HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,850
- 113
The non-metal equivalent of Opeth would probably be Camel or something (who are better than Opeth).
Do you feel metal has more quality material ?
- Thread starter Bruticus
- Start date
The non-metal equivalent of Opeth would probably be Camel or something (who are better than Opeth).
Phylactery
Active Member
No other genre of music engages me emotionally in the same way metal does. I have spent over half my life exploring and listening to thousands of metal bands and I have never had the passion or incentive to do that with other genres.
Along the years, I’ve waded through a lot of mediocre to bad metal and I’m at a point where I know exactly what I’m looking for in metal which makes it easier to ignore the dross. I don’t have the energy to do that with another genre right now as it’s a daunting task. I do listen to some non-metal stuff, though. And generally I prefer it to be quite far removed from the metal sound in terms of instruments but still retaining the atmosphere and emotions of metal.
Along the years, I’ve waded through a lot of mediocre to bad metal and I’m at a point where I know exactly what I’m looking for in metal which makes it easier to ignore the dross. I don’t have the energy to do that with another genre right now as it’s a daunting task. I do listen to some non-metal stuff, though. And generally I prefer it to be quite far removed from the metal sound in terms of instruments but still retaining the atmosphere and emotions of metal.
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
Satanstoenail
My Larpstyle determines my Derpstyle
Is one of them Nickelback?
Well years ago I'd have gone into a long post attempting to explain there are objective qualities and criteria in music and that you could determine at very least grossly that a band is outright superior to another and by extension a genre is superior to another genre, but instead I'm just asking the question here on this forum to read opinions and the answers have been quite lopsided and made sense to me.
I usually debate at this point that there are certain essential features with metal bands that I don't find in other genres, for example: jazz almost always lacks substance in song-writing, it's a bit like guitar virtuoso albums (Marty Friedman etc), it's basically a recorded jam session, it's roughly arranged improv and guitar worshipping, it explores lead phrases and motifs but doesn't provide grand themes and the whole art/craft of song-writing. Most rock does provide song-writing and substance, but the material is usually very limited and I'd find myself lowering my standards so as to enjoy what's there.
It kind of depends on what you expect in music ultimately, and all that... but if what you expect is superb song-writing, a high level of creativity and technicality, powerful emotions, originality, a wide array of moods and dynamics, and a willingness from bands to push the envelope artistically, then metal is for you and it's quite difficult to find another group of bands that can produce all those things consistently and in various shapes and forms.
Slammed
Active Member
- Jun 15, 2017
- 31,453
- 45,124
- 113
But you are still pushing personal opinion on things, not fact. To you a Marty playing his stuff might just be a jam session but to others he is a lot more. To many Prince was nothing, yet he was considered a maestro of something like 27 instruments by many others. Neither proves that metal has more quality music or musicians.
It's okay to say that you like metal and you get something out of it that other genres don't but that is not proof that other areas of music have less quality, talent, or skilled musicians.
It's okay to say that you like metal and you get something out of it that other genres don't but that is not proof that other areas of music have less quality, talent, or skilled musicians.
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
How can you objectively qualify metal's quality over other musical forms if you can't objectively prove that the existence of a riff is "better" than no riff at all? Where would you even start?
I don't understand. What are you saying ?
I'd say generally there's definitely a certain objective quality to a riff/or section because it's got a certain inherent coherence and recognizable shape to it. It's difficult to scientifically explain why a riff is catchy, but everyone can agree a riff is catchy. It's not a subjective matter whether a piece of music is well written or not, what's subjective is that you can personally appreciate it. As a song-writer myself, I can recognize good music when I hear it even if it doesn't personally move me. There's surely shit music: I can right now pick up my guitar and purposely write a shit song (immature, generic, redundant, totally forgettable, superficial...) and if there's surely shit music conversely there's surely good music.
There's certainly some music that's worth more than other music, all music isn't perfectly equal just so long as one person "feels" it is so.
The actual tools of analysis would have to be established, or perhaps they are already, but that there isn't a perfect science for something doesn't mean that thing doesn't exist. Most "experts" in the field would rather just review albums or produce their own music and don't spend too much time on the question.
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
I'm saying there might be objective methods for ranking riff quality, but there's no objective method for deciding whether music with riffs is better than music without riffs. The preference for music with riffs is itself subjective and since heavy metal is immensely riff-oriented this pretty much throws a wrench into any attempt to judge the quality of metal as a genre against other genres without riffs.
I agree that you can objectively observe a band's accumulation of talented songwriting on any given album, but like you say because it's art we speak of this can't be the crux of a judgement. I can be 100% justified in thinking a death metal band played by 17 year old novices is better than a technically proficient neoclassical band because art is subjective when it gets down to it.
I agree that you can objectively observe a band's accumulation of talented songwriting on any given album, but like you say because it's art we speak of this can't be the crux of a judgement. I can be 100% justified in thinking a death metal band played by 17 year old novices is better than a technically proficient neoclassical band because art is subjective when it gets down to it.
no country for old wainds
Active Member
- Nov 23, 2002
- 26,696
- 9,669
- 113
Vegard Pompey
ALLY TO GOOD, NIGHTMARE TO YOU
As a song-writer myself, I recognize that the highest form of music is lo-fi icelandic black metal and JRPG soundtracks.
The Ozzman
Melted by feels
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,850
- 113
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
Right that's what I thought you meant. Well like I eluded to two posts higher it depends on what you want to achieve musically. For some people it's enough to just throw a few chords together played on a synth and promote the "ethereal nature" of it. To a metalhead, that music will surely lack substance and meat to it. It's not to say the more notes per second the better, but there has to be some kind of truth to the matter that a piece like the "Toccata and Fugue" by Bach being so complex and full and prolific creatively and so perfectly structured must have an advantage over music that lacks content, and settles for relatively minimal effort. And that's the same with any art not just music: a complex film with a full body of symbolism and metaphor is surely worth more than the average action flick, on the basis of more work and content.
I don't mean riff-based music is king, for e.g. if you look at a non-metal band like Killing Joke the music is filled with content and there's lots of matter to each song. Heck even some good pop, like Michael Jackson. It's just that good metal music attends to that aspect on a regular basis, where it isn't the case in bands from other genres. Rock and punk and hard rock for e.g. often settle for little content for each song, and it's more a question of attitude, or it's more a question of atmosphere in electronic genres. But the body of work doesn't compare to metal bands, often. There's just "more" in metal often, and the reason for that can be partially attributed to its riff-oriented nature: you build a metal riff from scratch, there aren't just 2 or 3 scales (as in most rock) and easy riff templates and most of the time it's sheer chromatic music, and bands have to look for inspiration deep down. It's a lot more difficult and unattainable to write 'Reign in Blood' era Slayer material than a good alt rock album. Not just technically, but in every other aspect.
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
Not really sure how you're defining "content" here, attitude is content for example.
It has an advantage in that it puts technical, measurable talent in full view which makes it much easier for people to recognize and judge, but something which lacks all that Bach brings (for example punk rock) might bring an attitude, an energy and an emotional appeal that opens itself up to the listener after several listens.
The reason art is subjective is not because there isn't a means with which you can evaluate the talent involved in its creation but rather because the function of art is immensely personal and changing from person to person. People tend to reflect this in their actions via their listening habits.
How are you measuring worth though? Value of something is usually set by what the average person is willing to trade for that something. While I appreciate "a complex film with a full body of symbolism and metaphor" I also appreciate a good action film, it entirely depends on my mood and mood plays a big role in how art is valued.
There's no moment where you might wish the person who built your house was an incompetent amateur with some attitude, but I can easily see myself not being in the mood for [insert musical virtuoso here] and would rather some hardcore punk. RE action films; sometimes simplicity is the key.
It has an advantage in that it puts technical, measurable talent in full view which makes it much easier for people to recognize and judge, but something which lacks all that Bach brings (for example punk rock) might bring an attitude, an energy and an emotional appeal that opens itself up to the listener after several listens.
The reason art is subjective is not because there isn't a means with which you can evaluate the talent involved in its creation but rather because the function of art is immensely personal and changing from person to person. People tend to reflect this in their actions via their listening habits.
How are you measuring worth though? Value of something is usually set by what the average person is willing to trade for that something. While I appreciate "a complex film with a full body of symbolism and metaphor" I also appreciate a good action film, it entirely depends on my mood and mood plays a big role in how art is valued.
There's no moment where you might wish the person who built your house was an incompetent amateur with some attitude, but I can easily see myself not being in the mood for [insert musical virtuoso here] and would rather some hardcore punk. RE action films; sometimes simplicity is the key.
The trouble is on my end of the argument at this point is when I either turn into a huge metal/music geek and start laying out the supposedly "objective" criteria and the conversation takes a bit of a silly, petty turn... OR, and that's what I'm going to do: just settle for saying that in all certainty there's a substantial difference between "Wherever you will go" from the Calling and "From Skin to Liquid" from Corpse, or between a generic random punk track and "Angel of Death" and that means there are concrete reasons behind it and an examination that can be elucidated in theory.
The notion of mood ? Not an argument: if some hipster at a party is in the mood for Bon Jovi or Lil Wayne, his mere mood doesn't somehow trump the fact that there's a difference betw. that crap and, say, the Deliverance album by Opeth. Moods aren't all equal (like all things in life): certain moods are more mature, sophisticated and deeper than other moods. Sometimes, I myself am in the mood for "In the End" by Linkin Park but it's a bland melody nested in the most cliché chord prog, it just reminds me of the days I was a shitty little teen oh fk I shouldn't have admitted that here.. but anyways ehm, yeah, certain musical themes are just more grand and detailed and authentic sounding and memorable than some punk rock jam or a fun alt rock track, regardless of an individual's arbitrary moods, and there are of course ways to break that down and examine the reasons for it closely.
For e.g. certain songs/compositions feel like the soundtrack to powerful grand events or atmospheres, like the apocalypse or abyssal chaos or a profound connexion with the infinite (or God) or a deep romantic melancholy and that is felt by a wide audience listening not just 2 people, while other themes are much smaller and depict a more casual mood as teen-like angst or feeling cool/chill or just relaxed or a rhythmic dance-enducing mood but those do not lie at the same level as those afore-mentioned 'moods' or deeper rooted emotions.
The notion of mood ? Not an argument: if some hipster at a party is in the mood for Bon Jovi or Lil Wayne, his mere mood doesn't somehow trump the fact that there's a difference betw. that crap and, say, the Deliverance album by Opeth. Moods aren't all equal (like all things in life): certain moods are more mature, sophisticated and deeper than other moods. Sometimes, I myself am in the mood for "In the End" by Linkin Park but it's a bland melody nested in the most cliché chord prog, it just reminds me of the days I was a shitty little teen oh fk I shouldn't have admitted that here.. but anyways ehm, yeah, certain musical themes are just more grand and detailed and authentic sounding and memorable than some punk rock jam or a fun alt rock track, regardless of an individual's arbitrary moods, and there are of course ways to break that down and examine the reasons for it closely.
For e.g. certain songs/compositions feel like the soundtrack to powerful grand events or atmospheres, like the apocalypse or abyssal chaos or a profound connexion with the infinite (or God) or a deep romantic melancholy and that is felt by a wide audience listening not just 2 people, while other themes are much smaller and depict a more casual mood as teen-like angst or feeling cool/chill or just relaxed or a rhythmic dance-enducing mood but those do not lie at the same level as those afore-mentioned 'moods' or deeper rooted emotions.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll
