\m/ Power Metal Discussion \m/

[Bryant]

Unfortunatly, I think "powermetal" is a bit broad as well, but then again.... there are soo many sub-genres of metal. The bands that I like are considered "American style powermetal" though few bands are American. I pretty much agree with you and prefer the more "powerful" bands of the powermetal sub-genre like Angel Dust.

Bryant

I hate the way the term "power metal" is used these days. How can bands like Helloween, Kamelot, and Rhapsody be considered POWERFUL? How would I categorize those bands? Speed metal in my book because they're predominantly repetitive double bass drumming and super fast tempo. I can also live with the term Euro metal. Less appealing to me, but still acceptable are "flower metal" and "happy metal". But they certainly aren't power metal.

To me, power metal should be reserved for bands with lots of punch and crunch to their music, regardless of tempo. Bands like Iced Earth and Rage are power metal to me.

 

[Bryant]

That is a great reply Brother Vern. I have trained you well Padawan. I think "positive" atmosphere and lyrical content are a necessity at times in my ear. If the songs are done right, I really don't differentiate between what is "happy" or what is "dark. What is good is good.

Bryant

Same here. I guess a lot of people who dislike some bands in what is broadly called power metal feel pissed of threatened by the whole happy atmosphere some bands deliver. Some metalheads think metal should be angry all the time, which is to me absurd. Metal is a just a music genre and therefore it will reflect the mood of the composer as well as any other genre (classic, jazz, pop, etc.). There are extremes in both ends, some bands are always sugarly cotaed while others exude nothing by hatred all the time, I prefer a midway place for my stuff.

 

[Bryant]

Good to see some love for Tad Morose, though they are on hiatus at best. I guess that it is just the way it is, as far as soo many different styles of bands being lumped into the "powermetal" sub-genre.

Bryant

As TSO, I have some trouble with the way the "Powermetal" term is used these days. Most of the European bands that are concidered "Power" are (imo !) not more than melodic metal bands. I can't find the "power" in bands like Sonatica, Dragonforce, Gamma Ray, Rhapsody ,etc... The term "Power Metal" was already used in the 80's but was intended for much less "happy" metal bands such as Savatage, Jag Panzer, Damien Thorne, Metal Church, Loudness, Exxplorer, Liege Lord, Manowar etc....
As for new "Power" Metal bands, to my ears those are bands like Tad Morose, Zero Hour, Meyvn, Nevermore, Outworld, Benedictum ...

 

[Marco Spain]

Yeah, some possitive lyrics are OK but there´s a thin line between possitive and chessy (or ridiculous).

By the way, I love TAD MOROSE. They´re excellent. "Undead" or "Modus vivendi" are . ANGEL DUST too .

 

[Trans-Siberian Outcast]

I guess a lot of people who dislike some bands in what is broadly called power metal feel pissed of threatened by the whole happy atmosphere some bands deliver. Some metalheads think metal should be angry all the time, which is to me absurd.

That's certainly not me! In fact, I like bands on both ends, from Rage to Kamelot. My issue with the term "power metal" as it's used today is simply the INACCURACY of it all. Kamelot is one of my fave bands, have almost all their albums and that killer DVD, but they are NOT a power metal band. I don't know who it was that gave the Helloweenish style bands the moniker of POWER, but he needs to be strung up by the gonads...look at the problems it's caused in the genre categories 15 years down the road.

Power metal has become too much of a "catch-all" term used for bands that don't really fit into any other categories. Personally I feel Power Metal should be genre all its own, not a catch-all. "Metal" should be the only catch-all term.

 

[Wyvern]

That is a great reply Brother Vern. I have trained you well Padawan.
Bryant

Thank you master, I really try not to get driven to the dark side like Hawk did

Cellador's debut album was, to me, a great example of why what they do should be called POWER metal, because it's powerful. It wasn't gussied up with overbearing keyboards or orchestration. It didn't have some schlocky ballad-

I agree with you that they are not keyboard drenched, ridiculously symphonic or having ballads. And yes the album is quite energetic but in this particular case (and of course is personal thing) I'm more with TSO and Carnut about the power feeling. I'm not trying to deter people to listen to the band and acquire a taste for them, freedom of choice is what metal is all about.

I don't know who it was that gave the Helloweenish style bands the moniker of POWER, but he needs to be strung up by the gonads...look at the problems it's caused in the genre categories 15 years down the road.

Me neither but basically is a fact that most metalheads catalogue power metal after Helloween (that the band have originated the style is of course quite arguible). I'll give you an example of my own experience:

In 1990 when "Painkiller" came out I was static at the masterpiece Priest created (still am). One day I was going with to acquaintances (which at the time played ina death metal band) in my car while playing my recorded tape of the album and they asked me what band was that. I told them (pretty stranged to myself) that was Judas Priest and they told me damn it sound like Helloween.

This was way before Internet, MySpace and donwloads and these guys were also jaded of the metal scene outside death and thrash. One of the same guys was passing videos to me from MTV (Headbangers Ball) and among them was 'Carry On' from Angra which I loved immediately, and he said to me I knew you'll like it it sounds like Helloween (with obvious disgust from him).

A final example and I sware this is truth (but sadly I don't have the proof anymore). When I bought KOTSK-2 on vinyl, the plastic covering the album had a sticker that read masters of Progressive Metal, etc. (or something close to it), I mean Helloween was catalogued by their own label as progressive metal, now 20 years later people give that moniker to Dream Theater and Hellowen is a power metal band

My point is that at that time we used to compare bands more than use tagging, tags have become a curse of our late days. I just looked at a band in England whose tag in MySpace is down-tempo/ambiental/metal, and they play doom for what I care, so what's the point of the complex tagging?

My final proposal goes like this:

Don't use tags at all when cataloguing a band, find the known band most close to its sound and say it sounds like and (moreover) offer the person to check the material first hand (welcome to the digital era and the information superhighway). Like I said back in 1990 it was a case of somebody buying the album and lending to friends, now mostly anyone can access the music of a band a judge by themselves what the hell it is.

I pretty much agree with you and prefer the more "powerful" bands of the powermetal sub-genre like Angel Dust.

Bryant

OK this give me another of my silly ideas. Why not use a band to describe what each one believe is suitable to define a label or sub-genre? When people come and ask you what is **** metal all about?, you gave them the name of the band you think it represents the sub-genre or label the best.

So for me if anyone comes and ask me what prog-power is all about I will use Angel Dust because for me they are what the sound, sub-genre and label is all about. Let's say the subject is thrash I will pick Hallows Eve, or doom and I will say Solstice, speed and I will bring out Exciter, death and my pick will be Obituary, etc.

P.S. Are we having a good discussion or what?

 

[Bryant]

Well your idea works great in theory, but I consider the late (or on hiatus anyway) Tad Morose (Daniel era) to be pretty much the standard of what "powermetal" should be in my ears. So someone asks me what such and such band sounds like and I say.....ehem....well they are similar to Tad Morose. Then I get the reply.... oh... cool... who the hell are they ? Most of the veteran members on this forum know TM quite well because they had TM pounded into their head by me, but TM never really was all that big of an act. I suppose it was really Howe era Metal Church that was my "standard" before I was introduced to Tad Morose though. That still may not work on a younger metalhead though. I mean... if someone is 25 years old, that means they were five when "Blessing in Disguise" was released. :zombie:

Bryant

Thank you master, I really try not to get driven to the dark side like Hawk did



My point is that at that time we used to compare bands more than use tagging, tags have become a curse of our late days. I just looked at a band in England whose tag in MySpace is down-tempo/ambiental/metal, and they play doom for what I care, so what's the point of the complex tagging?


P.S. Are we having a good discussion or what?

 

[Trans-Siberian Outcast]

I agree with Wyv that using a band comparison works better than stuffing a band into a genre. I use this often. But, like Bryant said, you still have to pick more mainstream bands for your comparisons. You can't assume that everybody knows who Hallows Eve, Solstice and Exciter are. That's where I run into problems using a comparison band to describe the music I'm discussing with someone. For example, this new era of prog/power doesn't really have a comparison in mainstream music, because MTV and radio station virtually ignore the genre. So if someone asks me what Symphony X sounds like, what do I tell them? I usually go with... "it's sort of a mix between 90s Savatage and Dream Theater". That's as mainstream as I can get in describing SX. If they ask who Savatage and Dream Theater are, I tell them to go listen to their Britney Spears cd and shut up.

 

[Wyvern]

I understand perfectly both of your concerns. Yes my idea will work only if people know most bands out there, but I was thinking in terms of giving the info and let the people look for it in the Internet. My problem with mainstream bands is that not necesarilly they represent to my senses a sub-genre properly.

I guess that's why in a sense we have this forum (and other similar) and we keep on coming, because we need people already informed to discuss and feel well about it. I have little patience to deal with people (and this had happened to me already) that believe that "Number Of The Beast" and "Blackout" are the debuts of Iron Maiden and Scorpions respectively

 

[No-Mercy]

band labeling sucks and is often not completely accurate all the time...who cares though it just makes things easier.
im head tad morose, stratovarius, blind guardian, and vision divine all called power metal. put those bands together i dont think you have similar sounds at all.

 

[Wyvern]

band labeling sucks and is often not completely accurate all the time...who cares though it just makes things easier.
im head tad morose, stratovarius, blind guardian, and vision divine all called power metal. put those bands together i dont think you have similar sounds at all.

The same goes for the discussion about NWOBHM, some say is a sound some is an era. I go for the second one, as a sounds doesn't click to me since you have all the spectra from Praying Mantis and Def Leppard to Tank and Venom.

 

[ATM5150]

heres some good ones: Rhapsody(Rhapsody of Fire),Dragonforce,Hammerfall, and Elvenking