# RIP Quorthon



## Conservationist (Apr 5, 2007)

Five years ago today, we lost Quorthon who was the mastermind behind Bathory. If there's ever a musical hero, he was it!

He also explicitly states the classical influence, as you can see in that article.


----------



## Batrider (Jun 11, 2009)

RIP,Quorthorn was the best


----------



## Conservationist (Apr 5, 2007)

> I began to listen to classical music shortly after forming BATHORY, and from 1985-1986 it was all I would listen to. I had been playing various types of rock in various constellations since 1975, so picking up Wagner, Beethoven, Haydn and others really broadened my musical awareness extensively. The motif signature naturally comes from the world of opera.
> 
> Bathory interview


Interesting to see this from one of underground metal's founders.


----------



## Dedrater (Mar 2, 2009)

Conservationist said:


> Interesting to see this from one of underground metal's founders.


Yeah, for sure. There are a myriad of examples along the lines of the above interview which point to direct classical influence on metal. While many bands capture the spirit of classical in a modern context, some certainly had and have academic knowledge of it and how to play it. Examples of various kinds of direct influence I can think of:

Ideological:

- Varg Vikernes' (creator of Burzum) comments on rock music as essentially flashy blues; his subsequent transition to medieval ambient folk music
- Faust of Emperor's name

Theoretical:

- Luc Lemay of Gorguts' degree in theory and appreciation of Bach, etc.
- Crimson Massacre's lack of repetition within songs, formal classical training of band members
- Rob Darken's (Graveland, Lord Wind) love for the _Conan the Barbarian_ soundtrack, a classical film score which directly inspired the structure of his pieces
- Celtic Frost's musical triptych at the end of _Monotheist,_ particularly the part of the Requiem, which actually is full-on classical music that puts any Prokofiev suite to shame and was initially intended to be a part of a three-movement Requiem in itself
- Pantheist (see below) - their incorporation of Baroque organ and Romantic piano, including reworkings of pieces by Chopin and a clear Bach influence
- Cliff Burton's Bach-inspired bass solo on _Kill 'Em All_; his formal classical training

Aesthetic:

- Ildjarn's _Hardangervidda,_ (orchestra-like synth strings)
- Emperor's _Opus a Satana,_ an orchestral take on _Inno a Satana_
- Summoning - strings, proud horns and trumpets echoing the sounds of ancient battlefields
- Ras Algethi, Pantheist, other funeral doom bands - adoption of Gregorian chant, strings, piano
- Black Sabbath's being influenced by horror film soundtracks

This is a very small list that I came up with off the top of my head. I know I'm leaving a lot out.

Most people aren't aware of the influence of classical on metal, but that's because they think AC/DC, Judas Priest, Slipknot, Cannibal Corpse, and Dragonforce are actual metal bands. Time to enlighten them. Fans of metal music, add more!


----------



## Conservationist (Apr 5, 2007)

Most people here aren't concerned with facts. They just want a reason to sound cool to compensate for their failing lives. Cognitive dissonance, as always. It's one of the snipiest forums I've been on, because being able to claim you're a classical fan makes you seem smarter than the average person. They're all jockeying for that status, probably between answering tech support calls.


----------



## Dedrater (Mar 2, 2009)

Conservationist said:


> Most people here aren't concerned with facts. They just want a reason to sound cool to compensate for their failing lives. Cognitive dissonance, as always. It's one of the snipiest forums I've been on, because being able to claim you're a classical fan makes you seem smarter than the average person. They're all jockeying for that status, probably between answering tech support calls.


I agree.

This reality only makes Michael Jackson and Beatles topics all the more baffling here, though. I guess it's an attempt to condescend to the idea of unofficial, non-canonical music as inherently frivolous and for 'fun.' If Stravinsky employs radical techniques just for the hell of it rather than because he has something to say, that's fine, because he's coming from within the tradition. If a subculture of circus performances and parlor tricks springs up in the African American community like jazz, well, that's unserious entertainment-music. Besides, affirmative action says that everyone, regardless of competency at expressing something strong and real, deserves a place in the school textbooks. But when something blatantly and violently opposed to this idea itself emerges, it's obviously not going to fly.

In a way, it's like donating to charity without understanding the political reasons for why poverty exists, all the while only mingling with societal elites.


----------



## Conservationist (Apr 5, 2007)

Dedrater said:


> This reality only makes Michael Jackson and Beatles topics all the more baffling here, though.


I think there's a lot of people here who want to appear elite. They also want to be ironic, because that way they appear more unique. Classical = elite, likes Michael Jackson = ironic, interesting.

Or so they think.

Then there's a lot of people, who are generally lurking and reading the classical forums, who just want to pick up information or feel in the loop. I'd consider myself one in regards to classical music, since I have a few solid favorites and don't know many of the rarities.

It's interesting however how the patterns from metal forums repeat here:

The faux elitists -- only accept music that adheres to certain arbitrary standards that "look" rigorous.

The omnivores -- pandering to the crowd, they want to appear humble, so they like everything and have no favorites.

The one-uppers -- will always name something more obscure, even if it sucks, and claim it's genius.

We can already see the reasons for it. While metal fans get pompous because they work changing tires, have doomed themselves by drug problems, or are powerless students, people here get pompous because their careers failed, they're lonely, or are unsure of their position in society since they know they're from a politically privileged group. But that's the minority. The quiet ones are the balanced ones, I think.

It's interesting how nasty this forum is. It's on par with the really elitist metal communities -- the same sniping nastiness as people jockey for status. Really grade-school, when you think about it.


----------



## Bach (Jun 2, 2008)

Have you ever considered that the reason many classical and jazz listeners hate metal is because it is musically simple and sounds bad?

(please don't continue to assume I haven't heard any - I've heard quite a lot, mostly on your recommendation)


----------



## Conservationist (Apr 5, 2007)

Bach said:


> Have you ever considered that the reason many classical and jazz listeners hate metal is because it is musically simple and sounds bad?


If those listeners expressed any familiarity with the genre whatsoever, I might accept that.

But they do not.


----------



## Bach (Jun 2, 2008)

I'm a trained musician, I've heard metal songs - harmonically, melodically, improvisationally and rhythmically they are fairly simple. I've analysed it in enough detail to work that out.


----------



## Conservationist (Apr 5, 2007)

Bach said:


> I'm a trained musician, I've heard metal songs - harmonically, melodically, improvisationally and rhythmically they are fairly simple. I've analysed it in enough detail to work that out.


There's huge variance among metal genres. What were these songs?


----------



## Bach (Jun 2, 2008)

The ones you recommended to me. Burzum, Atheist and things like that..


----------



## Bach (Jun 2, 2008)

There is no music in this - it's horrendously repetitive (and not even a particularly interesting idea in the first place) and the vocalist can't sing a note.. I can't understand how someone who appreciates classical music can think this is good.. musically or aesthetically.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Bach said:


> There is no music in this - it's horrendously repetitive (and not even a particularly interesting idea in the first place) and the vocalist can't sing a note.. I can't understand how someone who appreciates classical music can think this is good.. musically or aesthetically.


My, that was awful. And I am not just saying that to be inflammatory.

I agree 110% with Bach...I am surprised anyone who has a taste for even the most bombastic and in-your-face classical music could find this 1) appealing and 2) anything like anything in the classical repertoire.

Anyone attempting to tie the two genres together should not use this music as an example. It sounds to have more in common with regular rock music with a fairly consistant beat, lack of counterpoint and repeated power chord electric guitar riffs.

What exactly does this have in common with Schubert?

And I guess the runes are supposed to ekove ancient Aryan culture or something...epic, dude!


----------



## Bach (Jun 2, 2008)

Tapkaara said:


> And I guess the runes are supposed to ekove ancient Aryan culture or something...epic, dude!


That is one of the best things I've read on this forum for ages - that's the crux of it! That's exactly what the metalheads are thinking (but they apply some pseudointellectual 'cultural' bracket over it instead.) Well said, Tappy.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Bach said:


> That is one of the best things I've read on this forum for ages - that's the crux of it! That's exactly what the metalheads are thinking (but they apply some pseudointellectual 'cultural' bracket over it instead.) Well said, Tappy.


See Bach, every so often you and I kind of end up on the sam page. Doesn't happen all the time, but when it does...BAM! It falls on top of you...like...wait for it..._heavy metal_.


----------



## Dedrater (Mar 2, 2009)

Bach said:


> There is no music in this - it's horrendously repetitive (and not even a particularly interesting idea in the first place) and the vocalist can't sing a note.. I can't understand how someone who appreciates classical music can think this is good.. musically or aesthetically.


That's because you're defining people not in terms of where their starting points are in life, but by their association with the select works within a paradigm that happen to be of any worth. I can safely say that I don't "appreciate" classical music as a whole; instead, I find what seems expressive of certain ideals and motivations, because that takes precedence over the theoretical aspects. I'm not even sure if I like all of the music ever produced by any single band or composer, for instance, but I still enjoy music across the catalogues of different bands and composers. A song may sound similar to the one you just posted, and I'll find it bland, repetitive garbage, while a symphony that uses the same orchestral arrangement and techniques as Beethoven's fantastic 7th may receive similar sentiments from me (albeit for different reasons, obviously). Meanwhile, I still enjoy Burzum and Beethoven. Do you understand this?

Stop thinking in terms of "someone who appreciates classical music" and start thinking in terms of someone who appreciates strength, genuinity, and the reality that exists outside of the human social sphere. Sometimes this is evinced through metal, sometimes it isn't. Sometimes it is through classical, sometimes not.

As for the vocals, what are your thoughts on Native American music, or on the traditional joik of the Saami? You can troll them all you want with neurotic rhetoric about how you just can't seem to "understand" why they sing in such rugged, untrained styles, but that isn't going to excise the emotional and spiritual significance of that music from their lives. Music is part of culture, which is inseparable from way of life. It is not a game of quantity. If you don't feel anything when listening, then you're probably not genetically wired to feel it, regardless of whether it's minimalistic ambient black metal or your favorite Bruckner symphony -- even if you'd like to believe that you actually do feel it.

Out of curiosity, can you provide a list of the palpable, physiological changes that occur in your body while you listen to your favorite music?



Tapkaara said:


> My, that was awful. And I am not just saying that to be inflammatory.
> 
> I agree 110% with Bach...


Nah, not saying it to be inflammatory, despite the hyperbolic percentage.



> It sounds to have more in common with regular rock music with a fairly consistant beat, lack of counterpoint and repeated power chord electric guitar riffs.


It shares those surface properties with most rock music, yes. Any arbitrary selection of finite properties within a conceptually infinite set can be gleaned from _anything_ in life, though, to push an agenda or reinforce preconceptions. I don't like repeating myself, but here are some rather lofty musical concepts that most listeners have trouble understanding:



> the possibility of false perceptions; emotive and communicative content over musical aesthetics; the idea that genes shape the degree to which we respond to intense organized sound; driving away the weak through both imagery and the adoption of tribal, war-like, ritualistic sounds; and the possibility that most people, in using music as both a social and an egoic predicate, pretend to like it based on its length, lack of repetition, alleged development, instrumental arrangement, etc. rather than because its logic and force send chills down their spine while affirming the persistence of their human spirit.


Take them into consideration before replying. Also, when critiquing an entire genre of music, try not to cherry-pick by honing in on one of the few good songs that happens to have a rock 'n' roll drum beat. I think it's a great piece of music, sure, but how about the links to other pieces from that same album that I supplied earlier?

I guess it wouldn't matter, though, if you don't get the above quote. If it's not too loud and distorted for you, it's too repetitive. So we throw in Gorguts, Atheist, and Crimson Massacre, and now there's virtually no repetition, but it's too loud again. This is missing the point of music entirely, as you're too busy focusing on culturally relative musical advancements to acknowledge the cultural *universals* that validate any given piece. I'm not a fan of Chinese classical music, but what do you think of its simplicity and dissonance? Too harsh on the ears? Not enough development of leitmotifs? Jeez, I guess their entire culture is worthless, huh?



> What exactly does this have in common with Schubert?


First, all music shares something in common with all other music; otherwise the categorical descriptor 'music' could not be applied at all. Second, bad comparison. Try Beethoven, Bruckner, or Holst.



> And I guess the runes are supposed to ekove ancient Aryan culture or something...epic, dude!


Yeah, no condescension or intentional flaming here. I suggest you read the links that Conservationist has supplied on passive aggression.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Dedrater said:


> Nah, not saying it to be inflammatory, despite the hyperbolic percentage.


I don't personally believe that hyperbolic means inflammatory. One does not equal the other. That's my opinion.



Dedrater said:


> First, all music shares something in common with all other music; otherwise the categorical descriptor 'music' could not be applied at all. Second, bad comparison. Try Beethoven, Bruckner, or Holst.


I agree that all music (be it metal, rap, classical, etc.) must have SOME things in common if they are all to be classified under the (huge) umbrella of music. But you have got to be kidding if the video clip I just watched has similarities to Beethoven, Bruckner and Holst. Because the metal clip is loud and aggressive, and sometimes Beethoven, Bruckner and Holst sound aggressive? Sorry, I heard nothing of any of those composers in that clip.

And I brought up Schubert because Conservationist once posted a link to some list of composers that would be of interest to metalheads. I assume the composers on this list were chosen because their music must be somehow close to metal music as opposed to distant. (This is the "Respighi sounds ancient and Italian music is usually is incosequential" list...I'm sure you know it.) Anyway, Schubert is on this list. I, then, agree with you. Schubert is NOT a good link between classical and metal. But I brought up his name because it was on that list, and I thought it was agreed upon by metalheads that Schubert was one of the de facto classical/metal personalities.



Dedrater said:


> Yeah, no condescension or intentional flaming here. I suggest you read up on the links that Conservationist has supplied about passive aggression.


I don't need to read links about passive-aggressive stuff. I'm not into armchair psychology administered by folks in music forums.

I don't know who I am flamming. I am not insulting anyone or calling anyone names. I am actively voicing my opinion that metal and classical are not long lost cousins and really have little to do with each other. At least I did not send another member a private message where I told him to "shut the F*** up" and accused them of having a failed life. That seems a little bit closer to "flamming" if you ask me. But at the end of the day, who cares? I'm not going to let junk mail from someone who cannot tolerate an opposite opinion to his own ruin my online forum experience.

Anyway, I'm glad I can be part of metal discussion.


----------



## Dedrater (Mar 2, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> But I brought up his name because it was on that list, and I thought it was agreed upon by metalheads that Schubert was one of the de facto classical/metal personalities.


Sure, but there are plenty of nuances on both sides. Schubert = classical doesn't hold up in a debate about the similarity between classical and a specific metal song. That only works for a debate about the similarity between Schubert and a specific metal song.



> At least I did not send another member a private message where I told him to "shut the F*** up" and accused them of having a failed life. That seems a little bit closer to "flamming" if you ask me. But at the end of the day, who cares? I'm not going to let junk mail from someone who cannot tolerate an opposite opinion to his own ruin my online forum experience.
> 
> Anyway, I'm glad I can be part of metal discussion.


Sorry to hear that. I know that if that happened to me, I'd probably have trouble restraining myself from being hyperbolic. No big deal, though. Forget about it and stay focused on the ideas rather than the individuals, I say.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Dedrater said:


> Sorry to hear that. I know that if that happened to me, I'd probably have trouble restraining myself from being hyperbolic. No big deal, though. Forget about it and stay focused on the ideas rather than the individuals, I say.


Believe it or not, I am trying to focus my comments towards the ideas and not the individuals. I have nothing PERSONAL against you or Conservationist. I have opposing opinions to yours, though, on the topic of metal and classical being related or similar. Since metal threads pop up on this forum, and they are, after all, for the general consuption of the members, I might as well participate. Even if that means my views are not your or anyone else's. Again, absolutely nothing personal here.

The metalheads have just as much license to particiapte in the classical threads.


----------



## Conservationist (Apr 5, 2007)

Tapkaara said:


> But you have got to be kidding if the video clip I just watched has similarities to Beethoven, Bruckner and Holst. Because the metal clip is loud and aggressive, and sometimes Beethoven, Bruckner and Holst sound aggressive?


If you played the metal on an organ instead of guitar, would you be more able to see the similarities?


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Conservationist said:


> If you played the metal on an organ instead of guitar, would you be more able to see the similarities?


Honestly I would not.

Again, the work seems to have limitations in the counterpoint department. Mind you, it is a YouTube clip and it's not hi-fi sound by any stretch of the imagination. But from what I could hear, the main "melody" had little to no harmonic decoration, which would have most certainly been used by Beethoven, Bruckner or Holst.

The persistant rhythm seemed more akin to rock music than classical. But you mentioned Holst. Once could say: "Well, what about Mars! That has a persistant rhythm!" Sure it does. But Mars is so much more than just its ostinato 5/4 rhythm. There are interesting things happening in the orchestra at the same time on various levels that this clip simply does not have. Due to its limited instrumentation, the laws of physics preclude it from being able to acquire the richerr polyphonic textures that a full (in this case, large) orchestra can supply.

And certainly Beethoven and Bruckner always changed around the rhythms in their works, sometimes violently. Persistant rhythms are not hallmarks of either composer.

So, if this were played on an organ, as you suggested, I'd imagine it would sound more like a bagpipe drone than a work by Beethoven, Bruckner, or Holst.


----------



## Dedrater (Mar 2, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> Honestly I would not.
> 
> Again, the work seems to have limitations in the counterpoint department. Mind you, it is a YouTube clip and it's not hi-fi sound by any stretch of the imagination. But from what I could hear, the main "melody" had little to no harmonic decoration, which would have most certainly been used by Beethoven, Bruckner or Holst.
> 
> ...


I can provide examples of metal songs that, like Dunkelheit, have what I consider to be atmospheric melodies worthy of repetition with no variation. On the other hand, I can also provide examples of metal that has any of the following by themselves, or even all of them at once: lack of repetition; very competent use of counterpoint; use of silence and sparseness; odd time signatures; harmonic texture and progressive layering.

But I don't think it matters. I'll let my previous post stand on the issue of music as a language of emotion, atmospheric symbolism, and ideas. The only remaining statement to be made here is that the song in question, if nothing else, embodies a similar spirit and power to the music of those composers. It doesn't have to. It can stand on its own and make its declaration without crutches. But it just so happens that I like all of this music for similar reasons, and I'm also a fan of sharing.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Dedrater said:


> I can provide examples of metal songs that, like Dunkelheit, have what I consider to be atmospheric melodies worthy of repetition with no variation. On the other hand, I can also provide examples of metal that has any of the following by themselves, or even all of them at once: lack of repetition; very competent use of counterpoint; use of silence and sparseness; odd time signatures; harmonic texture and progressive layering.
> 
> But I don't think it matters. I'll let my previous post stand on the issue of music as a language of emotion, atmospheric symbolism, and ideas. The only remaining statement to be made here is that the song in question, if nothing else, embodies a similar spirit and power to the music of those composers. It doesn't have to. It can stand on its own and make its declaration without crutches. But it just so happens that I like all of this music for similar reasons, and I'm also a fan of sharing.


If you can provide clips of any metal music that has competent counterpoint, complex rhythmic materical, etc., that you feel is very similar to classical, I invite you to post those here. I promise to listen with an open mind and who knows, maybe you can convince me.

As for this music having the same spirit at Beethoven, Bruckner, etc., I can only disagree with that. Perhaps it's more accurate to say that this music gives you a powerful feeling of satisfaction the same why Beethoven does. After all, it's very subjective to say this is music composed in a similar spirit. Not only does it SOUND different, but it in no way excites my the way Beethoven's 5th does. So if it really were on the same spiritual level as Beethoven's 5th, wouldn't I get excited, too?


----------



## Dedrater (Mar 2, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> If you can provide clips of any metal music that has competent counterpoint, complex rhythmic materical, etc., that you feel is very similar to classical, I invite you to post those here. I promise to listen with an open mind and who knows, maybe you can convince me.


Since I'm so nice:





 - Fun texture starting around 3:00 when the guitars and vocals come back in. The chanting counterbalances the riffs, while an interesting string arrangement plays in the background.





 - Counterpoint between the guitar melody and the keyboard melody. Highly repetitive but ambient music.





 - Cool time signature





 - I don't personally like this band, and think they could use some work. They sound too mechanical and lifeless. Nevertheless, here's an example of lack of repetition.



> As for this music having the same spirit at Beethoven, Bruckner, etc., I can only disagree with that. Perhaps it's more accurate to say that this music gives you a powerful feeling of satisfaction the same why Beethoven does. After all, it's very subjective to say this is music composed in a similar spirit. Not only does it SOUND different, but it in no way excites my the way Beethoven's 5th does. So if it really were on the same spiritual level as Beethoven's 5th, wouldn't I get excited, too?


I prefer the Filosofem album to the Fifth, personally, but that's mostly because the Fifth reminds me less of later Romantic developments and more of Mozart, et al. -- on top of the fact that I have a personal predilection for any sounds, musical or otherwise, that remind me of winter. It's in my blood, I suppose.

You can talk of the major innovations of the Fifth all you want, and I see them, but when I listen to the Liszt piano transcription and compare it to other Liszt works, the former sounds a little too predictable without sustaining or focusing on any one particular mood. In typical classical fashion, it doesn't drive any one point home at full speed, but what it offers is too easily hummed. It's fine and I think it's a fantastic piece of music, but Beethoven has done better.

That having been said, since when did individual experience determine authenticity? If a quantitative, theoretical analysis of this music fails us, then we shouldn't make an exception for quantitative analysis of spirit. So one person says it's an evocative, hypnotic work, and that's not good enough, but when two say it, that changes the picture? If that's the case, then any number of appreciators of that album could attest to its brilliance, but that still wouldn't matter, because you can't appreciate it as an individual.

I think the only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that we have different genetic predispositions when it comes to the kinds of sounds that excite us. It'd be interesting to get to know everyone's ethnicities, if only for fun.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Metal is just musically unappealing to me. I don't see how anybody could listen to say Megadeth after listening to Vaughan Williams' "The Lark Ascending." I mean why deprive yourself of such aural beauty?


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Dedrater said:


> Since I'm so nice:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As for the first example, it sounds a lot like the first clip I heard. There isn't much rhythmic variety until about the 2:30 mark where eveything slows and the guitars go away and we hear some synthesizer strings and voices. Then everything comes back and I heard the guitar doing its thing with the vocals. I still feel that it sounded fairly two-dimensional and still too little variety to keep it all interesting.

The second clip doesn't seem to be all that impressive with the counterpoint issue. The keyboard melody is rather simple and repetitive. The power chord guitar backing seems to go up a few steps, down a few steps, then back up and down all the while. It may be some type of counterpoint with the keyboard, but I find it to be very rudimentary. Something as basic as this simply has nothing on the counterpoint one might encounter in any big work of Beethoven, for example. But I guess it has something of a heroic feel which one may feel is close to classical music.

The third clip does indeed have more complex time signatures than one can find in most rock or pop music. Plus there are syncopations that intermingle unexpectedly with more steady, pounding beats. It actually reminded me quite a bit of military-style demonstration drumming that one might encouter in a high school drumline or something. (And that is not meant as an insult; I think that type of complex drumming requires a lot of skill.)

The fourth clip has some impressive rapid fire drumming. This is surprisingly low on melodic content, at least compared to the other clips. It's a lot of guitar riffs that almost seem at random.

I dunno. As a classical fan, could I get into this? I'm afraid not. For one, the texture/timbres of these pieces (if I can call them pieces) don't seem to varied, one from the other. The electric guitar and drums seem to be the predominant instruments. Maybe you throw in a neyboard for good measure, but the instrumentation, though loud, sounds uniformly thin and two dimensional. Plus it is a persistantly harsh, bludeoning sound that gets tiresome very quickly. Not that there is anything with loud, or even shocking, shattering sounds in classical music...but if a work but has nothing to offer but grating crescendi and tutti over and over and over, it would just be loud without having any purpose but being loud.

I get it, though, that metal sounds big and perhaps epic, and much classical sounds big and epic. One wants to ride an aural roller coaster with dramitic ups, terrifying downs, sweeping and sudden turns to the right and heartstopping jerks to the left. One wants visions of Siegfried slaying the dragon and Star Destroyers obliterating fleets of X-Wings with a vicious barrage of laser blasts as black holes spew lava in the background. The bigger, the badder, the darker, the better.

Maybe both musics offer both, that is, the epic sound. But it's HOW it's offered that I think makes the difference.

A full symphonic orchestra can produce a richer, more layered and versitile sound. It can be as smooth as silk if it wants, or as harsh as your dad's 5 o'clock shadow rubbing against your sunburned back. Metal music, at least from the examples, seems to lack a real ability for variance of texture and subtlety that makes classical music, at least from a timbral standpoint, more multi-facted and interesting.

And honestly, as stand-alone compositions, while there may be episodes or rhythmic variety, or the moment of contrapuntal experimentation, there is just nothing here that makes me say...my God...that sounds like Bruckner's 4th...or...By Jove...this sounds like it could have been lifted from Beethoven's 9th! Again, they are just not up to the same level of richness of texture, melodic genius or harmonic daring. In other words, they may be as big and epic-feeling on a superficial level as the final movement of Bruckner's 4th, say, but with nowhere near the amount of finesse and intelligence. Bruckner gives you the epic sweep, but with so much more, too.

I guarantee, I listened with an open mind and I was hoping to be surprised. But the examples given sound like much of the metal my headbanger/stoner friends listened to in high school (when I was listening to punk), so it's a sound I have known for a while. I'll agree that if you are looking for an adrenaline rush, listening to bombastic classical can be an experience akin to listening to bombastic metal. But I prefer bombast with that finesse I mentioned earlier, as opposed to just bombast.

Just my opinion. Not a metal convert yet.


----------



## Dedrater (Mar 2, 2009)

Mirror Image said:


> Metal is just musically unappealing to me. I don't see how anybody could listen to say Megadeth after listening to Vaughan Williams' "The Lark Ascending." I mean why deprive yourself of such aural beauty?


I don't see how anybody could listen to Megadeth period.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Dedrater said:


> I don't see how anybody could listen to Megadeth period.


I was just using them as an example, so excuse me for my metal illiteracy.


----------



## Dedrater (Mar 2, 2009)

Mirror Image said:


> I was just using them as an example, so excuse me for my metal illiteracy.


I wasn't attacking you. I was agreeing with you that Megadeth is boring music for idiots.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Dedrater said:


> Since I'm so nice:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I went through these clips and I have yet to hear any music in them. All I hear is distorted guitar that is just bludgeoning, the keyboard parts are quite frankly cheesy and unappealing, the drums aren't doing anything that's remotely interesting, they're just pounding away and don't let up at all.

Like Tapkaara said, there is no variety in these tunes. The melody (wherever it is), harmony or lack thereof, and rhythm are just playing the same thing over and over again until it's like "Okay, we get the point. Now move onto something else."

The clips that had vocals sound like a garbled up mess. There's just nothing remotely musical about any of those clips.

I mean if you enjoy this, then that's great, but as a classical and jazz fan I can't find any enjoyment whatsoever in this genre.


----------



## Dedrater (Mar 2, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> The fourth clip has some impressive rapid fire drumming. This is surprisingly low on melodic content, at least compared to the other clips. It's a lot of guitar riffs that almost seem at random.


Definitely. As a meaningless property of composition without a context, lack of repetition can sometimes cause quite a mess. In those clips, I was more humoring your interest in mundane musical properties than giving examples of absolutely good music, as connoted in previous posts. The idea is something to consider for non-classical musicians, but it isn't executed very well in that case.

Anyway, why any of the hallmarks of 'intelligent' composition are only secondary concerns has already been addressed. I think anyone coming from a rock music background who looks at his society, decides it's a confusing mass of nothing, then crafts something as complex melodically and rhythmically as the above works without direct classical training is pretty impressive. If nothing else, the music's sheer force when coupled with good ideas makes it more applaudable than pretty much all of the rest of modern music.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Dedrater said:


> Definitely. As a meaningless property of composition without a context, lack of repetition can sometimes cause quite a mess. In those clips, I was more humoring your interest in mundane musical properties than giving examples of absolutely good music, as connoted in previous posts. The idea is something to consider for non-classical musicians, but it isn't executed very well in that case.
> 
> Anyway, why any of the hallmarks of 'intelligent' composition are only secondary concerns has already been addressed. I think anyone coming from a rock music background who looks at his society, decides it's a confusing mass of nothing, then crafts something as complex melodically and rhythmically as the above works without direct classical training is pretty impressive. If nothing else, the music's sheer force when coupled with good ideas makes it more applaudable than pretty much all of the rest of modern music.


Speaking of repetition, I'll say again, but in a different way, how someone could listen to a metal song after listening to Vaughan Williams' "The Lark Ascending" is beyond me. Why deprive yourself of such pristine beauty?

Metal is just so juvenile. I mean it's like a 5 year old kid who gets mad because he doesn't get his way and he goes and breaks something and that rage is what metal signifies. Rage or anger, it seems to me, is the only emotion it can express and it seems that this is all metal stands for.


----------



## Bach (Jun 2, 2008)

Anger and dissatisfaction are immature emotions.


----------



## Dedrater (Mar 2, 2009)

Mirror Image said:


> Metal is just so juvenile. I mean it's like a 5 year old kid who gets mad because he doesn't get his way and he goes and breaks something and that rage is what metal signifies. Rage or anger, it seems to me, is the only emotion it can express and it seems that this is all metal stands for.


Are you going to make up your mind on which arbitrary argument-for-the-sake-of-arguing you're going to adhere to when it comes to this subject? The 10-minute ambient piece is too repetitive, so something that eschews repetition is put forth, and it's called out for being juvenile and angry. This is a kind of make-it-up-as-you-go tactic employed by people whose sole agenda is to win an argument. Just reading Tapkaara's dismissal of the linked examples -- which itself completely ignored the fundaments of music in favor of pedantic pointings-out -- implicates him in playing the Internet version of "What's wrong with this picture?" Your duty when presented with these samples is not to grab a red pen and circle the things that scare you when you see them, but to look at the picture from outside of your cultural upbringing. This isn't some game; this is life. As asked before, what about Chinese classical music? Where are the developed leitmotifs and consonance? Either adjust your approach or secede from society and form a cult of unfounded snobbery where you can bloviate about irrelevant elements of music without interference from us pesky realists.

Final reiteration: metal and classical occasionally converge structurally, but this is beside the main point, which is that the good from both sides converges on the same ideals and emotions. When I listen to metal, it doesn't sound angry. Slipknot sounds angry. Metal sounds proud, powerful, reverent, war-like, intrepid -- take your pick, but they're all valid.



Bach said:


> Anger and dissatisfaction are immature emotions.


Ignoring this strawman, I leave you both with a juxtaposition of quotes that sums up what's wrong with this community. Now that you're finished picking out the finite compositional properties that so irk you, what's wrong with _this_ picture?



Mirror Image said:


> Like Tapkaara said, there is no variety in these tunes. The melody (wherever it is), harmony or lack thereof, and rhythm are just playing the same thing over and over again until it's like "Okay, we get the point. Now move onto something else."





Mirror Image said:


> As I mentioned, for me, "Billie Jean' is the best song I think he ever performed. It had a great melody, rhythmic hook, and should be noted for it's originality.


----------



## Bach (Jun 2, 2008)

Billy Jean is a better pop song than any metal song I've ever heard. After all - metal is just pop music.


----------



## Atelier (Jul 17, 2009)

Ah, Dunkelheit.



> Anger and dissatisfaction are immature emotions.


A very immature statement. Many times, anger and dissatisfaction are entirely appropriate reactions to the environment. Furthermore they are positive emotions because they provide impetus toward change. If you sit in your prozac fog eating what you're fed by the mass media, afraid of your own shadow, afraid of your very emotions to such an extent that you try to deny your animal nature, you're going to be sitting in that very same prozac fog 20 years from now, wondering why nothing has changed for you.

Part of metal is a celebration of the emotion of hate. In certain situations, hate is an entirely appropriate and healthy emotion and is once again an impetus toward positive change. Not everything good is entirely pleasant.

The statement that metal is simple and therefore somehow inferior is a straw man for a number of reasons. First, complexity is not necessarily desirable. Not everything needs to be the Goldberg Variations. If it is, complexity loses its meaning. In fact, complexity as an end unto itself has already lost emotional meaning-- it becomes an exercise in dexterity and pure math, sacrificing feeling.

There are bands like Meshuggah which in my opinion are rhythmic exercise, complexity for its own sake. These bands feature bizarre time signatures which make most classical arrangements look absolutely pale.

So first, I disagree with your thesis that complexity is necessarily desirable. Second, I disagree with your thesis that metal is somehow less complex than classical or jazz, which is simply not the case. The fact is, metal encompasses a breadth of substyles far larger than jazz, amazing considering the comparatively short time that it's been around. At times, it's very complex indeed, too much so for its own good I think: the true aesthetic of metal does not lie in complexity for its own sake.

Distortion and pounding drums push parts of the emotional scale that are simply unavailable to traditional classical and jazz. If you are unable to find beauty within the static, that doesn't necessarily mean that the beauty is not there, and is no indictment of metal but is in fact an indictment of you.

If the emotions expressed in metal are somehow unacceptable to your fragile psyche, perhaps you should examine why that might be.

What's so frightening about it?



> metal is just pop music.


Classical and jazz are just pop music, self-aggrandizing protests to the contrary notwithstanding. Particularly in the case of jazz, they are also dead abstraction, saying nothing, connected to nothing, meaning nothing. They are both absolutely dislocated, uprooted from their cultural origins. Are you drinking at a 1930s black after-hours speakeasy? Are you a member of the German aristocracy? If not, your investment in your identity as a member of some sort of jazz/classical literati is pretentious: you're going through the motions, pretending to be something you're not. In fact, the originating cultures of both jazz and classical would find you silly, pretentious and contemptible, for a variety of different reasons.

Quorthon, Black Jesus, Varg Vikernes and Abbath Doom Occulta are Diogenes, come to burn down your hoary dead temples.

Let me give you an example of a Man:


----------



## Atelier (Jul 17, 2009)

Please allow me to introduce you to the artist formerly known as Bathory.










Welcome to deconstructionism.


----------



## Bach (Jun 2, 2008)

I can't even be bothered to read your pretentious screed. Classical and Jazz are not pop music - they are musicians music.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Dedrater said:


> Are you going to make up your mind on which arbitrary argument-for-the-sake-of-arguing you're going to adhere to when it comes to this subject? The 10-minute ambient piece is too repetitive, so something that eschews repetition is put forth, and it's called out for being juvenile and angry. This is a kind of make-it-up-as-you-go tactic employed by people whose sole agenda is to win an argument. Just reading Tapkaara's dismissal of the linked examples -- which itself completely ignored the fundaments of music in favor of pedantic pointings-out -- implicates him in playing the Internet version of "What's wrong with this picture?" Your duty when presented with these samples is not to grab a red pen and circle the things that scare you when you see them, but to look at the picture from outside of your cultural upbringing. This isn't some game; this is life. As asked before, what about Chinese classical music? Where are the developed leitmotifs and consonance? Either adjust your approach or secede from society and form a cult of unfounded snobbery where you can bloviate about irrelevant elements of music without interference from us pesky realists.


I'm not making up anything as I go. I'm telling you what I heard and what I find wrong with metal. If you can't handle my opinion, then that's your problem.

You provided examples of metal that you like and I gave you my opinion. Metal just isn't appealing to me. I have high musical standards and it just isn't up to my standards.


----------



## Atelier (Jul 17, 2009)

Bach said:


> I can't even be bothered to read your pretentious screed. Classical and Jazz are not pop music - they are musicians music.


That was a very pretentious thing to say. The fact is, they are popular music. The fact that musicians enjoy them does not change this fact and amounts to argument from authority.



Mirror Image said:


> I have high musical standards and it just isn't up to my standards.


By this you mean, there are certain types of music that you like and other types that you don't. The types that you like are the types that are associated with high cultuah and sophistication. All the most sophisticated, cultuah'd people listen to them. You are highly invested in your opinion of yourself as a highly cultured sophisticate and the music you choose to listen to is a manifestation of that.

If you had been born in Japan, medieval koto music is what you would listen to and find sophisticated and cultured. If you had been born in Indonesia, you would be a cultured, sophisticated aficionado of kecak, kendang and gamelan.

And you would say that you had high standards and that other music was inferior when in fact it would be nothing more than a pretension to social class.

Do you eat only Kobe beef?

BTW, I'm not saying that you should like metal. It can be extremely abrasive. Not everyone likes Bach either.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Atelier said:


> BTW, I'm not saying that you should like metal. It can be extremely abrasive. Not everyone likes Bach either.


That's the bottomline isn't it? Yes, I have high musical standards and unfortunately juvenile metal that you so highly praise doesn't make the cut.


----------



## Atelier (Jul 17, 2009)

> That's the bottomline isn't it? Yes, I have high musical standards and unfortunately juvenile metal that you so highly praise doesn't make the cut.


You keep claiming you have high standards. Once again, your investment in yourself as highly cultured musical sophisticate.

The bottom line is that it's really a matter of personal opinion. What you see as standards are in fact presuppositions based on what you've been told. You've been told that classical and jazz are sophisticated, the music of the elite-- even though jazz was the music of black addicts, and you yourself are certainly no member of the aristocracy among whom classical music became popular, just one of many shibboleths with which they differentiated themselves from the unwashed masses. The fact is, it's nothing more than a technical exercise and can be rendered quite passably by robots.

Much of your derivative, emotionless drivel doesn't make MY cut. Particularly the jazz which I find execrable.

It does nothing. Says nothing. Means nothing.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Atelier said:


> You keep claiming you have high standards. Once again, your investment in yourself as highly cultured musical sophisticate.
> 
> The bottom line is that it's really a matter of personal opinion. What you see as standards are in fact presuppositions based on what you've been told. You've been told that classical and jazz are sophisticated, the music of the elite-- even though jazz was the music of black addicts, and you yourself are certainly no member of the aristocracy among whom classical music became popular, just one of many shibboleths with which they differentiated themselves from the unwashed masses. The fact is, it's nothing more than a technical exercise and can be rendered quite passably by robots.
> 
> ...


 Okay, I think this is a good reason why I DON'T talk to people who are really into metal. They lack the inability to make logical statements.


----------



## Bach (Jun 2, 2008)

Atelier said:


> That was a very pretentious thing to say. The fact is, they are popular music. The fact that musicians enjoy them does not change this fact and amounts to argument from authority.


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

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


----------



## Atelier (Jul 17, 2009)

And we all know what a reputable source Wikipedia is.

Jazz is genre music. Both jazz and classical are popular music. If you disagree, take a look at sales figures over the decades. Keep in mind that at one time jazz was associated with criminal addict ne'er-do-wells and alcohol and heroin consumption. Many jazz musicians were heroin addicts.

The fact that the dead traditions are kept alive by college professors who still go through the motions of "bebop" and "cool jazz" doesn't make it anything other than what it is and always was.

Popular music.


----------



## Dedrater (Mar 2, 2009)

I wonder if Mirror Image has ever read Herman Hesse's _Steppenwolf._ Now there's an accurate and contemporaneous description of jazz!


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Atelier said:


> And we all know what a reputable source Wikipedia is.
> 
> Jazz is genre music. Both jazz and classical are popular music. If you disagree, take a look at sales figures over the decades. Keep in mind that at one time jazz was associated with criminal addict ne'er-do-wells and alcohol and heroin consumption. Many jazz musicians were heroin addicts.
> 
> ...


Drugs have been apart of all genres of music. Not just jazz. If this is the only argument you have against jazz, then you better start looking at the bigger picture, which is you don't have an argument.

Metal is as guilty of having drug addicts as any other genre of music. Get your facts straight.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Mirror Image said:


> Drugs have been apart of all genres of music. Not just jazz. If this is the only argument you have against jazz, then you better start looking at the bigger picture, which is you don't have an argument.
> 
> Metal is as guilty of having drug addicts as any other genre of music. Get your facts straight.


There's even drug use in the Symphonie fantastique of Berlioz!! The original headbanger himself. (Berlioz did have long hair perfect for headbanging, he just wore it in a 19th centuryversion of a beehive!)


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> There's even drug use in the Symphonie fantastique of Berlioz!! The original headbanger himself. (Berlioz did have long hair perfect for headbanging, he just wore it in a 19th centuryversion of a beehive!)


Yeah, Berlioz was high from the intoxicating aroma of love.  Ah, the things some will do to show a woman that they love her. Some people build things, some people send a card expressing their deepest innermost thoughts, and some people, like Berlioz, compose the "Symphonie Fantastique."


----------



## Bach (Jun 2, 2008)

If you start mentioning serious composers, you're only going to confuse them..!


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Bach said:


> If you start mentioning serious composers, you're only going to confuse them..!


You're absolutely right. I mustn't talk about serious music with metalheads.


----------



## Atelier (Jul 17, 2009)

> If this is the only argument you have against jazz, then you better start looking at the bigger picture, which is you don't have an argument.


You apparently have a reading comprehension problem-- strange in someone supposedly as highly educated and sophisticated as yourself.

The fact that many top jazz musicians were heroin addicts, to say nothing of alcohol and cannabis, isn't intrinsically an argument against jazz. The point is that it gives the lie to your pretension that jazz is somehow on a higher plane.

When in fact it was produced largely by dopers and drunks. "Higher Plane" indeed... in fact they were the dregs of society and it's only comparatively recently that it's become the cause celebre of the tweed bar set.


----------



## Atelier (Jul 17, 2009)




----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Atelier said:


> You apparently have a reading comprehension problem-- strange in someone supposedly as highly educated and sophisticated as yourself.
> 
> The fact that many top jazz musicians were heroin addicts, to say nothing of alcohol and cannabis, isn't intrinsically an argument against jazz. The point is that it gives the lie to your pretension that jazz is somehow on a higher plane.
> 
> When in fact it was produced largely by dopers and drunks. "Higher Plane" indeed... in fact they were the dregs of society and it's only comparatively recently that it's become the cause celebre of the tweed bar set.


Right, okay, so jazz is somehow inferior because it's played by drunks and dopers?

I love how you keep trying to make excuses and defend metal by trying to tear down a genre of music that's highly regarded around the world and taught in schools and institutions.

Name 10 prestigious colleges in the United States that teach composition students about metal. This is going to be good...


----------



## Atelier (Jul 17, 2009)

> Right, okay, so jazz is somehow inferior because it's played by drunks and dopers?


Once again, I'm astounded at the difficulty you seem to be having in comprehending something that seems quite simple to me.

I will state it for you once more, this time as simply as I possibly can. The fact that jazz comes from speakeasy dive bars gives the lie to your thesis that it is somehow not popular music.



> Name 10 prestigious colleges in the United States that teach composition students about metal. This is going to be good...


Once again, argument ad majorem fallacy, debunked thus: numerous colleges in the United States teach students about hiphop. This trend is increasing. Another pathetic attempt at maintaining your fantasy of intellectual elitism.

You seem to have an inferiority complex regarding jazz. I have never attacked jazz even though I don't particularly care for it.

The core of what you appear to be having difficulty understanding is this: the immediate discussion is not some sort of debate regarding the quality of jazz (a subjective opinion) but rather its indisputable status as popular music.

Popular music it was, is and always shall be.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Atelier said:


> Once again, I'm astounded at the difficulty you seem to be having in comprehending something that seems quite simple to me.
> 
> I will state it for you once more, this time as simply as I possibly can. The fact that jazz comes from speakeasy dive bars gives the lie to your thesis that it is somehow not popular music.
> 
> ...


Regardless of whether jazz is a popular music is beside the point I think, jazz will always be more superior to metal, thus, this is why jazz is taught in schools across the globe and metal isn't, because metal has no historical or musical value.

I'm done talking with you, metal man.


----------



## Conservationist (Apr 5, 2007)

Dedrater said:


> I wonder if Mirror Image has ever read Herman Hesse's _Steppenwolf._ Now there's an accurate and contemporaneous description of jazz!


This is completely accurately. Jazz is music for neurotics and those who didn't make the passage into civilization.


----------



## danae (Jan 7, 2009)

I 've spent at least an hour reading these theads on metal vs. classical vs. jazz and whatever... My head feels like a giant watermelon. The last thing I wanna do right now is listen to any of aforemetnioned genres!


----------



## Atelier (Jul 17, 2009)

> I think, jazz will always be more superior to metal, thus, this is why jazz is taught in schools across the globe and metal isn't, because metal has no historical or musical value.


So because hiphop is taught in schools across the globe, it's on the same level as jazz.

Your implication, not mine. But you're getting it now.

No historical or musical value? I think not-- it's far closer to classical than jazz is. But if you don't want to talk to Metal Man anymore, it's a free country.

Once again, you'd be far meeker in person.


----------



## flippergv (May 19, 2011)

I really hate to necro threads, even more on first posts. I just stumbled on this thread and thought I'd bring in my point of view on the subject of matter.

1. Music isn't "just" about theory. Some opinions I've read here have theory importance in such a high esteem that they forget the point. The best portrait isn't always the one that is the most photo realistic.

2. Horrible, truly horrible examples of metal music to try to make your point at the very least heard by classical music folks on a classical music forum. Here are some of my suggestions that should at the very least, trigger some interest.

Metal + Avant Guarde done right





Metal + fusion done right





Metal + Progressive done right





Just weird stuff





But honestly, Metal is most of the time a battle cry (i.e. : 



) and most of the time listening to it makes us feel stronger. Not for our failed life, but like for me who had to wake up after 2h30 of sleep to continue working on my master in neurosciences, it made me forget the sleeplessness. Any form of art that can generate an emotion, a feeling this strong in a person is good art. The point of art is to convey emotions, not to show off skills. That's why bands like Brain Drill who show ridiculous amount of time signature/technique/scales for the sake of showing it is able to isn't considered good music.

A complex emotional song isn't better than a song of similar emotional content.

P.S.: don't try to "get" metal on the first try (just like with most jazz), you really have to work to understand this type of music just like it would take time to understand the dissonant classical chinese music if you're not used to (like a previous poster said).


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Wow, youve just revealed the purpose of art to this messageboard. Why on earth had none of us ever thought of that? Its so simple! Conveying emotion....
I disagree btw.

Secondly, theory in painting is not all aimed at producing photo-realistic portraits. Abstractionism, pointillism, impressionism, expressionism etc... Have also developed theories.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

flippergv: Not to come off as a contrarian, but Unexpect (along with most self-consciously "avant-garde" rock and metal) sorta strike me as a repackaged Mr. Bungle with a more metal vocabulary. Very reactionary and weirdy-beardy for the sake of it. You're absolutely right about how bands shouldn't concentrate more on technique than emotion and thematic clarity, but I think some of your recommendations also fall into that trap. Cynic's "Focus" is pretty good, though.

I feel like metal is still taking its first slow baby steps into abstraction, and you're better off listening to experimental music with no metal connections.












 <--- "Drone" is nothing new, either, you see.

Some metal does get it right, though. 





Anyway! Most people already have their minds made up about genres like this one way or another, but I hope this post is a little informative.


----------



## flippergv (May 19, 2011)

emiellucifuge said:


> Wow, youve just revealed the purpose of art to this messageboard. Why on earth had none of us ever thought of that? Its so simple! Conveying emotion....
> I disagree btw.
> 
> Secondly, theory in painting is not all aimed at producing photo-realistic portraits. Abstractionism, pointillism, impressionism, expressionism etc... Have also developed theories.


I know, I guess I'm wasting my time here then. Trying to convince some people of the value of something they have a bias against is lost cause.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

I dont have a bias. In fact, I used to be very much into metal. Going to many many concerts a year, playing bands etc....

Despite this ive come to the conclusion that its pretty awful.

Besides, nothing said in my last post displays any relevance to this nor does it leave option to bias. I made two points:
1. There is a possibility that your simply stated 'purpose of art' is incorrect.
2. If you can explain something then there is a theory behind it. Theory ultimately includes all forms of artistic expression.


----------



## flippergv (May 19, 2011)

emiellucifuge said:


> I dont have a bias. In fact, I used to be very much into metal. Going to many many concerts a year, playing bands etc....
> 
> Despite this ive come to the conclusion that its pretty awful.
> 
> ...


It's very hard to understand that someone that was very into a musical genre can simply find it now "awful". I've listened to pretty bad when I was younger, but I still enjoy the music I enjoyed before. To me, music tastes evolve, but not change. The only people I know that really enjoyed Metal and they don't anymore are the ones who listened to it for the wrong reasons. By that, I mean people who listened to it because it was "brutal" and it had violent themes. These were the kinds of frustrated adolescent that "moved away" from the genre and don't like it anymore.

I don't know musical theory (in the sense of composing music), like I said, I'm studying neurosciences. I've been playing music all my life, played electric and double bass and the saxophone (I've played orchestra music for the most part, but also (obviously) metal, punk, blues, jazz, RnB, soul). Sure, I have a preference for metal, but I LOVE jazz, orchestral music (classical, movies, newer stuff), post rock and blues.

I just have problems with understanding the fact that I could find metal as a very good genre of music, just like I enjoy orchestra music (but both for different reasons), and then someone who love orchestral music will hate metal. If orchestra music is such a superior genre that it totally eclipses metal, why do I find metal still very relevant to listen to regularly. Why am I not coming to the same conclusion as you did? Sure I find orchestral music to be very impressive and powerful, but it lacks in certain aspects where metal will shine (and I don't mean simply being "violent" music).

All and all, it's just extremely hard for me to believe that if you listened to the genre to the same extent as I did, if you have listened to the uncountable number of sub-genres like I did, you would still qualify simply as being "awful" without you being biased.

P.S.: final link for me here.





This is considered as one of the best progressive songs in metal. Surprisingly, it is a very "simple" song.

BTW, this guy voiced a similar opinion to mine



Atelier said:


> Ah, Dunkelheit.
> 
> A very immature statement. Many times, anger and dissatisfaction are entirely appropriate reactions to the environment. Furthermore they are positive emotions because they provide impetus toward change. If you sit in your prozac fog eating what you're fed by the mass media, afraid of your own shadow, afraid of your very emotions to such an extent that you try to deny your animal nature, you're going to be sitting in that very same prozac fog 20 years from now, wondering why nothing has changed for you.
> 
> ...


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

First of all, I was well aware of the numerous styles within metal. Second of all, I did not have some sick 'violence' fetish.

1. Let us not compare metal to orchestral music. Lets compare the work of one band to the work of one composer.

a) while a composer may (and indeed many do) write for orchestra, piano, choir, chamber ensembles, electronic tapes, percussion groups and generally every instrument available. Metal bands consist of a few guitars, a bass guitar, a drum kit and maybe a keyboard - Always.
b) While a composer may create a heart-crushing climax after long harmonic preparations and immensley clever use of all of music's parameters. Many metal bands aim to be heart-crushing (and therefore never achieve this), by using distortion pedals and rapidly hitting a bass drum.
c) Metal does consist of a variety of styles, to counter the super fast nonsense of Thrash, we have the super slow drivel that is doom. Yes, my derogatory comments aside - it is true that these two style express very different things. However, it seems to me a band will play either thrash or doom but never both, exhibiting a rather narrow palette of styles, options and means of expression (as is also clear from my previous point).
d) I dont believe that the entire life of a metal musician has been ruled by the negative emotions, and while it is important to display negative emotions, it is also important to display positive emotions. And so, while a composer who may write with emotions (therefore a romantic) can display despair, ecstasy, depression and joy, most metal bands seem to be preoccupied with the morbid, dark and depressing _all the time._
e) Lastly, the whole image thing.

And while you can counter many of these arguments by producing yet more youtube links of _different_ bands. (For example, posting a video of a band that is happy). You can hardly deny that the *majority* of metal musicians confine themselves narrowly to the same repetitive and unimaginitive use of the same instruments, write in the same rather unimaginitve style and cling rather childishly to the shared joys of death and destruction *throughout their entire career.*


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

> while a composer may (and indeed many do) write for orchestra, piano, choir, chamber ensembles, electronic tapes, percussion groups and generally every instrument available. Metal bands consist of a few guitars, a bass guitar, a drum kit and maybe a keyboard - Always.


There's Therion and the whole symphonic metal genre. Plus period instruments are pretty trendy in folk metal. Sigh uses more instruments than I can count on both hands. Instruments matter very little compared to songwriting, but just sayin'. Shouldn't be so quick to use "always".

Of course, same goes for your more substantial arguments, like focus on death, misery, etc. Tell me Emperor's In The Nightside Eclipse has no joy and yearning. Yeah, a ton of metal is pap with no emotional depth, but Sturgeon's Law.

Plus there is a certain stylistic vocabulary that must be understood to perceive emotional nuance, as with anything. My brother thinks all classical music sounds "sad and serious", no matter what it is.

As for image, I understand in a way, but if you review an opera and call their costumes silly as your coup de grace point to why you didn't like it, it should be no surprise when people tell you you're missing the point.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

emiellucifuge said:


> And while you can counter many of these arguments by producing yet more youtube links of _different_ bands. (For example, posting a video of a band that is happy). You can hardly deny that the *majority* of metal musicians confine themselves narrowly to the same repetitive and unimaginitive use of the same instruments, write in the same rather unimaginitve style and cling rather childishly to the shared joys of death and destruction *throughout their entire career.*


Unfortunately this is exactly what you have done. You defend the shortcomings of one group of musicians by citing the achievements of another group.

Opera costumes are worn by performers while they are in their role. They are chosen by highly trained costume designers in order to characterise a character, display certain attributes or draw attention to certain things. This may also be true for metal, but I dont know of any opera-singers who wear their costumes outside of work.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

I don't get this 'supporting of a musical genre like it's your football team' thing.

I like less than 1% of all metal out there, and about the same percentage of all classical, or jazz, rock, pop, folk, blues etc.

I am not a classical fan, I am a music fan.

For metal bands that progressed over the years, I'd put forward Earth, Sleep/Om, Sunn O and Boris. They all started with the spaced out drony riffs thing and found different ways of moving forward, normally in the process de-metalising their music somewhat.

Even a big band like Metallica shows big change from Kill Em All to the Black Album. 

I could easily say Mozart or Haydn wrote the same kind of music all their life. Transfer this criticism to folk music and it becomes a good thing for an artist to have not changed and remained 'true to his roots'. In fact I'd say apart from the odd exception like Beethoven or Liszt composers before 1900 prety much remained stylistically very similar throughout their careers.

Lots of metal does make me cringe by not only how bad it is but how cheesy it is. With classical music if I don't like something I'm normally just bored by it, whereas if I don't like a metal song then it's almost intolerable. Prog metal, hair metal, symphonic metal etc seem like magnets for tackiness.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

It is true there are exceptions of course.

It is also true that compared to later composers, the music of Haydn is largely very similar. Yet he operated within many different Genres, and even works within one genre have a entirely different 'gestalt'. Whereas the music of a Thrash band tends to be each song with the same combination of instruments, the same general chorus-verse structure, the same intended effect which is to 'thrash your brains out', sometimes in an attempt to appear more artistic they will add a slow song onto their album - but these invariably end up similar with slow arpeggios.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

> I don't get this 'supporting of a musical genre like it's your football team' thing.


You'll see "my team vs. your team" mentality where you want to see it, I think. I wouldn't feel at home defending any genre as a whole either, but I do feel it's a misconception that metal is inherently emotionally limited.

About Metallica, I never liked them, but their mid-life crisis albums are a better example of regression than moving forward, I'm afraid.


----------



## flippergv (May 19, 2011)

emiellucifuge said:


> First of all, I was well aware of the numerous styles within metal. Second of all, I did not have some sick 'violence' fetish.
> 
> 1. Let us not compare metal to orchestral music. Lets compare the work of one band to the work of one composer.
> 
> ...


"violence fetish", that is just laughable. It just show me how little you know about metal.

a) This is not even an argument on why some genre "could" be better than another. It just make it harder to compose which, again, doesn't make it in any shape or form better.

b) Metal has changed a lot since 90's or you just haven't listened to the good bands. I've had tears at the genius climaxes brought by bands like Insomnium, Allagoch, Blind Guardian and Burzum.

c) Again, you knowledge on metal seems very limited. Many many genres in between.

d) And you'd be wrong again. Half of the Black metal folks talk about the nature. Sure a lot do talk about negativity and you have to admit not everyone is capable to make Brutal Death Metal with positive lyrics and still sound positive like Lykathea Aflame. Again, many bands have gone out of only being sad and all, they are not the majority, but they are there.

e) The image (when there is one except long hair. BTW, a very large proportion of the metal bands nowadays don't have a particular image except maybe a color palette and long hair) is in 99% of the cases very tongue in cheek. It's not to be taken seriously. It is cartoon-y and should be viewed like the violence used in Kill Bill.

But hell, I'm always the guy defending the underdog. I'm the dude that will say craft beer is on the same playing field as wine and will show much more variety than it and I'll take a single malt over a cognac. I've started playing bass instead of guitar when I was young. And many other things.

Anyway, I won't be changing your mind and obviously you won't be changing mine. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. But please, in the future, don't insult a whole music genre that you don't seem to know much about (even if you say so, you just don't). Just say that you don't like it for personal reasons. I won't reply to this thread again.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Look at their crazy image! Lay off the facepaint and fake blood, guys! Geez!!


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

regressivetransphobe said:


> Look at their crazy image! Lay off the facepaint and fake blood, guys! Geez!!


Those look like false metallers.

Here's what true metal gods should look like:


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Youve failed to mention a single band that I did not listen. Dont arrogantly believe that just because I dont value as metal as highly as you do it means I know less about it. I even own a few old Mutiilation tapes. I met Demonaz in Bergen, Norway.

I have played the bass guitar for 6 years, if you think that means anything...

By 'violence fetish' I was referring to this:


> By that, I mean people who listened to it because it was "brutal" and it had *violent* themes. These were the kinds of frustrated adolescent that "moved away" from the genre and don't like it anymore.





> Half of the Black metal folks talk about the nature.


Yes the eternally dark and icy norwegian forests in the winter.

My point is; metal musicians place too many limits on their means of expression


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

So anyway, derailing a bit, I hope I'm not the only one about ready to sell his Morbid Angel albums out of shame after hearing this:


----------

