Thoughts on the novelty factor in music

I just think that transitions are something that have been lost nowadays, especially with that "progressive" and modern synthy Sturgis metalcore sound. The music isn't smooth anymore; it's nothing but a bunch of mashed together riffs that don't even seem to compliment each other or progress the song in anyway. It's just a stop/start transition or it just goes straight into a section with a completely different BPM. Then you have your awkward moments like Ants In The Sky where it's one genre to another random genre, AKA that retarded hoedown section. It all sounds super forced to me.


All IMO of course.

Ants of the Sky is the song that made me get into the album, and it gives me shivers and good vibes, and I love that hoedown section, I don't see why it wouldn't fit. Some movies are made of a succession of emotions, why not songs ? In a perfect world there would be a band like them without over-complicated deathcore riffs, and I would enjoy the whole albums with no need to skip forward. I absolutely don't see the relationship with sturgis-core synthy thingy metalcore, which I loathe with a passion, for they sound absolutely different to me. But then again I don't like this scene in particular, I just found BTBAM to stand out of the crowd. I love very basic old rock songs as well, hell I even love Swing music which is (structurally) as basic as rock songs, but those songs made of several sections is another way to write/enjoy music and they compliment well each other imo. I see the point with successions of riffs that have nothing to do with each others, but I don't see how a song like Triumph is not "smooth". It doesn't repeat on itself, it has indirectly related parts, but it all forms a very nice block that doesn't feel weird to me. The typical intro/verse/chorus/verse/chorus/solo/chorus/outro is not the only way to go imo, nor to keep the same BPM all the way to the end.

To me, the average metal song is way more of a mashup of riffs to my hears. Because it sounds more like "oh look I have 3 riffs, that's enough for a new song". That's a good way to go if you got 3 super riffs and have a very nice idea, and all, but if that was the only recipe available, that would be boring !

By the way, we're absolutely off-topic !
 
You guys are nuts, the hoedown and mashups are the best part of that whole record, all the other records are just OTT deathcorey noodles with terrible production.
 
Some movies are made of a succession of emotions, why not songs ?

i'm totally with you on this analogy

but it seems like there's so many bands out there now whose songs would be the cinematic equivalent of a movie that completely changes characters, setting, and theme from scene to scene, suddenly and without any explanation, and without any of them having anything to do with each other. varying up compositions to convey a range of styles/emotions is great, but only when done well. some dudes are just too lazy...some try too hard...some happen to nail it.
 
In the new Jeff Lynne documentary / infomercial, Paul McCartney says the first time he heard ELO he laughed and thought it was an obvious attempt to replicate the Pepper's-era Beatles. But then he kept listening and thought, "Damn, I wish we'd written this."
 
In regards to BTBAM, I get the impression that lots of people got annoyed by the amount of praise they received and decided to dislike them no matter what. I know I've done that with other bands in the past, Opeth for instance. I like them now though after snapping out of it.
 
What Jeff said. It seems stupid to like or dislike something in principle. If it sounds good it is good, who cares who made the song or why it was made.
 
What Jeff said. It seems stupid to like or dislike something in principle. If it sounds good it is good, who cares who made the song or why it was made.

Evidently you didn't read the second half of what Jeff said :loco: And principle has nothing to do with it, I was referring to the situations where I'd be really impressed by a band because I'd never heard anything like them before, but then later find out they blatantly copied (many of) those things that I found so original in them, so without that "wow" factor the rest of the music often wouldn't really hold up
 
In regards to BTBAM, I get the impression that lots of people got annoyed by the amount of praise they received and decided to dislike them no matter what. I know I've done that with other bands in the past, Opeth for instance. I like them now though after snapping out of it.

Not at all in my case, I really gave Colors a shot when it came out, but I couldn't get into it (though I liked it way more than what I'd heard of their older stuff, Mordecai made me ill)
 
Evidently you didn't read the second half of what Jeff said :loco: And principle has nothing to do with it, I was referring to the situations where I'd be really impressed by a band because I'd never heard anything like them before, but then later find out they blatantly copied (many of) those things that I found so original in them, so without that "wow" factor the rest of the music often wouldn't really hold up

That still seems like principle to me. You find out a band copied another sound so you don't like them anymore?
 
I don't know. I like BTBAM. I know they are very influenced by Cynic, King Crimson, Dream Theater, Opeth, etc.... but I don't care. Nobody puts it all together in the way that they do. I can see why people think they are too sporadic and "forced" (I don't think it's forced. I just think it's them having fun and not giving a shit...), but not all of it is like that. They really have some very well written, memorable stuff. Supposedly they hate playing it live now, but how could anyone say Selkies isn't a great song? Dat melody.

I'm not a huge fan of some of the grindy deathcore kinda riffs they have though. For me, BTBAM is at their best when doing the whole fusion/prog rock thing... They have a really great sense of harmony and melody, IMO.
 
The newest BTBAM is probably the best thing they have ever done imo. I think with that level of talent on display they absolutely could write songs that less ridiculous transitions and more common structures, they clearly arent interested in doing that. Same with the Mars Volta. Everyone used to say that Pantera just ripped off Exhorder, and it didnt really matter to me because I liked what Pantera did. Im more or less with Jeff.
 
In retrospect it is pretty arrogant of me to tell people how to think. Still I have noticed so many people over the years listening to a song on a stereo and nodding their heads and obviously enjoying it. Then they find out who the band is and they scrunch up their faces and say something like "turn it off this is shit" even though they were loving the song until they find out it's a band they don't like. It makes no sense, someone likes something but doesn't allow themselves to enjoy it. If a band were a bunch of child molesters or something I can see not liking them on principal but otherwise you are only creating a negative out of what could be a positive. I wish someone would copy Tool and make albums that sound like them, that would be fucking great!
 
Being an aussie I've been listening to DLC and Karnivool for years, seen them live a dozen times. They're great. I know I'm in the minority but I don't hear much Tool in either of them. Maybe a little with Sound Awake and the enormous bass guitar mix and the fact they have long songs and a jam band sort of vibe. Most people would disagree with me though
 
Just so we can close the book on this, the reason I don't like BtBaM (again, haven't heard anything after Colors) is because of what I perceive as spastic, jarring transitions (or lack thereof IMO) between tempos/genres, but more importantly honestly I just find the prevailing dissonant atonal chromatic deathcore riffs to be extremely unpleasant to listen to, and I found most of the Dream Theater esque parts to be kinda predictable/unoiginal because of what I hear to be big-time derivation, so they couldn't really sustain my interest either

However, I'd very much like to think they've matured as songwriters since then, so I'll check out the newer stuff with an open mind

EDIT: the perfect example is how everyone was going nuts about the hoedown section, mainly because "whoa, who would ever put a hoedown section in a metal song!?" - but because I knew it was a blatant derivation of the ragtime section in "The Dance of Eternity", it just felt like a gimmick to me
 
I wish someone would copy Tool and make albums that sound like them, that would be fucking great!

We get this all the fucking time. It's pretty damn annoying tbh, but what you gonna do... We never set out to sound like Tool... but when five people all share a range of influences, it's just gonna happen...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
In all art, not just heavy metal, innovation usually comes from imitation. This is why your favorite musician probably listens to music you don't like. Because if you did like the same music he listens to, you would see that he is just imitating others. Then you would call your favorite musician a rip-off. This is the case more often than you think.

+1

I think that's why it's so hard to be satisfied with your own music. You're in the perfect position to know how unoriginal you are!
 
I'm not sure about what constitutes a "novelty" act other than maybe having a gimmick?

If so, the most annoying one I've seen lately (at least on Blabbermouth) are the female fronted gothy steampunk bands. Every boobtastic chick that likes metal seems to be fronting a band these days. This cannot be an original thought on the part of these people. They all look like LARPers.