173 réponses à ce sujet

[Maverick827]

This entire argument of metal sub-genres, for whatever reason, reminds me of an OOP multiple inheritance lecture.

Is it good? Is it bad? Is it even needed? If so, how many problems does it actually solve? If not, how often does it lead to complications?

[Seifz]

ZaroktheImmortal wrote...

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?

I have made three claims in this thread.

1.  An opinion cannot be wrong, only misinformed.
2.  I find metal to be obnoxious and loud because of the characteristics that all metal shares.
3.  Most "sub-genres" of metal don't really deserve their labels.

Really, that's it.  Anything else I've said has been examples to support those three claims.  I acknowledged differences between black metal and thrash metal, but I also pointed out that they have many common characteristics.  I don't understand why that's confusing to you.

[ZaroktheImmortal]

"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."

That was an exact quote of what you said. So you were claiming that the only real difference is the subject of the songs and guitar solos. And despite some similarities of using instruments that's between different metal bands Black Metal bands sound very different to trash metal. You even said " I hardly see how this makes it a different genre." If you try to compare Metallica to a black metal band. I mean really? They are very different.

Modifié par ZaroktheImmortal, 19 septembre 2010 - 05:35 .

[marshalleck]

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.

Agalloch will defy any conceptions you have about what a metal band is. And yes, they are very much a metal band despite their relatively diverse instrumentation.

[Seifz]

Maverick827 wrote...

This entire argument of metal sub-genres, for whatever reason, reminds me of an OOP multiple inheritance lecture.
Is it good? Is it bad? Is it even needed? If so, how many problems does it actually solve? If not, how often does it lead to complications?

I also generally despite OOP and I especially hate languages like C++ that allow multiple inheritance.  There are some situations that truly do call for OOP, and I accept that.  However, I'm of the opinion that if you insist on using object-oriented programming techniques, you should remain true to the ideal and not mess it up with things like multiple inheritance.  Surprising?  

If you really want to compare these ridiculous metal genres to multiple inheritance, check out so-called "glam metal".  Apparently Bon Jovi, Aerosmith, Whitesnake, and Poison are metal.  I'm starting to think that metal has so many sub-genres because they're just claiming non-metal music as metal!

[ZaroktheImmortal]

Seifz wrote...

Maverick827 wrote...

This entire argument of metal sub-genres, for whatever reason, reminds me of an OOP multiple inheritance lecture.
Is it good? Is it bad? Is it even needed? If so, how many problems does it actually solve? If not, how often does it lead to complications?

I also generally despite OOP and I especially hate languages like C++ that allow multiple inheritance.  There are some situations that truly do call for OOP, and I accept that.  However, I'm of the opinion that if you insist on using object-oriented programming techniques, you should remain true to the ideal and not mess it up with things like multiple inheritance.  Surprising?  

If you really want to compare these ridiculous metal genres to multiple inheritance, check out so-called "glam metal".  Apparently Bon Jovi, Aerosmith, Whitesnake, and Poison are metal.  I'm starting to think that metal has so many sub-genres because they're just claiming non-metal music as metal!

Bon Jovi isn't glam metal neither is Aerosmith or Whitesnake. You clearly have no idea what Glam Metal is.

[Seifz]

marshalleck wrote...

Agalloch will defy any conceptions you have about what a metal band is. And yes, they are very much a metal band despite their relatively diverse instrumentation.

I get this a lot when I enter a discussion that involves my opinion of metal as a whole, though always with a different band.  I couldn't recall a song by Agalloch, so I just searched on YouTube and got these two videos first:



Loud, rythmic power chords with heavy distortion, overused base pedal on the drums, and at times the vocalist grows in that typical metal fashion.  I fail to see how that's different from my conceptions of metal.  Is there a better example to support your claim?

I appreciate that they're trying to be different with the slower sections and the acoustic guitar, but they still sound very much like a typical metal band.

[marshalleck]

Seifz wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

Agalloch will defy any conceptions you have about what a metal band is. And yes, they are very much a metal band despite their relatively diverse instrumentation.

I get this a lot when I enter a discussion that involves my opinion of metal as a whole, though always with a different band.  I couldn't recall a song by Agalloch, so I just searched on YouTube and got these two videos first:



Loud, rythmic power chords with heavy distortion, overused base pedal on the drums, and at times the vocalist grows in that typical metal fashion.  I fail to see how that's different from my conceptions of metal.  Is there a better example to support your claim?

I appreciate that they're trying to be different with the slower sections and the acoustic guitar, but they still sound very much like a typical metal band.

It depends on what point in time you're cherry-picking out of their career.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6q3ZYhu6h8k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVC-uw01VWM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sTIzYTe70w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qn_YZlpAExs

They are worth a comprehensive overview if you're genuinely interested in the topic, which I kind of doubt you are.

Incidentally, this is just one example of what some people could call 'folk metal.' It's not pure folk; it's a metal band that experiments with folk arrangements and structures in the music and/or lyrical themes.

Modifié par marshalleck, 19 septembre 2010 - 06:01 .

[Seifz]

ZaroktheImmortal wrote...

Seifz wrote...

Maverick827 wrote...

This entire argument of metal sub-genres, for whatever reason, reminds me of an OOP multiple inheritance lecture.
Is it good? Is it bad? Is it even needed? If so, how many problems does it actually solve? If not, how often does it lead to complications?

I also generally despite OOP and I especially hate languages like C++ that allow multiple inheritance.  There are some situations that truly do call for OOP, and I accept that.  However, I'm of the opinion that if you insist on using object-oriented programming techniques, you should remain true to the ideal and not mess it up with things like multiple inheritance.  Surprising?  

If you really want to compare these ridiculous metal genres to multiple inheritance, check out so-called "glam metal".  Apparently Bon Jovi, Aerosmith, Whitesnake, and Poison are metal.  I'm starting to think that metal has so many sub-genres because they're just claiming non-metal music as metal!

Bon Jovi isn't glam metal neither is Aerosmith or Whitesnake. You clearly have no idea what Glam Metal is.

Of course they're not!  That's the whole point!  But apparently, the experts don't agree with you.

Aerosmith:
http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all
http://books.google....m metal&f=false

Bon Jovi:
http://allmusic.com/...amg&sql=77:7728
http://www.guitarwor...ghties?page=0,1

Whitesnake:
http://www.guitarwor...ghties?page=0,2

I mean, these are industry experts, here.  As far as I'm concerned, these guys aren't metal.

[ZaroktheImmortal]

Seifz wrote...

ZaroktheImmortal wrote...

Seifz wrote...

Maverick827 wrote...

This entire argument of metal sub-genres, for whatever reason, reminds me of an OOP multiple inheritance lecture.
Is it good? Is it bad? Is it even needed? If so, how many problems does it actually solve? If not, how often does it lead to complications?

I also generally despite OOP and I especially hate languages like C++ that allow multiple inheritance.  There are some situations that truly do call for OOP, and I accept that.  However, I'm of the opinion that if you insist on using object-oriented programming techniques, you should remain true to the ideal and not mess it up with things like multiple inheritance.  Surprising?  

If you really want to compare these ridiculous metal genres to multiple inheritance, check out so-called "glam metal".  Apparently Bon Jovi, Aerosmith, Whitesnake, and Poison are metal.  I'm starting to think that metal has so many sub-genres because they're just claiming non-metal music as metal!

Bon Jovi isn't glam metal neither is Aerosmith or Whitesnake. You clearly have no idea what Glam Metal is.

Of course they're not!  That's the whole point!  But apparently, the experts don't agree with you.

Aerosmith:
http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all
http://books.google....m metal&f=false

Bon Jovi:
http://allmusic.com/...amg&sql=77:7728
http://www.guitarwor...ghties?page=0,1

Whitesnake:
http://www.guitarwor...ghties?page=0,2

I mean, these are industry experts, here.  As far as I'm concerned, these guys aren't metal.

Well they can't be very good 'experts' as you put if they actually think that. Even fans of metal or fans of those bands wouldn't consider them metal neither would the bands themselves. Glam metal is very different than Bon Jovi and the rest of them. If they consider those bands to be Glam Metal then they are alone in that opinion.

Modifié par ZaroktheImmortal, 19 septembre 2010 - 05:53 .

[TheMufflon]

Jimi Hendrix is heavy metal. Just sayin'.



The genre was, in fact, invented to describe the sound at one of his concerts.

[ZaroktheImmortal]

TheMufflon wrote...

Jimi Hendrix is heavy metal. Just sayin'.

The genre was, in fact, invented to describe the sound at one of his concerts.

Another early use of the word was in the song Born to be Wild with the lyrics saying "Heavy metal thunder"

[Seifz]

marshalleck wrote...

It depends on what point in time you're cherry-picking out of their career.




They are worth a comprehensive overview if you're genuinely interested in the topic, which I kind of doubt you are.

Incidentally, this is just one example of what some people could call 'folk metal'

I didn't mean to cherry-pick.  I just went with the first two hits on YouTube.  People seemed to be saying that those were the best songs anyway, so I figured they were a good sample.

Regarding "Sowilo Rune", where's the metal part?  Is every song by a metal band considered metal by default, or is it possible that they produced a non-metal song?  I don't hear anything in this song that I'd call metal, except for a small distorted guitar part at about 3:10.  Even then, it's rather melodic and not at all typical of what one would normally call "metal".  I suppose some might consider the constant base line metal-ish.

"The Isle of Summer" was disappointing.  I was really into it until about 1:40 when they introduced a rather pointless heavily-distorted electric guitar.  I don't think it really added anything to the song.  But again, I don't see why you consider this metal.  If "folk metal" is really just awesome musical arrangements with some pointless heavy guitar thrown in for a few seconds, then I guess I just don't get it.  If they'd just left out that small guitar part that really added nothing to the song, I would have said it was a pretty good song!  Bah!

Anyway, despite the impression that you might get from my ramblings here, I don't usually dismiss any music without first hearing it.  The reason that I tend to say "metal sucks" is because I've heard so much bad metal that it vastly outweighs the few good songs out there.  I'm not just saying these things to provoke the metal fanboys who flock to list their favorite bands and sub-genres and tell me why I'm wrong.  I really am making a well-informed opinion.  I've heard lots of metal.  Like, a ridiculous amount.  I just don't like 98% of it.  I also don't like the way metal fans tend to insist that metal is better than everything else, that metal bands are more talented than anyone else, and that we should use metal tracks for this, that, and that other thing.  In my experience, they're actually worse than emo fans and folk purists!  That's pretty bad!

[ZaroktheImmortal]

Seifz wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

It depends on what point in time you're cherry-picking out of their career.




They are worth a comprehensive overview if you're genuinely interested in the topic, which I kind of doubt you are.

Incidentally, this is just one example of what some people could call 'folk metal'

I didn't mean to cherry-pick.  I just went with the first two hits on YouTube.  People seemed to be saying that those were the best songs anyway, so I figured they were a good sample.

Regarding "Sowilo Rune", where's the metal part?  Is every song by a metal band considered metal by default, or is it possible that they produced a non-metal song?  I don't hear anything in this song that I'd call metal, except for a small distorted guitar part at about 3:10.  Even then, it's rather melodic and not at all typical of what one would normally call "metal".  I suppose some might consider the constant base line metal-ish.

"The Isle of Summer" was disappointing.  I was really into it until about 1:40 when they introduced a rather pointless heavily-distorted electric guitar.  I don't think it really added anything to the song.  But again, I don't see why you consider this metal.  If "folk metal" is really just awesome musical arrangements with some pointless heavy guitar thrown in for a few seconds, then I guess I just don't get it.  If they'd just left out that small guitar part that really added nothing to the song, I would have said it was a pretty good song!  Bah!

Anyway, despite the impression that you might get from my ramblings here, I don't usually dismiss any music without first hearing it.  The reason that I tend to say "metal sucks" is because I've heard so much bad metal that it vastly outweighs the few good songs out there.  I'm not just saying these things to provoke the metal fanboys who flock to list their favorite bands and sub-genres and tell me why I'm wrong.  I really am making a well-informed opinion.  I've heard lots of metal.  Like, a ridiculous amount.  I just don't like 98% of it.  I also don't like the way metal fans tend to insist that metal is better than everything else, that metal bands are more talented than anyone else, and that we should use metal tracks for this, that, and that other thing.  In my experience, they're actually worse than emo fans and folk purists!  That's pretty bad!

*Shakes head* You sir, are ignorant beyond words. Your "well-informed opinion" isn't all the well informed. And since when did people being dedicated to a music genre become a bad thing? Fans of metal love their music it's not a bad thing. And comparing metal fans to emos well there's no topping that kind of ignorance of this music.

"In my experience, they're actually worse than emo fans and folk purists"

There's no point in arguing with you. You're just to stubborn and ignorant of the entire music genre.

Modifié par ZaroktheImmortal, 19 septembre 2010 - 06:10 .

[Seifz]

ZaroktheImmortal wrote...

Well they can't be very good 'experts' as you put if they actually think that. Even fans of metal or fans of those bands wouldn't consider them metal neither would the bands themselves. Glam metal is very different than Bon Jovi and the rest of them. If they consider those bands to be Glam Metal then they are alone in that opinion.

Jon Pareles (the guy from the NY Times) has a degree in music, plays music, worked for Rolling Stone and The Village Voice, and now acts as the chief critic for music at the NY Times.

allmusic.com is probably the definitive music archive site on the 'Net.  In fact, it predates the World Wide Web!  The site has hundreds of experts contributing.  Here: http://allmusic.com/...es/a_about.html

Finally, I doubt that anyone here would question the credentials of such a well-established publication like Guitar World.  With the exception of possibly one Aerosmith reference, I chose links from respected, well-known sources.  These aren't just random people!

So, what are your qualifications?  Hm?

Modifié par Seifz, 19 septembre 2010 - 06:21 .

[Seifz]

ZaroktheImmortal wrote...

*Shakes head* You sir, are ignorant beyond words. Your "well-informed opinion" isn't all the well informed. And since when did people being dedicated to a music genre become a bad thing? Fans of metal love their music it's not a bad thing. And comparing metal fans to emos well there's no topping that kind of ignorance of this music.

I like how you keep misunderstanding this comparison.  I'm not claiming that metal fans and emo fans are the same.  I'm claiming that both groups tend to be very vocal about defending their genre of music and that both groups have broken their genre into a mess of sub-genres that nobody can follow.  There's nothing wrong with loving music.  What's annoying is when they always insist that one genre (in this case, metal) is superior to all other forms of music, period.  I see that very frequently from metal fans.  It's silly.

There's no point in arguing with you. You're just to stubborn and ignorant of the entire music genre.

Says the man who claimed that Mr. Crowley was light on guitars and done by Sabbath.  Just sayin'.

[ZaroktheImmortal]

Seifz wrote...

I mean, these are industry experts, here.  As far as I'm concerned, these guys aren't metal

Jon Pareles (the guy from the NY Times) has a degree in music, plays music, worked for Rolling Stone and The Village Voice, and now acts as the chief critic for music at the NY Times.

allmusic.com is probably the definitive music archive site on the 'Net.  In fact, it predates the World Wide Web!  The site has hundreds of experts contributing.  Here: http://allmusic.com/...es/a_about.html

Finally, I doubt that anyone here would question the credentials of such a well-established publication like Guitar World.  With the exception of possibly one Aerosmith reference, I chose links from respected, well-known sources.  These aren't just random people!

So, what are your qualifications?  Hm?

It's sounds like you're trying to agree with them and force they opinion that Bon Jovi are glam metal even though you claimed the opposite. You say one thing and then claim another. Make up your bloody mind. I swear you just want to argue over the dumbest things.

I don't care what credentials they have. Glam Metal and bands like Bon Jovi are two very different things.

Modifié par ZaroktheImmortal, 19 septembre 2010 - 06:25 .

[ZaroktheImmortal]

Seifz wrote...

ZaroktheImmortal wrote...

*Shakes head* You sir, are ignorant beyond words. Your "well-informed opinion" isn't all the well informed. And since when did people being dedicated to a music genre become a bad thing? Fans of metal love their music it's not a bad thing. And comparing metal fans to emos well there's no topping that kind of ignorance of this music.

I like how you keep misunderstanding this comparison.  I'm not claiming that metal fans and emo fans are the same.  I'm claiming that both groups tend to be very vocal about defending their genre of music and that both groups have broken their genre into a mess of sub-genres that nobody can follow.  There's nothing wrong with loving music.  What's annoying is when they always insist that one genre (in this case, metal) is superior to all other forms of music, period.  I see that very frequently from metal fans.  It's silly.

There's no point in arguing with you. You're just to stubborn and ignorant of the entire music genre.

Says the man who claimed that Mr. Crowley was light on guitars and done by Sabbath.  Just sayin'.

"Says the man who claimed that Mr. Crowley was light on guitars and done by Sabbath.  Just sayin'."

Compared to a lot of modern metal it was. Are you saying it wasn't? A lot of more modern day metal use more heavier sounds with their instruments than older metal. That was my point.

"What's annoying is when they always insist that one genre (in this case, metal) is superior to all other forms of music, period"

Everyone claims their favourite type of music is the best period. Now you're just being a judgmental ******

Also don't forget you also claimed thrash metal and black metal sound the same. Which just shows how very little you know about the sub-genres.

Modifié par ZaroktheImmortal, 19 septembre 2010 - 06:27 .

[Seifz]

ZaroktheImmortal wrote...

It's sounds like you're trying to agree with them and force they opinion that Bon Jovi are glam metal even though you claimed the opposite. You say one thing and then claim another. Make up your bloody mind. I swear you just want to argue over the dumbest things.

I don't care what credentials they have. Glam Metal and bands like Bon Jovi are two very different things.

No, I made my point very clearly earlier in the thread.  These bands aren't metal, but a sub-genre of metal called "glam metal" was coined to describe them anyway (they're also called "pop metal" and "hair metal" by various experts).  What I said was that I'm almost convinced metal fans are making up new genres and claiming non-metal bands as metal just to make more metal genres.  I was obviously joking!

The whole glam metal thing was in response to a post about object-oriented programming and multiple inheritance.  One of the biggest problems that crops up when you use multiple inheritance is that you often combine so many base objects into one giant object and it defeats the purpose of using object-oriented programming techniques to begin with.  I don't know if you're familar with computer programming in general, so that might be why you didn't catch the point.

Anyway, glam metal is a perfect example of multiple inheritance in that it's a mix of glam rock, pop rock, hard rock, heavy metal, power balads, and more.   It combines so many other genres into one label and the label itself is meaningless.  Nobody can agree on who's qualified to be called "glam metal" or even what to call the genre!  Is it even really a genre?  Maybe this is one of those "fusion" genres like blackened death metal (which suffers from the "creating pointlessly specific objects" problem).

Modifié par Seifz, 19 septembre 2010 - 06:28 .

[marshalleck]

It's fine if you don't like it, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I would suggest however that you may have a skewed perception of metal; in my mind, it is not so much a formulaic composition and mish-mash of heavily distorted guitars and pounding double-bass drum that makes a band metal. There is a conflation of stylistic trapping, which legions of unimaginative followers can impersonate; with the true essence of metal, again in my own opinion, which is a rebirth of the romantic period of western music. It rejects the rationalism and dominance over nature by modernity. Death metal did this with violent, atonal chromatic riffing and guttural vocalization, literally creating the aural aesthetic of "nature, red in tooth and claw." Black metal, being born in the heart of Scandinavian winters, using low-fi recording, fuzzy distortion and harsh screeching vocals evokes images in the mind of dark, frozen, and desolate mountain ranges--a metaphorical rejection of the overtly consumerist, liberal, decadent modern culture that the genre's pioneers found themselves drowning in back in the early 90s Norway. It sought escape to a more primitive time, one where modern humanist moral systems hold no sway, hence all the black metaller fascination with medieval weaponry and armor and such. Folk metal is just one more development in that tradition; it is the metal that has become older, wiser, no longer easily impressed by or swayed to violent action and raucous noise as metal was in its juvenile stage. It seeks to create something of the earth, something lasting, something of the past that can be a part of the future, hence the adoption of folk forms.

But hey, what do I know about metal, I've only been listening to it for some 20 years. Some guys online said Motley Crue and Bon Jovi are totally metal. They have long hair and electric guitars. Kick start my heart, right? Soooo metal.

Modifié par marshalleck, 19 septembre 2010 - 06:47 .

[ZaroktheImmortal]

Seifz wrote...

ZaroktheImmortal wrote...

It's sounds like you're trying to agree with them and force they opinion that Bon Jovi are glam metal even though you claimed the opposite. You say one thing and then claim another. Make up your bloody mind. I swear you just want to argue over the dumbest things.

I don't care what credentials they have. Glam Metal and bands like Bon Jovi are two very different things.

No, I made my point very clearly earlier in the thread.  These bands aren't metal, but a sub-genre of metal called "glam metal" was coined to describe them anyway (they're also called "pop metal" and "hair metal" by various experts).  What I said was that I'm almost convinced metal fans are making up new genres and claiming non-metal bands as metal just to make more metal genres.  I was obviously joking!

The whole glam metal thing was in response to a post about object-oriented programming and multiple inheritance.  One of the biggest problems that crops up when you use multiple inheritance is that you often combine so many base objects into one giant object and it defeats the purpose of using object-oriented programming techniques to begin with.  I don't know if you're familar with computer programming in general, so that might be why you didn't catch the point.

Anyway, glam metal is a perfect example of multiple inheritance in that it's a mix of glam rock, pop rock, hard rock, heavy metal, power balads, and more.   It combines so many other genres into one label and the label itself is meaningless.  Nobody can agree on who's qualified to be called "glam metal" or even what to call the genre!  Is it even really a genre?  Maybe this is one of those "fusion" genres like blackened death metal (which suffers from the "creating pointlessly specific objects" problem).

No, you just clearly have no idea what glam metal is. The fact that you actually believe that's the accepted definition of Glam Metal only shows how ignorant you truly are of this genre. If you think Bon Jovi is the definition of glam metal then you are wrong.

[Seifz]

ZaroktheImmortal wrote...

"Says the man who claimed that Mr. Crowley was light on guitars and done by Sabbath.  Just sayin'."

Compared to a lot of modern metal it was. Are you saying it wasn't? A lot of more modern day metal use more heavier sounds with their instruments than older metal. That was my point.

First of all, it wasn't a Sabbath song.  As I said earlier, it was off Ozzy's first solo album after he was fired from Sabbath.  Secondly, it's very heavy on guitars.  You're right in saying that it's not as heavy as some more modern metal, but that's why more modern metal is generally pretty terrible.  As I recall, you were trying to convince me that not all metal is heavy on guitars and you used Mr. Crowley as an example.  That wasn't a very good choice.

"What's annoying is when they always insist that one genre (in this case, metal) is superior to all other forms of music, period"

Everyone claims their favourite type of music is the best period. Now you're just being a judgmental ******

In my experience, metal fans and emo fans are much more vocal about making sure that I understand metal (or emo) is the best type of music ever made, ever, no matter what, and I'm wrong, and I should listen to this band because it'll change my opinion, and metal metal metal (or emo emo emo).  It's annoying.

You'll note that I'm not advocating one genre at all.  I don't have a favorite.  There's good music and bad music to be had in all of them.  Metal just tends to have more bad music than good music.  By far.

Also don't forget you also claimed thrash metal and black metal sound the same. Which just shows how very little you know about the sub-genres.

No, I claimed that they shared enough characteristics to not be considered different sub-genres.  I still believe that.  The most obvious difference between the two is their vocal content, which does not make a genre.  Yes, there are other differences.  No, they don't matter when "I don't like the loud, heavily-distorted, common-time, rythmic power chords of metal" is the entire point.

[ZaroktheImmortal]

"but that's why more modern metal is generally pretty terrible"

So you agree that not all metal is the same then? By saying that you're admitting that old metal is different.

"It's annoying."

So are the teens who go on about pop music or rap or whatever the hell they listen to.

" Metal just tends to have more bad music than good music. By far."

No it doesn't.


"No, I claimed that they shared enough characteristics to not be considered different sub-genres"

Well then, you clearly haven't listened to them enough. Or perhaps need to get your hearing checked. There are more than enough for them to be considered different sub-genres. It's not like we're talking about a whole new genre it's a sub-genre. The fact is they share some traits but they are different. If you listen to black metal and then listen to thrash metal you'll see they are different in several ways. But you just like to generalise and fit all your ignorant opinions into one tight little box.

Modifié par ZaroktheImmortal, 19 septembre 2010 - 06:51 .

[ZaroktheImmortal]

Also it's funny how you complain about metal fans talking about their music is annoying, when you whining about the music is far more annoying. You seem to have some sort of grudge against it, I mean disliking a music is one thing but you seem to be trying to prove it's the worst genre of music ever.

Modifié par ZaroktheImmortal, 19 septembre 2010 - 06:56 .

[Vizkos]

Metal, Punk, Rock, or any other popular culture music would go terrible with any game. Maybe Heavy Metal (actual good sound quality) if it was a pure gorefest game.



For DA2, I think opera + "epic" style music would go good, something like:

http://www.youtube.c...YcwEpSw#t=0m42s

http://www.youtube.c...UUc-oNE#t=1m15s