Metal Reviews

yeah behemoth = no changing from black metal to death metal isn't really some huge change.

I don't have a problem with your example (though I think the first "most attractive" should have been "prettiest"). I find that sort of thing to be unfounded and childish also, and I expressed that before. It's a battle of ego versus honesty.

The problem is that prior to that, you were using the terms "like" and "terrible" interchangeably. They're not. Liking a band, not liking it for awhile, and maybe even coming back to it and liking it again has nothing, NOTHING to do with whether or not the band is good, terrible, mediocre, or whatever in between. You're not really separating the subjective claim from the objective one. Or at least you don't seem to be doing it consistently, let me put it that way.

There are times when it's pretty clear a person ought to say, "I used to like them, but I don't anymore," instead of "I used to like them, but now I don't really like them anymore and they're aren't very good anyway." But there are many times when the latter statement is reasonable and appropriate, and that's still true even if they do like them again later. As you, and most everyone else has said, tastes often change over time.

As for extreme terms like "sucks", "terrible", "good", "great", etc., I think those get thrown around far too often for emotional emphasis because of how they are often perceived. Again, I really think this is an issue deeply rooted in egotism and insecurity, whether people are actually conscious of, or willing to admit to, it or not.

It's a little like the numerical system this site claims to use for its reviews versus the actual scores we see week in and week out.

-Tyrion

You're welcome.

Why don't you just stop whining, admit metal was a childish phase and join the rest of the world.......damn dude you don't need 5 pages of positive reenforcement to help you deicde what music to listen too. That is totally un freaking metal. I think you are better of with rap and whatever your GF makes you play......

Jeez........and like every single Sweedish and fin band that started playing metal in the early 90's.............. I could name 20 without breaking a sweat and Ulver is hardly the first on my list.

Tiamat did on Wildhoney, Anathema did it on Alternative IV, metal and metal bands are diverse and open, that is why they have the ability to change and shift as they get older and mature. Other bands they just die out. Not everybody in metal is like Holy Terror and thinks the genre lived and died as garage bands using TL riffs, yeah dudes like that make it seem this is a close minded deadend genre but dudes like Ken, they know better.

Who are you talking to here?

I think shifts like that happen to bands playing any style of music.

Raw Pagan bm to Nile-ish death metal.....a fair change.

Metal is not especially diverse at all. I don't mean that as an insult to it, because I like "pure" and elitist music.

But come on, virtually all metal can be defined by instrumentation. If I were to pick an arbitrary metal band and you were to guess what the line up would be, the chances that you'd be right if you said "guitar, bass, drums and vocalist" are 90%. They'd probably be about 99% if you'd added "and maybe a keyboard player as well". That fact alone makes it less diverse than a lot of genres because it intrinsically limits the combination of sounds and styles. If you were to name me a band that fits with leee's claim above- like noodles did with Ulver- then I'd put it to you that the records that give that band diversity are not metal albums.

Not just by instrumentation. A lot of non-metal music has very prominent distorted guitars, for example. I think a certain playing style and certain playing techniques (especially on the guitar) are also a big part of what defines metal.

Of course metal can be mixed with other kinds of music, but in itself, it really isn't diverse at all. But why should it be? I get what i want out of metal. If i want something different, i'll listen to something else for a change.

I tend to agree with misha. Metal is a genre that has barely changed since it began. Just look at Iron Maiden, infact right now i'm listenin to Keeper Part 1, this is 20 years old and it still sound as fresh as any power metal album relseasd now! I mean you ever heard the joke 'how many metal heads does it take to change a light blub? Two, one to change it and they other do say how much better the old one was' Seriouly metal has hardly evoled in 20 years, i don't think thats a bad thing at all tho, if it ani't broke don't fix it. And metal ain't underground, not at all. Of course some bands are an always will be, and some smaller sub genres. But over here everyone knows a little bit about metal, people know who dragonforce are! Metal is all over the music press, especially metals retarded cousin nu - metal. I think metal is quite broad/diverse to a point, but look at what Rio said, that was spot on.

Yeah, everyone knows what jazz is. Now not everyone may know what Lunar Aurora is, but lots of people have heard about "black metal"and everyone knows what death metal is. I'm not explicidly saying jazz is a less known genre, some people tend to think I'm a jazzhead, which is not the case. If I were to mention some underground genres, I'd go with Raga, Drone, No Wave and Music Concrete for example. Before you mention drone is a subgenre of metal, drone has been made since the late 50s. I can assure you if you ask on the street, that more people know about Metal than any one of those genres. I'll even go as far that more people have heard about Black or Death metal, if you want to compare a subgenre of Metal to an entire musical stream.

i disagree... Most ppl may know "heavy-metal" bands - metallica etc. And if "oh, i know what metal is, it's just noise, or that's what i have been told" or " i like Sad But true *sob*" counts as knowlegde about metal, then there is no such thing as underground. But i wouldn't say that "metal" is underground either, since some genres are more popular than others, but it aint mainstream either.

weither or not metal is the broadest genre i don't know. Jazz is probably big too. But metal is still a fine candidate for being the broadest. Add folk to metal and it's still metal, not folk. Add classic to metal and it's still metal, not classic etc. That is of course from p.o.w. But i don't think a classical freak would regard it otherwise either.


edit:



heard the terms yes. But most of the ppl i've talked to ask "what's that?" and a teacher in primary school called Rammstein Death metal. Does that count?

well the broadest genre of music is Rock by a country mile, after all metal is just a sub genre of rock

then african tribal music is the broadest genre, after all rock evolved from ancient times lot's of banging on drums and shouting.


i wouldn't call Metal a sub genre of rock, though. But that's just my opinion. Of course, it evolved from that, but still... besides, Metal is a definition of itself, containing sub genres.

I was waiting for some to say something like that lol. Thought its was gonna be classical, african trible music caught me a bit off guard

Ok, see my previous post for why it's not underground. Rio gave a good explaination why it's not diverse, and those bands you mentioned just span different sections of metal. If I would compare the broadness of metal with that of, say, jazz, there is first the tonality issue. The furthest appart are black metal and nu-metal I think, they might have different tunings, but there isn't a big variation in the keyspan they use. With jazz, this does not only span the entire black metal and nu-metal key-selection, but it goes much further to more exotic tunings, microtonality (music that does not fit the Western 12 tone system) and even the modal revolution that Davis made popular. Instrumentwise, I refer to Rio's post. If that is not enough, I'm sure that Sun Ra and his Arkestra covered a wider range of instrumentation alone than ANY metalband EVER, this includes the folky ones. If you look at composition method, metal ranges from songs (almost any metalband) to forms that are a bit more free. Jazz ranges from songs to composition in the classical sense, to process music (yes, that's true), to instant composition (ICP, Mengelberg), to structured improvisation and from there till free improvisation. Soundwise, metal ranges from distorted guitars to uhm very distorted guitars? While jazz spans acoustic (mabe some metal fits this too), amplified, distorted, very distorted, filtered etc. I think the point is clear, but I could elaborate on the rhythmic section.

he he, yeah.. i was thinking about classical, but it wasn't exatcly the first type of music, africans dancing around the fire was the first ppl to use music. It's actually a bit weird though, from primitive to more complex (classic) and nowadays less complex music (general speaking), with techno being one of the most primitive form of music, only outdone by minimalistic ambient "brshshshshsshshsshsshshsnöööööööööööööööööööh"

A lot of people are incorrect, true, but less people know Raga, Drone etc. Fact. Also, there is a lot of modern classical music that has PURE metalelements in its music, without changing into metal. I've heard free-jazz with lofs of grindcore elements (Naked City) that didn't turn it into grindcore either.


Point remains, more people know correctly what death metal and black metal is than raga, drone etc.