"I apologize for the theatrics..."

Einherjar86

Active Member
Jan 15, 2008
18,517
1,985
113
The Ivory Tower
Theatrics have always been a huge part of rock n' roll since it began. The idea of "arena rock" has its practitioners, but it's always seemed to be the goal of bands to produce at least one overblown, theatrical work. Some people love and are drawn to this idea of theatrics in music. Others despise it. I've heard albums like The Wall and The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway referred to as "pompous" and "arrogant," and I can definitely see where people are coming from when they make these accusations. However, I'm not really interested in talking about Pink Floyd and Genesis. What I'm interested in is: why is it that so many metal bands are drawn to the theatrical element?

Corpse paint is only one portion of the theatrics of metal. Simply the composition of a musical piece can lend to its element of theatrics. The music of Turisas' To Holmgard and Beyond, for instance, sounds incredibly theatrical. The use of narration lends further to the sense of drama. Multiple singers/voices (sounds), symphonic elements, ambient noises, concept albums, props, themes of history and fantasy... all these are extremely extravagant and histrionic.

Almost all other genres of music tend to focus on (or, at least mostly focus on) more realistic, common subjects. Sure, every once in a while Neil Young will write a Greendale or Bruce Springsteen will write The Rising; but even when they do, their themes still are very much grounded in reality. And on other records, the sound is usually stripped down to enhance that effect.

Why is it that metal so often aspires to the exaggerated, theatrical element of music? Even black metal albums such as In the Nightside Eclipse, Battles in the North, Dark Medieval Times, and Under the Sign of the Black Mark possess a quality that elevates them to a dramatic level. The lyrical subject matter is constantly striving for a fantastical elevation, and the music complements the aspirations.

On the opposite end of the metal spectrum, this idea of theatrics still pertains. Bands like Manowar Nightwish, Kamelot, and Turisas are constantly creating epic, extravagant albums, and Rhapsody has managed to tell the same damn story throughout all their records.

The list of theatrical metal bands is endless because most of them possess this quality to some extent. So why is it that they're drawn to this idea? Does it have to do purely with the subject matter? Many bands are drawn to historical or fantasy themes, which certainly are separated from the common, everyday themes of most classic rock. Is it the literary element? Many metal musicians admit to being fond of writers throughout literary history. By creating works that aspire to a theatrical level are they attempting to justify their music as an addition to the literary tradition? Or is it something far simpler than all this; do they merely like the idea of taking on a role in their music and thus transporting themselves temporarily to somewhere else? Maybe it's a combination of reasons, and these certainly aren't all of them. I'd like to invite people to discuss why they think metal so often is tempted by this idea of theatrics.
 
I believe the sense of power and grandeur inherent in most Metal is why you would call it dramatic. Some genres, such as most Black Metal, Power Metal, or epic metal in general play upon that dramatic effect the most.

You can thank classical composers like Richard Wagner who introduced a consistently epic, grandiose element to music. Metal, especially at the end of the 80's, reopened this channel to give an epic feel to the music. The material elements such as visual presentation and lyrics served only to accentuate the feel of the music.
 
I didn't even think to mention classical composers in my original post. The classical element in metal would certainly lend to its theatric effect, and a lot of metal bands are classically influenced. Good call Zeph.
 
I mean, theatrics are kinda escapist. I guess that's part of the escapism of metal. You'll notice metal is very rarely about everyday life. Even when a thrash band writes a song about political injustice or walking down the street or whatever, it frequently calls for stuff that is decidedly not everyday (i.e. revolutions or beating the shit out of people who annoy you or whatever).
And so the natural evolution of singing about dragons is to have a dragon on your album and dragon sound effects and stuff. And why not have a massive chanting section. And of course, an epic chant requires the use of some horns, and then you might as well go for full orchestration.

Basically, this is something that's evolved. KISS did the dramatics in terms of stage shows, but as far as the music goes, I don't think that really dramatic stuff appeared till the mid-90s. And albums nowadays often have more and more wild and crazy concepts and theatrical stuff (for example, Avantasia) than you would get in more old school metal.
 
This may be a simplistic answer but I think music is mainly about causing emotion, and these instrumental theatrical elements cause intense emotions. Metal musicians are often people who want to sing about things like demons and dragons and aliens and vikings. When singing about those things, as well as using vocals that can be indecipherable, that can alienate a lot of people emotionally. Like you said, rock artists usually sing about "real life" things and make a direct connection with the aduience's emotions that way. But the theatrical elements of the music bring back that emotional element with extremely expressive music. A rock artists doesn't necessarily need the music to be as powerful because the lyrics are doing more of the work. Certainly a great many fans like and relate to these lyrical topics just as much as the artists, but also a lot of people on here say They're just interested in the music and not the lyrics. Also building these themes up into elaborate stories and dressing in costume and performing on stage can bring people in deeper and make these outside topics more 'real' for them.
 
This is the first thing you've ever said that was even vaguely insightful, perceptive, and agreed with by me. Good stuff.

I actually agree with that. I hadn't thought of it, but it makes a certain amount of sense.
 
This may be a simplistic answer but I think music is mainly about causing emotion, and these instrumental theatrical elements cause intense emotions. Metal musicians are often people who want to sing about things like demons and dragons and aliens and vikings. When singing about those things, as well as using vocals that can be indecipherable, that can alienate a lot of people emotionally. Like you said, rock artists usually sing about "real life" things and make a direct connection with the aduience's emotions that way. But the theatrical elements of the music bring back that emotional element with extremely expressive music. A rock artists doesn't necessarily need the music to be as powerful because the lyrics are doing more of the work. Certainly a great many fans like and relate to these lyrical topics just as much as the artists, but also a lot of people on here say They're just interested in the music and not the lyrics. Also building these themes up into elaborate stories and dressing in costume and performing on stage can bring people in deeper and make these outside topics more 'real' for them.

this makes sense but it makes me think about various other metal bands who manage to convey vast, impersonal, apocalyptic/mythological ideas without needing such theatrics. sometimes theatricality is little more than a tool for allowing inept or lazy songwriters to tap into these themes with relative ease (this is the common view of CoF, for example, doesn't matter for now if you disagree).

what really interests me is theatrics at a more fundamental compositional level as opposed to theatrics in image/instruments used/stage flamboyancy etc. i think certain bands make their theatricality sound totally vital and focused, as though it's the minimum required for their goals but their goals happen to necessitate a whole lot of it anyway. ill leave that here for now, see what everyone else thinks.
 
A lot of Death metal has an incredible level of theatrics to it, both lyrically and on stage. Lyrics about gore on an incredibly unrealistic level are incredibly entertaining, but come on. How many people can relate to raping a limbless cadaver?

As for the stage element...


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHXw88CsLyw&feature=related[/ame]

"Theatre" is even in the name of the first one XD

As far as other black and death metal goes, I feel that Satanism is very real to many people who are deeply involved with it, but others are just joking about it. I take Watain and Gorgoroth very seriously, and they're a couple of the most theatrical BM bands out there. It's very real to them, and I think they convey that effectively. Same goes for Rotting Christ.

Much of the death metal I listen to is about philosophies and history. That's very real to me, personally.

I think that metal tries to narrow its audience to people who will really experience it. There aren't many casual listeners in metal. Everyone I've known is really into it, and 90% play an instrument so they can experience it even more in depth. The lyrical theatrics contributes to the whole process. People who listen to contemporary rock and the like won't relate well to "Addicted to Vaginal Skin" or even Dimmu Borgir's "Arcane Lifeforce Mysteria", because Satan is mentioned explicitly in the lyrics, and that's a major turn-off for a lot of people.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
this makes sense but it makes me think about various other metal bands who manage to convey vast, impersonal, apocalyptic/mythological ideas without needing such theatrics. sometimes theatricality is little more than a tool for allowing inept or lazy songwriters to tap into these themes with relative ease (this is the common view of CoF, for example, doesn't matter for now if you disagree).

This is very interesting, and it's the view that I would have expected you to support. I agree with this idea that theatrics can at times almost be a way for, as you said, "inept" songwriters to better convey their themes.

However, I also believe that, if done well, theatrics can add another level to the songwriting. If we view a record/song/etc. and find that it stands on its own, lyrically and in a very basic musical sense, then can't theatrics only add more to the music? Doesn't it heighten the music to a different level?

what really interests me is theatrics at a more fundamental compositional level as opposed to theatrics in image/instruments used/stage flamboyancy etc. i think certain bands make their theatricality sound totally vital and focused, as though it's the minimum required for their goals but their goals happen to necessitate a whole lot of it anyway. ill leave that here for now, see what everyone else thinks.

What bands/records would you say demonstrate this?
 
I find that a lot of reason people who like mainstream music don't like metal is because of the theatrics, so I endorse this topic and look forward to checking it out. :cool:
 
I'll tackle the two questions seperately.

As for the theatricism in the music iteslf- why make songs about the boring and mundane? Metal has always stood in opposition to the boredom of the status quo, and sought out more "extreme" experiences. The theatricism in the music is a necessary extension of this.

As for theatricism of performance- the goal is to unite every aspect of the band's art into a single message. The greeks had the right idea with their songs- the song was never a piece of art on its own, but rather was unified with various aspects of a larger play (words, costumes, action) that, when taken together, formed the work of art. If you're trying to communicate something through a performance, why limit yourself to just the musical and not include the visual and physical aspects that would fully bring the audience into the performance?

To use an example, for those who saw Celtic Frost on the Monotheist tour, imagine what would have happened to the atmosphere had the band taken to the stage in T-shirts and jeans, with no makeup, no fog machines, and in a brightly-lit club. The atmosphere would have been destroyed. The music would have still been great, but it would have failed to completely surround the listeners in the experience that the band wanted. It would have been the equivalent of changing out the cover art on "Dawn of the Black Hearts" from that picture of Dead's suicide to a picture of a cute puppy, except even more pernicious, since most people don't stare at the cover art of an album while listening to it.
 
However, I also believe that, if done well, theatrics can add another level to the songwriting. If we view a record/song/etc. and find that it stands on its own, lyrically and in a very basic musical sense, then can't theatrics only add more to the music? Doesn't it heighten the music to a different level?

i agree that they *can* add another level but i'm not sure 'well done theatrics' can be defined in isolation, theatrics are well done only in relation to the music they're applied to - in many cases no theatrics at all will fit, say if the band's going for an understated quietly menacing tone or whatever. but as i said i like the idea that in some cases the theatrics are the core element rather than a tool for enhancing that which lies beneath - where that which you refer to as 'standing on its own [behind the theatrics]' does not exist or cannot be extracted. i dunno, maybe i'm just misusing the word. i'm thinking of everything from fates warning to summoning here.