Lacuna Coil

Originally posted by EvilGenius
I wouldn't say that at all!! I'm far from being a huge fan of LC, but not only are they original (IMO), they're extremely talented, and I can appreciate that in any metal group, whether I like the sound of it or not. I just happen to really enjoy the albums I do have of Lacuna Coil, especially In A Reverie...

To be honest I only ever thought of them as being any good as a heavily PL influenced band. When they started heading in their own direction they traded off the real strengths of their music and somehow became very banal and lacking the sufficient charisma to make their music in anyway captivating. Just my opinion but right now, to me anyway, they're another faceless female fronted gothic-metal/rock band. I prefer Left Hand Solution.

I actually like the band Cayne as well, created I believe, by the two members that left Lacuna Coil after the first EP. They've got a goth slant, but I find the radio friendly format of the music and pop sensibilities quite enjoyable, despite the odd crummy moment.
 
I like Tristania as well, though I like nightwish better. I just hope Nightwish doesn't become a pop-band with all the recent success they're having, I mean, EVERYONE's beginning to hear of Nightwish now. I've been listening to them for like 5 years, and I get these bimbo chicks asking me if I've heard them.
However, while we're straying a bit from the heavy bands, have you heard Theatre of Tragedy? Damn, I think they're really great. Resembles Tristania and Nightwish, they're sadly underestimated (IMHO)
 
Yea, I've heard Theatre of Tragedy. I like the older stuff, however I'm not sure about this newer technoish sounding stuff :confused: I've only heard it over the phone a few times though, so I guess I can't really say until I get it and hear it first hand.
 
Tristania is very good, but i didn't like very much their last LP. I think that right now, Sirenia sounds more like Tristania, than tristania itself.

About LC, i have some mp3 and i like it, but most people say that they get boring after a while, and after a while of listening to these, i think that they're right. For good Goth-metal, i'll think i'll stick with Moonspell
 
I don't know exactly how to define goth metal, but if bands like Katatonia, Lacuna Coil, or Babylon Whores fit into the cateogory, then I find it hard for me to get bored of the genre. I love death metal, but I'm sure I'd get bored of it if it were the only thing I listened to... "goth metal" on the other hand is arguable... and I am so not a goth.
 
Moonspell, huh? I've heard of them, but I've never actually heard anything of them..
I don't know what you mean about the new stuff of ToT, bleedingfilth, but I like the stuff that I've heard, which is no newer than 98-99 or so..

Edit: Well, Moonspell made no great impression on me yet, but have you heard of a band called Xandria? If you like Nightwish and ToT and similar, you might want to check them out.
 
Evil Genius: According to Alta Vista's Babel Fish..."Lacuna" means "Gap" in Italian.
The whole name "Lacuna Coil" translated into "Coil Gap". Babel Fish isn't very reliable so, I'll check out some other translation places and see what else I come up with.
Check back here later for an edit :).
 
Originally posted by EvilGenius
I don't know exactly how to define goth metal, but if bands like Katatonia, Lacuna Coil, or Babylon Whores fit into the cateogory

Babylon Whores "goth metal"? New idea to me, I've not heard the new album yet but I've only heard them do one song that really constitutes Goth metal, that is "Sol Niger". Most of the time they sound like a Rock'n'Roll band that uses a Sludgy death guitar tone. Which, I assumed was the reason they put "DEATH ROCK" in big letters on the "Cold Heaven" CD.
 
Evil Genius: You're welcome man :) I was interested to find out what it meant too hehe.

Tonight's Decision: Cool to see you back here :). Hmm...Yea, I don't think they're referring to heaven in a religious manner. Heaven can be anything anyone wants it to be.
IE: Finding the love of your life. Once you find him/her the feeling the person gives you when you're with them..could be described as heaven.

Sorry to anyone if that sounds like mindless babble..but sometimes, it's hard for me to put my thoughts into words...unless I have a lot of time :lol: Hope SOMEONE out there understands my point. :p
 
Originally posted by On the Edge of Forever
Babylon Whores "goth metal"? New idea to me, I've not heard the new album yet but I've only heard them do one song that really constitutes Goth metal, that is "Sol Niger". Most of the time they sound like a Rock'n'Roll band that uses a Sludgy death guitar tone. Which, I assumed was the reason they put "DEATH ROCK" in big letters on the "Cold Heaven" CD.

Well, I'm not the best of judge, and I've always thought similar to Anders from Katatonia that the labels placed on music really mean little (well, I don't think he put it quite that way, but that's how I interpreted it). To me, I think labels just get in the way of things. Good example: you describe how Babylon Whores uses 'sludgy death' guitars most of the time: for me, if I had never heard them before, I would automatically assume they somehow resembled the sound of Eyehategod, a band I really could care less for. I've heard the same description assigned to them, and I personally see absolutely no resemblance between the two bands. I'm not shitting here, since I think it was I that really brought it up, but just trying to reinforce a good idea that is not my own, that labels, although they may be convenient, are not necessarily a good thing. Especially for promoting certain bands. Labels simply decieve.
 
I don't agree to be honest. If applied in a decent constructive manner I think Labels can be hugely beneficial to help describe something to someone who hasn't heard something. I mean when I say sludgy death guitars, which I have done in the past a lot of people take it for the way it is meant, sort of a rough Entombed-style guitar sound. You can refine that by maybe adding "Swedish" or something. But then, saying BW are goth-metal would probably conjour up images of Lacuna Coil, Katatonia or Paradise Lost in many people's mind, and to be honest that's also a misnomer.

Labels serve their purpose remarkably well (their purpose is limited, but important) when applied with common sense and some descriptive flair, it's when they are used lazily that all sorts of problems can ensue.

Example: If someone asks you whether they should buy an A Canorous Quintet album or a Suffocation album it's only natural to ask back whether they like Brutal or Melodic death metal, they're labels, but knowing the distinction between the two helps in certain cases. The statement "Labels simply deceive" is a bit too broad for my liking, they can be deceptive, I agree that when badly used it's no good at all, but they can also be fairly definitive. It's one of those things that requires good judgement and a bit of thought.
 
Originally posted by On the Edge of Forever
Labels serve their purpose remarkably well (their purpose is limited, but important) when applied with common sense and some descriptive flair, it's when they are used lazily that all sorts of problems can ensue.

Example: If someone asks you whether they should buy an A Canorous Quintet album or a Suffocation album it's only natural to ask back whether they like Brutal or Melodic death metal, they're labels, but knowing the distinction between the two helps in certain cases. The statement "Labels simply deceive" is a bit too broad for my liking, they can be deceptive, I agree that when badly used it's no good at all, but they can also be fairly definitive. It's one of those things that requires good judgement and a bit of thought.

These two paragraphs I generally agree with, but what you say in the first para that I quoted isn't a description of 'labeling' if you ask me. Describing and labeling music are two different things, and what I think you're saying here is that with some good thought put into it, you can describe to another what a band sounds like. I will never describe to someone, for example, that such and such a band is melodic death metal. Not only is that an ambiguous term, but there are bands that have been described as such that sound nothing alike. To give buddy a good idea, you could simply say "well, they sound like Immolation" or in most cases "if you like Incantation, you'll most likely enjoy Immolation." (Hah! I'm such a hypocrite: I've always considered these two bands "darkened death metal").

For example, to say Cannibal Corpse and Incantation are both death metal is silly when you consider it. The only genre/label these two could fit in together nicely is simply 'metal'. To say Cannibal Corpse and Exhumed are both 'gore-metal' is almost just as silly: people who use labels would also agree (I believe Exhumed would be considered something crazy like "gore-grind metal". Holy smokes. Sure it's convenient, but hey, so is saying "fuck it" in to a tough job and then not doing it properly.

I still don't believe in labeling though. Where others label, I try (not always: I'm not totally consistent here) to either describe or compare between other bands.
 
To be honest I've never heard Cannibal Corpse called anything other that Death Metal, and that's about the size of that one.

Personally I disagree with you, I agree that there are bands who push boundaries of genre to stretching point, it wouldn't be much of a music scene if there weren't but y'know that's not what everyone goes for. Melodic Death Metal is not really an ambiguous term if you in anyway understand the metal genre, in fact as labels go it's fairly descriptive, Black Metal is more ambiguous and probably would be more appropriate to that portion of your argument.

But the fact is this is escaping the general and becoming much more specific, and that is wholly missing the point. On a wider basis genre labelling serves a good purpose, you don't ask someone what their top ten darkened death metal albums of the year are, do you? If someone asks me what I listen to I'm not likely to sit there and say "I listen to bands that mix the aggression, guitar tones, and vocals of harsh outfits with the melodies and structures of artists like Iron Maiden" because that's plain ridiculous (not to mention pretentious). I also wouldn't sit there and list 25-50 bands. They're both overdoing an answer to a simple question that "I like melodic death in the main" would answer adeptly and give the idea of what kind of bands I listen to, without having to go completely insane with descriptive wank or name-dropping. I think your pinning it down as laziness and sheer convenience are overlooking the more obvious idea of not over complicating things. If we get down to the individual nuances of every single band they are all different, but that's nitpicking quite frankly and it doesn't in anyway convince me that genre labels are any less a valid concept when used with some thought.

people who use labels would also agree (I believe Exhumed would be considered something crazy like "gore-grind metal". Holy smokes. Sure it's convenient, but hey, so is saying "fuck it" in to a tough job and then not doing it properly.

Difference being the latter is lazy, the former isn't, it's closer to common sense. I don't see any relevance in that comparison. Out of interest how would you describe Exhumed?
 
One of the main ideas behind me forming my belief is this: many of the world's problems would be dissolved if everyone shared the same definitions and concepts of certain things. Think about that, cuz I don't feel like this is the place to write an essay to describe it.

You and I may share the same general concept of something like 'melodic death metal' (notice I don't say definition, because we most likely do not... in fact it would be difficult to come up with one). When I describe something, I like to make sure my point is understood. Whether someone nodds their head in aggreement or not when I tell them a certain band is such-and-such a genre does not give me this guarantee. This is where I disagree with you: you would say it's common sense to describe a certain band as "gore-grind" or whatever the case may be. Not only would I like you to define "common sense", but I suggest to every one who uses the term to look and see that it isn't so common. Also, common sense is not something you're born with, and therefore common-sense would vary among different fields. Not every one would share the same "common sense" I have in, say, death metal, and I don't have the common sense in, say, classical music (in fact I know this, because I might call a piece by Wagner a classical piece, all the while someone who is a semi-expert in this music would be shaking their head at my complete ignorance... my lack of "common sense").

It doesn't work very well to label bands. It isn't efficient. It's only convienient, and it doesn't get the job done (that job not being a very important thing in most matters, which is why I'm not completely religious about the opinion I'm expressing here:) ).
 
I agree in a general sense, saying a certain band is of a certain mileau would not work with, say, someone not knowledgable of metal. My main issue to start with was when you called Babylon Whores Goth-metal, labelling is not something I'm prone to rely on, but the eventual point I'm working to is that labelling can be useful when used correctly and with "common sense". Common sense to me, in this particular case, is implied not on the receiver's end but on the part of the person imparting the "knowledge". What I'm getting at there is that as long as you apply the label with a good degree of understanding and not throwing it around without a clue of what it actually means.

From where I'm sat being negligant in applying a label can end in the person on the receiving end get the wrong idea. For instance, you called Babylon Whores Goth metal, now from my perspective I've got four CDs by them and they only in one song could be described as such, to me it's being slightly (I use this word lightly being as I cannot think of a suitable replacement) irresponsible to say that it is in that general style gives drastically the wrong impression of the band's music. To me that shows little common sense...

(in fact I know this, because I might call a piece by Wagner a classical piece, all the while someone who is a semi-expert in this music would be shaking their head at my complete ignorance... my lack of "common sense").

Common sense is a hard thing to define but in context of your use of the word it seems to me that common sense is not what you are talking about... you're talking about knowledge. Common sense is not something you're born with, I agree, it's something you learn over time... like it's common sense you don't play with knives, see? It's something that is born out of understanding... I understand a knife is sharp, so therefore it's only sensible not to play around with one. Which is where this Classical music thing falls flat on it's face. If you have little knowledge of classical music how can you have any common sense as to the application of labelling a subgenre within it's confines? You can't.

What I'm trying to get across is that if you know something of a style and you think that a label fits then why should that be a problem? There is no standard definition of Death Metal, but in all the time I've known about Cannibal Corpse I've always heard them referred to as such it's a highly shared viewpoint that they typify the style of death metal, for good or worse. I don't think you should throw sub-genre labels at someone who is new to it, I don't think you should label things without some experience of them, and in all I agree, it's pretty fucking crummy that we live in a pigeonhole society and everything has to have a neat little tag... But I just don't think the general stigma that labelling is always going to be wrong applies as long as you just don't throw it in without some thought. It does seem to me that when you say this:

It doesn't work very well to label bands. It isn't efficient. It's only convienient, and it doesn't get the job done

that you're taking a very hardline view of what I'm saying, like I'm suggesting we should all do it and it's perfect, I'm not saying that, I'm saying it has a time and place and it does require a bit of thought and judgment too.

Incidentally I don't think descriptions are all that infallible either. If you were to describe Cannibal Corpse's music how would you go about it? I'd say it's very aggressive music, heavy, technical guitar riffs, sporadic blastbeats and growled vocals, fair enough description? Well I've just described hundreds, possibly thousands of other bands, and that crosses genre labels, that could be anything from Grindcore to Black Metal. There's nothing efficient about that now is there?
 
Anyway, "this is an agree to disagree" I think. You make salient points, personally I don't wholly agree with them. I think this is just going to boil down to personal opinion in the end and I'd rather not let it get that drawn out! Hehe.