173 réponses à ce sujet

[marshalleck]

Genres don't exist because you're ignorant of them?



Folk metal as a classification is pretty much widely accepted and understood in the world of metal.



Anyways, this thread is a perfect example of why they should just avoid using any of it in the marketing.

[Seifz]

marshalleck wrote...

Genres don't exist because you're ignorant of them?

Folk metal as a classification is pretty much widely accepted and understood in the world of metal.

Anyways, this thread is a perfect example of why they should just avoid using any of it in the marketing.

I don't deny that others use the label folk metal.  I deny that it's folk just because it uses "folk instruments" and I deny that many of the metal sub-genres are truly distinct enough to have their own labels.

[marshalleck]

It doesn't matter what you personally think of the genre label, as long as there is a consensus in the community about generally what bands or style of music someone is referring to when they invoke the name of a sub-genre. Seems like a weird thing for you to get hung up on. It's like you have some bizarro anti-snob music snob thing going on.

Modifié par marshalleck, 19 septembre 2010 - 03:44 .

[ZaroktheImmortal]

Seifz wrote...

ZaroktheImmortal wrote...

Seifz wrote...

DrunkDeadman wrote...

Why do people categorize all metal as an obnoxious, loud yelling and jet engines? How in the hell is a band like Delain (for example) obnoxious and loud? Even harder sounding bands such as Draconian have some of the most beautiful songs I have ever heard.

1.  Most metal is loud and obnoxious.  Screaming, repetitive power chords, "I can play super awesome guitar, watch!", etc.  I don't have the patience to find the few good songs amongst all of the crap.

2.  Metal fans are also generally obnoxious.  They always have a list of 5-10 bands that nobody's ever heard of and those bands are "real" metal.  The rest is just mainstream crap, you know?  Plus, anyone who doesn't like metal has terrible taste and is just a product of society.  Also, Guitar Hero and Rock Band should include only metal tracks because those are harder to play.  Right, guys?!  Right?!

That's why I have no problem saying, "I hate metal."  I like a few songs from a few bands, but not enough to invalidate that statement. 

EDIT:  As for the video you linked, the guitars are oboxious from the beginning.  It's just noise.  Does every metal song really need a whole bunch of repeitive, heavily distorted power chords?  Is that what makes it metal, or something?  Bah!  I like the non-guitar instruments.  Minus points for the female vocals.  That last part is a personal thing, but suffice to say that I can't stand female vocalists who aren't clasically trained.  Their higher-pitched voices just bother me.

1. Is wrong. Have you ever even seen the lyrics to metal songs? I doubt you even know what real metal is. There's a lot of variety between the sub-genres and early metal bands like Black Sabbath, Judas Priest and Dio sounded very different from metal bands of today.

It is not wrong.  It's my opinion.  I find most metal to be loud and obnoxious.  That's all there is to it.  I've heard plenty of different metal bands because I used to live with a metal-head who insisted that I hear this song or that song.  He never did change my mind about the genre as a whole.

2 Is wrong again. I like most sub-genres and most metal bands for different reasons. Again there's a lot of variety in metal more than any other genre of music and there' s also a lot of crossover genres like Folk Metal, Symphonic Metal, Industrial Metal, Gothic Metal. It's successfully mixed with other genres more than any other style of music. Another thing I love about metal.

No, it's not wrong.  I'm obviously generalizing.  I don't care about one specific metal fan.  That said, what the hell is folk metal?  The folk crowd turned on Bob Dylan the minute he plugged in his electric guitar and now there are bands trying to claim that they're "folk metal"?  Sure.  You remind me of those emo fans that insist emo has multiple sub-genres that are actually distinct.  Sorry, but I'm not buying it.

I don't deny the existance of symphonic metal.  I've heard a fair bit of that and I actually do enjoy some of it.  The rest all sounds the same, to me.  Loud and obnoxious.  Mostly.

The words of someone who knows nothing about metal. By the way you're going on you probably heard some random band on the radio and think all metal bands sound like that. You are wrong.

No.

EDIT:  I guess I should clarify.  Yes, I understand the difference between a band like Rammstein and a band like, say, Iron Maiden.  I get it.  That doesn't change my opinion.

No that’s not all there is to it. You can think whatever you want, but metal has a lot more to it than other music genres.

Now you’re comparing metal to emo? You really have no idea. Perhaps you should actually listen to them before you judge. Simply because people didn't like some musican using electric guitars doesn't mean someone else wouldn't like it. Everyone has different tastes and there’s a large variety of different metal. Like Symphonic metal has mostly female singers with soft voices. Alternative metal is very varied. Nu metal is mostly try to mix metal with hip hop. Thrash metal is an interesting style on it’s own. And the old metal bands sounded very different to metal of today. In fact Ozzy and Black Sabbath didn’t make that much use of the electric guitars, like look at the song Mr Crowley for instance.

There’s a whole list of different sub-genres of metal that sound very different. Black metal sounds nothing like alternative metal or even thrash metal. Each genre has it’s own style. It’s not something I’m just claiming and the fact that you assume it is just proves how ignorant you are. And some sub-genres have very different types of music for each like Alternative metal covers quite a lot of different musicans who don't sound anything alike.

Modifié par ZaroktheImmortal, 19 septembre 2010 - 04:43 .

[GodWood]

I wanted to snap my disc when I heard "This is War" for the credits.

God I hope they don't pick some awful crap like that again.

[Seifz]

No that’s not all there is to it. You can think whatever you want, but metal has a lot more to it than other music genres.

I'm sorry, but you can't tell me that my opinion is "wrong".  It's an opinion.  That really is all there is to it.  If you don't share my opinion, then that's fine, but don't tell me that I'm "wrong" when I simply give an opinion.

Now you’re comparing metal to emo? You really have no idea.

No, I'm comparing metal fans (in general, not a specific fan) to emo fans (in general, not a specific emo fan) and the breakdown of metal sub-genres (including such gems as celtic metal, post metal, crust punk, and extreme metal) to the breakdown of emo sub-genres (they do a similarly silly thing).  If you don't see the similarities, then perhaps you should look harder.

Perhaps you should actually listen to them before you judge. Simply because people didn't like some musican using electric guitars doesn't mean someone else wouldn't like it. Everyone has different tastes and there’s a large variety of different metal.

I've listened to plenty of metal.  Lots and lots and lots of it.  As I said, I used to live with a metal head.  I just don't like it.

My comment about Bob Dylan stands.  I reject the notion that "folk metal" is a true fusion just because it uses "folk instruments".  There's much, much more to folk than "folk instruments".  Apparently, the "creators" of folk metal were just a metal band that added a fiddle to some tracks.  Sorry, that's not folk.

The reason that I mentioned Bob Dylan is because the folk community at large traditionally rejects electric guitars and loud noises.  When Bob Dylan went electric for the first time, there was a big backlash and a lot of his fans turned away.  That doesn't mean that nobody likes music with electric guitars (I happen to very much enjoy the electric guitar!).  I'm just saying that folk and metal don't go well together and I don't accept "folk metal" as a true fusion.  Since genres are largely subjective anyway, I don't see why this is a problem.

Like Symphonic metal has mostly female singers with soft voices. Alternative metal is very varied. Nu metal is mostly try to mix metal with hip hop. Thrash metal is an interesting style on it’s own. And the old metal bands sounded very different to metal of today. In fact Black Sabbath didn’t make that much use of the electric guitars, like look at the song Mr Crowley for instance.

First of all, I actually like Mr. Crowley.  Second, what?  There's plenty of electric guitar in that song.  Have you ever made it past the first 50 seconds or so?  Anyway, Mr. Crowley was on Ozzy's first solo album after he was fired from Sabbath.  So,  to your superior knowledge.

There’s a whole list of different sub-genres of metal that sound very different. Black metal sounds nothing like alternative metal or even thrash metal. Each genre has it’s own style. It’s not something I’m just claiming and the fact that you assume it is just proves how ignorant you are. And some sub-genres have very different types of music for each like Alternative metal covers quite a lot of different musicans who don't sound anything alike.

I acknowledged that symphonic metal is a truly distinct sub-genre already.  Alternative metal is a BS sub-genre that claims such a wide range of bands that it's not even worth using.  Nearly every alternative metal band has been classified under 1-3 other metal sub-genres.  So, I reject alternative metal as a useful label.

Nu metal is a puzzle, to me.  I don't understand how Linkin' Park and System of a Down can be in the same sub-genre.  I don't understand how using syncopated rythms is enough to declare that your music is in a new sub-genre.  "Nu metal" still consists largely of power chords, heavy distortion, and mindless common-time strumming.  That sounds like "regular" metal, to me.  Very few bands considered "nu metal" add hip hop to their music.  So, I reject nu metal as a useful label.

Now, thrash metal seems (to me) to just be metal.  Metallica and Slayer are "regular" metal, to me.  So I'm not sure why we need to label them "thrash metal".  I suppose that if you really want to differentiate those bands from bands like Sabbath, that's fine, but I insist that there's no need to do so.  They're not different enough, musically.

This is all wildly off-topic, of course.  My basic point is just that the breakdown of metal into sub-genres, sub-sub-genres, and sub-sub-sub-genres is ridiculous.  I mean, I've even seen people break "folk metal" into things like "celtic metal" and "oriental metal".  Come on!  Where does it end?  Should each band get its own genre?  Bah.

The heavily distorted, common-time power chords is the part that I generally don't like.  That's what I generally find to be loud and obnoxious.  (Well, that and the overused base pedal on the drums.)  Just about every sub-genre of metal still has these features.  So, I don't care if you want to split metal up into 800 different sub-genres and try to claim that they're all different.  They're all still loud and obnoxious, to me!

Modifié par Seifz, 19 septembre 2010 - 04:19 .

[GodWood]

Seifz wrote...

No that’s not all there is to it. You can think whatever you want, but metal has a lot more to it than other music genres.

I'm sorry, but you can't tell me that my opinion is "wrong".  It's an opinion.  That really is all there is to it.  If you don't share my opinion, then that's fine, but don't tell me that I'm "wrong" when I simply give an opinion.

Opinions can be wrong.

[ZaroktheImmortal]

Seifz wrote...

No that’s not all there is to it. You can think whatever you want, but metal has a lot more to it than other music genres.

I'm sorry, but you can't tell me that my opinion is "wrong".  It's an opinion.  That really is all there is to it.  If you don't share my opinion, then that's fine, but don't tell me that I'm "wrong" when I simply give an opinion.

Now you’re comparing metal to emo? You really have no idea.

No, I'm comparing metal fans (in general, not a specific fan) to emo fans (in general, not a specific emo fan) and the breakdown of metal sub-genres (including such gems as celtic metal, post metal, crust punk, and extreme metal) to the breakdown of emo sub-genres (they do a similarly silly thing).  If you don't see the similarities, then perhaps you should look harder.

Perhaps you should actually listen to them before you judge. Simply because people didn't like some musican using electric guitars doesn't mean someone else wouldn't like it. Everyone has different tastes and there’s a large variety of different metal.

I've listened to plenty of metal.  Lots and lots and lots of it.  As I said, I used to live with a metal head.  I just don't like it.

My comment about Bob Dylan stands.  I reject the notion that "folk metal" is a true fusion just because it uses "folk instruments".  There's much, much more to folk than "folk instruments".  Apparently, the "creators" of folk metal were just a metal band that added a fiddle to some tracks.  Sorry, that's not folk.

The reason that I mentioned Bob Dylan is because the folk community at large traditionally rejects electric guitars and loud noises.  When Bob Dylan went electric for the first time, there was a big backlash and a lot of his fans turned away.  That doesn't mean that nobody likes music with electric guitars (I happen to very much enjoy the electric guitar!).  I'm just saying that folk and metal don't go well together and I don't accept "folk metal" as a true fusion.  Since genres are largely subjective anyway, I don't see why this is a problem.

Like Symphonic metal has mostly female singers with soft voices. Alternative metal is very varied. Nu metal is mostly try to mix metal with hip hop. Thrash metal is an interesting style on it’s own. And the old metal bands sounded very different to metal of today. In fact Black Sabbath didn’t make that much use of the electric guitars, like look at the song Mr Crowley for instance.

First of all, I actually like Mr. Crowley.  Second, what?  There's plenty of electric guitar in that song.  Have you ever made it past the first 50 seconds or so?  Anyway, Mr. Crowley was on Ozzy's first solo album after he was fired from Sabbath.  So,  to your superior knowledge.

There’s a whole list of different sub-genres of metal that sound very different. Black metal sounds nothing like alternative metal or even thrash metal. Each genre has it’s own style. It’s not something I’m just claiming and the fact that you assume it is just proves how ignorant you are. And some sub-genres have very different types of music for each like Alternative metal covers quite a lot of different musicans who don't sound anything alike.

I acknowledged that symphonic metal is a truly distinct sub-genre already.  Alternative metal is a BS sub-genre that claims such a wide range of bands that it's not even worth using.  Nearly every alternative metal band has been classified under 1-3 other metal sub-genres.  So, I reject alternative metal as a useful label.

Nu metal is a puzzle, to me.  I don't understand how Linkin' Park and System of a Down can be in the same sub-genre.  I don't understand how using syncopated rythms is enough to declare that your music is in a new sub-genre.  "Nu metal" still consists largely of power chords, heavy distortion, and mindless common-time strumming.  That sounds like "regular" metal, to me.  Very few bands considered "nu metal" add hip hop to their music.  So, I reject nu metal as a useful label.

Now, thrash metal seems (to me) to just be metal.  Metallica and Slayer are "regular" metal, to me.  So I'm not sure why we need to label them "thrash metal".  I suppose that if you really want to differentiate those bands from bands like Sabbath, that's fine, but I insist that there's no need to do so.  They're not different enough, musically.

This is all wildly off-topic, of course.  My basic point is just that the breakdown of metal into sub-genres, sub-sub-genres, and sub-sub-sub-genres is ridiculous.  I mean, I've even seen people break "folk metal" into things like "celtic metal" and "oriental metal".  Come on!  Where does it end?  Should each band get its own genre?  Bah.

The heavily distorted, common-time power chords is the part that I generally don't like.  That's what I generally find to be loud and obnoxious.  (Well, that and the overused base pedal on the drums.)  Just about every sub-genre of metal still has these features.  So, I don't care if you want to split metal up into 800 different sub-genres and try to claim that they're all different.  They're all still loud and obnoxious, to me!

So the only type of metal you see as different is Symponic? Alternative is wide-ranged. Most of the bands have very different styles.

Nu metal isn’t one that is very popular with metal fans of other sub-genres, but it’s a metal genre all the same. Different people like different styles. Also if you can’t tell the difference between Nu-metal and other sub-genres of metal then you really need to get your hearing checked.
 
Thrash Metal are different to other genres again they have their own style.
 
Some genres do have similiaties, but many sound nothing alike. Power Metal for example I think was probably influenced by Dio. The song holy diver while it’s not really put into a sub-genre as it’s early metal but a lot of power metal bands sound like they were influenced by his style.

So having electric guitars makes them all the same? You clearly need to look beyond something of what instruments they use. Claiming they’re all the same putting them all in same category only shows how deeply ignorant you are of the entire genre. You think the use of electric guitars makes every single band sound the same? So perhaps I should claim that every band that uses drums is the same?

"distorted, common-time power chords is the part that I generally don't like"

There's a lot more to metal than just power chords.

Modifié par ZaroktheImmortal, 19 septembre 2010 - 04:40 .

[Seifz]

No, opinions cannot be wrong, by definition.  They can be misinformed, but mine isn't.  I've heard plenty of metal.  I don't like 95% of it.  I also don't like almost every metal fan that I've ever conversed with because, well, they act like this guy...

ZaroktheImmortal wrote...
So the only type of metal you see as different is Symponic? Alternative is wide-ranged. Most of the bands have very different styles.

Nu metal isn’t one that is very popular with metal fans of other sub-genres, but it’s a metal genre all the same. Different people like different styles. Also if you can’t tell the difference between Nu-metal and other sub-genres of metal then you really need to get your hearing checked.
 
Thrash Metal are different to other genres again they have their own style.
 
Some genres do have similiaties, but many sound nothing alike. Power Metal for example I think was probably influenced by Dio. The song holy diver while it’s not really put into a sub-genre as it’s early metal but a lot of power metal bands sound like they were influenced by his style.

The point is that the differences between these sub-genres are generally so small that they shouldn't be classified as separate genres.  Symphonic metal is truly distinctive from most other metal music.  The other genres are almost entirely defined by simple changes to the base idea.  If you play faster, that's speed metal or thrash metal.  If you syncopate your rythms, suddenly you're nu metal.

I'll give you an example.  I wouldn't normally use Wikipedia as a reference for anything, but I think the descriptions on this topic are quite fine.  Here's Black Metal:

Black metal is an extreme subgenre of heavy metal. It often uses fast tempos, shrieked vocals, highly distorted guitars played with tremolo picking, blast beat drumming, and unconventional song structure.

And here's Death Metal:

Death metal is an extreme subgenre of heavy metal. It typically employs heavily distorted guitars, tremolo picking, deep growling vocals, blast beat drumming, minor keys or atonality, and complex song structures with multiple tempo changes.

So what's the difference?  One has growling vocals and the other has shrieked vocals?  Yeah, that's worth defining two separate genres.  Totally.

So having electric guitars makes them all the same? You clearly need to look beyond something of what instruments they use. Claiming they’re all the same putting them all in same category only shows how deeply ignorant you are of the entire genre.

No, music with heavily distorted electric guitars strumming power chords in common time with loud, often distorted vocals is all the same genre.  I never said that any song using electric guitars was in the same genre.  If you're going to respond, I ask that you not misrepresent my words.

EDIT:  Actually, this Wikipedia article is quite revealing.  They even list a sub-sub-genre called "Blackened Death Metal", which is supposedly a fusion between the two.  How ridiculous is that?

Modifié par Seifz, 19 septembre 2010 - 04:47 .

[TheMufflon]

Metal? I thought this game was supposed to be mature. Metal is for children.

[GodWood]

Seifz wrote...
No, opinions cannot be wrong, by definition.

So my opinion that opinions can be wrong is wrong?

They can be misinformed, but mine isn't.

Regardless of whether it has a few correct facts if it is in some way wrong it is then wrong.
Note: I'm not referring to your specific opinion on metal, just opinions in general.

@ thread, and for fun heres some sludge/doom

Modifié par GodWood, 19 septembre 2010 - 04:51 .

[ZaroktheImmortal]

Seifz wrote...

No, opinions cannot be wrong, by definition.  They can be misinformed, but mine isn't.  I've heard plenty of metal.  I don't like 95% of it.  I also don't like almost every metal fan that I've ever conversed with because, well, they act like this guy...

ZaroktheImmortal wrote...
So the only type of metal you see as different is Symponic? Alternative is wide-ranged. Most of the bands have very different styles.

Nu metal isn’t one that is very popular with metal fans of other sub-genres, but it’s a metal genre all the same. Different people like different styles. Also if you can’t tell the difference between Nu-metal and other sub-genres of metal then you really need to get your hearing checked.
 
Thrash Metal are different to other genres again they have their own style.
 
Some genres do have similiaties, but many sound nothing alike. Power Metal for example I think was probably influenced by Dio. The song holy diver while it’s not really put into a sub-genre as it’s early metal but a lot of power metal bands sound like they were influenced by his style.

The point is that the differences between these sub-genres are generally so small that they shouldn't be classified as separate genres.  Symphonic metal is truly distinctive from most other metal music.  The other genres are almost entirely defined by simple changes to the base idea.  If you play faster, that's speed metal or thrash metal.  If you syncopate your rythms, suddenly you're nu metal.

I'll give you an example.  I wouldn't normally use Wikipedia as a reference for anything, but I think the descriptions on this topic are quite fine.  Here's Black Metal:

Black metal is an extreme subgenre of heavy metal. It often uses fast tempos, shrieked vocals, highly distorted guitars played with tremolo picking, blast beat drumming, and unconventional song structure.

And here's Death Metal:

Death metal is an extreme subgenre of heavy metal. It typically employs heavily distorted guitars, tremolo picking, deep growling vocals, blast beat drumming, minor keys or atonality, and complex song structures with multiple tempo changes.

So what's the difference?  One has growling vocals and the other has shrieked vocals?  Yeah, that's worth defining two separate genres.  Totally.

So having electric guitars makes them all the same? You clearly need to look beyond something of what instruments they use. Claiming they’re all the same putting them all in same category only shows how deeply ignorant you are of the entire genre.

No, music with heavily distorted electric guitars strumming power chords in common time with loud, often distorted vocals is all the same genre.  I never said that any song using electric guitars was in the same genre.  If you're going to respond, I ask that you not misrepresent my words.

Well sure Black Metal and Death metal have similarities, though I wouldn't go by those descriptions. Some of the differences are things like Black Metal is more complex while death metal tends to be heavier in the instruments though black metal uses a more deeper vocals. They might not be as noticeable as some sub-genres but there are differences. But Compare Black Metal to Thrash Metal or Industrial Metal and you'll see very different types of music. Some sub-genres are more similar than others but there are many different varieties of sounds in metal.
And even those with slight differences still are different in their own way.

"distorted vocals "

Not all metal bands have distorted vocals. In fact many you can clearly tell what they're saying. Again you're trying to fit one sub-genre into all of them

Modifié par ZaroktheImmortal, 19 septembre 2010 - 04:55 .

[Seifz]

GodWood wrote...

Seifz wrote...
No, opinions cannot be wrong, by definition.

So my opinion that opinions can be wrong is wrong?

That's not an opinion.  It's a falsity.  From the OED, "falsity 2. Something that is false.  An untrue proposition, doctrine, or statement; an error or falsehood."

They can be misinformed, but mine isn't.

Regardless of whether it has a few correct facts if it is in some way wrong it is then wrong.
Note: I'm not referring to your specific opinion on metal, just opinions in general.

No, then it's a misinformed opinion and any mistated "facts" are falsities.  The opinion itself is still an opinion.  Please, let's not continue this discussion.  It's not very interesting.

[TheMufflon]

Seifz wrote...

GodWood wrote...

Seifz wrote...
No, opinions cannot be wrong, by definition.

So my opinion that opinions can be wrong is wrong?

That's not an opinion.  It's a falsity.  From the OED, "falsity 2. Something that is false.  An untrue proposition, doctrine, or statement; an error or falsehood."

Begging the question.

[GodWood]

Seifz wrote...
Please, let's not continue this discussion.  It's not very interesting.

I'll agree with that.

[Seifz]

ZaroktheImmortal wrote...

Seifz wrote...

No, opinions cannot be wrong, by definition.  They can be misinformed, but mine isn't.  I've heard plenty of metal.  I don't like 95% of it.  I also don't like almost every metal fan that I've ever conversed with because, well, they act like this guy...

ZaroktheImmortal wrote...
So the only type of metal you see as different is Symponic? Alternative is wide-ranged. Most of the bands have very different styles.

Nu metal isn’t one that is very popular with metal fans of other sub-genres, but it’s a metal genre all the same. Different people like different styles. Also if you can’t tell the difference between Nu-metal and other sub-genres of metal then you really need to get your hearing checked.
 
Thrash Metal are different to other genres again they have their own style.
 
Some genres do have similiaties, but many sound nothing alike. Power Metal for example I think was probably influenced by Dio. The song holy diver while it’s not really put into a sub-genre as it’s early metal but a lot of power metal bands sound like they were influenced by his style.

The point is that the differences between these sub-genres are generally so small that they shouldn't be classified as separate genres.  Symphonic metal is truly distinctive from most other metal music.  The other genres are almost entirely defined by simple changes to the base idea.  If you play faster, that's speed metal or thrash metal.  If you syncopate your rythms, suddenly you're nu metal.

I'll give you an example.  I wouldn't normally use Wikipedia as a reference for anything, but I think the descriptions on this topic are quite fine.  Here's Black Metal:

Black metal is an extreme subgenre of heavy metal. It often uses fast tempos, shrieked vocals, highly distorted guitars played with tremolo picking, blast beat drumming, and unconventional song structure.

And here's Death Metal:

Death metal is an extreme subgenre of heavy metal. It typically employs heavily distorted guitars, tremolo picking, deep growling vocals, blast beat drumming, minor keys or atonality, and complex song structures with multiple tempo changes.

So what's the difference?  One has growling vocals and the other has shrieked vocals?  Yeah, that's worth defining two separate genres.  Totally.

So having electric guitars makes them all the same? You clearly need to look beyond something of what instruments they use. Claiming they’re all the same putting them all in same category only shows how deeply ignorant you are of the entire genre.

No, music with heavily distorted electric guitars strumming power chords in common time with loud, often distorted vocals is all the same genre.  I never said that any song using electric guitars was in the same genre.  If you're going to respond, I ask that you not misrepresent my words.

Well sure Black Metal and Death metal have similarities, though I wouldn't go by those descriptions. Some of the differences are things like Black Metal is more complex while death metal tends to be heavier in the instruments though black metal uses a more deeper vocals. They might not be as noticeable as some sub-genres but there are differences. But Compare Black Metal to Thrash Metal or Industrial Metal and you'll see very different types of music. Some sub-genres are more similar than others but there are many different varieties of sounds in metal.
And even those with slight differences still are different in their own way.

Wait.  You get to define the genres in the way that you see them, but I don't?  How's that work?

There are some differences between "Black" metal and "Thrash" metal.  Black metal tends to actually be evil, often advocating satanic themes or even ****s.  Thrash metal just can't compare with that.  I mean, come on.  Death?  What kind of pansy topic is that, Metallica?  Oh, and "Black" metal has fewer guitar solos, I guess.  I hardly see how this makes it a different genre.

This whole discussion started because someone (was it you?) insisted that my opinion of metal as "loud and obnoxious" was unfounded since metal was very diverse.  I've yet to hear a description or a genre that's not loud and obnoxious (as defined earlier, with the constant-time, heavily distorted power chords nonsense).

Not all metal bands have distorted vocals. In fact many you can clearly tell what they're saying. Again you're trying to fit one sub-genre into all of them

I said often, not always.  You're doing that thing where you misrepresent my words again.  Please stop doing that.

[Silentmode]

Only modern rock bands like Breaking Benjamin, Alter Bridge, Shinedown or RED who use elements of metal to enhance their music would be epic enough for DA and if not them then go with Two Steps from Hell or X-ray dog.

I like some bands like all that remains and slipnot who are a little heavier but mindless noise isnt my personal preference.

[ZaroktheImmortal]

double post

Modifié par ZaroktheImmortal, 19 septembre 2010 - 05:13 .

[ZaroktheImmortal]

Seifz wrote...

ZaroktheImmortal wrote...

Seifz wrote...

No, opinions cannot be wrong, by definition.  They can be misinformed, but mine isn't.  I've heard plenty of metal.  I don't like 95% of it.  I also don't like almost every metal fan that I've ever conversed with because, well, they act like this guy...

ZaroktheImmortal wrote...
So the only type of metal you see as different is Symponic? Alternative is wide-ranged. Most of the bands have very different styles.

Nu metal isn’t one that is very popular with metal fans of other sub-genres, but it’s a metal genre all the same. Different people like different styles. Also if you can’t tell the difference between Nu-metal and other sub-genres of metal then you really need to get your hearing checked.
 
Thrash Metal are different to other genres again they have their own style.
 
Some genres do have similiaties, but many sound nothing alike. Power Metal for example I think was probably influenced by Dio. The song holy diver while it’s not really put into a sub-genre as it’s early metal but a lot of power metal bands sound like they were influenced by his style.

The point is that the differences between these sub-genres are generally so small that they shouldn't be classified as separate genres.  Symphonic metal is truly distinctive from most other metal music.  The other genres are almost entirely defined by simple changes to the base idea.  If you play faster, that's speed metal or thrash metal.  If you syncopate your rythms, suddenly you're nu metal.

I'll give you an example.  I wouldn't normally use Wikipedia as a reference for anything, but I think the descriptions on this topic are quite fine.  Here's Black Metal:

Black metal is an extreme subgenre of heavy metal. It often uses fast tempos, shrieked vocals, highly distorted guitars played with tremolo picking, blast beat drumming, and unconventional song structure.

And here's Death Metal:

Death metal is an extreme subgenre of heavy metal. It typically employs heavily distorted guitars, tremolo picking, deep growling vocals, blast beat drumming, minor keys or atonality, and complex song structures with multiple tempo changes.

So what's the difference?  One has growling vocals and the other has shrieked vocals?  Yeah, that's worth defining two separate genres.  Totally.

So having electric guitars makes them all the same? You clearly need to look beyond something of what instruments they use. Claiming they’re all the same putting them all in same category only shows how deeply ignorant you are of the entire genre.

No, music with heavily distorted electric guitars strumming power chords in common time with loud, often distorted vocals is all the same genre.  I never said that any song using electric guitars was in the same genre.  If you're going to respond, I ask that you not misrepresent my words.

Well sure Black Metal and Death metal have similarities, though I wouldn't go by those descriptions. Some of the differences are things like Black Metal is more complex while death metal tends to be heavier in the instruments though black metal uses a more deeper vocals. They might not be as noticeable as some sub-genres but there are differences. But Compare Black Metal to Thrash Metal or Industrial Metal and you'll see very different types of music. Some sub-genres are more similar than others but there are many different varieties of sounds in metal.
And even those with slight differences still are different in their own way.

Wait.  You get to define the genres in the way that you see them, but I don't?  How's that work?

There are some differences between "Black" metal and "Thrash" metal.  Black metal tends to actually be evil, often advocating satanic themes or even ****s.  Thrash metal just can't compare with that.  I mean, come on.  Death?  What kind of pansy topic is that, Metallica?  Oh, and "Black" metal has fewer guitar solos, I guess.  I hardly see how this makes it a different genre.

This whole discussion started because someone (was it you?) insisted that my opinion of metal as "loud and obnoxious" was unfounded since metal was very diverse.  I've yet to hear a description or a genre that's not loud and obnoxious (as defined earlier, with the constant-time, heavily distorted power chords nonsense).

Not all metal bands have distorted vocals. In fact many you can clearly tell what they're saying. Again you're trying to fit one sub-genre into all of them

I said often, not always.  You're doing that thing where you misrepresent my words again.  Please stop doing that.

If you can't tell the difference between black metal and thrash metal beyond that then you need to get your hearing checked, or perhaps you've never actually heard a Thrash Metal band. There's many differences in the instrumental and vocals. Not just what they're singing about but how they sing.

Well your opinion that they're all loud and obnoxious is wrong, also you already admitted that Symphonic metal is different so you can no longer claim they all sound the same.

"I said often, not always.  You're doing that thing where you misrepresent my words again.  Please stop doing that."

Not often, in fact many of the sub-genres and the old metal bands don't use vocals like that. Again, trying to put every single sub-genre into one package to fit your narrow minded view of the music.

Modifié par ZaroktheImmortal, 19 septembre 2010 - 05:13 .

[Seifz]

ZaroktheImmortal wrote...

Seifz wrote...

ZaroktheImmortal wrote...

Seifz wrote...

No, opinions cannot be wrong, by definition.  They can be misinformed, but mine isn't.  I've heard plenty of metal.  I don't like 95% of it.  I also don't like almost every metal fan that I've ever conversed with because, well, they act like this guy...

ZaroktheImmortal wrote...
So the only type of metal you see as different is Symponic? Alternative is wide-ranged. Most of the bands have very different styles.

Nu metal isn’t one that is very popular with metal fans of other sub-genres, but it’s a metal genre all the same. Different people like different styles. Also if you can’t tell the difference between Nu-metal and other sub-genres of metal then you really need to get your hearing checked.
 
Thrash Metal are different to other genres again they have their own style.
 
Some genres do have similiaties, but many sound nothing alike. Power Metal for example I think was probably influenced by Dio. The song holy diver while it’s not really put into a sub-genre as it’s early metal but a lot of power metal bands sound like they were influenced by his style.

The point is that the differences between these sub-genres are generally so small that they shouldn't be classified as separate genres.  Symphonic metal is truly distinctive from most other metal music.  The other genres are almost entirely defined by simple changes to the base idea.  If you play faster, that's speed metal or thrash metal.  If you syncopate your rythms, suddenly you're nu metal.

I'll give you an example.  I wouldn't normally use Wikipedia as a reference for anything, but I think the descriptions on this topic are quite fine.  Here's Black Metal:

Black metal is an extreme subgenre of heavy metal. It often uses fast tempos, shrieked vocals, highly distorted guitars played with tremolo picking, blast beat drumming, and unconventional song structure.

And here's Death Metal:

Death metal is an extreme subgenre of heavy metal. It typically employs heavily distorted guitars, tremolo picking, deep growling vocals, blast beat drumming, minor keys or atonality, and complex song structures with multiple tempo changes.

So what's the difference?  One has growling vocals and the other has shrieked vocals?  Yeah, that's worth defining two separate genres.  Totally.

So having electric guitars makes them all the same? You clearly need to look beyond something of what instruments they use. Claiming they’re all the same putting them all in same category only shows how deeply ignorant you are of the entire genre.

No, music with heavily distorted electric guitars strumming power chords in common time with loud, often distorted vocals is all the same genre.  I never said that any song using electric guitars was in the same genre.  If you're going to respond, I ask that you not misrepresent my words.

Well sure Black Metal and Death metal have similarities, though I wouldn't go by those descriptions. Some of the differences are things like Black Metal is more complex while death metal tends to be heavier in the instruments though black metal uses a more deeper vocals. They might not be as noticeable as some sub-genres but there are differences. But Compare Black Metal to Thrash Metal or Industrial Metal and you'll see very different types of music. Some sub-genres are more similar than others but there are many different varieties of sounds in metal.
And even those with slight differences still are different in their own way.

Wait.  You get to define the genres in the way that you see them, but I don't?  How's that work?

There are some differences between "Black" metal and "Thrash" metal.  Black metal tends to actually be evil, often advocating satanic themes or even ****s.  Thrash metal just can't compare with that.  I mean, come on.  Death?  What kind of pansy topic is that, Metallica?  Oh, and "Black" metal has fewer guitar solos, I guess.  I hardly see how this makes it a different genre.

This whole discussion started because someone (was it you?) insisted that my opinion of metal as "loud and obnoxious" was unfounded since metal was very diverse.  I've yet to hear a description or a genre that's not loud and obnoxious (as defined earlier, with the constant-time, heavily distorted power chords nonsense).

Not all metal bands have distorted vocals. In fact many you can clearly tell what they're saying. Again you're trying to fit one sub-genre into all of them

I said often, not always.  You're doing that thing where you misrepresent my words again.  Please stop doing that.

If you can't tell the difference between black metal and thrash metal difference between black metal and thrash metal beyond that then you need to get your hearing checked, or perhaps you've never actually heard a Thrash Metal band. There's many differences in the instrumental and vocals. Not just what they're singing about but how they sing.

Well your opinion that they're all loud and obnoxious is wrong, also you already admitted that Symphonic metal is different so you can no longer claim they all sound the same.

Didn't we already go over the part where an opinion cannot be wrong, only misinformed?  I also never claimed that all metal "sounds the same", only that it's (almost) all loud and obnoxious.  I stand by that opinion.  If you're going to keep misrepresenting what I wrote, then there's no need for me to keep replying.  I'm starting to feel as though I'm arguing with a kid on the Internet.  I need to do that less frequently.

Not often, in fact many of the sub-genres and the old metal bands don't use vocals like that. Again, trying to put every single sub-genre into one package to fit your narrow minded view of the music.

Um.  Isn't that what the label "metal" already does?  You do realize that all of the "sub-genres" of metal actually have some common characteristics, right?  If they didn't, they wouldn't be sub-genres of metal.  Those common characteristics are the ones that I tend to find obnoxious.  Get it?

[ZaroktheImmortal]

Seifz wrote...

ZaroktheImmortal wrote...

Seifz wrote...

ZaroktheImmortal wrote...

Seifz wrote...

No, opinions cannot be wrong, by definition.  They can be misinformed, but mine isn't.  I've heard plenty of metal.  I don't like 95% of it.  I also don't like almost every metal fan that I've ever conversed with because, well, they act like this guy...

ZaroktheImmortal wrote...
So the only type of metal you see as different is Symponic? Alternative is wide-ranged. Most of the bands have very different styles.

Nu metal isn’t one that is very popular with metal fans of other sub-genres, but it’s a metal genre all the same. Different people like different styles. Also if you can’t tell the difference between Nu-metal and other sub-genres of metal then you really need to get your hearing checked.
 
Thrash Metal are different to other genres again they have their own style.
 
Some genres do have similiaties, but many sound nothing alike. Power Metal for example I think was probably influenced by Dio. The song holy diver while it’s not really put into a sub-genre as it’s early metal but a lot of power metal bands sound like they were influenced by his style.

The point is that the differences between these sub-genres are generally so small that they shouldn't be classified as separate genres.  Symphonic metal is truly distinctive from most other metal music.  The other genres are almost entirely defined by simple changes to the base idea.  If you play faster, that's speed metal or thrash metal.  If you syncopate your rythms, suddenly you're nu metal.

I'll give you an example.  I wouldn't normally use Wikipedia as a reference for anything, but I think the descriptions on this topic are quite fine.  Here's Black Metal:

Black metal is an extreme subgenre of heavy metal. It often uses fast tempos, shrieked vocals, highly distorted guitars played with tremolo picking, blast beat drumming, and unconventional song structure.

And here's Death Metal:

Death metal is an extreme subgenre of heavy metal. It typically employs heavily distorted guitars, tremolo picking, deep growling vocals, blast beat drumming, minor keys or atonality, and complex song structures with multiple tempo changes.

So what's the difference?  One has growling vocals and the other has shrieked vocals?  Yeah, that's worth defining two separate genres.  Totally.

So having electric guitars makes them all the same? You clearly need to look beyond something of what instruments they use. Claiming they’re all the same putting them all in same category only shows how deeply ignorant you are of the entire genre.

No, music with heavily distorted electric guitars strumming power chords in common time with loud, often distorted vocals is all the same genre.  I never said that any song using electric guitars was in the same genre.  If you're going to respond, I ask that you not misrepresent my words.

Well sure Black Metal and Death metal have similarities, though I wouldn't go by those descriptions. Some of the differences are things like Black Metal is more complex while death metal tends to be heavier in the instruments though black metal uses a more deeper vocals. They might not be as noticeable as some sub-genres but there are differences. But Compare Black Metal to Thrash Metal or Industrial Metal and you'll see very different types of music. Some sub-genres are more similar than others but there are many different varieties of sounds in metal.
And even those with slight differences still are different in their own way.

Wait.  You get to define the genres in the way that you see them, but I don't?  How's that work?

There are some differences between "Black" metal and "Thrash" metal.  Black metal tends to actually be evil, often advocating satanic themes or even ****s.  Thrash metal just can't compare with that.  I mean, come on.  Death?  What kind of pansy topic is that, Metallica?  Oh, and "Black" metal has fewer guitar solos, I guess.  I hardly see how this makes it a different genre.

This whole discussion started because someone (was it you?) insisted that my opinion of metal as "loud and obnoxious" was unfounded since metal was very diverse.  I've yet to hear a description or a genre that's not loud and obnoxious (as defined earlier, with the constant-time, heavily distorted power chords nonsense).

Not all metal bands have distorted vocals. In fact many you can clearly tell what they're saying. Again you're trying to fit one sub-genre into all of them

I said often, not always.  You're doing that thing where you misrepresent my words again.  Please stop doing that.

If you can't tell the difference between black metal and thrash metal difference between black metal and thrash metal beyond that then you need to get your hearing checked, or perhaps you've never actually heard a Thrash Metal band. There's many differences in the instrumental and vocals. Not just what they're singing about but how they sing.

Well your opinion that they're all loud and obnoxious is wrong, also you already admitted that Symphonic metal is different so you can no longer claim they all sound the same.

Didn't we already go over the part where an opinion cannot be wrong, only misinformed?  I also never claimed that all metal "sounds the same", only that it's (almost) all loud and obnoxious.  I stand by that opinion.  If you're going to keep misrepresenting what I wrote, then there's no need for me to keep replying.  I'm starting to feel as though I'm arguing with a kid on the Internet.  I need to do that less frequently.

Not often, in fact many of the sub-genres and the old metal bands don't use vocals like that. Again, trying to put every single sub-genre into one package to fit your narrow minded view of the music.

Um.  Isn't that what the label "metal" already does?  You do realize that all of the "sub-genres" of metal actually have some common characteristics, right?  If they didn't, they wouldn't be sub-genres of metal.  Those common characteristics are the ones that I tend to find obnoxious.  Get it?

I'm not saying they don't have common characteristics. But they also have a lot of differences. Which is something you clearly can't grasp from your obvious trying to claim that black metal and thrash metal sound the same with the exception of their lyrics and the amount of guitar solos. The fact is there is a lot of variety between the sub-genres. But you're trying to claim they all sound the same. I'm not misrepresenting what you said, you just don't like the fact that I've pointed out how ignorant your claims really are. Why is it whenever someone points this out to you, you go and claim that you didn’t really mean that? You wouldn’t happen to be a politician would you?

Modifié par ZaroktheImmortal, 19 septembre 2010 - 05:23 .

[Silentmode]

GodWood wrote...

I wanted to snap my disc when I heard "This is War" for the credits.
God I hope they don't pick some awful crap like that again.

Indeed 30 secs to mars latest albums was an epic fail overall