its day. So I think you'll find that it is you who is missing the point.

I'm dismissing an entire genre of music on very fundamental grounds.


----------



## Herzeleide

Vegg said:


> 2. They're probably cheering at the snare part because he happens to be the fastest drummer alive.


Music is not a sport.


----------



## Vegg

Herzeleide said:


> Music is not a sport.


Um...? The point of a drum solo is to please the crowd by showing off a drummer's skill. If he has the ability to go that fast, then why wouldn't he show it off at some point in the solo? Obviously he's not going to do 250bpm+ single-hand snare rolls during an actual composition.


----------



## Herzeleide

Vegg said:


> If he has the ability to go that fast, then why wouldn't he show it off at some point in the solo?


Because that is an Usain Bolt approach to music.


----------



## Vegg

Contrapunctus666 said:


> What an argument...


It was an anecdote. Notice the smiley you decided to omit from the quote?


----------



## Vegg

Herzeleide said:


> Because that is an Usain Bolt approach to music.


No, it's a "what every modern drummer does at some point during a solo" approach to music.


----------



## Herzeleide

Vegg said:


> No, it's a "what every modern drummer does at some point during a solo" approach to music.


Which is why they fail.

Honestly, composers for classical percussion know that the only way to sustain interest is to mix up timbres in interesting rhythms, not something so crude as to play one skin _as fast as bloody possible_.


----------



## sam richards

Herzeleide said:


> Which is why they fail.
> 
> Honestly, composers for classical percussion know that the only way to sustain interest is to mix up timbres in interesting rhythms, not something so crude as to play one skin _as fast as bloody possible_.


If you want to remain close-minded about it, no one in the world can convince you anything. I'd rather take the opinion of those respectable magazines than someone who posts on a internet forum.


----------



## sam richards

Conservationist said:


> Actually, they're the oldest metal site on the net, and seem to be highly respected by those they interview at least:
> 
> http://www.anus.com/metal/about/interviews
> 
> Did they hurt your feelings? Are you butthurt? Give it up and talk about metal -- it's more fun.


Sorry, to borrow your crude language, I don't give a ****.


----------



## PartisanRanger

Herzeleide said:


> The original charge was that I was just like the people who booed at the premier of The Rite of Spring - which was avant-garde during its day. So I think you'll find that it is you who is missing the point.


Metal, like the Rite of Spring, shook up musical conventions and enraged people like you who prefer to see music within their limited mental constructs.



> I'm dismissing an entire genre of music on very fundamental grounds.


The fundamental grounds that it promotes a degenerate lifestyle? Ha.


----------



## Contrapunctus666

Since you guys love Meshuggah, how about trying some Gorguts?






As for drumming, if 300 beats per second helps you to create better music, do it.(example: 



). However if you want to use drums to clone Yngwie Malmsteen shredding than **** off.


----------



## Vegg

Herzeleide said:


> Which is why they fail.
> 
> Honestly, composers for classical percussion know that the only way to sustain interest is to mix up timbres in interesting rhythms, not something so crude as to play one skin _as fast as bloody possible_.


It's a drum solo, not an actual composition. Most of it was was undoubtedly made up on the spot.

Like I said, in an actual musical piece, that's not something a drummer would normally do.


----------



## Herzeleide

sam richards said:


> If you want to remain close-minded about it, no one in the world can convince you anything. I'd rather take the opinion of those respectable magazines than someone who posts on a internet forum.


I'm closed-minded insofar as I dislike feeble music.


----------



## Herzeleide

PartisanRanger said:


> Metal, like the Rite of Spring, shook up musical conventions and enraged people like you who prefer to see music within their limited mental constructs.


Not at all. There is manifestly no real new musical discovery in metal. Unless you consider lots of distortion and constant fortissississississimo to be groundbreaking.



PartisanRanger said:


> The fundamental grounds that it promotes a degenerate lifestyle? Ha.


No. It's the: poor harmonic grammar, dearth of nuances, crude and simplistic textures, nauseating amount of volume, the great pretentiousness (evinced by claims to its being similar to classical music) lack of wit and extremely limited range of expression, assuming that it can be said to express anything at all.


----------



## Vegg

Herzeleide said:


> No. It's the: poor harmonic grammar, dearth of nuances, crude and simplistic textures, nauseating amount of volume, the great pretentiousness (eveinced by claims to its being similar to classical music) lack of wit and extremely limited range of expression, assuming that it can be said to express anything at all.


Do these fit any of those descriptions? (Note: I actually somewhat agree with you when it comes to the _average_ metal. The genre has an extremely high percentage of terrible bands. Thing is, there's a few outliers that I absolutely love.)

























 (Ok, pretentious? yes. Fun? Hells yes!)











I realize your musical sensibilities are far different to mine, but there's no way you can say that these artists are completely devoid of talent.


----------



## Herzeleide

Vegg said:


>


I found this bland. That minor-key ostinato quickly began to grate. I find in classical not only is the texture more interesting because of the voice leading, but composers quickly figured out how to modulate to the dominant. I mean, that happens within a few bars' in a Bach chorale. But because of the highly developed harmonic language, the secondary dominant merely serves to reinforce the tonic - that is how large-scale harmonic structures are created. Large-scale linear structure is created by the aforementioned approach to voice-leading and melodic movement and shape.

Now this: it's insipid. So I must adjust my judgement in accordance with the lack of harmonic interest. Modal music has to compensate for a lack of harmonic movement. Renaissance music achieves this by the beauty of each polyphonic line, and how each line interacts. Indian music makes up for it by interesting rhythms and an extremely refined melodic language. Sadly, I find none of these in this song.



Vegg said:


>


This is how I imagine Chopin would sound if he had less taste. It's quite cheesy. But I must say I hated that tiny drum ostinato that comes in about mid-way.

The guy is talented though. His time would be better spent playing the classics rather than playing with Dream Theatre.



Vegg said:


>


This has the same faults as the first video. Plus it's even more repetitive. Rhythmically and harmonically etiolated.

'Never gonna die, we're gonna live forever!'

Well, quite. One does tend to accompany t'other!

I've sampled the rest and it appears they all have the same general faults and weaknesses. Though the one that's pretentious and fun did succeed in being entertaining, in a daft, comic kind of way.



Vegg said:


> I realize your musical sensibilities are far different to mine, but there's no way you can say that these artists are completely devoid of talent.


Well, I recognise it takes some talent to learn instruments. But I'm afraid I find negligible creative talent.

Try this and note the differences:


----------



## Vegg

Well, you have to realize that even though this music _is_ harmonically simpler than (most) art music, you still need the ear to enjoy it. For example, as recent as a few years ago, I absolutely couldn't stand Meshuggah. I heard it as horribly grating music with little artistic merit. 
As time went on however, I began to hear their music in a new way. Lo and behold, they actually became one of my favorite bands. (And don't give me the whole "false consciousness/beginning to love ugliness" speech. You're the one that finds it ugly, not me.)

A few pages back you stated that you care about what your ears tell you. That's exactly my point. You found that Tool song bland, fair enough. But I find it to be a highly entertaining and creative production.

I care about all aspects of musical talent and creativity, but the bottom line is that entertainment value comes first.


----------



## Conservationist

Herzeleide said:


> I'm closed-minded insofar as I dislike feeble music.


Me too. I dislike rock and jazz.


----------



## Contrapunctus666

> 'Never gonna die, we're gonna live forever!'


This is crap(without checking the link out)


----------



## Vegg

Just when I thought this thread couldn't get any dumber...


----------



## sam richards

Contrapunctus666 said:


> Since you guys love Meshuggah, how about trying some Gorguts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for drumming, if 300 beats per second helps you to create better music, do it.(example:
> 
> 
> 
> ). However if you want to use drums to clone Yngwie Malmsteen shredding than **** off.


Wow, this is the first intelligent post by you in this thread. Obscura is an amazing album.


----------



## Herzeleide

Conservationist said:


> Me too. I dislike rock and jazz.


Such eminent composers as Stravinsky and Ravel liked jazz.


----------



## sam richards

Conservationist said:


> Me too. I dislike rock and jazz.


----------



## Conservationist

Yeah, that's how I feel about your opinions too. Except regarding _Obscura_.


----------



## Conservationist

Herzeleide said:


> Such eminent composers as Stravinsky and Ravel liked jazz.


I should bow to them, because they're eminent, huh. Not a fan at all of either one.


----------



## Herzeleide

Conservationist said:


> I should bow to them, because they're eminent, huh. Not a fan at all of either one.


LOL.

'I like metal but not putatively the greatest twentieth-century composer (Stravinsky)'.

Deary me!


----------



## sam richards

Herzeleide said:


> Not at all. There is manifestly no real new musical discovery in metal. Unless you consider lots of distortion and constant fortissississississimo to be groundbreaking.


What are you talking about? Metal is one of the most innovative genres of popular music.

Death Metal: Use of vocals as a percussive instrument; relying entirely on chromatic harmonic changes and high-speed drums. Also uses of lots of exotic scales like the whole-tone and diminished whole-half scales.

Progessive metal: Lots of bands try to blend jazz and classical with metal to create their own unique brand of music.

Experimental metal: Band like Meshuggah, I challenge you to find any music similar to thiers

Also, if you like Indian classical music (Carnatic), here is a Indian progressive rock/metal band called Motherjane which infuses microtonal Carnatic classical with metal and takes the concept of harmony (which is not in Carnatic classical) from western classical.

There, I have disproved you.


----------



## Contrapunctus666

> Wow, this is the first intelligent post by you in this thread.


All of my posts are intelligent.


----------



## Conservationist

Contrapunctus666 said:


> All of my posts are intelligent.


When we descend into the ad hom, there's no longer a debate... it's just TV.


----------



## Conservationist

Herzeleide said:


> LOL.
> 
> 'I like metal but not putatively the greatest twentieth-century composer (Stravinsky)'.
> 
> Deary me!


Again, you're trying to shame with with what others value. Some people think he's the greatest twentieth-century composer; that doesn't mean that all of us share that opinion, or even that a majority of intelligent people do. Further, it's a relative measurement.

No thanks to your bad logic and herd morality.


----------



## Conservationist

sam richards said:


> Experimental metal: Band like Meshuggah, I challenge you to find any music similar to thiers


I don't sense much of a musically experimental nature in Meshuggah. Not in song structure; not in harmony; not in melody; perhaps, however, in rhythm, although I'd argue Suffocation cut that groundwork long before Meshuggah.


----------



## Vegg

Conservationist said:


> Further, it's a relative measurement.


Similar to calling rock and jazz feeble music? I find it unbelievable that one could discount ALL jazz. There is a huge range of music that falls under that term.


----------



## Bach

sam richards said:


> Death Metal: Use of vocals as a percussive instrument


Messiaen did this in the forties (see Cinq Rechants)



sam richards said:


> relying entirely on chromatic harmonic changes


Wagner did this in the 1850s (I've never heard harmonic chromaticism in metal, please post an example)



sam richards said:


> Progessive metal: Lots of bands try to blend jazz and classical


Gershwin and Ravel did this in the twenties and thirties


----------



## PartisanRanger

Herzeleide said:


> No. It's the: poor harmonic grammar, dearth of nuances, crude and simplistic textures, nauseating amount of volume, the great pretentiousness (evinced by claims to its being similar to classical music) lack of wit and extremely limited range of expression, assuming that it can be said to express anything at all.


I'm not sure why you think the entire genre is guilty of such criciticisms. There is a huge variety of music within the umbrella of "metal". Your post smacks strongly of uninformed prejudice.


----------



## Bach

Not really - he's listened to the 'good' metal that the self proclaimed experts of the thread have posted..


----------



## sam richards

Conservationist said:


> I don't sense much of a musically experimental nature in Meshuggah. Not in song structure; not in harmony; not in melody; perhaps, however, in rhythm, although I'd argue Suffocation cut that groundwork long before Meshuggah.


No. Do use your ears. While Suffocation are good, in the rhythm department they are fairly standard fare.

As usual, my advice for everyone is to ignore these idiots.


----------



## sam richards

Bach said:


> Messiaen did this in the forties (see Cinq Rechants)
> 
> Wagner did this in the 1850s (I've never heard harmonic chromaticism in metal, please post an example)
> 
> Gershwin and Ravel did this in the twenties and thirties


A great job of omitting most of my post.


----------



## Conservationist

Vegg said:


> There is a huge range of music that falls under that term.


Yet it has a common compositional style.


----------



## Conservationist

sam richards said:


> While Suffocation are good, in the rhythm department they are fairly standard fare.


What else uses the same approach to rhythm guitar as found on _Effigy of the Forgotten_, which is obviously the primarily influence on Meshuggah?


----------



## Bach

sam richards said:


> A great job of omitting most of my post.


I don't have any comment on indian metal.. Listen to indian classical instead?


----------



## Vegg

Conservationist said:


> Yet it has a common compositional style.


Ever heard of free jazz?


----------



## sam richards

Bach said:


> I don't have any comment on indian metal.. Listen to indian classical instead?


So basically my arugument is true; Indian Classical(Carnatic) doesn't have the concept of harmony, so basically the music is unique/groundbreaking.


----------



## Conservationist

Vegg said:


> Ever heard of free jazz?


Yes, back when I listened to jazz, Ornette Coleman was my far and away favorite.


----------



## sam richards

Conservationist said:


> What else uses the same approach to rhythm guitar as found on _Effigy of the Forgotten_, which is obviously the primarily influence on Meshuggah?


No. Do you have any knowledge of time-signatures and polyrhythms? I guess not.



Conservationist said:


> Yes, back when I listened to jazz, Ornette Coleman was my far and away favorite.


You fail at lying.


----------



## Herzeleide

sam richards said:


> Death Metal: Use of vocals as a percussive instrument;


It's been done before. Jazz scat singing. And for hundreds of years in Indian scat singing (I'm afraid I don't know the technical term).



sam richards said:


> relying entirely on chromatic harmonic changes and high-speed drums. Also uses of lots of exotic scales like the whole-tone and diminished whole-half scales.


Done before.



sam richards said:


> Also, if you like Indian classical music (Carnatic), here is a Indian progressive rock/metal band called Motherjane which infuses microtonal Carnatic classical with metal and takes the concept of harmony (which is not in Carnatic classical) from western classical.


It's been done before. Except without the horrid metal element.


----------



## Herzeleide

sam richards said:


> So basically my arugument is true; Indian Classical(Carnatic) doesn't have the concept of harmony, so basically the music is unique/groundbreaking.


Fusing western harmony with Indian modality was done by John McLaughlin almost forty years' ago.


----------



## Herzeleide

Conservationist said:


> Again, you're trying to shame with with what others value. Some people think he's the greatest twentieth-century composer; that doesn't mean that all of us share that opinion, or even that a majority of intelligent people do. Further, it's a relative measurement.
> 
> No thanks to your bad logic and herd morality.


Please stop the silly Nietzschean digs and try thinking for yourself, rather than (ironically) regurgitating someone else's thoughts.

Please tell me why:

a) Stravinsky was not one of the greatest twentieth-century composers

and

b) Who was.


----------



## Contrapunctus666

> Do you have any knowledge of time-signatures and polyrhythms?


So those that know all music theory are those capable of judging the quality of the music? Maybe those with more experience and intelligence are smarter?

I ****** off Meshuggah for a reason. The reason- badly composed, boring, soulless crap.


----------



## Aramis

Contrapunctus666 said:


> So those that know all music theory are those capable of judging the quality of the music?


Yes.



> Maybe those with more experience and intelligence are smarter?


No.


----------



## Bach

Contrapunctus666 said:


> So those that know all music theory are those capable of judging the quality of the music?.


I thought that was fairly obvious..


----------



## sam richards

Herzeleide said:


> It's been done before. Jazz scat singing. And for hundreds of years in Indian scat singing (I'm afraid I don't know the technical term).
> 
> Done before.
> 
> *It's been done before. Except without the horrid metal element.*


So you're basically agreeing with me. "Horrid" is absolutely subjective. But I can say that the examples I have provided do provide you with the fact that metal does have innovation; whether you like it or not is of no consequence.

By your logic, I can say that most church music is Major Key I - IV - V crap. But I agree that the perception of music is subjective.
So, No thanks.


----------



## Conservationist

Contrapunctus666 said:


> I ****** off Meshuggah for a reason. The reason- badly composed, boring, soulless crap.


I agree. There's not much of technical merit there, nor anything that wasn't done by better bands. But people who want to appear self-important love it.


----------



## Conservationist

Herzeleide said:


> try thinking for yourself


The old "Internet People" rebuttal: accuse the other of lacking what you were lacking.

Dude, this "discussion" is over. You don't know how to debate, you're not very honest, and I'm convinced your motivation is to try to make yourself look good because you're dissatisfied with how your life turned out. Google "cognitive dissonance" and "passive aggression." It's not a problem with you per se, but a social meme that is highly dysfunctional, and it's not worth my time.

If anyone wants to talk about the good in metal, I'm up for it, but this war of posturing is retarded and slaps itself with a malformed limb while drooling "imb eequal, imb eequal."


----------



## sam richards

Herzeleide said:


> Please stop the silly Nietzschean digs and try thinking for yourself, rather than (ironically) regurgitating someone else's thoughts.
> 
> Please tell me why:
> 
> a) Stravinsky was not one of the greatest twentieth-century composers
> 
> and
> 
> b) Who was.


I agree with you 100%.
But please don't judge all metal fans by this; not all of us are idiots.


----------



## Vegg

Conservationist said:


> But people who want to appear self-important love it.


...Or people who enjoy their music. Are you honestly this thick? Even your precious Nietzsche wrote of the subjectivity of truth. You seem to be looking at music in an awfully objective manner.


----------



## Contrapunctus666

> If anyone wants to talk about the good in metal, I'm up for it


I will start with some links:

Enslaved - Slaget I Skogen Bortenfor

Immortal - As the Eternity Opens

Atheist - And the Psychic Saw


----------



## Conservationist

Vegg said:


> Even your precious Nietzsche wrote of the subjectivity of truth.


Yes, but not the subjectivity of reality. Good luck with that.


----------



## Vegg

Conservationist said:


> Yes, but not the subjectivity of reality. Good luck with that.


So, essentially you're saying there is some cosmic law of reality that states that only the most grim and frost-bitten of metal should be listened to, and everything else is crap?

P.S. Nietzsche was using truth synonymously with reality. He was, in fact, an anti-realist. Good luck with that.


----------



## Bach

Why are you discussing Nietzsche in relation to metal?


----------



## Herzeleide

sam richards said:


> So you're basically agreeing with me. "Horrid" is absolutely subjective. But I can say that the examples I have provided do provide you with the fact that metal does have innovation; whether you like it or not is of no consequence.


I successfully rebutted all your attempts to prove that metal was in any shape or form innovative, and the 'it's been done before' was a reference to John McLaughlin, whose Mahavishnu Orchestra fused western harmony and electric instruments with Indian modality before metal existed.



sam richards said:


> By your logic, I can say that most church music is Major Key I - IV - V crap. But I agree that the perception of music is subjective.
> So, No thanks.


A few things to take into account here:

By 'church music' I assume you mean things like Palestrina, rather than a chromatic organ fugue by Bach or crazy organ piece by Messiaen. Early in this very thread I mentioned the things to listen for in modal polyphonic music - one *cannot* think of it in terms of functional tonality, as your roman numerals would seem to suggest. It is purely polyphonic, conceived linearly, with the combined lines controlled by a relationship of consonance and dissonance.
On other threads of this forum I've debated against the idea that music is subjective. Since I can't remember what this thread was off the top of my head, I'll get back to you about it so as not to derail this thread any further.


----------



## Herzeleide

Conservationist said:


> The old "Internet People" rebuttal: accuse the other of lacking what you were lacking.


Nay; I don't regurgitate someone else's philosophy.



Conservationist said:


> Dude, this "discussion" is over. You don't know how to debate, you're not very honest, and I'm convinced your motivation is to try to make yourself look good because you're dissatisfied with how your life turned out. Google "cognitive dissonance" and "passive aggression." It's not a problem with you per se, but a social meme that is highly dysfunctional, and it's not worth my time.
> 
> If anyone wants to talk about the good in metal, I'm up for it, but this war of posturing is retarded and slaps itself with a malformed limb while drooling "imb eequal, imb eequal."


Such awesome perspicacity! Your insight into human psychology is clearly second to none. Please share more of it with us: I sincerely believe that with your power I could really sort my life out.


----------



## sam richards

Let me quote you again:


> Except without the horrid metal element.


Can you see it now?

And Mahavishnu Orchestra fused Hindustani Classical with Western Music.
Carnatic classical is a truly different beast. It's based on microtonality, which totally different to Modality.
Microtonal here refers to music which uses intervals not found in the Western system of 12 equal intervals to the octave. In Carnatic music there are 22 notes in an octave.
Hope that clears it up for you.

Can show me any Michael Jackson Song with polyrythms, odd time-signatures, modality, microtonality, use of scales other than the basic major or minor?

Fact: Metal is one of the most innovative genres in popular music. It acts as a gateway for people who don't have a classical/jazz upbringing like me to more advanced genres.


----------



## Contrapunctus666

Bach said:


> Why are you discussing Nietzsche in relation to metal?


Because the Nietzsche's writings and the message of the good metal have the same point.


----------



## Bach

Poor Nietzsche - his legacy has been adulterated.


----------



## Herzeleide

sam richards said:


> Let me quote you again:
> 
> Can you see it now?
> 
> And Mahavishnu Orchestra fused Hindustani Classical with Western Music.
> Carnatic classical is a truly different beast. It's based on microtonality, which totally different to Modality.
> Microtonal here refers to music which uses intervals not found in the Western system of 12 equal intervals to the octave. In Carnatic music there are 22 notes in an octave.
> Hope that clears it up for you.


LOL. Carnatic music is modal. Some of these modes feature microtones, it is true. It's the same with Hindustani music.



sam richards said:


> Fact: Metal is one of the most innovative genres in popular music. It acts as a gateway for people who don't have a classical/jazz upbringing like me to more advanced genres.


The best gateway to classical is classical and the best gateway to jazz is jazz.


----------



## Herzeleide

sam richards said:


> Can show me any Michael Jackson Song with polyrythms, odd time-signatures, modality, microtonality, use of scales other than the basic major or minor?


Can I show you any Mozart piece which does this?* No. This is not the point.

*With the possible exception of a few modal pieces, counterpoint exercises or something.


----------



## Herzeleide

Bach said:


> Poor Nietzsche - his legacy has been adulterated.


Indeed. Metalheads are deluded if they think he would have approved of the stuff they produce.


----------



## sam richards

Herzeleide said:


> LOL. Carnatic music is modal. Some of these modes feature microtones, it is true. It's the same with Hindustani music.




Until now you posts atleast had intelligent and informed opinions, but this is pure ignorance. You clearly don't have any idea of what you're talking about.


----------



## sam richards

Contrapunctus666 said:


> Because the Nietzsche's writings and the message of the good metal have the same point.


If music is good, the message is not of any importance to me.
For example, I think that Christianity is the biggest load of lies still acceptable in modern society, but that doesn't prevent me from enjoying Bach.


----------



## Herzeleide

Carnatic music is based on ragas just like Hindustani music.

'Every _rāga_, like every _maqām_, has its own set of modal functions and its own internal melodic and harmonic relationships, motif to motif as well as note to note.'

'Modal functions in Indian music have been defined in two ways: according to general tonal function; and according to phrase structure.'

- From the New Grove. Note the second one is applied to Indian music as a whole.


----------



## sam richards

^^^ NO. While modal functions are there in Carnatic music, it is not the same as in western music. The whole point is very different from Hindustani music. Hindustani Music has same 7 notes in scale approach with modality. Carnatic music is based on much different set of values compared to Hindustani.

Please do some further research on this, you'll know what I mean.


----------



## Bach

No, Herzeliede is correct. The rāga (the mode or melodic formulæ), and tala (the rhythmic cycles) form the foundation of improvisation and composition in both Carnatic and Hindustani music.


----------



## Vegg

sam richards said:


> If music is good, the message is not of any importance to me.


Precisely... Lyrics and "messages" are just a small part of what music is about. Go read some literature if you're interested in that stuff.


----------



## Conservationist

Contrapunctus666 said:


> Because the Nietzsche's writings and the message of the good metal have the same point.


Because the internet is full of dunces who cannot recognize hierarchical use of category in language:

_Nietzsche's writings and the values of metal are heading in the same direction._

There's my translation.

Values of a genre are more important than any single artifact attempting to express them, like lyrics.

Jazz is for morons, like rock and hip-hop.


----------



## Bach

> Jazz is for morons, like rock and hip-hop.


How did you come to that inspired deduction?


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

Bach said:


> I has no relation to popularity. I could write a rock song that nobody ever hears (other than myself) and it would still be pop.


You have a very incorrect idea of pop then. You just show your lack of musical knowledge there. Heavy Metal is in no way related to pop music. Are you telling me that Cannibal Corpse is related to the Jonas Brothers? How are they in any way related?


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

Herzeleide said:


> The musical ancestry metal has puts it firmly in the sphere of popular music, regardless of the actual popularity - as Bach has pointed out, one can be totally unknown and yet still be playing popular music.


Okay... metal was popular in the 80s...

Classical was popular a long long time ago... So by your logic, classical is also pop. Every form of music has a time period where it is popular, get over it. Metal is NOWHERE near pop music, anyone who thinks this is mentally retarded. There is no similarities at all.


----------



## nickgray

Nah, he's talking about popular and classical music relationship - a) there's classical music b) there's everything else (called popular music), I exaggerated it, but it should more or less sum it up. And there is certain logic in that division actually.


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

Bach said:


> I thought that was fairly obvious..


All because you have a degree in music and are experienced with music does not mean you can define whether or not a form of music is good or bad.

I think of music like a drug. Take LSD for example. People have different experiences and react differently to it. My friend who tried LSD thought it was the most disturbing and the most unpleasant experience of his life. When my cousin did LSD while he was in high school, he thought it was the most profound and beautiful experience he has ever experienced. The same I believe can apply to music. Different forms, artists, etc. have different effects on your brain based on your experiences and how you can relate to the music. A degree in music does not mean you can define if something is good or bad.

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

Bach said:


> How did you come to that inspired deduction?


What about yours with metal?


----------



## Vegg

Hey Metalhead, what do you think of the new direction Cryptopsy is heading in? Haha.


----------



## Herzeleide

sam richards said:


> Carnatic music is based on much different set of values compared to Hindustani.


And what are these, pray?

Whether the mode consists of seven notes or not is irrelevant. The octatonic scale speaks for itself and some of Messiaen's modes consist of even more notes.


----------



## Herzeleide

Conservationist said:


> Jazz is for morons...


... such as Copland, Stravinsky, Berstein, Gershwin, Ravel, Milhaud, Richard Rodney Bennett, Thomas Adès, Mark-Anthony Turnage...


----------



## Herzeleide

Metalheadwholovesclasical said:


> Classical was popular a long long time ago... So by your logic, classical is also pop.


I love your logic. A long long time ago the British Isles was ruled by the Romans. So by this logic, the British are currently ruled by the Romans.

Classical belongs to a literate tradition cultivated primarily by connoisseurs. This is distinguished from vernacular music which has been primarily oral. Metal is oral. The only way that it can be said to have any semblance of a tradition is through its transmission via recordings and the radio. This it shares with other popular music. I could point out its similarities to popular music till the cows come home, but I feel the onus is on you to point out its commonalities with classical, since this seemed to be one of the central premises of this entire thread.


----------



## Conservationist

Herzeleide said:


> ... such as Copland, Stravinsky, Berstein, Gershwin, Ravel, Milhaud, Richard Rodney Bennett, Thomas Adès, Mark-Anthony Turnage...


You named no one I respect.


----------



## Conservationist

Herzeleide said:


> Classical belongs to a literate tradition cultivated primarily by connoisseurs.


So is metal, if you hang with the right people. You have to avoid the 75% of the audience who are just rockers.


----------



## Vegg

Conservationist said:


> You named no one I respect.


Out of curiosity, who are your favorite non-metal musicians?


----------



## Conservationist

Vegg said:


> Out of curiosity, who are your favorite non-metal musicians?


Respighi, Saint-Saens, Paganini;
Brahms, Kraus, Berwald, Schumann, Nielsen;
Bruckner, Beethoven;

Eno, Kraftwerk, Biosphere, Autechre, Tangerine Dream, Lord Wind, Fripp;
King Crimson, Yes, Led Zeppelin, Camel, Jade Warrior, Maeror Tri, K.K. Null.

Thanks for asking. (I lumped punk in with metal and excluded it from this list.)


----------



## sam richards

Herzeleide said:


> And what are these, pray?
> 
> Whether the mode consists of seven notes or not is irrelevant. The octatonic scale speaks for itself and some of Messiaen's modes consist of even more notes.


No, I was saying that, the carnatic modes consist of microtones, unlike Hindustani. That is the point. Sorry for my unclear explanation, I was tired and sleepy.

And they are called ragams, not ragas. Totally different.


----------



## Vegg

Conservationist said:


> Respighi, Saint-Saens, Paganini;
> Brahms, Kraus, Berwald, Schumann, Nielsen;
> Bruckner, Beethoven;
> 
> Eno, Kraftwerk, Biosphere, Autechre, Tangerine Dream, Lord Wind, Fripp;
> King Crimson, Yes, Led Zeppelin, Camel, Jade Warrior, Maeror Tri, K.K. Null.
> 
> Thanks for asking. (I lumped punk in with metal and excluded it from this list.)


While I'll admit there is some great music in that list, there are two things I'm genuinely curious about:

1. Why do you believe jazz is for idiots, and punk is not?

2. Why are you so caught up in metal's "theme", when most of the non-metal music you listed doesn't have one? (Or at least, not a continuous theme from album to album.)


----------



## Conservationist

Vegg said:


> 1. Why do you believe jazz is for idiots, and punk is not?
> 
> 2. Why are you so caught up in metal's "theme", when most of the non-metal music you listed doesn't have one? (Or at least, not a continuous theme from album to album.)


1. I believe most punk music, like most metal, is for idiots, but celebrate the powerful acts in the genre. In punk, it's about five, and I do not listen to them often.

2. Music from other genres has a different ideology. Metal, like Romanticist classical music and literature, has a realistic and holistic theme which makes it by its very nature somewhat dogmatic, all-explanatory and somewhat intolerant of opposite ideals.

Think of it this way:

Person A: There's a right way to do this, and I'm going to pursue it.

Person B: My idea of the right way is that everyone just does whatever!

Person A: I can't support that, as it'll undo what I'm trying to do.

Person B: Fascist!

Metal is person A, but outside of metal, metal rules don't apply (except as accurate depictions of reality).


----------



## Bach

Metalheadwholovesclasical said:


> You have a very incorrect idea of pop then. You just show your lack of musical knowledge there.


Not really, matey mine. Not really.


----------



## Herzeleide

Conservationist said:


> Metal, like Romanticist classical music and literature, has a realistic and holistic theme which makes it by its very nature somewhat dogmatic, all-explanatory and somewhat intolerant of opposite ideals.


Your ignorance keeps mounting up.

The Romantics were anything _but_ realists: they were idealists, both in the philosophical sense (RE: Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer) and in the more general sense. They stressed ideal and subjective notions of the world.


----------



## Herzeleide

Conservationist said:


> Respighi, Saint-Saens, Paganini; Kraus, Berwald,


All composers of a very minor order compared to Stravinsky.


----------



## Conservationist

Herzeleide said:


> The Romantics were anything _but_ realists: they were idealists, both in the philosophical sense (RE: Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer) and in the more general sense. They stressed ideal and subjective notions of the world.


They stressed subjective interpretations leading to a notion of a universal world, as did the idealists, most notably Schopenhauer. As Schopenhauer makes crystal clear in TWWR I, idealism does not suggest the physical world is as it is interpreted subjectively, only that the subjective is our device for measuring it.


----------



## Herzeleide

Conservationist said:


> They stressed subjective interpretations leading to a notion of a universal world, as did the idealists, most notably Schopenhauer. As Schopenhauer makes crystal clear in TWWR I, idealism does not suggest the physical world is as it is interpreted subjectively, only that the subjective is our device for measuring it.


Thanks for corroborating what I said.


----------



## Conservationist

Herzeleide said:


> Thanks for corroborating what I said.


Nope, you missed the point: the Romantic idealists were realists, just ones who revolted against the idea of Rationalism as a means to that end. It's the same reason they were aestheticists.


----------



## Herzeleide

Conservationist said:


> You named no one I respect.


You really ought to, they were/are all musicians of the highest order.


----------



## Herzeleide

Conservationist said:


> Nope, you missed the point: the Romantic idealists were realists,


Hahahaha!



"This black car is white."...


----------



## Herzeleide

I'm going off now to listen to some realist Romantic music, starting with some operas about gods and dwarfs, then one about vampires.

I think I'll top it off with some realist Romantic literature where this guy makes a pact with the devil.

Tschuessi!


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

Herzeleide said:


> I love your logic. A long long time ago the British Isles was ruled by the Romans. So by this logic, the British are currently ruled by the Romans.
> 
> Classical belongs to a literate tradition cultivated primarily by connoisseurs. This is distinguished from vernacular music which has been primarily oral. Metal is oral. The only way that it can be said to have any semblance of a tradition is through its transmission via recordings and the radio. This it shares with other popular music. I could point out its similarities to popular music till the cows come home, but I feel the onus is on you to point out its commonalities with classical, since this seemed to be one of the central premises of this entire thread.


I hear plenty of classical on the radio also... So Classical and Pop are related too then.

Bands like Xasthur, Behemoth, Spawn of Possession, Gammacide, Morbid Angel, and true metal bands you will NEVER hear on the radio. If you can find them being played on the radio somewhere, I would enjoy to know where.

And please point out similarities. I know enough about metal to know that metal is in no way connected to pop music. The structure is in no way related, nor is the overall sound. Pop is trash, Metal is beauty.


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

Conservationist said:


> Nope, you missed the point: the Romantic idealists were realists, just ones who revolted against the idea of Rationalism as a means to that end. It's the same reason they were aestheticists.


Realism and idealism are opposites.


----------



## Vegg

Metalheadwholovesclasical said:


> I hear plenty of classical on the radio also... So Classical and Pop are related too then.
> 
> Bands like Xasthur, Behemoth, Spawn of Possession, Gammacide, Morbid Angel, and true metal bands you will NEVER hear on the radio. If you can find them being played on the radio somewhere, I would enjoy to know where.


XM?



Metalheadwholovesclasical said:


> And please point out similarities. I know enough about metal to know that metal is in no way connected to pop music. The structure is in no way related, nor is the overall sound. Pop is trash, Metal is beauty.


Not all pop is trash, as with any other genre... Blackfield is an example of some good contemporary pop.

Btw, Bach is confusing "pop" with "popular music". I already tried explaining that pop is a genre, but apparently he didn't pick up on that.


----------



## Herzeleide

Metalheadwholovesclasical said:


> I hear plenty of classical on the radio also... So Classical and Pop are related too then.


The musicians will be playing from sheet music.



Metalheadwholovesclasical said:


> And please point out similarities.


A tendency towards the harmonically bland and naive with no attention paid to voice leading or linear motion. Simplistic structures (and yes, I mean this, since texture and harmony affect structure - just compare with sonatas and fugues, or Debussy, or Boulez).


----------



## sam richards

Herzeleide, (and everyone) Listen to this and tell me that metal is not beautiful. Notice the microtonality in guitar and vocals. The Intro and Outro is specially brilliant:

http://www.last.fm/music/motherjane/_/Mindstreet?autostart

And no one knows them; even in India. It is sad.

Metal does not have complex harmony because in the distorted guitar use of complex harmonies will introduce unintended inharmonicity or intermodulation distortion. It's simply a limitation of the timbre of the chosen voice. However, bands like Cynic use Intermodulation distortion as an 
dissonant element in their music.

In any case metal is more complex and musical than most the popular music genres. And I think I have proved that.



Conservationist said:


> Rock and Jazz is for morons.


The irony is killing me.


----------



## Herzeleide

It sure did include microtones. So what? Blues guitar has always included quarter-tone bends.

Sorry but I thought that song was awful.

Now *here's* someone who can do the Indian thing:













sam richards said:


> In any case metal is more complex and musical than most the popular music genres. And I think I have proved that.


So what? I treat music as one big whole, and compared to music as a whole, metal is not the slightest bit innovative.


----------



## sam richards

Well, it was beautiful, at least for me. Did you even listen to it from start to finish? 

I listened to the videos, I didn't really like it the first one, although the second one was beautiful 

But still we are talking about metal here. Let me ask you a question, is there any other music with the power of metal, the ability to fuse so many genres in it, which appeals to so many in the world while having so much complexity? NO.

There is no co-incidence the most of the best guitarists, bassists and drummers chose to play metal.
Although I listen to mostly Classical and Jazz , I'm still proud to be a Metalhead.

I cannot take someone seriously when someone says Michael Jackson is better than Motherjane. FAIL


----------



## Bach

> the ability to fuse so many genres in it, which appeals to so many in the world while having so much complexity? NO.


Classical?


----------



## Vegg

Herz, I'm curious as to what your opinion of these is:











Keep in mind, youtube's compression makes it hard to hear the details. CD quality is soooo much better.

(Interesting note: I always found it strange how they are called "Cynic", considering most of their lyrics are spiritual in nature, but one of the youtube comments noted that they are actually using the old Greek definition of Cynic.)

Edit: Hah! Just read that one of the members of Cynic is a professor of music theory.

Also, here's some metal-influenced Spanish guitar:






(Love these guys.)


----------



## Conservationist

sam richards said:


> In any case metal is more complex and musical than most the popular music genres.


Definitely. More artistically complex as well.


----------



## Tapkaara

Why is this thread like the biggest thread ever in the history of this forum?


----------



## Conservationist

tapkaara said:


> why is this thread like the biggest thread ever in the history of this forum?


slayer rules!


----------



## sam richards

Haha, 
That's the nature of metal; those who love it, they love it too much.


----------



## sam richards

By the way, what everyone here thinks of guitar virtuosos or shredders.
Some of them are just unbelievable; look at this:




Fast forward to 1:11, what a talent! 

He is the fastest guitarist in the world right now.


----------



## Aramis

sam richards said:


> Fast forward to 1:11, what a talent!


Yes, he is very talented sportsman.


----------



## Conservationist

sam richards said:


> That's the nature of metal; those who love it, they love it too much.


QFT

I think it hits on something in the spirit of those who want to rise above herd morality and a notion of thinking as removing threats... it calls to the inner desire for adventure, frontiers, the lawless and the gory. It's pure feral cosmic consciousness.

http://www.nationaldayofslayer.org/

But will you celebrate on June 6th?


----------



## Vegg

sam richards said:


> By the way, what everyone here thinks of guitar virtuosos or shredders.
> Some of them are just unbelievable; look at this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fast forward to 1:11, what a talent!
> 
> He is the fastest guitarist in the world right now.







^This is one of my favorite guitar performances.


----------



## Herzeleide

sam richards said:


> By the way, what everyone here thinks of guitar virtuosos or shredders.
> Some of them are just unbelievable; look at this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fast forward to 1:11, what a talent!
> 
> He is the fastest guitarist in the world right now.


Michael Angelo Batio belongs in a circus, not on a concert stage.


----------



## Contrapunctus666

Check out Cynic 1991 demo:

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=V2YTFNNR

It is out-of-print


----------



## Conservationist

Herzeleide said:


> Michael Angelo Batio belongs in a circus, not on a concert stage.


Metal in my view isn't about the shredding. It's about a collaborative effort focused on poetic, innovative, _vir_-heavy songwriting. Postmoralism, nihilism, and avoiding the herd morality so you can have adventures.

And of course, Slayer...



> Originally inspired by the National Day of Prayer that religious groups created to draw attention to their beliefs, the National Day of Slayer was thought to be a holiday on June 6, 2006 -- that's 6/6/06 -- but now it has grown.
> 
> http://www.nationaldayofprayer.org/
> 
> Thanks to support and enjoyment around the world, the National Day of Slayer is now the INTER-National Day of Slayer, and it happens every year on June 6 starting at hour six. On this day, metalheads worldwide stop the pointless activities of a boring world and listen to Slayer.
> 
> International Day of Slayer is bigger than one nation, or even one band. It's a celebration of metal music through one of its most articulate spokesbands. It's also revelry in the spirit that makes metal great. So on June 6, stop everything... and listen to SLAYER!
> 
> http://www.nationaldayofslayer.org/


----------



## Contrapunctus666

This thread needs more Demlich:

http://www.anentity.com/demilich/download.php


----------



## sam richards

Herzeleide said:


> Michael Angelo Batio belongs in a circus, not on a concert stage.


I emphasized over his technical ability, which as a guitarist I admire. I am not a fan of his compositions; but still his mastery of the guitar needs to be respected. There is no need to be so negative upon this.

We have proved that metal is artistic enough to be respected. We are not forcing you to listen to it. So there is no need for your stupid comments; which bear no authority since you have not accomplished even half as much as the musicians you condemn.

I know why you don't like metal; you mentioned that somewhere in this forum that yours musical tastes are predominantly catholic. Metal is against that stupid religion. So here we go.

Keep listening to your more artistic Michael Jackson.


----------



## Bach

> I know why you don't like metal; you mentioned that somewhere in this forum that yours musical tastes are predominantly catholic. Metal is against that stupid religion. So here we go.


Sam, mate - catholic means all embracing or including a wide variety. Not the Roman Catholic church, silly. 



> since you have not accomplished even half as much as the musicians you condemn.


Perhaps not financially..


----------



## sam richards

Bach said:


> Sam, mate - catholic means all embracing or including a wide variety. Not the Roman Catholic church, silly.


Well, you're right, I think I'm turning into an idiot too.








Yes, I failed. 



Bach said:


> Perhaps not financially..


Musically...


----------



## Bach

I think it's fairly safe to assume that Herzeliede would have a greater academic knowledge of music than most metal musicians (for example).


----------



## sam richards

Academic knowledge means nothing until you use it to produce art.


----------



## Bach

Well, that's not entirely true.. you can be a historian, critic or musicologist - but I partially agree - hence why I'm a composer.


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

Vegg said:


> XM?
> 
> Not all pop is trash, as with any other genre... Blackfield is an example of some good contemporary pop.
> 
> Btw, Bach is confusing "pop" with "popular music". I already tried explaining that pop is a genre, but apparently he didn't pick up on that.


As a matter of fact, I don't remember any of those bands being played on XM. The occassional FAMOUS bands will be played, but nothing from the underground.

I find all pop to be trash personally. I find no expression or effort put into the music. But each to his own.


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

Herzeleide said:


> The musicians will be playing from sheet music.
> 
> A tendency towards the harmonically bland and naive with no attention paid to voice leading or linear motion. Simplistic structures (and yes, I mean this, since texture and harmony affect structure - just compare with sonatas and fugues, or Debussy, or Boulez).


Metal is simple? No, unless you compare it with classical music, then yes, metal is simple. Are you telling me, however that this




is as complex as this?





or this




is as complex as this?





Lets take a closer look. 
Guitar work in Pop:





In Metal:





Drum work in Pop:





Drum work in Metal:





Lets take an even CLOSER look. Lets look at the writing.

Pop Writing:
http://www.musicnotes.com/images/productimages/mtd/MN0060200.gif

Metal Writing:
Look at anything on this site. http://www.riversofgore.com/

I dont see how pop's complexity and metal's complexity can, at all, be similar. Metal is simple compared to classical music, but to pop? Are you joking? Listen to some more metal and see how the complexity of both genres are incredibly different.


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

Conservationist said:


> Metal in my view isn't about the shredding. It's about a collaborative effort focused on poetic, innovative, _vir_-heavy songwriting. Postmoralism, nihilism, and avoiding the herd morality so you can have adventures.


This. People who listen to metal because it is fast or brutal are morons. I listen to metal because I find it beautiful, and passionate. And like classical music, effort-requiring, and a wide knowledge on music and its structure.

Also, to Bach,

Metal musicians usually have a wide knowledge on classical music. Most are as a matter of fact classical musicians before they became metal musicians, hence, they use classical influence in their music and produce similarities.


----------



## Herzeleide

sam richards said:


> I emphasized over his technical ability, which as a guitarist I admire. I am not a fan of his compositions; but still his mastery of the guitar needs to be respected. There is no need to be so negative upon this.


I think there's every need to be negative about it. Music is not a sport: producing tacky, tasteless crap music as an excuse to demonstrate one's technical ability is self-indulgent in the extreme.

I too play the guitar. I believe the guitar is an instrument for producing music, not for onanism or cheap circus tricks.


----------



## Contrapunctus666

> "Musical tastes and personality type are closely related, according to a study of more than 36,000 people from around the world.
> 
> The research, which was carried out by Professor Adrian North of Heriot-Watt University, is said to be the largest such study ever undertaken.
> 
> It suggested classical music fans were shy, while heavy metal aficionados were gentle and at ease with themselves.
> 
> "One of the most surprising things is the similarities between fans of classical music and heavy metal. They're both creative and at ease but not outgoing."
> 
> BBC UK
> 
> One website for some time has been telling you about the relationship between metal and classical: this one.
> 
> Ever since we formulated our theories back in the formative years of 1988-1991, we wrote about the synchronicity between metal and classical in mood, in outlook, in music theory, in song structure, and most of all, in type of songwriting -- the narrative circular composition that is shared between both classical and metal.
> 
> Everyone else told us we were nuts. Then out of the woodwork, came help -- Bathory speaking of a classical influence, Burzum mentioning it, Celtic Frost speaking of it, and so on.
> 
> We've been right and everyone else has been looking in the wrong place. But as more evidence comes out, the position becomes clearer: it's heavy metal that inherits classical in the popular music realm, thanks in part to its prog and movie soundtrack heritage.
> 
> Keep spreading the word.
> 
> ANUS.com --- Dark Legions Archive


Taken from a Facebook group


----------



## Bach

I prefer the Jonas Brothers.


----------



## Herzeleide

Sorry, CONT666, but all that survey proves is that personality type does not correspond with taste. 

http://www.somethingawful.com/d/your...ucks/metal.php


----------



## nefigah

I liked metal alright before getting into classical (and the drummer in me still occasionally is drawn to Mastodon). I think it has a couple of strengths, being more complex and interesting than much of rock and pop, and has a lot of capacity to energize the listener. However, it is unfortunate that it doggedly sticks to the cliches of its genre: the lyrics, especially, failed to convey much in the way of deeper meaning to me (even more "thinking man's" stuff like Between the Buried and Me).


----------



## sam richards

Herzeleide said:


> Sorry, CONT666, but all that survey proves is that personality type does not correspond with taste.
> 
> http://www.somethingawful.com/d/your...ucks/metal.php


Link doesn't work, FAIL.

Also, that is a joke you bloke. There's even a column there which claims that classical music sucks. You clearly have a low IQ.



bach said:


> I prefer the Jonas Brothers.


----------



## sam richards

Herzeleide said:


> I think there's every need to be negative about it. Music is not a sport: producing tacky, tasteless crap music as an excuse to demonstrate one's technical ability is self-indulgent in the extreme.
> 
> I too play the guitar. I believe the guitar is an instrument for producing music, not for onanism or cheap circus tricks.


Well, I'm not a fan of his compositions, but still you have to respect his technical ability. That video was designed as a technical exercise you idiot. It's not a song. Nobody cares about your opinions here; maybe you'd have insulted Paganini too if you were present back in his day.

I pretty much agree on what metalhead and conservationist said on this matter. I was only demonstrating the technical prowess and dedication to the music in the genre. Which is never a bad thing by itself.


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

Herzeleide said:


> I think there's every need to be negative about it. Music is not a sport: producing tacky, tasteless crap music as an excuse to demonstrate one's technical ability is self-indulgent in the extreme.
> 
> I too play the guitar. I believe the guitar is an instrument for producing music, not for onanism or cheap circus tricks.


You are a fool to think that his guitar work is just for speed. It has harmony, rhythm, and pure expression, you are just too closed minded to accept it.


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

Bach said:


> I prefer the Jonas Brothers.


Then you are an idiot.


----------



## Herzeleide

Metalheadwholovesclasical said:


> Metal is simple? No, unless you compare it with classical music, then yes, metal is simple. Are you telling me, however that this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is as complex as this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is as complex as this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lets take a closer look.
> Guitar work in Pop:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In Metal:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drum work in Pop:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drum work in Metal:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lets take an even CLOSER look. Lets look at the writing.
> 
> Pop Writing:
> http://www.musicnotes.com/images/productimages/mtd/MN0060200.gif
> 
> Metal Writing:
> Look at anything on this site. http://www.riversofgore.com/
> 
> I dont see how pop's complexity and metal's complexity can, at all, be similar. Metal is simple compared to classical music, but to pop? Are you joking? Listen to some more metal and see how the complexity of both genres are incredibly different.


Poor boy, you've wasted your time again by misunderstanding me. There are classical pieces which are simple and complex. This is of little interest to me, and it does not take away the fact that they are both classical.

And so it is with metal: with all their convoluted attempts at complexity, they're ineluctably popular music.

In fact, you've just pointed out to us the similarities in instrumentation, reflecting the fact that metal and pop both have the same source - 50's rock'n'roll.


----------



## Herzeleide

sam richards said:


> You clearly have a low IQ.


You clearly are a tumescent snooker cue.


----------



## Conservationist

Herzeleide said:


> In fact, you've just pointed out to us the similarities in instrumentation, reflecting the fact that metal and pop both have the same source - 50's rock'n'roll.


In instrumentation, not compositional style.

Metal composition has more to do with emulating horror movie music -- generally made by Jewish-Americans influenced by German modernist composers -- using power chords on a Gibson SG.

50s rock n roll is mostly country music, blues is mostly Celtic folk, etc. All that popular music genrology is just marketing.


----------



## Conservationist

sam richards said:


> Nobody cares about your opinions here; maybe you'd have insulted Paganini too if you were present back in his day.
> 
> I was only demonstrating the technical prowess and dedication to the music in the genre. Which is never a bad thing by itself.


It's not, and it's a basis on which the genre can build.

I think we should separate technical ability here from compositional tendencies. Some will argue that metal musicians cannot play; as that video showed, and many personal experiences have illustrated, metal musicians are often very familiar with their instruments.

However, what separates them from pop and brings them closer to classical is the narrative compositional style they use. More on that here

People love to defecate on metal because they think it makes them seem more cultured. It's something I associate with nouveau culturati from the East Coast who are terrified we'll find out their grandparents worked as sharecroppers in Appalachia.


----------



## Bach

> People love to defecate on metal because they think it makes them seem more cultured. It's something I associate with nouveau culturati from the East Coast who are terrified we'll find out their grandparents worked as sharecroppers in Appalachia.


Or.. it could just be because it sounds yuck and involves satanist geeks who probably smell awful, wearing thoroughly inelegant clothes and hair that makes them look like tramps.


----------



## Aramis

Why metalheads always compare metal music to stuff like Jonas Brothers, Miley Cyrus etc.? It's like someone would say "man, your girlfriend is damn ugly!" and you would answer: "you're wrong, take a look at Amy Winehouse, then look again at my girlfirend, and you will understand that she is beautiful!". Seems like they don't belive in metal "quality" themselves, if they have to make such comparisons - Jonas Brothers are not even mainstream. Trying to prove anything by comparing metal to music listened by 12-years old girls is just silly and out of dignity. 

As for Batio - I've heard his band records and it don't makes me respect him. What about Marty Friedman or Jason Becker?


----------



## Herzeleide

sam richards said:


> Well, I'm not a fan of his compositions, but still you have to respect his technical ability.


If it's not used to the end of producing good music, then I have no respect.



sam richards said:


> That video was designed as a technical exercise you idiot. It's not a song. Nobody cares about your opinions here; maybe you'd have insulted Paganini too if you were present back in his day.


Paganini was a minor composer; I wouldn't be too concerned about insulting him.

Nevertheless, having played some of Paganini's pieces, I know that Paganini at least paid attention to voice leading, that his harmonic language is more mature and developed, that he actuallly had some wit and charm about him, that he can actually write in such forms as variations.



sam richards said:


> I pretty much agree on what metalhead and conservationist said on this matter. I was only demonstrating the technical prowess and dedication to the music in the genre. Which is never a bad thing by itself.


It's dedication to his ego, not music.


----------



## Herzeleide

Conservationist said:


> using power chords on a Gibson SG.


Power chords come from the popular guitar style.


----------



## Conservationist

Herzeleide said:


> Power chords come from the popular guitar style.


Music theory is discovered, not invented. Power chords are derived from theory, not rock.


----------



## sam richards

Aramis said:


> Why metalheads always compare metal music to stuff like Jonas Brothers, Miley Cyrus etc.? It's like someone would say "man, your girlfriend is damn ugly!" and you would answer: "you're wrong, take a look at Amy Winehouse, then look again at my girlfirend, and you will understand that she is beautiful!". Seems like they don't belive in metal "quality" themselves, if they have to make such comparisons - Jonas Brothers are not even mainstream. Trying to prove anything by comparing metal to music listened by 12-years old girls is just silly and out of dignity.
> 
> As for Batio - I've heard his band records and it don't makes me respect him. What about Marty Friedman or Jason Becker?


I love Marty Friedman. I agree with you but Bach talked about Jonas Brothers, not us.

Btw, what are your favorite artists in popular music?


----------



## nickgray

> Power chords come from the popular guitar style.


Errr... Maybe they come from... a perfect fifth with an additional octave note added? Otherwise I'm seriouslt beginning to doubt source of Strauss' inspiration when he wrote prelude to Zarathustra... Was he a metal fan?



Bach said:


> Or.. it could just be because it sounds yuck and involves satanist geeks who probably smell awful, wearing thoroughly inelegant clothes and hair that makes them look like tramps.


You do realize that it can be applied to any genre of music, hell, any life situation, basically. Starting with an old semi-dead farts that come to classical concerts to cough and ending... dunno, geeky network administrators, star wars nerds, etc. I mean honestly, you don't think that metal ends with 16-y.o. fans of Slipknot, do you? 'Cause it's like saying that classical ends with sixteen y.o. fans of Vanessa Mae.


----------



## sam richards

Bach said:


> Or.. it could just be because it sounds yuck and involves satanist geeks who probably smell awful, wearing thoroughly inelegant clothes and hair that makes them look like tramps.




















Hmm....


----------



## Herzeleide

nickgray said:


> Errr... Maybe they come from... a perfect fifth with an additional octave note added? Otherwise I'm seriouslt beginning to doubt source of Strauss' inspiration when he wrote prelude to Zarathustra... Was he a metal fan?


Haha yes and parallel fifths added to gregorian chant - 'power chords'.

I'm just talking about the specific technique of creating riffs on the guitar by stringing together 'power' chords (can you FEEL the power?!).


----------



## Contrapunctus666

A must read:

Ildjarn is dead


----------



## Herzeleide

Conservationist said:


> Music theory is discovered, not invented. Power chords are derived from theory, not rock.


Is the concept that such things as 'power' chords may arrive from practice rather than theory so difficult to grasp?

They certainly do arrive from practice - it was a long time before such things found their way into a text book.


----------



## Herzeleide

Contrapunctus666 said:


> A must read:
> 
> Ildjarn is dead


Cachinnations aplenty.


----------



## Contrapunctus666

Obviously you haven't read the statement.


----------



## sam richards

Contrapunctus666 said:


> A must read:
> 
> Ildjarn is dead


He sucks anyway. Clearly society is evolving; and in evolution everything weak shall die.


----------



## Herzeleide

Contrapunctus666 said:


> Obviously you haven't read the statement.


Believe me I have. It's soaked with all the adolescent platitudes of metalheads that I'm familiar with from people I've met. Nietzsche, dabbling with aspects of Naziism... all that oh-so-serious stuff. It's comic.

If only such people cared more about music. Dig this red hot number from Miles Davis with a young Tony Williams:






Even if black musicians appear not to be in favour with metalheads.


----------



## Contrapunctus666

> He sucks anyway.


What a subjective statement.


----------



## sam richards

Contrapunctus666 said:


> What a subjective statement.


Of course...


----------



## sam richards

Bach said:


> I think it's fairly safe to assume that Herzeliede would have a greater academic knowledge of music than most metal musicians (for example).


I seriously doubt Herzeliede has more musical knowledge than MAB/will accomplish anything in his lifetime.
Oooh, Snap.

Also this:


Wikipedia said:


> MAB started playing the piano and composing music at the age of five, and first played guitar at the age of ten, reportedly playing faster than his teacher within two years. At the age of fourteen he started playing jazz guitar, and within two years he had won the Chicago-based "All-State Jazz Solo Award". He attended Northeastern Illinois University and achieved a Bachelor of Arts degree in Music Theory and Composition. After he had graduated, Batio looked to become a session guitarist in his hometown. When he asked for a job at a nearby studio, he was given a piece of music and simply asked to play it. Naturally, he managed to play it and added in some of his own improvisations and fills, making him the studio's primary call-out guitarist.As a session player, Batio recorded music for such companies as Burger King, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, KFC, United Airlines, United Way, McDonalds, Beatrice Corp. and the Chicago Wolves hockey team.


Who is Herzeliede? A little student musician who hasn't done anything yet.



Herzeliede said:


> Paganini was a minor composer; I wouldn't be too concerned about insulting him.


He was also a virtuoso violinist and is considered by many as the best violinist ever.


> In performance Paganini enjoyed playing tricks, like tuning one of his strings a semitone high (scordatura), or playing the majority of a piece on one string after breaking the other three. He astounded audiences with techniques that included harmonics, double stops, pizzicato with the left as well as the right hand, and near-impossible fingerings and bowings.


What you said about Batio could be said about Paganini too.


----------



## Herzeleide

sam richards said:


> As a session player, Batio recorded music for such companies as Burger King, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, KFC, United Airlines, United Way, McDonalds, Beatrice Corp. and the Chicago Wolves hockey team.


Hmm yes. McDonalds and and this 'MAB' specimen would appear to be the perfect fit.

I severely regret not getting my degree from Northeastern Illinois University. 



sam richards said:


> What you said about Batio could be said about Paganini too.


You appear to ignore what I write when it's convenient for you. Take note:



> Nevertheless, having played some of Paganini's pieces, I know that Paganini at least paid attention to voice leading, that his harmonic language is more mature and developed, that he actuallly had some wit and charm about him, that he can actually write in such forms as variations.


Do you think the likes of Liszt and Rachmaninov are ever going to transcribe/write variations on a theme by this 'MAB' cretin? 

The man is a circus act, he shouldn't be taken seriously. The fact that in his biography it mentions how he was playing faster than his teacher exemplifies his vulgar approach to music which deserves the scorn of anyone who cares for music as an art, as opposed to a sport. I have plenty of sources for virtuosity that are actually musically interesting; that are actually *musical* _per se_!


----------



## PostMinimalist

I see this thread rapidly heading for a record number of posts (if it hasn't already got there).
If it gets to 666 will the forum become draped in black and change its name to TalkMetal?!?


----------



## Contrapunctus666

> As a session player, Batio recorded music for such companies as Burger King, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, KFC, United Airlines, United Way, McDonalds, Beatrice Corp. and the Chicago Wolves hockey team.


What an accomplishment! I am honored to hear that! McDonalds kicks ***! [/obvious sarcasm]



> I see this thread rapidly heading for a record number of posts (if it hasn't already got there).
> If it gets to 666 will the forum become draped in black and change its name to TalkMetal?!?


First of all, we must write at least 66 pages before the June 6.
And I think that "what is in your CD-player" and "what inferior piece have you purchased last" are longer than this thread.
Also, this thread has almost 666 replies.


----------



## PostMinimalist

You mean the 'you can't seriously be listening to that c**p' and the 'What on earth posssesed you to waste good money on that tosh?' threads?


----------



## Bach

> I severely regret not getting my degree from Northeastern Illinois University.


Brutal snobbery there.


----------



## Herzeleide

Bach said:


> Brutal snobbery there.


When pushed into a corner... 

Anyway, accusations like that are just another form of ad hominem. Like a lawyer accusing someone in court of adultery: it is redundant if the lawyer himself has committed adultery.


----------



## Contrapunctus666

post-minimalist said:


> You mean the 'you can't seriously be listening to that c**p' and the 'What on earth possessed you to waste good money on that tosh?' threads?


Yes. Stupid forum games mostly used by people with little egos that nobody gives a f... about.

Today recommendation:

Morbid Angel - Abominations


----------



## Conservationist

sam richards said:


> Who is Herzeliede? A little student musician who hasn't done anything yet.


I heartily encourage him to take all of his scorn, turn it into positive energy, and accomplish something great. The field is wide open.

I warn him about becoming a Wikipedian. Wikipedia is littered with people who had potential, but turned it into scorn and became internet addicts instead of getting anything done.

"But I'm published on The People's Encyclopedia!"

Note: not all of them are like that, but many are. Beware.


----------



## Conservationist

Contrapunctus666 said:


> First of all, we must write at least 66 pages before the June 6.


I will be celebrating the National Day of Slayer as well.


----------



## Bach

All of your allusions to 666 and The Number of the Beast should be ample explanation to why metal is juvenile rot which is best avoided.


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

Herzeleide said:


> Poor boy, you've wasted your time again by misunderstanding me. There are classical pieces which are simple and complex. This is of little interest to me, and it does not take away the fact that they are both classical.
> 
> And so it is with metal: with all their convoluted attempts at complexity, they're ineluctably popular music.
> 
> In fact, you've just pointed out to us the similarities in instrumentation, reflecting the fact that metal and pop both have the same source - 50's rock'n'roll.


All music boils down to roots in classical music. So by that logic, classical is related to pop once again. All music through this logic is related. I don't use this logic. I consider something related if they have similar structure, which metal and pop are in no way related. Metal's structure is close to classical music, yet also has other influence from other genres as well. There are no similarites between instrumentation in the two forms. Time signature changes, song patterns, everything about it is different. There may be one or two things similar, but every genre in some way has some relation to another genre. This is undeniable.

Metal Guitar:
-Comlex guitar riffs, constantly changing as the song goes on, something added more to it, something changes (much like classical, example, Beethovens 5th Symphony, the first movement, and Beethovens 6th Symphony, the 4th Movement."
-The riff is repeated usually (however, something added like i said before) much like Rock music, but will change the riff usually to another riff, like several other genres.
-Complicated time signature changes (like classical and jazz)
-Sudden rhythm changes (like classical and jazz)

Pop Guitar:
-Repeated riff, no changes involved, just repeated riff. (like rock music)
-No time signature changes (some exceptions, but incredibly rare)
-Same rhythm throughout the song, no variety. (like rap)


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

Bach said:


> Or.. it could just be because it sounds yuck and involves satanist geeks who probably smell awful, wearing thoroughly inelegant clothes and hair that makes them look like tramps.


Oh you mean the black metal musicians like this?









Yes. But that is one out of the hundreds of metal genres out there. Why ignore them? Ill post some people from those genres for you.

Death Metal (Chuck Shindler) [spelling?]
http://www.spirit-of-metal.com/membre_groupe/photo/Chuck_Schuldiner-12383.jpg[/img[
I think he kinda looks like a buff, long haired Seinfeld, lol

Thrash Metal (Tom Araya)
[img]http://www.austin360.com/shared-gen/blogs/austin/austinmovies/upload/2008/01/slayer.JPG
Probably one of the kindest people you would ever meet.

Doom Metal (Ahab band, dont know any of their names)









Traditional Metal (Bruce Dickenson)









Power Metal (Dio)









Symphonic Metal (Therion the band)









Hmmmm, seems like you are over generalizing arent we?

And just to add in, not all metal lyrics are satanic and bloody and gorey. There are great lyrics in metal genres such as this.

Decapitated-Spheres of Madness

On bigger than everything
In the crown of your own self you preach darkness
Yet would you be able to obey the lack of light?
Darkness, light, word, existence
Could it be false?
Salvation is nothing- nothing is salvation
The great fractal of existence sinks into itself
Nature calls for destroyer, desires
It's the highest time for zero to come
Collapsing reality craves for the end
Everything rots in itself
Maybe its time to stop worshipping the own image
So non-existence is the only sense?
I rise in spheres of madness
In darkness of unknown I perish
To see, to remain in all time
Eternity in second, not!

Dismember-Time Heals Nothing

Martyrs of the world
A bleeding nation weep
Decades have come to pass
But scars remain unhealed

The blood on their hands
Will wash ours clean
As we strive for dominance
And our sacred dream
Terror awakens
Death walks among our midst
Resistance fuel hatred
And must be crushed beneath an iron fist

Do unto others
As they've done to us
The world must bleed
As we have bled

Sins of the past
Will keep our cause alive
And as the world try to forget

Ahab-Below the Sun

I turn my body from the sun
To follow the fading phantom into the deep
All collapsed
And the great shroud of the sea
Rolled on as it rolled thousands of years ago
Your malice is my vengeance
Pull me, into deep
My body - drowned
But my hate is immortal
Dark and silent
Deeper, darker
Below the surface
Below the sun
Ghost of the sea
I am God's assassin
My lifeless eyes
My tortured soul
I grin at the ocean, thou grinning whale
Dark and silent... deep
My body - drowned
But my hate is immortal
Ghost of the sea
I am God's assassin
My lifeless eyes
Deep

Candlemass-Solitude

I'm sitting here alone in darkness
waiting to be free,
Lonely and forlorn I'm crying
I long for my time to come
death means just life
Please let me die in solitude

Hate is my only friend
pain is my father
torment is delight to me
Death is my sanctuary
I seek it with pleasure
Please let me die in solitude

Receive my sacrifice
my lifeblood is exhausted
no one gave love and understanding
Hear these words
vilifiers and pretenders
and please let me die in solitude
Earth to earth
Ashes to ashes
Dust to dust

Want anymore please tell me.


----------



## Bach

OH DEAR. Please, reread those lyrics and tell me they're not embarrassingly pretentious in the extreme - goodness me you're deluded! 

(I was planning to quote a few lines and laugh at them, but they're all so funny it's impossible to chose. HAHAHA. Please tell me you can recognise how tasteless and ludicrous they are!)

Your assertions about pop, classical and metal structures are frighteningly misinformed and I see little reward in debating with you. (we established pages ago that there is very little that links classical structure with metal)


----------



## Bach

"Hate is my only friend"

"But my hate is immortal"

"In darkness of unknown I perish"

"and please let me die in solitude"

LOL. 

Not sure why I'm laughing - crying would be more appropriate..!


----------



## Contrapunctus666

> Not sure why I'm laughing - crying would be more appropriate..!


I was on your mental level before a year. You don't want to become smarter as a person? Oh, dear...



> we established pages ago that there is very little that links classical structure with metal


No we didn't. But yeah, my music teachers tell me that metal is bad, so I will trust them...



> All of your allusions to 666 and The Number of the Beast should be ample explanation to why metal is juvenile rot which is best avoided.


Maybe the Satan is just a metaphor? Ever though of that?

Now about the obvious(for 125+ IQ people):
1.The knowledge of the music theory is not important. See: Ildjarn. He can make high art that beats 90% classical and 99% metal. He has talent(but not for using the guitar as a sport instrument, but in order to create something beautiful) and that matters. Not everyone can make 2-riff music that is high art.
Similar music: many black metal bands, like Darkthrone, Burzum, Beherit etc.

2.Aesthetics are not important. Some people like this or that aesthetics(for example, I don't like wind instruments besides flute, does that make all works where the wind instruments are used bad?). Ildjarn would kick *** with synth just like he does with guitars and drums.

Fully understand those facts and we can continue the discussion.


----------



## Conservationist

Bach said:


> All of your allusions to 666 and The Number of the Beast should be ample explanation to why metal is juvenile rot which is best avoided.


Just like John Milton and William Blake!


----------



## Bach

Contrapunctus666 said:


> I was on your mental level before a year. You don't want to become smarter as a person? Oh, dear...


You think you're brighter than me? 

You're comparing Milton to metal now? Your pig ignorance makes me splutter with rage!


----------



## Contrapunctus666

> You think you're brighter than me?


I know, plus I am 100% sure.


----------



## Aramis

> Now about the obvious(for 125+ IQ people)





> He can make high art that beats 90% classical and 99% metal.





> I know, plus I am 100% sure.


You have no idea about music, but I see that you could became great mathematician. I doubt Einstein would work this out so clearly. Think about it, pal!


----------



## Bach

Contrapunctus666 said:


> I know, plus I am 100% sure.


.....
....
...
..
.
jokes.


----------



## Conservationist

Bach said:


> You're comparing Milton to metal now?


Milton shows up throughout underground metal, at least. Not sure about the pop and mainstream stuff (and metalcore, which is awful).


----------



## Contrapunctus666

> You have no idea about music


And you have. [/irony]



> and metalcore, which is awful


Seconded. Just another form of pop/rock/jazz with another aesthetics


----------



## Herzeleide

Contrapunctus666 said:


> I was on your mental level before a year. You don't want to become smarter as a person? Oh, dear...


No, he's right. The lyrics are risible guff.

And it would be wise for you to discontinue discoursing on music in general, CONT, since your knowledge thereon appears to be woefully exiguous by any standard.


----------



## Herzeleide

Contrapunctus666 said:


> 2.Aesthetics are not important. Some people like this or that aesthetics(for example, I don't like wind instruments besides flute, does that make all works where the wind instruments are used bad?). Ildjarn would kick *** with synth just like he does with guitars and drums.


Maybe you ought to look up the word 'aesthetics'.


----------



## Herzeleide

Bach said:


> OH DEAR. Please, reread those lyrics and tell me they're not embarrassingly pretentious in the extreme - goodness me you're deluded!
> 
> (I was planning to quote a few lines and laugh at them, but they're all so funny it's impossible to chose. HAHAHA. Please tell me you can recognise how tasteless and ludicrous they are!)
> 
> Your assertions about pop, classical and metal structures are frighteningly misinformed and I see little reward in debating with you. (we established pages ago that there is very little that links classical structure with metal)


Nail + head.


----------



## sam richards

Contrapunctus666 said:


> I know, plus I am 100% sure.


Don't make me laugh.


----------



## sam richards

Herzeleide said:


> You appear to ignore what I write when it's convenient for you. Take note:
> 
> Do you think the likes of Liszt and Rachmaninov are ever going to transcribe/write variations on a theme by this 'MAB' cretin?
> 
> The man is a circus act, he shouldn't be taken seriously. The fact that in his biography it mentions how he was playing faster than his teacher exemplifies his vulgar approach to music which deserves the scorn of anyone who cares for music as an art, as opposed to a sport. I have plenty of sources for virtuosity that are actually musically interesting; that are actually *musical* _per se_!


It's funny when someone imposes his own fault over others. Paganini was not only a composer; he was a virtuoso violinist too. He too enjoyed dazzling the audience with near-impossible tricks on his violin (see my previous post) as Batio does with his double and quad-guitars.

While agree with you on the fact that compositional talent is what that matters, his dedication and mastery of guitar should be acknowledged.

Bach, what are your favorite genres in popular music?

Anyway I thank Vegg for introducing me to Ne Obliviscaris.


----------



## sam richards

Bach said:


> You're comparing Milton to metal now? Your pig ignorance makes me splutter with rage!


NO. Conservationist has made a valid point.


----------



## Aramis

This is probably the funniest thing about metalheads. How many of them we got here? Four? And they don't share any common point. You meet metalhead and tell him, that you don't like metal music, because you heard this and that. Then he tells you "those bands are ****, you have to listen some real metal" and he gives you some band names to check out. You do so, but then you meet another metalhead and he tells you again that those bands don't represent good metal, so he gives you another hint. And so on. Everyone got his own definition of "good metal". They tell you "this is wrong, you should listen to this" all the time, so you listen to one band after another. But it's pointless, because not one of metalheads would ever say "well, I see you have heard a lot of metal, if you still don't like it, that's okay with me". I would say that the worst thing about metal music are metalheads. I belive that people like Bach wouldn't be so anti-metal if there wouldn't be so much idiots taking their music far too seriously and trying to prove that there is something more about it that really is.


----------



## nickgray

Aramis said:


> This is probably the funniest thing about metalheads. How many of them we got here? Four? And they don't share any common point.


There are people who prefer, say, baroque or romantic and some can bash the genre they don't like. Yet they still listen to classical music. Same thing can be said about electronic music (which is probably the most broad music term ever) or metal. And why different people should share any common points if they happen to listen *roughly* the same type of music?



> and trying to prove that there is something more about it that really is.


Yeah, I still don't really understand what's being discussed on in this thread  Really, metal is mostly based on perfect fifths (basically) and the song structure is based on the "verse-chorus-verse" thing, either simple (like literally - "verse-chorus-verse") or more complicated (with solos, bridges, variations, and other stuff added). Um... probably what the core of metal is having two moderatly to heavily distorted (with valve amplification) guitars with one playing rhythm pattern (complicated or not) based on fifths and a lead guitar playing melody an octave higher of the main pattern. Also the bass line that repeats the rhythm line with some variations and rock drums that usually have more (somtimes much more) complex pattern than rock. And... really, what's so bad about about it all?


----------



## Aramis

nickgray said:


> There are people who prefer, say, baroque or romantic and some can bash the genre they don't like. Yet they still listen to classical music.


Yes, there are people who dislike some regarded composers. But there are also some universal and obvious canons in almost every musical genre. Although there is no other environment so much divided as metalheads.


----------



## nickgray

Aramis said:


> Although there is no other environment so much divided as metalheads.


Ok... What about rock fans? There's prog./art rock, alt. rock, pop rock, classical rock, etc. Electronic music - techno, trance, psy, minimal techno, idm (ambient, glitch), drum'n'bass, etc. Now... What are these people listening to? Rock music or art rock? Psytrance or electronic music? Metal music or doom metal? And the whole metalhead cliche... It's awfully stupid to judge the music genre by some group of teenagers or just random stupid people - this kind of "judgement" can be applied to anything.


----------



## Aramis

nickgray said:


> Ok... What about rock fans? There's prog./art rock, alt. rock, pop rock, classical rock, etc. Electronic music - techno, trance, psy, minimal techno, idm (ambient, glitch), drum'n'bass, etc.


This is not what I was talking about. I don't mean all those sub-genres at all, just people fighting each other and arguing what is "real" or "good" metal and what is not.



> It's awfully stupid to judge the music genre by some group of teenagers or just random stupid people


Yes, it is. But at the other hand, your experience with people connected to some kind of music will always have affect on your opinion.


----------



## Herzeleide

sam richards said:


> While agree with you on the fact that compositional talent is what that matters, his dedication and mastery of guitar should be acknowledged.


I don't think he has mastered the guitar. His tone, vibrato and general 'feeling' is awful, and when it boils down to it his 'mastery' boils down to being able to string together sweep-picked arpeggios and alternate-picked runs in a clinical, sterile manner that may as well have been played by a computer.

Dedication in itself should not be applauded; admiration should be contingent upon the ends towards which the dedication is being directed.

And yes, Paganini was a virtuoso violinist. But you asserted that I would criticise Paganini for the same reasons that I criticise Michael Angelo Battyhole; I was merely pointing out that Paganini, whilst by no means a great composer, nonetheless demonstrated harmonic literacy in his music, used his virtuosity to interesting new ends -new effects and so forth- and was rather witty. His concertos have the comic pomp of an Italian Opera Overture.


----------



## Contrapunctus666

> They tell you "this is wrong, you should listen to this" all the time, so you listen to one band after another.


It is because the most metalheads would be offended if you tell them that their Britney Spears style music is **** and that someone else knows more than they do. Low self-esteem I would say.



> How many of them we got here? Four? And they don't share any common point.


So I should share something with people who say that Meshuggah, Pain of Salvaion or any other soulless "metal" bands are good.



> I believe that people like Bach wouldn't be so anti-metal if there wouldn't be so much idiots taking their music far too seriously and trying to prove that there is something more about it that really is.


I take all music seriously and **** on everything I can. Good, superior music stimulates my critic way of thinking and that is one of many reasons why I enjoy discovering more and more music.


----------



## Aramis

Contrapunctus666 said:


> So I should share something with people who say that Meshuggah, Pain of Salvaion or any other soulless "metal" bands are good.


Or maybe just face the fact that this is metal and if someone's opinion is based on listening to those bands, he actually know what metal is all about no less than someone who listened to "your" stuff? How about accepting this instead of giving him another milion links with songs that sound similiar, and the only difference is that, in your opinion, they have soul?


----------



## Bach

sam richards said:


> It's funny when someone imposes his own fault over others. Paganini was not only a composer; he was a virtuoso violinist too. He too enjoyed dazzling the audience with near-impossible tricks on his violin (see my previous post) as Batio does with his double and quad-guitars.
> 
> While agree with you on the fact that compositional talent is what that matters, his dedication and mastery of guitar should be acknowledged.
> 
> Bach, what are your favorite genres in popular music?.


I like traditional pop like Stevie Wonder, Michael Jackson, Randy Crawford - funk like Cool and the Gang and The Crusaders, reggae like Bob Marley and Black Uhuru, Hip-Hop like Lil' Wayne, Drum and Bass like High Contrast and the Moving Shadow albums, Dubstep like Benga..

I don't like white pop music. (I mean that in the least racist way possible)


----------



## Contrapunctus666

> Or maybe just face the fact that this is metal and if someone's opinion is based on listening to those bands, he actually know what metal is all about no less than someone who listened to "your" stuff?


That is a lie, not a fact.

Opinions are for the people with low self-esteem, liberals, christians, regular Joes etc.

Relativism is the worst thing ever, period.

Someone's ability to understand different opinions varies with his biological qualities. That is the Unpopular Truth.



> I like traditional pop like Stevie Wonder, Michael Jackson, Randy Crawford - funk like Cool and the Gang and The Crusaders, reggae like Bob Marley and Black Uhuru, Hip-Hop like Lil' Wayne, Drum and Bass like High Contrast and the Moving Shadow albums, Dubstep like Benga..


What a hipster...


----------



## Bach

> Opinions are for the people with low self-esteem, liberals, christians, regular Joes etc.


That's a very strange comment which doesn't make an awful lot of sense.


----------



## Bach

Here's some proper guitar playing


----------



## Mirror Image

Here's some more real guitar playing:


----------



## Mirror Image

Here's some more real guitar playing:


----------



## Tapkaara

This is still the BIGGEST thread in this forum's history. How "depressive."


----------



## Mirror Image

Tapkaara said:


> This is still the BIGGEST thread in this forum's history. How "depressive."


I know, right? Well, I've only made a few comments in this thread, so I'm not too worried about it.


----------



## Herzeleide

Bach said:


> Here's some proper guitar playing


Christ on a bike, I worship Paco de Lucia! He's utterly amazing. I bow down to his greatness with humble reverence.


----------



## Bach

I know, I adore him. Favourite album?


----------



## Herzeleide

Bach said:


> I know, I adore him. Favourite album?


This is the one I have:












Flamenco... now _there's_ a good genre. I love the singing - just one of the aspects which evince the North African/Berber influence/roots of it.


----------



## Bach

Yes, I'm a huge flamencoite - Sabicas is my favourite..


----------



## Herzeleide

Bach said:


> Yes, I'm a huge flamencoite - Sabicas is my favourite..


Excellent. I'll check him out.


----------



## Bach

Do report back!


----------



## Contrapunctus666

Bach said:


> Here's some proper guitar playing


Excellent technicality, lack of soul and no artistic value.


----------



## Bach

Contrapunctus666 said:


> Excellent technicality, lack of soul and no artistic value.


You know best!  *deletes all Paco de Lucia from computer*


----------



## Mirror Image

Contrapunctus666 said:


> Excellent technicality, lack of soul and no artistic value.


I'm not sure if I would have said it that way, Contrapuntus.

There are many pieces written that have monstrous technical demand, but that doesn't make them lack soul. Barber's Violin Concerto, for example, is one of the hardest pieces to play on violin, but does that make it any less compelling or emotional? Sometimes emotions are hidden and aren't revealed to us on a silver platter. We have to make the effort as a listener to dig a little deeper.

I think what might have been better is if you would have said "de Lucia's music and playing doesn't appeal to me," then making a very harsh criticism like he lacks soul.


----------



## Contrapunctus666

> There are many pieces written that have monstrous technical demand, but that doesn't make them lack soul.


Having a soul doesn't have nothing to do with the technicality. For example - Art of Fugue - pretty hard to play but still has a soul.



> You know best!


Truth actually.



> I think what might have been better is if you would have said "de Lucia's music and playing doesn't appeal to me


He did appeal to me but it was obvious that his music is pop-style and that if I have it on my computer that it will end up in Recycle Bin after two days(experience). The music with the artistic value is not easily accessible but it is nearly impossible to match when it comes to repeated listening.


----------



## Herzeleide

Contrapunctus666 said:


> Excellent technicality, lack of soul and no artistic value.


Congratulations on having reached the nadir of your already stupendous vacuity. Flamenco is authentic to the bone and positively suffused with feeling and expression. It actually has an organic tradition stemming back hundreds of years (with proper forms analogous to sonata, fugue etc.) rather than being some vulgar modern day exaggeration of an already lowly genre of popular music - metal.


----------



## Contrapunctus666

> Flamenco is authentic to the bone and positively suffused with feeling and expression. It actually has an organic tradition stemming back hundreds of years (with proper forms analogous to sonata, fugue etc.)


Sadly, he ends up making pop music 



> already lowly genre of popular music - metal.


Obviously you don't even try to get into metal because it could prove that you have been wrong since... and that must NOT happen!!!


----------



## Mirror Image

Contrapunctus666 said:


> Having a soul doesn't have nothing to do with the technicality. For example - Art of Fugue - pretty hard to play but still has a soul.


What I'm saying is that something can be technically demanding and be soulful too.

You don't like Paco de Lucia? That's fine, but don't criticize him because you can't feel the emotions he puts into the music.

If you don't like him, then please just say you don't like him. Don't make ridiculous accusations like "he has no soul" just because you don't enjoy or find heart in what he plays.

Shawn Lane is an amazing guitarist who could very well play faster than anybody, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have soul. He plays very passionately almost as if his own life depended upon it. I miss Mr. Lane very much.


----------



## Praine

Contrapunctus666 said:


> Obviously you don't even try to get into metal because it could prove that you have been wrong since... and that must NOT happen!!!


I got into it, I realized it sucks, and I moved on. So should you.


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

Bach said:


> OH DEAR. Please, reread those lyrics and tell me they're not embarrassingly pretentious in the extreme - goodness me you're deluded!
> 
> (I was planning to quote a few lines and laugh at them, but they're all so funny it's impossible to chose. HAHAHA. Please tell me you can recognise how tasteless and ludicrous they are!)
> 
> Your assertions about pop, classical and metal structures are frighteningly misinformed and I see little reward in debating with you. (we established pages ago that there is very little that links classical structure with metal)


My, my, my. Opinion still does not get into your head even through all of these pages. Good and bad is not fact. I did not post lyrics to show how "good" they are. They are to show that its not al about satan, gore and violence. Way to overlook the main point.


----------



## Bach

So you don't think the lyrics are good then? Because they're not..


----------



## Contrapunctus666

> If you don't like him, then please just say you don't like him.


Translation: be open-minded, all opinions are equal because I am wrong

That is how stupid people destroy smart people. They bring you down on their level and then beat you with experience. Does nothing to me though.



> What I'm saying is that something can be technically demanding and be soulful too.


True, but PdL is not soulful.



> So you don't think the lyrics are good then?


They are good, it's a fact. Of course, I mean that the lyrics of good metal bands are good.



> I got into it, I realized it sucks, and I moved on. So should you.


Look:


> I view music as an art, and if I were to judge a great deal of metal by their attributions towards 'art', I'm afraid many will fall short. To shut off the entire metal genre off as a whole by saying it's unimaginative, talentless or pointless is foolish at best. Metal definately has it's fair share of gems that are full of artistic beauty. For the most part, I can't get into death or thrash metal as the lyrics are typically very violent and musicians are involved in the drinking/drugs/party scene, which I cannot respect as art. I suppose some progressive metal is quite good, as Opeth's My Arms, Your Hearse is a great, emotive and atmospheric gem. I'm not going to say Roadrunner was the cause of Opeth going downhill, but I will say that I did not enjoy the albums they put out while on that label. I also wasn't fond of their first two albums, but everything else they did seems to be pretty enjoyable stuff.
> 
> The majority of the metal I listen to is most likely black metal/ambient. I despise "kvlt" black metal bands that have an extremely low intellectuality level and follow the hordes of other black metal bands worshipping Satan and wearing inverted crosses. When they have a strong devotion towards nature and have intelligent lyrics (Wolves in the Thron Room, for example) I can get into them, as long as it does show respectable musical qualities and is pleasing to the ear.


You didn''t get into anything, you didn't realize that "metal sucks" and you didn't move on.

How about trying some of these:
Burzum - Burzum/Aske
Beherit - Engram
Morbid Angel - Blessed are the Sick


----------



## Bach

> Morbid Angel - Blessed are the Sick


How can anything called that be good?


----------



## Contrapunctus666

Well listen to the album. type "album name" "band name" blogspot free download in google

WARNING! It takes _more than one_ listen to appreciate


----------



## Bach

Wikipedia describes Beherit as:



> "the most primitive, savage, hell-obsessed black metal imaginable."[1] "Beherit" is the Syriac word for Satan.


Great.


----------



## Bach

Song names from the album you recommended: 

Demon Advance
Suck my blood
All in Satan

Oh dear. Only losers listen to this ****.


----------



## Contrapunctus666

Go trust wikipedia.



> Only losers listen to this ****.


You've never tried it, haven't you?

If you want a reliable source, try this:

http://www.anus.com/metal/beherit

They are an intelligent band:

http://www.anus.com/metal/about/interviews/beherit


----------



## Bach

The band leader is called Nuclear Holocausto. Jokes.


----------



## Herzeleide

Contrapunctus666 said:


> Sadly, he ends up making pop music
> 
> Obviously you don't even try to get into metal because it could prove that you have been wrong since... and that must NOT happen!!!


It would appear that you comprehension skills are somewhat lacking.

Metal = popular music. It comes under that heading in the Grove, its instrumentation and history proves it.

Flamenco = cultivated for hundreds of years, with a bona fide taxonomy of forms and standard practices.


----------



## Herzeleide

Metalheadwholovesclasical said:


> My, my, my. Opinion still does not get into your head even through all of these pages. Good and bad is not fact. I did not post lyrics to show how "good" they are. They are to show that its not al about satan, gore and violence. Way to overlook the main point.


No, but they're still ineffably silly. They would never find their way into a libretto without the express intention of being comic/parodic/ironic.


----------



## Herzeleide

Contrapunctus666 said:


> That is how stupid people destroy smart people.


You're not smart. You haven't demonstrated even the most elementary knowledge of music.


----------



## Contrapunctus666

> Metal = popular music.


Obviously you don't know anything about the good metal. It was a revolt against the popular music. Good metal = high art, I don't care what you say. Go back to your school and listen to flamenco.



> Flamenco = cultivated for hundreds of years, with a bona fide taxonomy of forms and standard practices.


Ends up being soulless and crappy. How sad.



> You haven't demonstrated even the most elementary knowledge of music.


I don't need it to judge the quality of music. I need my intelligence and experience. That is all.

Another thing I would like to add. I tried Beherit - Engram and Karajan's recording of the Beethoven's symphony no. 7 on the same day, and I needed 2-3 listens to appreciate Beherit but I got into that Beethoven's symphony when I first heard it!


----------



## Herzeleide

Contrapunctus666 said:


> Obviously you don't know anything about the good metal. It was a revolt against the popular music. Good metal = high art, I don't care what you say. Go back to your school and listen to flamenco.


Voicing such an opinion would make you the laughing stock of musicologists the world around. You know, people who actually know about music?



Contrapunctus666 said:


> I don't need it to judge the quality of music. I need my intelligence and experience. That is all.


Don't need to judge the quality of music? 

Comprehension = defenestrated once again. I said you've shown bugger all knowledge about music... an observation you consistently prove with each new asinine comment you post.


----------



## Contrapunctus666

> Voicing such an opinion would make you the laughing stock of musicologists the world around.


I, once again, don't care what do your friends musicologists say.

Metal will never be appreciated by masses as a high art, because its values offend the average man/woman, and most of those musicologists are the low IQ people who can't understand the metal. But, it is easier to memorize the whole music theory, it requires lower IQ, and we need more "proofs" that all people are equal, don't we?

They obviously view the music as entertainment and not as art. Smart people understand that the _music_ is the thing that matters and not "how much knowledge you need". You can know all theory and end up making pop music(flamenco included). You don't need to know anything, but if you have a talent, you can make something good.


----------



## Rasa

This discussion makes me sick.

Why don't we all go cut ourselves in the bathroom, and I'll listen to Bach, and some other people can listen to Demon Band off hell predicts your doom headcut bloodsucker Norse gods crap on tour 2009

Obvious troll is obvious


----------



## Herzeleide

Contrapunctus666 said:


> I, once again, don't care what do your friends musicologists say.
> 
> Metal will never be appreciated by masses as a high art, because its values offend the average man/woman, and most of those musicologists are the low IQ people who can't understand the metal. But, it is easier to memorize the whole music theory, it requires lower IQ, and we need more "proofs" that all people are equal, don't we?
> 
> They obviously view the music as entertainment and not as art. Smart people understand that the _music_ is the thing that matters and not "how much knowledge you need". You can know all theory and end up making pop music(flamenco included). You don't need to know anything, but if you have a talent, you can make something good.


LOL

Where to start pointing out the *disinformation* in this post?

1) 'I, once again, don't care what do your friends musicologists say.' Despite the grammatical inadequacy of this sentence, I can tell you're suggesting the musicologists I mean are my friends. Not really true. I've spoken to many musicologists from around the world, having met them at academic conferences. I've read a lot of what they've written. You ought to care what they say since they've spent more time studying music than the general populace, yourself included.

2) 'Metal will never be appreciated by masses as a high art, because its values offend the average man/woman, and most of those musicologists are the low IQ people who can't understand the metal.' This sentence is rife with tendentious utterances. To be celebrated by the masses has nothing to do with being considered a high art. I know from experience that musicologists are intelligent people who have more knowledge of music in their little finger than you could ever imagine having. That you would suggest metal offends the values of people is demonstrative that you view metal as some vulgar form of agitprop, rather than something to be appreciated simply as music.

3) 'But, it is easier to memorize the whole music theory, it requires lower IQ, and we need more "proofs" that all people are equal, don't we?' Memorize the whole of music theory? Clearly you have no idea what musicology is. Musicologists in general aim to cultivate a knowledge of the _pratice_ of music, based upon what composers have actually _written_ rather than totally abstract theories of music. Your comment about the purported egalitarian nature of musicology is nothing less than a desperate _non sequitur_ that is meaningless.

4) 'They obviously view the music as entertainment and not as art.' No. Making music one's livelihood and studying it thoroughly is a sign of an utmost respect and reverence for music.

5) 'Smart people understand that the _music_ is the thing that matters and not "how much knowledge you need".' Smart people understand that studying music enhances and enriches one's appreciation and experience of it.

6) 'You can know all theory and end up making pop music(flamenco included).' See number three. Flamenco has influenced classical composers such as Manuel de Falla. Unfortunately, the same could not be said of metal, presumably because contemporary classical composers think it's of negligible quality.

7) 'You don't need to know anything, but if you have a talent, you can make something good.' A nice idea, but then, I don't know any great composer who didn't have a reasonable knowledge of music, both its practice and theory (which are of course linked).


----------



## Contrapunctus666

> Flamenco has influenced classical composers such as Manuel de Falla.


Jazz has influenced Atheist. Still sucks(I mean jazz).



> To be celebrated by the masses has nothing to do with being considered a high art.


What a mistake. Masses will never be able to understand something good.



> *No.* Making music one's livelihood and studying it thoroughly is a sign of an utmost respect and reverence for music.


If not, why they don't spend some time trying to appreciate good metal?



> A nice idea, but then, I don't know any great composer


Me too, but I know some great bands who know nothing about the theory but still make good music.



> That you would suggest metal offends the values of people is demonstrative that you view metal as some vulgar form of agitprop, rather than something to be appreciated simply as music.


I view it as a high art AND as something with values



> Despite the grammatical inadequacy


I know that my English sucks.


----------



## Herzeleide

It's nice to see that the central tenor of my previous post has been left unimpugned.


----------



## sam richards

Herzeleide said:


> No, but they're still ineffably silly. They would never find their way into a libretto without the express intention of being comic/parodic/ironic.


Let's take a look into some of the lyrics Bach's favorite Michael Jackson shall we?



From Michael Jackson's "Bad" said:


> Your Butt Is Mine
> Gonna Take You Right
> Just Show Your Face
> In Broad Daylight
> I'm Telling You
> On How I Feel
> Gonna Hurt Your Mind
> Don't Shoot To Kill
> Come On, Come On,
> Lay It On Me All Right...
> 
> I'm Giving You
> On Count Of Three
> To Show Your Stuff
> Or Let It Be . . .
> I'm Telling You
> Just Watch Your Mouth
> I Know Your Game
> What You're About
> 
> Well They Say The Sky's
> The Limit
> And To Me That's Really True
> But My Friend You Have
> Seen Nothing
> Just Wait 'Til I Get Through . . .
> 
> Because I'm Bad, I'm Bad-
> Come On
> (Bad Bad-Really, Really Bad)
> You Know I'm Bad, I'm Bad-
> You Know It
> (Bad Bad-Really, Really Bad)
> You Know I'm Bad, I'm Bad-
> Come On, You Know
> (Bad Bad-Really, Really Bad)
> And The Whole World Has To
> Answer Right Now
> Just To Tell You Once Again,
> Who's Bad . . .
> 
> The Word Is Out
> You're Doin' Wrong
> Gonna Lock You Up
> Before Too Long,
> Your Lyin' Eyes
> Gonna Take You Right
> So Listen Up
> Don't Make A Fight,
> Your Talk Is Cheap
> You're Not A Man
> You're Throwin' Stones
> To Hide Your Hands
> 
> But They Say The Sky's
> The Limit
> And To Me That's Really True
> And My Friends You Have
> Seen Nothin'
> Just Wait 'Til I Get Through . . .
> 
> Because I'm Bad, I'm Bad-
> Come On
> (Bad Bad-Really, Really Bad)
> You Know I'm Bad, I'm Bad-
> You Know It
> (Bad Bad-Really, Really Bad)
> You Know I'm Bad, I'm Bad-
> You Know It, You Know
> (Bad Bad-Really, Really Bad)
> And The Whole World Has To
> Answer Right Now
> (And The Whole World Has To
> Answer Right Now)
> Just To Tell You Once Again,
> (Just To Tell You Once Again)
> Who's Bad . . .
> 
> We Can Change The World
> Tomorrow
> This Could Be A Better Place
> If You Don't Like What I'm
> Sayin'
> Then Won't You Slap My
> Face . . .
> 
> Because I'm Bad, I'm Bad-
> Come On
> (Bad Bad-Really, Really Bad)
> You Know I'm Bad, I'm Bad-
> You Know It
> (Bad Bad-Really, Really Bad)
> You Know I'm Bad, I'm Bad-
> You Know It, You Know
> (Bad Bad-Really, Really Bad)


From Michael Jackson's "Bad"
Seriously,"your butt is mine" wtf?

Now let's compare that to some Megadeth:


Megadeth's Symphony of Destruction said:


> You take a mortal man,
> And put him in control
> Watch him become a god,
> Watch peoples heads aroll
> Aroll...
> 
> /chorus/
> Just like the pied piper
> Led rats through the streets
> We dance like marionettes,
> Swaying to the symphony...
> Of destruction
> 
> Acting like a robot,
> Its metal brain corrodes.
> You try to take its pulse,
> Before the head explodes.
> Explodes...
> 
> /chorus/
> 
> The earth starts to rumble
> World powers fall
> Awarring for the heavens,
> A peaceful man stands tall
> Tall...


Hmm... :


----------



## Contrapunctus666

> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
> National Day of Prayer demands a National Day of Slayer
> 
> Summary:
> 
> On May 7, Christians in the United States join in the National Day of Prayer. If you want a holiday with louder music, celebrate the Inter-National Day of Slayer on June 6, a holiday for the metal culture and the powerful music of Slayer.
> 
> Body:
> 
> On May 7, 2009, thousands of Christians throughout the United States will come together for the National Day of Prayer. Since we believe everyone should celebrate what is meaningful to them, we created the International Day of Slayer to unite people worldwide with a celebration of heavy metal.
> 
> While we bear our counterparts at the "National Day of Prayer Task Force" no ill-will, we'd like to remind them of a few salient facts:
> 
> - God can be misinterpreted. Slayer cannot. Slayer does not require you to understand the word, or the theology, or to believe in Heaven and Hell. You must only feel the power of this music and let it move you.
> 
> - The International Day of Slayer website has been translated into twelve languages including Hebrew and Icelandic. You can get your National Day of Prayer in only two, English and Spanish.
> 
> - People involved in religions often get confused over who is Us and who is Them. We suggest a simpler plan: You must listen to Slayer. Anyone not listening to Slayer is either Them, or forgot to take the day off to listen to Slayer.
> 
> - Prayer is a quiet, personal activity from which you get no immediate results. Listening to Slayer clears your mind and gets you ready for the only thing that matters in life, which is living it and making things happen.
> 
> - If you're going to pray, you want God to think you're good and not evil. Slayer embraces both evil and good, so you don't have to censor your actions before they happen. Slayer is a new morality for a dystopian age.
> 
> - The National Day of Prayer wants you to ask God to do good things for us. But if there is a God, he made Slayer, which is clearly a good thing that can be enjoyed already.
> 
> In our great pluralistic nation, every culture needs a voice. Metal is a subculture for everyone who understand metal, and Slayer are spokespeople we can all appreciate. Celebrate the National Day of Slayer and show your support for this recognition of metal culture and SLAYER!
> 
> Address:
> 
> National Day of Slayer
> PO Box 1004
> Alief, TX 77411
> (512) 553-4544
> http://www.nationaldayofslayer.org/


Excellent.


----------



## Bach

sam richards said:


> Let's take a look into some of the lyrics Bach's favorite Michael Jackson shall we?
> 
> From Michael Jackson's "Bad"
> Seriously,"your butt is mine" wtf?
> 
> Now let's compare that to some Megadeth:
> 
> Hmm... :


The difference being that Michael Jackson doesn't take his lyrics seriously. They're just a bit of fun. 
Megadeth (sounds like a parody already) clearly do take their lyrics seriously and are probably under the impression that they are making valuable philosophical and poetic points - when they're not. Michael Jackson does not make any such pretense.

POPULAR MUSIC SHOULD NOT BE DISCUSSING GODS, MORTAL MEN, LIFE, DEATH, HEAVEN OR HELL. It's geeky, pointless and very easy to take the **** out of. Leave philosophy to scholars.

Interestingly, contemporary composers have been influenced by Michael Jackson style disco and pop (see Aaron Jay Kernis's 100 Greatest Dance Hits for string quartet) but there is no evidence that any have been informed by metal.


----------



## Rasa

> What a mistake. Masses will never be able to understand something good.


That's a very anti-democratic thought, you assume people are very stupid then. Everybody's chocolate, and let's face it: it's not hard to understand.

You just see the rubbish you listen to as High art so you can offset yourself against society.



> If not, why they don't spend some time trying to appreciate good metal?


I've found that there's no such thing.



> Me too, but I know some great bands who know nothing about the theory but still make good music.


Good to you maybe, because they appeal to your rudimentary knowledge of musical theory. Even if I do like simple music, I wouldn't put it in the same category as the more studied music I appreciate. In the same way, don't put Metal up with classical music, because it is a lot simpler on many levels.


----------



## Herzeleide

I heartily endorse the most recent posts of Bach and Rasa.


----------



## Bach

"Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."
~Dilbert


----------



## Contrapunctus666

> You just see the rubbish you listen to as High art so you can offset yourself against society.


No, it is a fact that good metal=high art



> "Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."


Will you stop with your false elitism?



> POPULAR MUSIC SHOULD NOT BE DISCUSSING GODS, MORTAL MEN, LIFE, DEATH, HEAVEN OR HELL


Good metal is not popular music so your statement fails. But yeah, they told you in your school that metal=popular music so you blindly believe them.



> I heartily endorse the most recent posts of Bach and Rasa.


Just because more people agree it doesn't mean that they are smarter. Actually, the percentage of people with 120-140 IQ is much lower than the percentage of <120 IQ people



> That's a very anti-democratic thought, you assume people are very stupid then.


Yes! You got it! Congratulations!
Just because of the people stupidity democracy sucks.



> Good to you maybe, because they appeal to your rudimentary knowledge of musical theory.


THOSE WITH MUSIC KNOWLEDGE LIKE JAZZ(the main proof why the scholars suck, they can't understand why the jazz is soulless music)!!!


----------



## Herzeleide

Bach said:


> Interestingly, contemporary composers have been influenced by Michael Jackson style disco and pop (see Aaron Jay Kernis's 100 Greatest Dance Hits for string quartet) but there is no evidence that any have been informed by metal.


I also detect hints of James Brown in Thomas Adès's amazing _Living Toys_, if you're interested. It's a wonderful piece and I can recommend it to anyone interested in listening to excellent contemporary music.


----------



## Herzeleide

Contrapunctus666 said:


> THOSE WITH MUSIC KNOWLEDGE LIKE JAZZ(the main proof why the scholars suck, they can't understand why the jazz is soulless music)!!!


HAHAHAHA!

Okay, ****rapunctus either got dropped on his head as a baby or is some genius of parody taking the **** both out of fans of metal and metal itself.


----------



## Contrapunctus666

Herzeleide said:


> HAHAHAHA!
> 
> Okay, ****rapunctus either got dropped on his head as a baby or is some genius of parody taking the **** both out of fans of metal and metal itself.


Neither....


----------



## Rasa

> No, it is a fact that good metal=high art


Says who? There are no objective criterea for what is high art. There are however objective criterea for which music is technically more advanced.

Still, obvious troll is obvious


----------



## Contrapunctus666

> Says who? There are no objective criterea for what is high art.


Yes there is. If you can't sense it that is your problem. I do feel does the music have a soul or not, and if you don't, I am not responsible. Low biological quality maybe is.



> There are however objective criteria for which music is technically more advanced.


Yes, but that criteria is not important.

It is much better to make something simple and WORTHY than to make something technically demanding and not worthy.


----------



## Bach

Contrapunctus666 said:


> Yes there is. If you can't sense it that is your problem. I do feel does the music have a soul or not, and if you don't, I am not responsible. Low biological quality maybe is.


To lower myself to the level of your strange, undefinable criterion 'soul'..

How are repetitive, computer altered electric guitar riffs, sped up drumming techniques (developed in the last decade and forgotten in the next) and commercialised, pseudo-serious lyrics soulful, when the organic, personal improvisations of flamenco guitarists with the rich heritage of one of Europe's most eclectic cultures, are not?


----------



## Scum

Look, look...

What is the main purpose of pop music? Well, that would be *entertainment* - "catchy" music with simple melody, nice-sounding harmony, simple verse-chorus structure, and a nice rhythm. It sounds good, it's easy to listen and easy to understand... if there is anything to understand at all. It could be a part of any genre - most rock and jazz is pop music, most electronic music with a beat, even some classical. Mainstream metal is pop music. Basically cheesy music = pop music. It's not bad - it's enjoyable, it's made to be enjoyable. It just doesn't have any other purpose than pure entertainment, or soundtrack to dances/parties/elevators...






















































Now, the other kind of music is "art music" or listening music. It has an artistic purpose, it's not always pleasurable to listen to, it might take you some time to get what's happening. It's not always highly complicated and technical. Just music with meaning. Again, it could be ANY type of music - rock (Yes, King Crimson), electronic (Tangerine Dream, Kraftwerk), punk and hardcore (Crass, Joy Division, Black Flag, Napalm Death's first two LP's, Neurosis...), most classical is art music... About 10% of metal is listening music, and it's in the underground, just like all good music - how many people do you see listening to Schoenberg on their iPod?! Bands like Atheist (jazz-influenced cosmic metal), Demilich (naturalistic metal, both ugly in its grotesque imagery and beautiful in its celebration of life), Burzum (epic metal, creating grandiose compositions through simple forms), Gorguts (avant-garde metal, unbearable at first, genius when you open your mind to it), Darkthrone (atmospheric landscapes of cold, desolate planes)...

Come on, just give it a try, try opening your mind a little bit - it's not all black and white, good and evil...

Good metal:


----------



## Contrapunctus666

> To lower myself to the level of your strange, undefinable criterion 'soul'..


Try to get into metal. Maybe you will finally realize what does that soul mean.

I am more experienced than you and now you whine because someone without any school understands something you don't.

I will tell you how I discovered what is that soul.

I used to listen mostly to pop/rock. I mean Beatles, Doors, Rolling Stones, hell even Michael Jackson, Guns and Roses, Iron Maiden, Dire Straits, Led Zeppelin but also Serbian turbofolk(important to note that I tried to like everything, even if that means that I need to listen to something more than one time)(also I was a relativist). I used to like all of those things because - they are all pretty the same thing.

After some time, one of my "friends"(quotation marks are used because he is not my friend anymore) showed me Angra - Temple of Shadows. I discovered Moonsorrow - Voimats... and Wintersun - Wintersun and, of course, they didn't appeal to me during the first listen, but they helped to get me into the metal aesthetics. Moonsorrow got me into the harsh vocals while Wintersun got me into extreme riffing.

And then I wanted some black metal, just to try. I tried Burzum - HLTO, Filosofem and Immortal - Pure Holocaust. It took me way more to get into those, but once after I got into them, I remember that I listened to Pure Holocaust and some Iron Maiden album after some time. I've noticed that I don't enjoy that Iron Maiden anymore that much so I asked myself - how could this happen? I have realized that it is because they are crappy when compared to the Pure Holocaust. So - it was objective(discovered subjectively)

After that I slowly ****** off everything crappy(and discovered anus.com) I realized everything what that site is all about in a short period of time)

Then I tried some other genres like Death Metal and classical music. It took me two months to get into Atheist - Unquestionable Presence and Beethoven's sixth symphony conducted by some rockstar conductor(music teacher, someone with so vaaast knowledge gave me this!!!)

Of course, some good albums are pretty boring to me nowadays, like HLTO and Filosofem, but they can still be enjoyed if listened once in, lets say, 3-4 months. They don't match the level of my ATM favorites but I still find the soul in them, unlike in, lets say, Iron Maiden and Michael Jackson, who ALWAYS bore me after one song.


----------



## Bach

Let me write it again.

How are repetitive, computer altered electric guitar riffs, sped up drumming techniques (developed in the last decade and forgotten in the next) and commercialised, pseudo-serious lyrics soulful, when the organic, personal improvisations of flamenco guitarists with the rich heritage of one of Europe's most eclectic cultures, are not?


----------



## Mirror Image

Contrapunctus666 said:


> Translation: be open-minded, all opinions are equal because I am wrong
> 
> That is how stupid people destroy smart people. They bring you down on their level and then beat you with experience. Does nothing to me though.


First of all, you don't know anything about me to make such a mean-spirited remark. I deserve an apology for that. Secondly, all I gave you what my opinion. It doesn't make me wrong or right, it's just an opinion. Lastly, I don't like the way you're talking to my friends Bach and Herzeleide. I think you show a lack of communication when you can't be civil with people.

I think it's time to report you to the moderators your behavior is out of control at this point.


----------



## Rasa

Let's not forget that along side "classical" music, there was always popular music, only it didn't get conserved as much.


----------



## Scum

^It depends. Is folk music pop since it's basically music "by the people for the people"?


----------



## Bach

Contrapunctus666 said:


> About 75% of the time.
> 
> There is a difference between an opinion and a fact. I nearly never say what I think(unless I write IMO or something), I always say what I _know_
> 
> So continue living in your illusion. Have fun. At least we have proved that your opinions are wrong.


Remind me how that has been proven..


----------



## Mirror Image

Contrapunctus666 said:


> About 60% of the time. The rest is metal, and sometimes King Crimson and Kraftwerk.


You only listen to classical music 60% of the time? Do you want our help with classical music or not? I mean why are you on a classical forum talking about metal?

I realize this is a non-Classical musical discussion, but it appears that when you venture away from this particular thread you have a great vulnerability, which can only mean that you're unsure about this music and need help from fellow members to aid you in deciding what classical music to listen to next.

I would also be very interested in seeing who your top 30 classical composers are, that is, if you can even name 30 of them. This is where myself, Bach, Herzeleide, etc. can help you.

Talking about other kinds of music in a classical forum is rather pointless in my opinion.


----------



## Scum

This "You're just behaving like an a-hole!" and "You're just ignorant" thing isn't getting us nowhere.

Please, hear the pieces I posted:



>


...and stop it with the ego thing. Just because you've gone to music school doesn't mean you can understand music better than us non-educated untermensch. Music is mostly about *feeling*. Feeling is the substance, and music theory creates form. You need form, because you've got to put the feelings in a piece of art. But only form is nothing - I could go around and study music theory for 20 years and then create the most complicated music piece ever - so what? It could still be inferior to a raw, noisy 52 second powerviolence* song if it doesn't have the feeling.

To put it simple: in a world of plastic boobs and MySpace, metal dares you to actually have balls for a while!

*a subgenre of hardcore punk


----------



## Air

Let me ask you a few questions, Contrapunctus666.

1. It seems that you want to debate. What are you debating about? That metal music is better? Didn't you state earlier that you never say opinions?

2. Isn't the name of this thread Metal Music (...)? Why do you feel the need to attack all other genres? They are irrelevant to this thread.

3. What happens when you win? Do you realize that your arguing is pointless? You can spend the next 10 years of your life arguing, and even when you win, you get nowhere. This is a waste of your life and by attacking others, all you are doing is making enemies for yourself.

4. 60% of the time? How come all your posts but 1 has not dealt with classical? You have managed to call many great pieces obscure, elitist, sh** and cr**. Are you sure you like classical music?

*5. How about making some posts that benefit this forum? Why not discuss what you like of classical since you happen to be at a Classical Music Forum? If you don't yet know what you like, there's always people to help you.*

6. 666? Is this supposed to be some spamming symbol? There was a 666 on youtube and I hope you're not the same guy, but I have to say you have similar ways of making people dislike you.

I can tell that you're extremely close to getting banned, and if you don't keep down the inflammatory behavior, it is very likely the moderators will make you pack up and leave to go spam on a jazz forum for all I care.

I'm looking forward to seeing your positive classical-related posts in the future. Have a good day.


----------



## Air

Scum said:


> This "You're just behaving like an a-hole!" and "You're just ignorant" thing isn't getting us nowhere.
> 
> Please, hear the pieces I posted:
> 
> ...and stop it with the ego thing. Just because you've gone to music school doesn't mean you can understand music better than us non-educated untermensch. Music is mostly about *feeling*. Feeling is the substance, and music theory creates form. You need form, because you've got to put the feelings in a piece of art. But only form is nothing - I could go around and study music theory for 20 years and then create the most complicated music piece ever - so what? It could still be inferior to a raw, noisy 52 second powerviolence* song if it doesn't have the feeling.
> 
> To put it simple: in a world of plastic boobs and MySpace, metal dares you to actually have balls for a while!
> 
> *a subgenre of hardcore punk


Now, this is a more positive post.


----------



## Contrapunctus666

> if you can even name 30 of them.


No. I don't think that I have heard more than 50 pieces. I ask experienced people (who respect metal btw) what is the best. 


> This is where myself, Bach, Herzeleide, etc. can help you.


Remember this, and remember it well: Quality>>quantity. I don't need to listen to the inferior music. The greatest composers are the greatest for a reason, and I won't miss anything if I don't search for those obscure composers.



> What happens when you win? Do you realize that your arguing is pointless? You can spend the next 10 years of your life arguing, and even when you win, you get nowhere. This is a waste of your life and by attacking others, all you are doing is making enemies for yourself.


Yes I know this although, you never know, maybe it is not a waste of time.



> 60% of the time? How come all your posts but 1 has not dealt with classical? You have managed to call many great pieces obscure, elitist, sh** and cr**. Are you sure you like classical music?


Yes I am.



> Isn't the name of this thread Metal Music (...)? Why do you feel the need to attack all other genres? They are irrelevant to this thread.


Someone posted Paco de Lucia, and since he sucks, I had to attack him.



> Why not discuss what you like of classical since you happen to be at a Classical Music Forum?


I rarely have any need to tell to the people what do I like.



> 666? Is this supposed to be some spamming symbol?


Dunno. I do never think when making nicks.



> That metal music is better?


I didn't say that metal is better than classical. I have just said that metal is a high quality music and the total sound difference doesn't make it inferior. You can bang on it, you can feel the rythm, and that is what doesn't make it just another inferior genre



> Have a good day.


Thanks.



> Remind me how that has been proven..


You don't want to get into metal so you don't view the music as art. and if you don't view the music as art you are unable to judge the music.


----------



## jhar26

Contrapunctus666 said:


> I don't think that I have heard more than 50 pieces. I ask experienced people (who respect metal btw) what is the best.


Whether they respect metal shouldn't be of any importance in this. It's like being a member of a tennis forum and only respecting the opinion of those who are also into basketball.



> Remember this, and remember it well: Quality>>quantity. I don't need to listen to the inferior music. The greatest composers are the greatest for a reason, and I won't miss anything if I don't search for those obscure composers.


Well, if you've heard only fifty pieces so far you're still a novice when it comes to classical music. Nothing wrong with that, we've all got to start somewhere and the fact that you're interested at all already puts you among a relatively select group. But because you're a newcomer some composers who are probably obscure to you may be household names to most members here. And even lesser known composers aren't necessarily inferior composers. There probably are some unknown metal bands that you think have done some interesting stuff also.  I agree though that it's probably best to start with the most famous works from the most famous composers, and take it from there depending on what you love the most.


----------



## Contrapunctus666

> There probably are some unknown metal bands that you think have done some interesting stuff also.


Trust me, I haven't heard more than 50 black/death metal albums. Like always, I stick to the best.



> Whether they respect metal shouldn't be of any importance in this.


It is not important, it is just a bonus.


----------



## Rasa

How can you know you stick to the best if you haven't heard more then 50 albums?


----------



## Contrapunctus666

Because I trust those that said that they are the best.

http://www.anus.com/metal/about/best_of

they have been into good metal since 1987 so I trust them.

Also, people, here is At the Gates' Gardens of Grief demo: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=LP2TXJ0G

Probably my favorite death metal record. It is free.


----------



## sam richards

Rasa said:


> Still, obvious troll is obvious


Truth. I reported him but the mods seem to think that he is okay.



Bach said:


> The difference being that Michael Jackson doesn't take his lyrics seriously. They're just a bit of fun.


No. See Earth Song (which has terrible lyrics in my opinion)



Bach said:


> Megadeth (sounds like a parody already) clearly do take their lyrics seriously and are probably under the impression that they are making valuable philosophical and poetic points - when they're not. Michael Jackson does not make any such pretense.





> *The name Megadeth is a deliberate misspelling of the word megadeath, a term coined in 1953 by RAND military strategist Herman Kahn to describe one million deaths, popularized in his 1960 book On Thermonuclear War.*






Bach said:


> POPULAR MUSIC SHOULD NOT BE DISCUSSING GODS, MORTAL MEN, LIFE, DEATH, HEAVEN OR HELL. It's geeky, pointless and very easy to take the **** out of. Leave philosophy to scholars.


In your opinion. I think you don't like dark music. In my opinion "pointless" applies to the Jackson lyrics posted earlier. Are you saying lyrics should only be about love, fun, bitches and hos, sex, the "hood" and gangsters? God help you.

For me, music should be meaningful, unlike Lil Wayne. Music will reach more hearts than any writing. Music is a way to express and a art. Frankly, the artists you like (except Stevie Wonder) make music which has no purpose other than to entertain or amuse and gaining commercial profit. That is not art, I despise them.



bach said:


> Interestingly, contemporary composers have been influenced by Michael Jackson style disco and pop (see Aaron Jay Kernis's 100 Greatest Dance Hits for string quartet) but there is no evidence that any have been informed by metal.


See String Quartet tribute and Apocalyptica. And I hate Aaron Jay Kernis, his work is just pop music to me.


----------



## Bach

> In your opinion. I think you don't like dark music. In my opinion "pointless" applies to the Jackson lyrics posted earlier. Are you saying lyrics should only be about love, fun, bitches and hos, sex, the "hood" and gangsters? God help you.


In pop, the lyrics should be light as the music itself is cerebrally and artistically light.


----------



## sam richards

Bach said:


> In pop, the lyrics should be light as the music itself is cerebrally and artistically light.


"Imagine" by John Lennon disagrees with you.

My recommendation for today - Call of Ktulu(Instrumental) - Metallica with the San Francisco Symphony Orchestra conducted by Michael Kamen.


----------



## Rasa

> Because I trust those that said that they are the best.


Most people on these forums have been good in classical since... well I don't know when these dinosaurs were born, but probably long before 1987


----------



## Bach

sam richards said:


> "Imagine" by John Lennon disagrees with you.
> 
> My recommendation for today - Call of Ktulu(Instrumental) - Metallica with the San Francisco Symphony Orchestra conducted by Michael Kamen.


Yes, and Imagine is pretentious. I don't like it, but it's far more musical than any metal.


----------



## Bach

> For me, music should be meaningful, unlike Lil Wayne. Music will reach more hearts than any writing. Music is a way to express and a art. Frankly, the artists you like (except Stevie Wonder) make music which has no purpose other than to entertain or amuse and gaining commercial profit. That is not art, I despise them.


That's what pop music is all about. It's not art. Metal is entertainment for idiotic geeks who take themselves too seriously. Hip hop is entertainment for easy going lads who can actually get laid.. it's all entertainment.

If I want something meaningful and philosophical, I'll turn to Wagner or Beethoven, not some illiterate drug addicts making laughable, pseudo-biblical proclamations with ideas way above their station. That's about as false and meaningless as it gets.


----------



## Contrapunctus666

> Metal is entertainment


Nope, it's art. You never got into it and you judge it WOW


> for geeks


Not for geeks, but for intelligent people. If someone is both geek and intelligent, I don't care...


> who take themselves too seriously.


who have high self-esteem.


----------



## Bach

And why is metal high art then?


----------



## Contrapunctus666

> And why is metal high art then?


Metal has:

1) Narrative structure
2) Values
3) Soul
4) Songs (on the album) are not combined like a symphony/sonata/etc.

Popular music has:

1) No narrative composition
2) No values
3) No soul
4) Songs (on the album) are not combined like a symphony/sonata/etc

Classical

1) Narrative structure
2) No values (there was no need for them, metal actually has values because it is criticizing the modern society)
3) Soul
4) More pieces combined

Third factor is the most important, followed by the first. 2 and 4 are just a good bonus but are not necessary.

Conclusion: the only thing where metal lacks when compared to the classical is that every album is more or less just a bunch of the songs. There are some concept albums like Obscura, Hvis Lyset Tar Oss and Vikingligr Veldi but it is still not enough.


----------



## Mirror Image

Contrapunctus666 said:


> Metal has:
> 
> 1) Narrative structure
> 2) Values
> 3) Soul
> 4) Songs (on the album) are not combined like a symphony/sonata/etc.
> 
> Popular music has:
> 
> 1) No narrative composition
> 2) No values
> 3) No soul
> 4) Songs (on the album) are not combined like a symphony/sonata/etc
> 
> Classical
> 
> 1) Narrative structure
> 2) No values (there was no need for them, metal actually has values because it is criticizing the modern society)
> 3) Soul
> 4) More pieces combined
> 
> Third factor is the most important, followed by the first. 2 and 4 are just a good bonus but are not necessary.
> 
> Conclusion: the only thing where metal lacks when compared to the classical is that every album is more or less just a bunch of the songs. There are some concept albums like Obscura, Hvis Lyset Tar Oss and Vikingligr Veldi but it is still not enough.


 I laughed so hard when I read this. I think this is one of the most delusional posts I have ever read.


----------



## Bach

Because it's full of inaccuracies, weasel words and nonsense. What the hell is soul? Why are you treating it like an objective property? And how can metal have more soul than flamenco?


----------



## Mirror Image

It's not a matter of being wrong or right, it's a matter of giving intelligent opinions and being cordial to his fellow members.


----------



## Bach

Contrapunctus666 said:


> Emotion, spirit, feeling, call it whatever you like.
> 
> Why do you lie?
> 
> Because... I am right and I damage other people's little egos.
> 
> Because the metal musicians are more intelligent(more intelligent people create more intelligent music), understand that the music is not a sport, their music is not Britney Spears-ish failure for masses like flamenco and so on....
> 
> Because the music with no soul makes the experienced listener feel empty


Yes, and no experienced musicians like metal.


----------



## Scum

Yes, and no experienced musicians like hip-hop.


----------



## PartisanRanger

Let's summarize:
Group A: My music is great, your music sucks.
Group B: My music is great. your music sucks.


----------



## Bach

Scum said:


> Yes, and no experienced musicians like hip-hop.


Yes, but I'm not claiming hiphop to be some high and mighty artform.


----------



## Scum

Look, you can't generalize music like that.

Metal, hip-hop, funk - these are just forms.

Some metal is art, other is not. Is most metal non-art? Yes. But this doesn't mean the form itself is non-art. It just means most people who play it don't understand the form enough to create something of value through it. Which is normal since most metal musicians are amateurs. But there are still those bands that create something real and meaningful. And, in the long run, it's those bands that count.


----------



## Bach

Tell me, in musical terms, why a good metal band is better than Slipknot (they sound the same to me). I don't want to hear any meaningless words like 'soul' or 'feeling'.


----------



## Bach

Flamenco is the traditional music of Spain, how can metal possibly have more depth than a style with such a rich heritage - cultivated over centuries in one of Europe's most eclectic cultures?


----------



## Scum

Bach said:


> Tell me, in musical terms, why a good metal band is better than Slipknot (they sound the same to me). I don't want to hear any meaningless words like 'soul' or 'feeling'.


I'll do my best. I'm 17 and have never studied music theory seriously - just don't expect me to sound lice a professor, OK?

Slipknot:

Riffs - monotonous; no sense of melody or harmony; comprised mostly of one or two fifth chords
Compositions - usually in the typical verse-chorus structure; overuse of the same riffs in one song; songs are too long for their repetitiveness; where the band were short of ideas, they used gimmicks, such as mindless electronic noise or guitar effects or - in rare cases - completely mindless solos, which contribute with nothing to the composition; use of generic hip-hop
Poor instrumentalism
Lyrics - teenage angst and self-loathing, personal issues

_"Pull your hands away
I'm gone - goodbye - it's so depressing
Withering away
Take a look - inside - my soul is missing
All I have is dead, so I'll take you with me
Feel like I'm erased - so kill me just in case"_






Atheist:

Melodic riffs; use of counterpoint and harmonic riffage; diversity of style and melodic approach
Compositions - complex structure; songs build up to a climax point to express a certain idea and have lots of changes in rhythm and dynamics; solos are used wisely to create additional tension and add up to the total power of the composition (sorry, didn't know how to put it in the right words here)
Highly technical
Lyrics - esoteric, existential, environmental

_"Another notch in a cosmic climb
Reveal our sanity, reveal your plan divine
To grasp reality is to grasp your biggest fear, you see
Every circumstances is very meant to be"_

_"You say there's freedom
Within our nature
Well I don't think you understand
Mother Earth has fallen to Mother Man
The Air, the Sea, the Grass, the Trees,
The nemesis is the major,
Fearless leader Mother Man."_










Good enough?! Probably not. Who cares?


----------



## Scum

Music is not science!


----------



## Herzeleide

Scum said:


> Music is not science!


No, but it has scholars who have dedicated more time to listening to and studying the music, and who thus have greater insight into it.


----------



## Scum

It has given them greater insight into the techniques and forms of music and knowledge on how to create music that sounds good.

So what if you create the perfect and most-complicated piece of art?

Any thoughts on why most normal people don't listen to contemporary classical and avant-garde? Hellooo?


----------



## Herzeleide

Scum said:


> Any thoughts on why most normal people don't listen to contemporary classical and avant-garde? Hellooo?


Wide dissemination of contemporary classical music is precluded by the stranglehold the popular music industry has on the tastes of the masses.


----------



## Praine

Scum said:


> It has given them greater insight into the techniques and forms of music and knowledge on how to create music that sounds good.


Correct.



> So what if you create the perfect and most-complicated piece of art?


Then you will be respected for creating it.



> Any thoughts on why most normal people don't listen to contemporary classical and avant-garde? Hellooo?


It may be too difficult for the common person to find pleasing with the dissonant harmonies and complex time signatures which most avant-garde composers use. Also, the fact that you actually have to LOOK for it, which a lot of mainstream folk won't do.


----------



## Herzeleide

From a retarded website:



> Classical music also uses narrative composition. While imbeciles will focus on its fixed forms -- sonata, fugue,


http://www.anus.com/metal/about/metal/classical-music-for-metal-fans/

Those forms were never 'fixed'. Poor sod writing about something he doesn't understand.


----------



## Conservationist

Scum said:


> Any thoughts on why most normal people don't listen to contemporary classical and avant-garde?


Pretense, class warfare, and for most, an inability to comprehend.


----------



## jhar26

Herzeleide said:


> Wide dissemination of contemporary classical music is precluded by the stranglehold the popular music industry has on the tastes of the masses.


The masses don't consist of intellectuals or people with the kind of musical education that in your opinion is necessary 'to get' contemporary classical music. 'The masses' just want to have a good time or at the very least listen to something that they can understand. If the popular music industry dominates the culture it's because that is what people want to hear. If the industry was to invest as much money into promoting the music of, say, Stockhausen as they do for Madonna they would only make huge losses. I think it's a mistake to see popular music as 'the enemy' of classical music. The average rock or pop fan wouldn't be listening to Carter, Birtwistle or Lutoslawski if there were no Rolling Stones, Frank Sinatra or Shakira - they wouldn't be listening to any kind of music.

Somewhere in the mid-20th century contemporary classical music failed to connect with the listener. This had very little to do with the rise of rock'n'roll in my view but with the fact that avant garde classical music - regardless of whatever artistic merits it may have - is simply incomprehensible to most people. A silly way of putting it, but if the classical music of the first half of the 20th century had been the classical music of the second half of the 20th century interest for contemporary classical music would be 20 times what it is today.


----------



## Vegg

Bach said:


> Yes, but I'm not claiming hiphop to be some high and mighty artform.


Was that not the point of my argument? I listen to metal simply because I like it.

Regardless, I'm fairly certain bands like Cynic are infinitely more musically inclined than any of the pop you listed. Probably why a _professor of music theory_ is a member of that band.

So far we've learned that:

-There are music professors who play metal
-Some highly proficient bands have been the subject of academic study
-There are jazz artists who also play metal (I don't know if that one was stated yet)
-You can't tell Slipknot from Cynic
-You think 'lil Wayne is good

Hmm...


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

Bach said:


> Tell me, in musical terms, why a good metal band is better than Slipknot (they sound the same to me). I don't want to hear any meaningless words like 'soul' or 'feeling'.


Slipknot's song structure is incredibly simple. Usually based on yes, a pop music structure (intro, chorus, bridge, chorus, bridge, end). Their riffs are usually based on repeating power chords like seen in punk rock.

"Good" metal as metal fans call it do not accept pop music structure. It is boring, very repetitive, and usually very uncreative. Most metal forms do not have a particular structure. Most of the time they free write and write whatever sounds good and tell a story or try to deliver a message. "Good" metal also breaks away from repetitive power chord progressions and make more complicated guitar riffs which constantly changed and altered throughout the song.

And yes, soul and feeling are a part of it as well. Slipknot is about money and fame. They do not really care about their music. The greats like Death, Iron Maiden, Bathory, Demolition Hammer, etc. do not care about their popularity or money, what they care about is doing what they love, and that is to make music.


----------



## Krummhorn

closed for repairs


----------

