What Is Metal?

Re: 2010 Music: Best of lists...

Why metal is dead, exhibit A to [count it yourself].

 

Re: 2010 Music: Best of lists...

It died when people started to use the term metal for shit like this. Can't the nerd crowd invent another genre, so I won't be associated with this stuff? I admit, I haven't even heard of half the bands on those lists - but you can judge from the names alone that their music is utter crap - but I'd bet all my money (not that it is much) that there's not one real metal band between those two lists.

Ok, except for the latest Overkill album. That's honest to god metal at least. Another good but not as good as the old stuff album, but whatever.

The rest? Pretentious douches channeling their inner misanthrope or whatever, or playing 70s rock [only in shitty] while being stoned, or doing "extreme" stuff, or being ironic, or whatever. Wastes of oxygen, all of 'em.

 

Re: 2010 Music: Best of lists...

It's more like the term metal has been hi-jacked for music that's either only very tangentially related in music and attitude to metal, or just a rehash of the old with a modernized image. I mean, band like The Ocean or the Deftones (ffs... the Deftones? I listened to them as a teenager when their first album came out [I even went to a Tool concert once], but I grew out of this kind of muic) might have a somewhat metalish riff here and there, but there is so much from other genres in there that it greatly overshadows what filmsy element of metal might be left in there. On the other hand, modern black metal and stoner metal might be metal technically, but the stuff is just either to pretentious or to ridiculous or to boring for me to take any interest in it.

Most music I listen to is from the 1960s to 1980s, but I don't begrudge anyone their music. But I certainly don't want to be associated with it, or the pople telling everyone how great and artsy metal has become these days, begging and groveling for acknowledgement from people who couldn't give a ******** either way. But whatever, if that's what the kids (at least the nerdy ones) are into these days. Just wish they would call the stuff something else. Nerd rock, or something like this.

As for evolving... it's music. I could listen to music only from, say, the 70s and 80s and I would never run out of new music to listen to and also never miss a damn thing. There's no law of evolution in music, everyone can or can not listen to any kind of music without any consequences. And as I said, if people like to listen to modern "metal", whatever, be my guest. I just can't resist calling it utter shit, but I do it more for the love of writing incoherent rants .

Oh, I kinda like some newer bands of play traditional rock or metal (and not in a faux-retro style), but no particular favorites among them. I also don't make much of an effort to listen to new music, I stopped reading all kinds of music related media, be it print or online, in the mid-2000s and don't follow it closely anymore. I get more enjoyment out of finding a tape of a band from the early 80s I've never heard of in a used record store - the music is new to me, so the original release date makes no difference.

Actual new releases that were kinda cool this year? I guess the new albums by Heathen and Mekong Delta. Some others, like new Virgin Steele or new Accept were ok too. But I don't care enough to be able to even make a top 5 of my favorite new albums.

Oh, and sorry - it's 4:50 AM where I'm right now - ignore my long, rambling rants .

 

Re: 2010 Music: Best of lists...

ah the 'metal' purist. insisting that good metal is only old school. be honest, you do. metal now is infinitely more sophisticated technically, topically, artistically than it was and that's the beauty of the genre - it evolves like no other. Metal is by its simplest translation, heavy music whether it's attitude, sound, etc. these bands all click those boxes.

if you can't see how enslaved for instance is great metal because it was directly inspired by all the bands you seem to like, you can't really say that these bands are 'shit'

i know this is your opinion but you have t substantiate such a strong thesis and I think it might not be rooted in music, but something else.

 

Re: 2010 Music: Best of lists...

No, I'm not saying the only good metal is old school. I say that most of the stuff in your list isn't metal. If your definition of metal is that it is "heavy music" the definition becomes useless.

Oh, and Enslaved are another band on the list that actually still plays metal, although with lots of external influences. I've never been a huge black metal fan, but Enslaved are okayish. Just for you I listened to threee songs from the new album on youtube - and it leaves me completely cold. They actually increased the metal element again, compared to whatever I heard last from them, but nothing to write home about.

Although I get a good laugh out of the idea that those bands are sophisticated or artistic. The hybris is baffling. Just another bunch of wannabe intelectual nerdy, middle class college kids trying to hi-jack honest working class music.

I'd love, love, love to hear about the sophisticated, masterful art of Bison BC, Deftones, Monster Magnet or Electric Wizard, though. And how this is not stuff we already heard a million times before.

I mean, someone who talks about metal being "infinitely more sophisticated technically, topically, artistically than it was" and thinks Electric Wizard have done one of the best albums of the year? REALLY? You must be shitting me. Leftover Black Sabbath riffs, lots of okyaish guitar solos and some of the most dimwitted lyrics I've ever heard. Faux-retro asthetic, and a bit of pseudo evil added to it.

Yeah, soooooo much better than the bands they rip off

 

Re: 2010 Music: Best of lists...

i didn't say all those bands play sophisticated metal, but the genre has evolved into a more sophisticated art form.

it's pointless to really continue this discussion if you can't validate why bands mentioned in the two lists can't be considered Metal.

 

Re: 2010 Music: Best of lists...

You tend to come off a tad bit insecure when it comes to your entertainment choices, be it music or comic books. If you like them they just HAVE to have some huge artistic qualities, I guess.

And still, you list a bands with absolutely zero originality, like Electric Wizard, or Bison BC (who seem to be a rip off of a band that wasn't all that original to begin with, Mastodon. Although I have only listened to 2 songs online and read one or two revies. Never let it be said I don't do my research ).

I still have no idea what's so sophisticated about those bands? That they include elements from other genres?

Wake me up when those bands release something as interesting as Captain Beyond, Sir Lord Baltimore, BÖC, Black Sabbath, Budgie, Adramelch, Celtic Frost, Trouble, Saint Vitus, Divine Eve, Sabbat, Sieges Even, Atheist, Mekong Delta, Jester's March, Psychotic Waltz, Watchtower, Voivod, Solitude Aeturnus, Pestilence, Cathedral, Seventh Angel, Candlemass, Fates Warning and tons of others did...

Not to mention that quality doesn't depend on how complicated something is. A straight rocker can invoke more emotion and celebrate life better than some of that oh so sophisticated stuff.

That's because I'm not really all that interested to do so... it's simply because many of those bands have much more in common with other genres - all the core stuff: postcore/hardcore/sludge/grindcore (e.g. The Ocean, DEP, Kylesa, FTF), stoner rock (Monster Magnet) or alternative (Deftones). I'd be more interested to hear why the Deftones can be considered metal (unless the definition includes "all heavy music", I'll pass then).

Other bands from those lists which are still mostly metal, like Enslaved, are mostly notable for incorporating non metal influences into their music, in their case prog rock and some poppy melodies (the middle part of Ethica Odini! Seriously, what else is this other than a black metal version of mid/late-90s melo death?).

Ok, and some bands are metal. Like Electric Wizard. Which I still included for the LULz.

 

Re: 2010 Music: Best of lists...

huh? again, can you substantiate this? not even sure you know my tastes..

You keep picking EZ and Bison BC, but they are what they are, nothing innovative but fun because it's a modernization of sorts of an established genre.

For one, modern metal bands dare to explore other topics aside from histoyr, sci-fi and satanism. And when they do, they do it in different contexts and form narratives that bands from 20 years ago wouldn't dare to do. Look at Nachtmystium, Aggaloch, Between the Buried and Me, Genghis Tron, Isis, among others. The fact that other sounds, and instruments are more widely used and experimented with is testament to these guys' boldness to test their vision in different methods. I don't see quite what's wrong with this nor why they don't deserve credit for it.

Also, globalization has made it possible for bands from Israel, China, Ukraine, Romania, among others to explore genres from cultures you normally wouldn't associate with them and hear their take on the genre. It makes for fascinating listening. If this interests you check out, Melechesh, Khors, Negura Bunget...

This begs the question, how much modern metal have you actually given a chance to listen and examine carefully.

agreed. this isn't about technicalities. If it was the list would be different and I'd be using only that. The bands I mention aren't necessairly technical. In fact, modern metal bands (obviously the great ones) are more or less guys who are masters of their craft but don't necessarily choose to show it off. there are LOADS of bands like this - Kylesa, Isis, Cult of Luna, Pelican, Kvelertak, Wolves in the Throne Room, Katatonia..

Metal has sub genres. They're still considered Metal. Deftones' early career was easily categorizable as a mix of alternative and metal, from their riffs to the vocals. They still carry a lot of those qualities.

For you, what is Metal then?

 

Re: 2010 Music: Best of lists...

Come on Alex, there is stuff out there beyond Blackie Lawless and bible themed Christian glam metal. Open your mind maaaaaaaaaaaan.

And oh yea, 2010 was pretty underwhelming year for music, certainly the mainstream and "critics darling" shit.

 

Re: 2010 Music: Best of lists...

I don't post much in the NSR forum anymore (I did so much more often a few years ago), but I still read them relatively regularily. And somehow I got the impression you tend to defend stuff you like by pointing out how artsy it is. And it's not as if a keep a record of what you like, but I got a general idea from the various music related threads - and, I think [apologies if I mix you up with someone else], an epic discussion with nicephoras on Watchmen or something like that.

Well, that's because I'm most familar with EW, and also know quite a few 70s to early 90s doom bands (and that's also why I think they are nothing special at all - although EW aren't exactly a new band themselves, I'm pretty sure they are around since the early 90s as well). And I look closer into Bison BC because of the godawful name . My point was just that, if metal is much more sophisticated now and all, how bands that just rehash things from the past could be even close to a year's best list.

Well, I don't know how familiar you are with classic metal but pretty much all of the bands I listed dealed with other themes. Thoughtful lyrics weren't invented in the 2000s (nor was musical experementation).

And no, I don't see it as particularily bold. And I'm all for everyone making the music he wants to and be happy - I give people credit for making the music they like and are enthusiastic about. Also: bands like that actually chart in the US these days. The Deftones are as mainstream as it gets in heavy music of course, but quite a few other "modern" bands mentioned in this thread did so too (some top 20, some barely top 200 but whatever). Being a traditional metal band (without an "ironic" or "modern" twist) will hardly get you any new fans. Older bands still can count on hardcore fans from the past, while new bands who don't market themselves to the 20-something college crowd (and they exist!) will never get a major deal in the US. Not that this is a sign of quality in itself, but my respect goes to those who make the music they love (and often absolutely professional sounding) despite knowing they'll never make a single buck out of it.

Well, as I said - I was a teenager in the 90s. I used to be into Deftones, and sometimes more, sometimes less casually listened to other stuff that was modern back then, including the also already mentioned Monster Magnet, and things like Tool, NIN, Ministry, System of Down, as well as then current Scandinavian stuff... my interest in stuff like this mostly left me around the turn of the millenium. I had listened to traditional metal and hard rock bands before, together with modern stuff, but around 2001/02 I sold almost all of my "modern" albums and never looked back.

I casually kept up with new trends after that, and from time to time I still check new releases to see what all the fuzz on online message boards is all about, but I don't put much time into it. But I don't feel the need for much soul searching there anyway - I know my musical tastes and I don't try to do any in-deep reviews of stuff I don't like. I listened to one, or two songs by bands from this thread I wasn't familiar with, and that's good enough for a quick judgement (and honestly, most people do so with genres they don't like).

Well, the first two Deftones albums are among the few of my teenage records I actually kept (out of nostalgia), so I guess I can say I'm familiar with them, but I don't see much metal.

However, genre discussion ultimately don't lead to much (especially with Americans - and no offense meant at all, it's just that you guys often have a different idea of what metal is supposed to be). For my definiton: everything firmly rooted in traditional hard rock. You can still draw a line from Death metal or black metal to late 60s rock bands. Everything that's mostly rooted in punk/hardcore, electronic music, industrial, alternative, indie, whatever, isn't metal. Of course this isn't exact science. And personally I also take into account a band's image and attitude - short haired guys with trendy beards and glasses don't cut it, sorry - but that's only for personal use.

 

Re: 2010 Music: Best of lists...

I'm pretty sure I can live with your disapproval .

Anyway - as I said, it's my personal definition. I consider only bands metal that are also part of the metal scene. "Grooming choices" are by no means the only way to find out if they are, but it tends to be a pretty good indicator.

When it comes to modern American "metal" bands, many of the members come from the indie rock or hardcore scenes. For some reason there was market for "ironic" metal in the mid-2000s, with many bands who came of as extremely insincere:
http://www.examiner.com/metal-music-in-houston/hipster-metal
http://www.invisibleoranges.com/2007/03/hipster-metal/

Yeah, I know - the entire hipster craze is a dead hores and boring as hell etc. For me the only important point is that I only care for bands that are sincere in what they are doing.

But as I said, that's my personal definition and it cocnerns metal as a music scene and not a musical genre. Some musical subcultures like straight edge hardcore or whatever are defined by things beyond music, so it's hardly that outlandish.

 

This seems like a fertile conversation, but it was kind of taking over the Best Of.. thread.

Hope that's cool and hope the conversation continues.

Thx -- CyC

 

Re: 2010 Music: Best of lists...

i get it that for some peeps the music is so enmeshed with "lifestyle" that band members have to "represent!", but that's pretty puerile, isn't it? if the top rated (what ever that means ) death metal band suddenly shaved their heads, eventually there might be a cultural response, maybe almost instantaneous, but it wouldn't change their music one iota. there would clearly be some fans who would feel betrayed because their identities are caught up in that image. that's a bit sad.

a long time ago, i read a personal ad in the LA Times written by a woman who wanted to meet a Barry Manilow look-alike. that approaches tragic, to narrow your view so much that anything out of type isn't worth extending yourself toward.

i say: pretend it doesn't matter until it doesn't matter.

 

ahh I see...well I'm glad to squash this myth. I'd be quite disappointed in my intelligence if I had to resort to such a vain and thinly defined argument.

The Watchmen argument was simply that I didn't think Snyder adapted the comic into film so a lot of what made the source material work as more than just a graphic novel was lost.

I don't think EW are that special either to be fair but I do like that sound and they're doing it better than a lot of bands that try to - it's really as simple as that. We're not talking Opeth here.

I agree. Bison BC is a shit name.

very familiar. I grew up with Sabbath, nwobhm, Priest, Dio, etc.

Bands did deal with some of those themes back then but the genre was still new and most obviously not at its intellectual peak as there was far more focus on musical structure. I don't think that's really disputable.

Also, technology got better. Bands now are using it to such great lengths that it gives them the ability to express themselves better. It's the times. Not that Halford, Wilson, Dickinson and co. are at fault but it is what it is. Modern bands are taking advantage of things like this and it's made for the most expressive and varied Metal ever.

And again, for all the trendy American bands that exist there are many others that live their lives with a lot of humility. The Ocean for instance are one of them.

Well I don't think it's enough to make such general statements, and because most people do, that's also not ok.

Most people think films like Avatar and Inception are the greatest films ever so that should tell you something.

Well, I'm European and I don't subscribe to a set definition really. I do know a lot of people who do and they tend to be the most close minded.

And of course, the lifestyle/image thing I don't agree with. It's something that bothers me but I can largely tell if a band is serious about their craft.

 

I'm not a big fan of Screamo, or whatever it's called these days, but that video in OP was pretty good. I dug it. My rock taste tends to lean towards punk more than other styles, but I appreciate a good rock song, regardless of style.

 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3Vcoq-QRo4&feature=fvsr"]YouTube - Red Fang "Prehistoric Dog" (high quality feature)[/ame]

 

Re: 2010 Music: Best of lists...

You are not supposed to take it that literally - there are many metal musicians who got short hair (not always voluntarily, age and all), but to say that this would have an impact on their music would obviously be stupid. What I'm talking about are bands that either distanced themselves from, or where never part of, a metal scene. Of course you can never tell by looks what genre a band is (and it would be somewhat absurd to think a song changes genre depending on the fact if you have seen a band photoi or not...)

In some cases what you know about a band can help you to categorize them, though - a band that has some metal elements to their sound, but doesn't exactly scream metal? Plus members looking like indie rockers? Not metal. On the other hand, a band that doesn't really cut it musically (like many melodic rock bands of the 80s), but isn't that far off, can qualify as metal to me if the members are clearly connected to the metal scene.

 

Re: 2010 Music: Best of lists...

see, this is what i'm talking about. the rigid categorization of a "scene" outside of which musicians are not supposed to stray. that's not a mature perspective.

when The Beatles began their rise to the top of musics pantheon, they were playing Chuck Berry and Motown covers and what could have been called "bubble gum", if they had not been part of The British Invasion.

it didn't take them long to establish their own musical focus, where all of their songs were written by band members.

they created their own scene, which was extremely fluid over the 8 year span that they were together.

somehow you have decided that there are specifications that have to be met for a band to earn the "metal" appellation.

this ain't French wine.

 

Yeah, but people thought that the source material didn't in the first place, but don't worry, I'm certainly not opening THAT can of worms .

That's just patronizing. People wrote lyrics for the music they wanted to do. Metal also originated as a kind of anti-prog rock, and as a working class youth subculture. There is no platonic ideal of "intellectual music" that genres progress towards. And obviously there is no objective way to rate this.

I, certainly, don't see anything lacking in the music of the 1970s and 80s (and early 90s), and there are tons of bands I can identify with.

Not to mention - what goes as intellectual in heavy music these days is rather pretentious. Metal is hardly the place to go for philosophical insights. Whatever great philosophical insight a musician wants to present - it has been said already elsewhere. I prefer slice of life lyrics or an interesting narrative to shallow insights the writer thought were kind of clever but are not nearly as deep as he thought they were.

Commercial success doesn't say anything, neither positive or negative, about the quality of the music. But it does say what is popular - and it puts the entire boundary pushing thing a bit into perspective if those bands play music that is pretty much accepted and supported by the audience currently. Even The Ocean are on one of the biggest metal labels (Metal Blade, which is affiliated with Sony BMG). Again, doesn't say anything about the quality of the music or the bands - and these days a place in the billboard top 200 won't make you rich anyway.

However: traditional metal bands can't expect even the modest earnings those bands get (unless they are old bands with a huge fanbase already), and commercially, especially in the US, tradtional metal is pretty much dead. For most of the bands it's a labour of love.

There's really no reason why they shouldn't think so. I might not agree with them (haven't seen the movie, so I can't say either way), but ultimately there's no right or wrong when it comes to art (maybe cultural or academic convetions you might or might not agree with).

But you moved to the US as a child or teenager iirc.

 

Well, yes, I did. That's the entire point. And it's a rather typical mindset for underground metal. Many kids are drawn to it by the subculture aspect. For me it definitely was as important as the music itself, if not moreso.

I'm not exactly part of any metal scene anymore, I don't go to concerts much anymore and I certainly don't want to tell musicians what they should play, or people what music they should listen too. But my definition of metal hasn't changed all that much from the kid who HAD to let everyone and their mothers know what music he was into, and that everyone else's musical tastes sucked .

I don't understand sports rivalries on the other hand, so I guess that balances it

 

I'm going to make this simple and a bit vague

It's not about the what, but about the how.

My overall point was that the Ocean's 'more' ambiguous and philosophical approach (which they are still evolving) has created a rather large barrier in the Metal community. There are more fans who don't like them than people who do. They've had virtually no support for any U.S. tours even though being popular in Europe and I'd bet my house on it that it has to do with the way they present their music and consequently their artistic image. And their music is extremely accessible.

 

my taste in music has always been quite eclectic. i had somewhere in the neighborhood of 2500 vinyl LPs and have around 1200 cds.

my first LP purchase was Mr. Tamborine Man by The Byrds, and a fine album it is.

but i have owned plenty of 80s metal and some stuff that approaches metal from later, like King's X, which i guess is sort of prog-metal, pre-grunge?

as you can imagine, i prefer music to be tuneful, melodic, but it doesn't turn me off completely it if the music is sort of thuddingly mindless, as long as there is something interesting going on, like good guitar work. but i don't care for pure technical virtuosity, which can be tedious. playing fast is great but it doesn't stay interesting to me.

my idea of grim is some classically trained speed metal clone playing arpeggios for 87 seconds. gaaaaaak.

for example:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KC7SdT0YL4U"]YouTube - Children Of Bodom - In Your Face[/ame]

Alexi Laiho is a more than competent guitarist, but he only has technical mastery of the guitar. if he has any musical ideas, he doesn't express them in that song.

i do love how CoB stands with their legs wide apart. i can only hope somebody with hobnail boots manages to get close.