Death Metal

[CF87]

I won't deny that that's true. I don't listen to a lot of death metal. But I haven't encountered any substance in the genre yet.

I'm curious what genre's have substance to you.

 

[in_the_crease]

Apparently, you're not aware of the meaning of the word "random." Is English not your first language?

No, just a slow learner I suppose. I learn my words one at a time. Though, I must thank you: Your presence has introduced me to the definition of the word jackass. Outstanding. Thank you very much, jackass.

I said something in response to a user who wasn't you, nor was I talking about anything your response to me said. You didn't even give me an introductory phrase, you just blurted out some comment that was directed at absolutely nothing I was talking about. Forgive my poor English, but that seems pretty random to me.

Now that the un-pleasantries are out of the way bro, to the task of sifting through your cryptic message--since no one ever says anything anymore. They just leave erratic, wise-ass comments.

Now. Am I correct that your misinterpretation of what I said can be paraphrased as, 'quality music has to be hard to play'?

Because that's not what I said, and it's not what I meant either.

Death metal's always been kinda hokey to me. I've always been sort of on the fence about it. It's fun, but not a whole lot else. I am also in full recognition that my perceived lack of substance within the death metal genre could possibly say more about my inability to process and appreciate it than it does about any shortcomings of the genre itself. But for whatever reason, I've never gotten much out of death metal. It's sort of like Friday the 13th set to music. It's gory and it's fun in that tongue-in-cheek kind of way when violence is parodied for entertainment: It's okay because it's fake.

And I apologize to you death metal fans--because I know some of you really love and respect the music--I've always interpreted it as a fun side attraction not to be taken too seriously. But then again, I'm no expert, never claimed to be otherwise, and have listened to very little of the genre.

Anyhoo, as a result I've always been kind of wishy washy when it came to death metal. Then, one night I checked out some technical death bands, and the musicianship impressed me. I'm sorry, but it's true.

So now, in comparison, I--a listener who never even really had an interest in the genre in the first place; one who took it with all the seriousness of a Looney Toon cartoon; basically, one whose opinion on this topic should matter little if at all--see traditional death metal as silly because technical death metal offered me an appealing intangible that I couldn't put my finger on. Yes, I just said this. You can quote me on it, hold me to it, whatever.

But, c'mon, bro. I never said quality music had to be hard to play. We're not even in disagreement there.

I'm curious what genre's have substance to you.

I don't think a genre as a whole just has substance. Please don't think that's what I'm saying. But I think certain genres such as death metal and black metal that concern themselves with one theme--an identity, a label if you will--limit themselves in what they're all about, and restrict their ability to grow as artists. You know, a death metal band can't do love songs. A black metal singer can't pour out his heart about his past. They can't employ traditional vocal techniques,etc. And I suppose this is true of most genres. Musically, it's expected you have a certain sound.

However, I think in genres that don't force artists into being death bands or being satanic bands, there's room for them to tackle more substantial issues. Thrash metal is a good example--if for no other reason than the social and political climate at the time of the music form's ascension. These were bands formed by kids who grew up during the Cold War. The potential of Armageddon was an oft visited theme--silly today, but relevant in Cold War times. Sodom's entire career was about the Vietnam War. You had bands like Sacred Rich commenting on Regeanomics. Poverty, injustice, war--these are all themes I've seen visited elsewhere in metal. These are evils that exist in the very real world in which we live. The evil in death metal is fantasy. And that's okay, in the same way that a Friday the 13th film is okay.

But I'd never say that either had a whole hell of a lot in the way of substance.

Now, I'm not saying that there is NO substantial death metal in existence. I mean, how could I? I haven't heard it all. But I wasn't able to get anything out of what I have heard. But as I mentioned above, that may have more to do with my lack of understanding of the music than with any absence of substance.

Also, while we're on the subject, I never said there was anything wrong with a lack of substance. Good music elicits a response in me. And I don't care if the song is about women's abortion rights in Rawanda or a mosh pit at a fuckin' pizza party, if it clicks with me it clicks with me. And if it doesn't, it doesn't.

And substance be damned.

 

[Panzer Meyer]

I said something in response to a user who wasn't you,

Kid, it's not my fault that you don't understand the concept and purpose of a forum. A forum exists to facilitate public discussion among the entire forum community, not to facilitate private conversation between individuals. When you post to a forum, you implicitly announce that you are open to public discussion and even criticism of your ideas. If you want to keep a conversation private, well, that's what the "private message" function is for.

nor was I talking about anything your response to me said.

So you're saying that you never wrote the following?

Then I heard technical death metal.

Now regular death metal sounds silly.

If you didn't write that, who did? Gremlins? The other people living in your head? If you're experiencing paranoid ideations, I strongly recommend that you speak with a therapist, counselor or psychiatrist as this may be a symptom of untreated mental illness.

In any event, we both know you wrote what you wrote. It's still visible to anyone who cares to view the previous page in this very thread. So let's parse what you wrote, shall we? You're drawing a distinction between "regular death metal" which is "silly," and "technical death metal," which your context implies is not silly.

Are you with me so far, kid? Good. Now, here's the rub. In practice, the only difference between "regular" death metal and "technical" death metal is complexity of the playing technique required by the latter, which is to say, they only differ in how difficult they are to play. In other words, when you make the qualitative judgment that "regular" death metal is "silly" in comparison to "technical" death metal, what you're really saying is, "Technical death metal is better than regular death metal because it is harder to play." I find that judgment to be silly to the point of absurdity, and pointing that out was hardly "random" (I'll refrain from adding, "you fucking retard"). Oops.

 

[in_the_crease]

Kid, it's not my fault that you don't understand the concept and purpose of a forum. A forum exists to facilitate public discussion among the entire forum community, not to facilitate private conversation between individuals. When you post to a forum, you implicitly announce that you are open to public discussion and even criticism of your ideas. If you want to keep a conversation private, well, that's what the "private message" function is for.



So you're saying that you never wrote the following?



If you didn't write that, who did? Gremlins? The other people living in your head? If you're experiencing paranoid ideations, I strongly recommend that you speak with a therapist, counselor or psychiatrist as this may be a symptom of untreated mental illness.

In any event, we both know you wrote what you wrote. It's still visible to anyone who cares to view the previous page in this very thread. So let's parse what you wrote, shall we? You're drawing a distinction between "regular death metal" which is "silly," and "technical death metal," which your context implies is not silly.

Are you with me so far, kid? Good. Now, here's the rub. In practice, the only difference between "regular" death metal and "technical" death metal is complexity of the playing technique required by the latter, which is to say, they only differ in how difficult they are to play. In other words, when you make the qualitative judgment that "regular" death metal is "silly" in comparison to "technical" death metal, what you're really saying is, "Technical death metal is better than regular death metal because it is harder to play." I find that judgment to be silly to the point of absurdity, and pointing that out was hardly "random" (I'll refrain from adding, "you fucking retard"). Oops.

Sweet.

 

[Machinehead625]

What's some new stuff you guys would recommend for an old school fan?

Obituary, Autopsy, Morbid Angel, and the like....

 

[EternalMetal]

The aesthetic of death metal IS the substance, be it realistic of not. The occasional bands have lyrics worth reading for allegorical content, but mostly its an escapist art form that embodies a certain aesthetic relating to death. Technical bands have been known to completely lack the aesthetic value of "true" death metal and only just play instrumentally in the style of death metal; ie blast beats, tremolo picking, and fast intricate noodling.

Lyrically lots of DM bands like to base their content on mythology typically borrowed from history or religion. Other time they take from horror/fiction like HP Lovecraft. Though as a death metal fan I admit that im not close minded to good DM just because the theme is shallow. Not all DM is like Cannibal Corpse though; and yes, stuff like it isnt supposed to be taken seriously.

 

[Krow]

What's some new stuff you guys would recommend for an old school fan?

Obituary, Autopsy, Morbid Angel, and the like....

Check your pms dood.

 

[Panzer Meyer]

The aesthetic of death metal IS the substance, be it realistic of not. The occasional bands have lyrics worth reading for allegorical content, but mostly its an escapist art form that embodies a certain aesthetic relating to death. Technical bands have been known to completely lack the aesthetic value of "true" death metal and only just play instrumentally in the style of death metal; ie blast beats, tremolo picking, and fast intricate noodling.

Lyrically lots of DM bands like to base their content on mythology typically borrowed from history or religion. Other time they take from horror/fiction like HP Lovecraft. Though as a death metal fan I admit that im not close minded to good DM just because the theme is shallow. Not all DM is like Cannibal Corpse though; and yes, stuff like it isnt supposed to be taken seriously.

I think it is a serious error to view death metal as "escapist" in character. Death metal is instead wholly realistic in its outlook. The fundamental project of death metal is to force us to confront those realities that our modern society would prefer not to acknowledge at all. That death metal uses fantastic elements to tell its story doesn't alter the underlying realism. Rather, death metal functions like Romantic literature and myth, using the fantastic to vault beyond temporality in the pursuit of eternal truths.

 

[Vossyrus]

I think it is a serious error to view death metal as "escapist" in character. Death metal is instead wholly realistic in its outlook. The fundamental project of death metal is to force us to confront those realities that our modern society would prefer not to acknowledge at all. That death metal uses fantastic elements to tell its story doesn't alter the underlying realism. Rather, death metal functions like Romantic literature and myth, using the fantastic to vault beyond temporality in the pursuit of eternal truths.

That sounds lovely but to a great extent, I think you're simply glorifying death metal. I would argue that most bands do not even share such motivations or intent. You can look at many genres of music outside of the mainstream realm, and more often than not, escapism is undoubtedly a crucial factor. Especially in a genre like metal.

Quite frankly, if a group of teenagers got into metal, felt passionately about the music and later decided to record their own music fulfilling genre cliches and idiosyncrasies along the way (because people are naturally partial to their influences), then well, there's nothing wrong with that.

I mean, I could provide a compelling argument to suggest why second wave black metal is something extravagant and divine and I really do appreciate the idea that it may have been...but in reality, a lot of those guys were snotty, rebellious, naive-minded teenagers of juvenile behaviour, who immersed themselves in escapism and happened to create something that unintentionally exploded, and had a powerful affect upon many, including myself.

 

[Panzer Meyer]

That sounds lovely but to a great extent, I think you're simply glorifying death metal. I would argue that most bands do not even share such motivations or intent.

Most artists in any context have no real intent beyond imitating or duplicating art they themselves have enjoyed. This isn't exactly a revelation: there's always far more mediocre crap than quality gold. However, a genre is defined by its most outstanding contributors, not by the parasites, hangers-on, me-tooers and would be profiteers. The best death metal is not and never has been escapist. Who gives a shit about what lesser bands are up to? They simply don't factor into the equation.

 

[Vossyrus]

Most artists in any context have no real intent beyond imitating or duplicating art they themselves have enjoyed. This isn't exactly a revelation: there's always far more mediocre crap than quality gold. However, a genre is defined by its most outstanding contributors, not by the parasites, hangers-on, me-tooers and would be profiteers. The best death metal is not and never has been escapist. Who gives a shit about what lesser bands are up to? They simply don't factor into the equation.

Ok, a genre is typically recognized by the contributions of great bands and pioneers who influenced many, but in truth it's the unoriginal bands came after that actually made it into a genre. I know that sounds like an odd thing to say, but in the beginning of any style, there's always bands who are in some ways similar yet remain unique to one another but it's not so much a collective and conscious effort to accomplish something as it is just individual twists on familiar themes and ideas - metal was gaining a lot of momentum in the late 80s and death metal was an evolution of thrash metal and 80s extreme metal, taking it to a new level of extremity, musically and lyrically - but it's only after when unoriginal bands come along cement certain things into definition that it becomes a genre, and people then look to the pioneers to understand the phenomenon. Death metal projected its morbid fascinations and shock onto many (some embraced it, while others found it revolting), but I'm not convinced it was done with any real, serious agenda beyond simply following suit with what Venom was doing previously. Perhaps it wasn't quite as crude or crass for the sake of it, like Venom was.

I could start a band and play music unlike any band or genre before me with great success, but it wouldn't be a genre without tons of followers who've simply taken my ideas and built upon them. I'm not trying to disparage the genres of music that I listen to but I accept the fact that despite what people do to place their favourite genres on pedestals and to reason out why it became so popular, it's honestly just music and every band is partial to being a variation on their influences. It's just that some bands are more creative than others and push things forward rather than keeping it in a stagnant form.

In other words, I don't think the death metal phenomenon is that much different from that of any other genre.

 

[CF87]

Technical musicians are technical. It does not mean they're better musicians. I just wanted to point that out.

 

[Panzer Meyer]

Ok, a genre is typically recognized by the contributions of great bands and pioneers who influenced many, but in truth it's the unoriginal bands came after that actually made it into a genre. I know that sounds like an odd thing to say, but in the beginning of any style, there's always bands who are in some ways similar yet remain unique to one another but it's not so much a collective and conscious effort to accomplish something as it is just individual twists on familiar themes and ideas - metal was gaining a lot of momentum in the late 80s and death metal was an evolution of thrash metal and 80s extreme metal, taking it to a new level of extremity, musically and lyrically - but it's only after when unoriginal bands come along cement certain things into definition that it becomes a genre, and people then look to the pioneers to understand the phenomenon.

Your logic here is sensible, but it begins from a premise that is factually in error. Even if you were to look at only significant artistic contributors to death metal, you're still talking about dozens of artists working over a period of 25 years and producing a corpus of several hundred albums. That's a distinct and separate genre with or without the tagalongs.

 

[Krow]

So any Dominus Xul fans around?

They're more Incantation than some Incantation albums:
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3s1VNpVX3nM&feature=related[/ame]

 

[WCannibal]

You know what I find silly? People who think that "quality music" has to be hard to play.

I used to be that way.

 

[Vossyrus]

Your logic here is sensible, but it begins from a premise that is factually in error. Even if you were to look at only significant artistic contributors to death metal, you're still talking about dozens of artists working over a period of 25 years and producing a corpus of several hundred albums. That's a distinct and separate genre with or without the tagalongs.

Although it is easy to dismiss these bands as throwaways or tagalongs, I do think you are underestimating their importance. Without them, you are not going to have the longevity that exists and scenes or flash-in-the-pan genres will die out once the recognized bands split, change direction, or slip. These "tagalong" bands populate cities and scenes and keep the spirit alive just as any great band does, working to build a stronger metal community. It's one thing if you don't like them but remember these bands are no different from any other in that they come from the same place anyways (passionate fans building upon their influences) and a band's worth is largely due to their reception by fans and media and sometimes being in the right place at the right time will do it. The most notable bands are usually the innovators but not all innovations and ideas are received well and this can make all the difference in the world between something that takes off, and something that is forgotten.

Take Morbid Angel's recent venture in what was an awkward fusion of death metal and industrial with club sensibilities. They tried to challenge their fans and metal audiences with what they wrote and it was poorly received. Even if the quality would have been there, I'm not so sure that death metal fans would have wanted this take on the genre anyways, not that they were the first to try this but they are in a position of power and influence. But really, when a band releases an album, they really have no idea of how the album will be received because they really are at the mercy of the listeners so albums aren't classics before they've been released. Some bands/albums aren't even credited for their significance and the roles they played until years later. However, today we are privileged with the internet so it is so easy to read about the past and pick out particular bands and see the mark that they've left and put together a puzzle piece by piece. But hell, ten years ago there were gaping holes in extreme metal's history and discussions/debates were being had regarding topics that we now accept as very basic, common knowledge.

 

[Panzer Meyer]

Although it is easy to dismiss these bands as throwaways or tagalongs, I do think you are underestimating their importance. Without them, you are not going to have the longevity that exists and scenes or flash-in-the-pan genres will die out once the recognized bands split, change direction, or slip.

Bullshit. The also-rans contribute neither creatively nor commercially. The top 3-5% of bands are responsible for essentially 100% of the creatively significant albums and 75% or more of the aggregate album sales. The only real impact that the many bottom feeder acts ever had - creatively or commercially - was that they allowed a handful of studios like Morrisound and Sunlight to be commercially viable as single-genre producers. For artists and labels though, all of the money that has been made has been made off of the elite artists. The reality is that not only would the genre be no different from a creative aspect if the lesser bands had never existed, it wouldn't have made meaningfully less money for labels, either.

 

[Vossyrus]

Bullshit. The also-rans contribute neither creatively nor commercially. The top 3-5% of bands are responsible for essentially 100% of the creatively significant albums and 75% or more of the aggregate album sales. The only real impact that the many bottom feeder acts ever had - creatively or commercially - was that they allowed a handful of studios like Morrisound and Sunlight to be commercially viable as single-genre producers. For artists and labels though, all of the money that has been made has been made off of the elite artists. The reality is that not only would the genre be no different from a creative aspect if the lesser bands had never existed, it wouldn't have made meaningfully less money for labels, either.

The problem is, you're looking at things through a narrow scope, and in hindsight. You can easily look back on time, and just pick 25 death metal albums or bands and say "that's everything", the rest was never significant, but that's not how it works. If a city doesn't have a scene with existing metal acts (no matter how unimportant they may be to you) it's much harder for a band to get their start. And classic bands and albums just don't pop out of nowhere. When bands first form they are insignificant and typically start off by playing other bands' songs or generic, unoriginal material in small shows.

When any band releases an album, I'm sure that band is proud of what they achieved but they have no idea if what they've released is going to be praised, no matter how innovative or skillfully executed it may be, or if people will even get the chance to hear it. A fantastic album might have been released today and maybe people don't get around to appreciating it for a couple or a few years for one or more reasons.

I mean, do you only listen to metal's most significant bands? Each year, do you dismiss every new album you hear because it hasn't impacted their respective genres like bands before have? Or do you wait years before hearing an album until it's accumulated and perceived importance finally convinces you that it's worth your time? Are there no albums in your collection that you consider to be overlooked gems or perhaps underrated bands who never got their due respect?

 

[Panzer Meyer]

The problem is, you're looking at things through a narrow scope, and in hindsight. You can easily look back on time, and just pick 25 death metal albums or bands and say "that's everything", the rest was never significant, but that's not how it works. If a city doesn't have a scene with existing metal acts (no matter how unimportant they may be to you) it's much harder for a band to get their start. And classic bands and albums just don't pop out of nowhere.

You vastly overrate the significance of local "scenes," at least within metal. The metal underground was always driven by international tape trading, not by live performance at the local level. In fact, within death metal, the existence of local "scenes" was conditioned entirely on the earlier emergence of handful of highly successful acts.

By way of illustration, there was no "Florida" death metal scene prior to the success of Obituary, Morbid Angel, Death and Deicide. The Florida scene was a creation of the success of those artists, success that was due almost entirely to tape trading. The bands that followed by and large neither made a creative impact on the "Florida Sound" nor sold any records. Outside of that small handful of bands that created the scene in the first place, no one else from the scene did anything of importance, and hence, nothing about those bands matters.
.
That's the way of the world. The elites matter. The leaders matter. Followers do not matter. Ordinary people don't shape the world, and ordinary bands don't shape music. Significance is the exclusive property of those who rise above the masses, and only those who excel are worthy of notice or study.

 

[Vossyrus]

By your logic, the current death metal scene must be dead or pretty close to being so. Either that, or I’m guessing you don’t listen to much death metal beyond the early 90s? In your opinion is death metal even a genre remotely relevant today? Or does the current death metal scene (which isn’t dead at all) consist only of people listening only to the same old bands, seeing only those bands (or what’s left of them) play live? Don’t tell me people only still care because bands like Cannibal Corpse, Morbid Angel, Deicide are still putting out albums...

Here’s the thing, I’m sure a lot of people on this forum and on metal forums play in bands. Bands that may be pretty ordinary, but they’re also fans too. How on earth do you expect these “elite” bands to thrive if no one cares about them but themselves? It’s a mutual relationship between listeners and these “elite” bands. You’re drawing such a bold line between the bands you value, and everything else. Again, these elite bands don’t just pop out of nowhere. These bands aren't elite from the get-go, and don't simply jerk each other off to fame and notoriety.