If that's the attitude you'll bring to this forum (since you're a newbie), you may as well go back to the Blabbermouth discussions...
Respect other people's tastes. Don't be an asshole.
You don't have to like growling to be a huge metal fan. I'm the living proof of that. Metal was there before growls appeared. Growling ruins lots of bands I'd enjoy otherwise because their music is good.
Couldn't agree more. I've always felt that growling (like rapping) is for people who can't sing but still want to be in a band.
I can't stand either one. If someone likes it, good for them…I just don't see the appeal. To me, it's comparable to someone singing the lyrics with the exact same note for the entire song…no melody, so it's boring, monotonous, and grating.
But to each his/her own...
Couldn't agree more. I've always felt that growling (like rapping) is for people who can't sing but still want to be in a band.
I can't stand either one. If someone likes it, good for them I just don't see the appeal. To me, it's comparable to someone singing the lyrics with the exact same note for the entire song no melody, so it's boring, monotonous, and grating.
Like labrekk said, many songs/bands are "ruined" for me because of the rap or growl vocals. I don't mind them so much as a brief "accent" (ie. the way Pain of Salvation uses them), but if it's the whole song??? Blech.
But to each his/her own...
I think there's some truth in this statement. I do think it's easier to learn how to growl and be passable at it, than learn how to sing properly and be good. However, the problem with painting with such a broad brush is, there are quite a few vocalists who can sing (and sing well), who choose to use "growl" vocals.I've always felt that growling (like rapping) is for people who can't sing but still want to be in a band.
I think there are a lot of shitty growl vocalists out there, who aren't capable of conveying much with their vocals aside from a sense of aggression. However, not unlike traditional vocalists, there are those who can convey a lot of a emotion, with a lot of variety, inflection, nuance, etc.To me, it's comparable to someone singing the lyrics with the exact same note for the entire song
I think there's some truth in this statement. I do think it's easier to learn how to growl and be passable at it, than learn how to sing properly and be good. However, the problem with painting with such a broad brush is, there are quite a few vocalists who can sing (and sing well), who choose to use "growl" vocals.
In a nutshell, I think that's my problem with trying to avoid screaming vocals and then claiming to be a fan of metal. To me, it's like, who are you trying to kid here? What exactly is it about "metal" that you like? If all the "metal" bands you listen to have operatic vocals over guitars that are just power chords and keyboards dialed up way high in the mix - to me that isn't metal to begin with. Metal is about riffs, and it's about aggression. If that isn't conveyed, then I wouldn't call that metal. The first two Sabbath records, for the time they came out in (and honestly even now) are furious sounding. They're abrasive, and full of gigantic riffs. People were legitimately scared of those songs. That's what metal is about.
What was "heavy metal" 20 or 30 years ago is now classed as "hard rock", while "heavy metal" is reserved for the heavier bands with extreme vox. That's bullshit as far as I'm concerned. Judas Priest or Nocturnal Rites are as "heavy metal" as Soilwork or Cannibal Corpse or any extreme band for me.
I used to be a growl hater too. Strid was the first one to make it sound like something meaningful to me. Then Älvestam. Then I started to understand it more. I don't know that I'd say I like it now, but I can certainly appreciate it. Done properly it adds a lot to a song. It's obviously not meant for all styles.
In a nutshell, I think that's my problem with trying to avoid screaming vocals and then claiming to be a fan of metal. To me, it's like, who are you trying to kid here? What exactly is it about "metal" that you like? If all the "metal" bands you listen to have operatic vocals over guitars that are just power chords and keyboards dialed up way high in the mix - to me that isn't metal to begin with. Metal is about riffs, and it's about aggression. If that isn't conveyed, then I wouldn't call that metal. The first two Sabbath records, for the time they came out in (and honestly even now) are furious sounding. They're abrasive, and full of gigantic riffs. People were legitimately scared of those songs. That's what metal is about.
Actually, no. Heavy Metal is still your Priests and Maidens, your Holcausts and Saxons, your Riots and Manilla Roads. Or for newer bands, High Spirits and Borrowed Time and In Solitude and on and on and on. Those 'heavier' bands are death/black/doom/etc...
/genrepoliceover
And also on a side note, the NR choice is funny to me because they started as a death metal band!
This is true for us "in the know" who are music maniacs and visit music forums. But listen to general radio stations or so and the "heavy metal" channels will now be filled most of the time by more extreme bands, while the classic metal ones will be more on the "hard rock" channel.
To make things short, it looks for some that Priest, Saxon, Maiden and the likes are now not heavy enough to be classified as metal compared to the more extreme bands, which is what I think is bullshit.
There are literally hundreds of great metal bands that are not about riffs and/or aggression...but many of the best bring both in spades.
I could feel you on the aggression bit I suppose, but any band that isn't about riffs and calls itself metal is definitely not "great" as far as I'm concerned.
So keyboard or drum driven metal isn't metal? AKA Warmen's solo discs need not apply? (or anything like that)
I think that's pretty silly, personally.