Growling; Evaluative

[Fathomless]

In response to the descriptive thread about growling, I thought I'd post an evaluative one.

For my money, growling is not very cool at all. In most cases I merely tolerate it, in many cases I despise it, and in a few cases I find that it actually and truly adds to the music.

As to the latter case, the one and only band who has ever been able to inspire me through growling has been Dark Tranquillity, and almost exclusively on the Damage Done CD (though sometimes earlier, as in Tongues). Mikael does this by using inflection in his growls, giving them a sense of urgency and passion that 99% of death metal growls lack.

Format C: For Cortex's "In time, all your questions will be answered; not what you hoped for, not what you dreamed," is a great example of the highest form of the growl, in my opinion.

Other singers, like Akerfeldt, use absolutely no intonation or inflection in their growls, giving no urgency to the words, let alone the music (more recent Opeth is a better example of this. Listen to the end of the song Blackwater Park). I hate this. I love Opeth, but in spite of their death vocals. I find it to be childish and tired (in terms of whatever aesthetic point it was originally intended to make), and the only evaluative measure of the effectiveness of such vocals seems to be how "eeeeeevil" it all sounds.

Well I don't like it. Beauty and self-conscious eeeeevil don't mix, and I wish that more vocalists would follow the lead of Stanne and actually express their words a bit.

I'd like to here disclaim that I am fully aware of how "Un-metal" my opinions are. I wouldn't be posting this here if I wasn't confident in being completely and utterly "Un-metal." (Though my opinions are pretty informed, I listen to a fair amount of metal). So let's talk evaluatively and aesthetically, rather than personally. Cool?

Great. So what do you all think of the growl as an expressive medium?

 

[rahvin]

personally, i like un-metal opinions since most of my opinions are that way.

my pov is quite simple. in music, i tend to like opposition and contrast. i'm also into things that represent aggressiveness and help create an outlet for energy and stress to be channeled through. so, on a psychological level, i like growls because they're all that melodic music isn't and, if performed properly, add to the perfect balance.

then there are voices that i find untolerable when growling, but this is a matter of pitch and style. dark tranquillity, amorphis, septic flesh, rapture, early in flames, soilwork... are all bands whose brutal vocals i appreciate a lot, and there's more. i don't like opeth's growls either, but then again i never managed to get into opeth at all.

rahvin.

 

[Ormir]

I'd say a big reason for the lack of inflection in death metal growls is that the music is meant to portray monotonous emotions of hate/rage. For that purpose death growls are perfect.

Early Dark Tranquillity vocals are a bit closer to black metal than death in my opinion. High pitch and drawn out screeches contrast quite a bit to the bass like gurgle of death metal at the time. Stanne is definatly the most dynamic growler of the Gothenburg style though, and although his vocals have moved towards the deeper death metal end, they're still highly distinctive from the genre.

As for Åkerfeldt, I don't care much for him in Opeth, but his vocals on Katatonia's Brave Murder Day are stunning. Especially as you like Rapture, you should give it a chance. Particularly the song Brave has some of the best brutal vocals I've ever heard.

 

[rahvin]

As for Åkerfeldt, I don't care much for him in Opeth, but his vocals on Katatonia's Brave Murder Day are stunning. Especially as you like Rapture, you should give it a chance. Particularly the song Brave has some of the best brutal vocals I've ever heard.

you know, i do have that record. i guess i just never paid enough attention to the vocals - as opposed to the music, which i find too doom-ish for my taste - but i'll do so right now.

rahvin.

 

[Fathomless]

I understand what you guys are saying, but do you really think that there is inherent aesthetic value in contrast? Would Monet's Sunset in Venice be all the more beautiful if he'd smeared his own poop all over it?

Here's one thing that I was thinking last night after I made the original post: It would be very difficult for bands like In Flames, Dark Tranquillity, earlier Soilwork to sing melodically over their uber-melodic guitar-lines. For instance in the chorus of Jotun, a melodic vocal line would only have detracted from the beauty of that miraculous guitar harmony. Therefore the rhythmic monotony of the death growl can have some value just insofar as it does not get in the way.

Also, Rahvin, I really see your point about the cathartic nature of the death growls, but would you agree that often bands do not take into account the emotional content of their songs, and growl for the sake of growling? Take a really transcendent song . . . something that really soars and really inspires. Say . . . Suburban me. I don't think that song is meant to be aggressive/cathartic at all, and yet Anders screams "I want to be the things I see" with the same force and intonation as he screams "Let us dance to the pistol magic" in Brush the Dust Away, a real ripper. Seems to me that there are times when the so-called "death metal" bands fall back on the emotional monotony of the death vocals instead of putting actual thought into the communicative nature of their music and words.

This generally has a net effect of turning entire albums, and sometimes even entire bands' catalogues, into emotional one-trick-ponies. Opeth being the ultimate example of this: I understand how somber and melancholy they can be, and I'd really love to see them mix it up a bit, to utilize their wonderful musicianship upon a broader emotional spectrum.

 

[rahvin]

@fathomless: i don't think there's something inherently good in contrasts, as in: everything that is built of opposites makes my heart burst with joy. but i do think there is merit in putting together fairly distant catalists of fairly distant emotions and come up with a balanced result. poop all over a picture would hardly count as eventual harmony, but the merging of anger-inspiring brutal utterances and lyrical, pastoral music can - for instance - offer good results.

as for your argument about growling for the sake of growling and a standardized, low quality level at least in the intentions of such performances, i cannot but agree. i'm not enamoured with growls or this specific kind of aggression in music: dark tranquillity are the only band in my top ten featuring growls, and most of the others aren't even metal.
there certainly is a wide-spread stupidity revolving around growls, ultra-fast drums, guitar solos that aim to have your ears bleed, and especially idiotic lyrics about raping young dudettes. i tend to pick and choose the (sometimes few) things i like from the whole death metal scene, while at the same time keeping up-to-date as to what it offers mainly out of habit and because i come from a past of more intense liking of metal-related music.

one thing i'd like to add, though, is that there's plenty of dumb stereotypes in other genres as well, it's just that if you listen to metal instead of - say - r&b you probably have no idea how cliche-ish and depressingly dull r&b songs can be 8 times out of 10. maybe it's not the growls there, but i'm sure there is something which is just as annoying and pointless. yet growling is what we discuss because we're all at least superficially knowledgeable on the subject.

rahvin.

 

[Ormir]

I don't really see growling as an "alternative" to melodic singing, but a different instrument in itself. It uses a completely different technique, the equivalent of playing music with a guitar by say hitting the edges with drumsticks as opposed to strumming. Saying the music would sound better if it was played with another instrument isn't particularly constructive I think, even though it might be right (although you are complaining about the quality, I felt like making this point anyway). Afer all, the artists intention is not to strum the guitar.

I find that the point of growls is the punctuate the songs, not "melodise" them. They're closer to drums as a rhythmic instrument, as opposed to guitars. It's generally difficult to play extreme metal with cleans because the vocals just can't be harmonised to the guitar melody and still keep a sense of harshness.

 

[necrotiqat]

I find that the point of growls is the punctuate the songs, not "melodise" them. They're closer to drums as a rhythmic instrument, as opposed to guitars. It's generally difficult to play extreme metal with cleans because the vocals just can't be harmonised to the guitar melody and still keep a sense of harshness.

I tend to agree with Ormir. Not only can growls add another rhythmic element to the music itself, but, as in poetry, they can also provide the correct sonorities to complement the thematic material of the song. I know many lyricists who select words based on what sounds the words themselves produce when growled/screamed as much as what the words actually mean.

 

[Ormir]

I tend to agree with Ormir. Not only can growls add another rhythmic element to the music itself, but, as in poetry, they can also provide the correct sonorities to complement the thematic material of the song. I know many lyricists who select words based on what sounds the words themselves produce when growled/screamed as much as what the words actually mean.

Great post.

 

[Fathomless]

I know many lyricists who select words based on what sounds the words themselves produce when growled/screamed as much as what the words actually mean.

Seems to me that this might make for generally incoherent lyrics? Which might explain how In Flames (post-Sundin), Soilwork, and other bands manage to write such godawfully meaningless songs.

Or if the songs do have some overall general meaning, then it's only determinable by a few words or phrases, and the rest are thrown away in the name of making it "sound cool"?

 

[rahvin]

Seems to me that this might make for generally incoherent lyrics? Which might explain how In Flames (post-Sundin), Soilwork, and other bands manage to write such godawfully meaningless songs.

doesn't that happen with way too many bands in every style, though?

rahvin.

 

[Fathomless]

doesn't that happen with way too many bands in every style, though?

rahvin.

Yeah, 'tis true. But that's really no reason to excuse it.

Also I think a lot of it comes from the fact that most of the bands mentioned previously speak english only as a second language. It's hard to be eloquent and deep when this is the case. Which serves to intensify my appreciation for Dark Tranquillity's lyrics, even though, I think, at times, they are so obscure as to be rendered meaningless.

 

[Static]

Other singers, like Akerfeldt, use absolutely no intonation or inflection in their growls, giving no urgency to the words, let alone the music (more recent Opeth is a better example of this. Listen to the end of the song Blackwater Park). I hate this. I love Opeth, but in spite of their death vocals. I find it to be childish and tired (in terms of whatever aesthetic point it was originally intended to make), and the only evaluative measure of the effectiveness of such vocals seems to be how "eeeeeevil" it all sounds.

Man, I could agree any less...but then again I totally love Opeth. I feel that Akerfeldt is one of the finest growlers in the business...just because he does it on a lower register does not mean that they are intended solely to sound 'evil', or lack emotion or conviction...not at all IMO. Mikael does low growls, but also constantly shifts them up to more of a screechy growl, sometimes he pulls it all in for a powerful low rumble, and he is the MASTER of the tried and true 'growling for the sake of growling growl'...in that I mean, just going...'RRROOOOOAAARRRRRR'.

I can hear heaps of cool things in his growl...

 

[wildfyr]

oh cool a vocals thread.

i don't have a lot of complaints about In Flames vocals except that i think Anders should let the other guys sing back up more often.

as for Opeth. great stuff there too, however i think Mikael's cleans could be a bit more...oh how should i put this delicately?...uhh...maybe a bit less wimpy? not that they're bad it's just that i'd maybe like to hear more power behind the cleans. personal opinion, that's all...

 

[rahvin]

Also I think a lot of it comes from the fact that most of the bands mentioned previously speak english only as a second language. It's hard to be eloquent and deep when this is the case. Which serves to intensify my appreciation for Dark Tranquillity's lyrics, even though, I think, at times, they are so obscure as to be rendered meaningless.

if i lower my standards to a level of average decency, there are many non-native speakers able to come up with tollerable lyrics. every style seems to have its share of "let's celebrate ourselves" songs: in metal you tend to appreciate how loud you play and the consequences of your sound attack on neighbouring ears; other genres sport similar self-celebration. even if we do away with all this crap, there's always a bunch of bands talking about personal issues in their lyrics, and they do an overall good job. there's no literature wasted, but as far as words to a song go, they'd do.

if i lower my standards to a level of creative meaningfulness, there are still some bands with the ability to come up with new and interesting stuff even though english is their second language.

if i don't lower my standards at all, there are just a few bands i could mention that provide top-notch lyrics all the time, and dark tranquillity are the only non-native speakers. but i don't really think that their lyrics are ever rendered meaningless. then again, i'm not a native speaker myself, so perhaps i'm more in tune with the way they express themselves.
as to the actual meaning of dt's lyrics, let's just say there's something in store for you all on the matter.

rahvin.

 

[Fathomless]

if i don't lower my standards at all, there are just a few bands i could mention that provide top-notch lyrics all the time, and dark tranquillity are the only non-native speakers. but i don't really think that their lyrics are ever rendered meaningless. then again, i'm not a native speaker myself, so perhaps i'm more in tune with the way they express themselves.
as to the actual meaning of dt's lyrics, let's just say there's something in store for you all on the matter.

Yes, I apologize, I meant to amend my previous post by saying this: There is a huge difference between self-conscious meaninglessness and self-conscious obscurity. With respect to DT, Stanne clearly is trying to sing about actual things, of actual philisophico-emotional import, and yet he buries the meanings in obscurity to such a degree that it is nearly impossible to unravel it. Even with DT, I guess I wouldn't feel uncomfortable accusing Stanne of throwing away some lines, with respect to overall meaning. The song 'I, Deception' comes to mind.

And english is not your native tongue? Sweet Jesus. You write more eloquently than 100% of the posters I've encountered.

And if that last line is meant to imply that you're going to take an interpretive stab at some DT lyrics, well then bring it on. I love that shit. Of all the bands I get off on, Dark Tranquillity's lyrics are the most fun to sit down with and try to put together. I look forward to it.

Fathomless.

 

[Villain]

Sweet Jesus. You write more eloquently than 100% of the posters I've encountered.

You're not the only one thinking that way - and if you want to read more of Rahvin's wise words, search this forum back some months and you should be able to find a couple of very nice DT-lyrics interpretations by him. I (along with many others, Stanne included) especially liked his work with the Monochromatic Stains -lyrics.

-Villain

NP: Gardenian - Soulburner - "Chaos in Flesh" (a prime example of meaningless lyrics in an excellent song)

 

[Misanthrope]

There is too much talk about Åkerfeldt growls here, i advice you to wait ( or accidentally running into the leaked mp3s avaible on the net ) for Damnation, for it clearly shows that clean vocals are Mr. Å main thing ( appart from guitar and composing obviously ). I never had so much emocional impact from an album since Projector or LFDGD, it is trully wonderfull and his vocals are among the most emotive clean voices ever, upthere with Stanne's Projector vocals.

 

[Wanderingblade]

There was a long period where I preferred growled vocals to clean vocals... now its kinda even. I still love growled vocals...

Stanne is my favourite Death Metal vocalist by a good country mile. Apart from having a lot of variety in his voice, he is extremely emotional and capable of carrying vocal hooks which is very rare for growled vocals.

For the most part, Death Metal vocals are a tool for savagery and sheer, primitive, barbaric noise. While effective in this role... they do sacrifice the ability to carry a seperate melody. Others have said this I think... but a clean voice can carry a place along with a keyboard or guitar, gutturals are with bass and drums. People still think of vocals as lead instruments, and thats where some of the misunderstanding lies IMO...

 

[Static]

Most fun lyrics to unravel = Maudlin of the Well.

DT or even Opeth for that matter, to me, don't come close in the lyrics department.