Controversial opinions on metal

[Satanstoenail]

Vihris: Go and listen to Pestilence - Testimony of the Ancients right now, then re-think your argument. There is much DM that is a hell of a lot more musical than you're making it out to be.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Will do. And I didn't really mean to suggest that all DM was un-musical - just most of it.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

It's musical by definition; it's music. I don't get your point at all.

 

[Belligerent]

Pantera is perhaps the worst band in metal history aside from Six Feet Under.

FOAD

 

[Einherjar86]

It's musical by definition; it's music. I don't get your point at all.

I don't mean to take sides, but there are people I know who would never call death metal "music." I'm of the opinion that most of these people are narrow-minded and stubborn; but so am I, and I do believe that death metal is music. I find it interesting to think what men like Dvorak and Mahler would say if they heard death metal. Granted, those men could never conceive of such a genre because electric guitars hadn't been invented; but I'd be willing to bet that some of it they would not call music. By their tenets and qualifications of music, death metal probably wouldn't stand.

In these times this might seem irrelevant; but I think it's important to realize that there are some people who harbor very different ideas of what music is.

 

[Achtland]

When metalheads are nasty to each other it makes me want to...

 

[Jreg]

I often challenge people to defend their opinions on the creativity/talent of a band/genre (as I've done with you), and I look forward to seeing their defenses. I have no problem with evaluating some of my favorite bands as having little talent (i.e. Electric Wizard, Sleep, Orange Goblin), and I wish people did more of that here, but it seems like nobody here is willing to make that distinction between talent and enjoyability. Usually it's just "this band is good because I like it".

Well, enjoyable is a pretty clear-cut trait since it simply refers to anything that someone likes. But is the definition of talent as straightforward? I'm not entirely sure what you mean by describing those bands as lacking talent, but I'm assuming you're referring to their lack of technical ability and simplicity of some of their writing. If so, then I certainly accept that argument, but I'd also personally define talent, at least partially, as being able to create something that I enjoy. In other words, I don't believe that talent and enjoyability are always necessarily mutually exclusive, and so I wouldn't normally make that distinction.

 

[Satanstoenail]

I see the "more musical" term more to be used when describing, not necessarily to be taken literally. Music that has more dynamics, more melody etc. could be referred to as more musical. That said, there are probably better ways to go about describing music that wouldn't lead down the road to the age old ignorant "that's not music, it's just noise" territory.

 

[DarkBliss]

Will do. And I didn't really mean to suggest that all DM was un-musical - just most of it.

no, most of it is pretty musical. It could be that it's too abrasive for your ears to try and penetrate this "noise" layer and understand it. Perhaps some of it develops too slowly for you, and you lose interest in the music.

 

[seedofvengeance]

FOAD

Seconded.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I don't mean to take sides, but there are people I know who would never call death metal "music." I'm of the opinion that most of these people are narrow-minded and stubborn; but so am I, and I do believe that death metal is music. I find it interesting to think what men like Dvorak and Mahler would say if they heard death metal. Granted, those men could never conceive of such a genre because electric guitars hadn't been invented; but I'd be willing to bet that some of it they would not call music. By their tenets and qualifications of music, death metal probably wouldn't stand.

In these times this might seem irrelevant; but I think it's important to realize that there are some people who harbor very different ideas of what music is.

I think a big dividing issue is the presence of a discernible melody. Some people use this as a qualification for music, but a lot of extreme metal bands aren't really concerned with melody. It's more of a rhythmic experience, with the guitar only adding to the rhythmicity or the general sense of chaos. I'd assume this is how brutal death metal works, though I haven't heard enough to say for sure.

When metalheads are nasty to each other it makes me want to...

lol

 

[Belligerent]

Seconded.

Not just that statement...pretty much everything he posts.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

no, most of it pretty is pretty musical. It could be that it's too abrasive for your ears to try and penetrate this "noise" layer and understand it. Perhaps some of it develops too slowly for you, and you lose interest in the music.

I was slightly joking about the un-musical thing. I prefer to stick to the argument regarding the level of talent involved in making it. As far as the 'musicality', as I just posted above, it kind of depends on whether you consider a clear melody important, and yeah, a lot of extreme metal has a clear melody (even if the riffs are 'ugly', they can still have a sense of coherence and the presence of 'hooks' - I think bands like Morbid Angel and Darkthrone manage this pretty well). But there are a lot of extreme bands that really don't seem to have any direction in their guitar work (i.e. Meshuggah and Wormed, from what I've heard). So in those cases I assume the guitar is being used as a rhythmic instrument rather than as a melodic one.

 

[Cythraul]

I think a big dividing issue is the presence of a discernible melody. Some people use this as a qualification for music, but a lot of extreme metal bands aren't really concerned with melody. It's more of a rhythmic experience, with the guitar only adding to the rhythmicity or the general sense of chaos. I'd assume this is how brutal death metal works, though I haven't heard enough to say for sure.

There's plenty of "melody" to be found in extreme metal. It's just not the kind of melody most people are used to. It doesn't develop in the common way and it's not based on the usual tonality found in traditionally "catchy" music. I find melody in many death and black metal bands but in death metal in particular it's usually not the sort of melody that revolves around and resolves at a tonic chord. And much of the time death metal music will revolve around certain modes like the phrygian which is somewhat exotic to ears adjusted to the major and natural minor scales. Plus most death metal bands utilize a LOT of chromaticism. In black metal on the other hand there is plenty of more traditional melody to be found but even then most bands stray from traditional ways of composing in that they'll use a lot of "borrowed" and chromatic notes. You just have to adjust your perspective a bit in order to hear what is "musical" about this stuff.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Good post. Would you say that applies to all variations of death metal, though? It seems to me like some of them really are only trying to get rhythmicity out of the guitars.

 

[Cythraul]

Good post. Would you say that applies to all variations of death metal, though? It seems to me like some of them really are only trying to get rhythmicity out of the guitars.

I agree that there is much death metal that is very rhythm-centric. It's actually kind of hard to analyze the role of melody in quite a bit of death metal, especially in very rhythm-centric death metal. Listen to a brutal death metal song and imagine the riffs being played in the exact same rhythm but with completely different notes. Imagine it being played in any random notes you want to all the way through. Would it seem like something is wrong? I think you would find something wrong with it, but it's hard to say exactly why since melody doesn't seem to be a real big focus of much of these songs. On the other hand, listen to a Eucharist song and imagine everything being played in a major scale. There would definitely be something wrong there.

Actually, hibernal dream made a thread not too long ago about the role of melody in extreme metal. You might find something enlightening in there.

http://www.ultimatemetal.com/forum/philosopher/319226-use-melody-metal.html

 

[Zephyrus]

, but it seems like nobody here is willing to make that distinction between talent and enjoyability..

What good is talent if it's not enjoyable? Take Children of Bodom for example. Very talented band, indeed. Enjoyable? No. Verdict? Not a band that MY ears wish to be subjected to. And since this is a collective opinion among the groups of people represented by most on this forum, there is undoubtedly some discrepancy between CoB's talent and enjoyability.

 

[S.U.A.D.]

Seconded.

Good to know I'm not the only that notices that this guy bags on....um...everything.

 

[Hallucinations]

Was it a Fugazi or Minor Theat song? Minor Theat had stupid straightedge lyrics, and Fugazi's music I don't like.

Haha Minor Threat's lyrics weren't stupid. You're probably speaking from an ignoramous' perspective of the straight-edge scene and what part Ian McKay played in its birth. Unfortunately people took straight-edge too seriously and it mutated drastically from its original ideals.

And Fugazi's music is great but its all about opinion

 

[S.U.A.D.]

Minor Threat was cool and early Fugazi was great....somewhere in Fug's career though they took a left turn straight off the face of the earth.