Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Grindcore
- Thread starter bluewine
- Start date
Oh, clearly he's stirring the feces from post #1...
So really, this thread is no longer about music but about BlueWind's predilection for troll like conduct...(?)
Damn - and I was hoping this thread would morph into a theological debate (or did it do that already...)
If you're talking about extreme metal, you're pretty much not going to get vocal harmonies in the sense that BW would appreciate. I can't see anything with extreme vocals being of any interest to him.
However, on the more traditional metal vibe.....
And just to give Rob Trujillo back a little bit of his dignity. The guy has a great groove! Methinks the stuff he did with Infectious Grooves really shows that you shouldn't always presume a guy is unable to play other sorts of music! That and a bit of funk metal is always fun! I really doubt this will be BWs thing vocally at least...
I didn't realise it was supposed to be a "comparison". None of those bands are remotely like The Beatles.....nor do they attempt to be anything like them. I was just thinking that just maybe between them there would be SOMETHING BW might at least understand why other people place merit in the genre as a whole.
Honestly, being the seventh-best selling death metal band in the United States is kind of like being the seventh-highest mountain in Nebraska.
I am still shocked and stunned to have seen a straight-face Beatles vs. Cannibal Corpse debate. Even for the interwebs, that's just wow. And it's gone on for pages and pages. I reiterate, wow.
Here's the point I think is missing, to put that whole discussion into the proper context:
Art is about communication. The craft of musicianship can be employed in the furtherance of art, but ultimately art succeeds or fails based on how well it communicates the idea, message, feeling, etc. of the artist to the audience.
Now, obviously there are people out there who are quite skilled at their craft but don't reach a huge audience. There are a number of reasons that might be, but, a big one is that in many cases, I think the point of the communication being made through the art is akin to a secret handshake: while there may be subsidiary messages, the primary message is, "Do you think like us? Do you share our viewpoint and values?" I think that is absolutely a huge part of metal from the last couple decades at least. It's whole point is to filter the listening public to identify the small number of people who are on a philosophical wavelength with the artists---and each other, so it builds community.
If that's the goal---and I think it is---you can't compare that to the Beatles or any mainstream pop group, because intentions are so different. The genius of the Beatles was precisely their ability to communicate through their art with a HUGE number of people. They were able to find common elements that almost everybody (of their generation, anyway) could relate to. But if metal bands (who probably feel like outsiders before they pick up their first pointy guitars) are using their art to try to find other outsiders who share their point of view, it's hardly surprising that they are not embraced by the middle-of-the-road majority. That is not, I think, how success should be measured for them.
If for some reason there are metal artists who have a goal of conveying some message to the wide world at large---well, fail. As even the metal fans in this thread should recognize and acknowledge, when you play metal (especially in its more recent manifestations) you start out with aesthetic choices that will alienate most people. But I don't recall anyone taking the position that everybody who likes the Beatles should like Cannibal Corpse because they're just as good. The most I think you can say is that the players are skilled at their respective crafts, and they are effective and delivering the message they want to deliver to the audience they are trying to reach.
In other news, apples are different from oranges, too.
The OP started the thread to say hey, what is it about grind that people like (but in a more insulting way). People responded to that question. Can this thread be over already?
My childhood memories are better than yours...
My childhood memories are better than yours...
I think you are failing to understand the poster that is BlueWind...
He just wants to stir sh&t, and he knows that many "metal fans" are kind of touchy about their music. If his intent was to get a rise out of some folks, looks to me that he has succeeded.
Let me tell you about my deepest exposure to "Metal" in recent years: A few years back, I worked as a contractor in Iraq. In the Marine weight room at Camp Al Asad, they'd play music while guys worked out... To keep the peace, the music was evenly devided: One metal tune, one CW tune and one rap tune, over and over and over. As I had lots of time on my hands, I spend a fair amount of time lifting and let me tell ya - I got to HEAR me some metal... and country... and rap.
I pretty much only listen to jazz now. 'Nuff said!
Lmfao..im sorry but that killed me...i almost feel like sigging it lol
EDIT:
I take back everything ive said bad about this thread. Its actually quite amusing.
win thread is win
Jazz sucks! The Beatles suck! Grindcore sucks! Zepplin sucks! Jaco sucks! Country sucks! Intellectual dribble sucks! Aren't I philosyphical!
Too much other things going on in the world to let something like a thread on the internet bother me, though I'm sure I appear touchy at times.
I find the idea of listening to nothing but one kind of music repulsive. Obviously you dig it, but, to quote a cliché, for me at least, variety is the spice of life.
Really now? Because the guys in most big metal bands nowadays just look like regular people....
Lets be realistic....his quote was right. In comparison to pop, modern rock, and rap, metal has a small following then all of those three.
Its really not pallet-able to the average person and we need to be realistic about that.
Again though....why should anyone care what someones opinion is on music they like.
Just deal with it and move on =/
jive1
Commercial User
Good to see some intelligence injected into this.
I think one of the things that make popular artists like the Beatles popular is the scales and time they use. There's some great examples posted here, but if you give them a listen, they don't incorporate much of the major scale (if at all). The minor, diminished, and the exotic scales give it less of happy feel than say "Twist and Shout". So if people think of "melodic" as major scale, then I can see why people may not see Metal as being melodic. It's melodic, but there's more harmonic dissonance being used, thus a lesser appeal to the masses. But in my opinion, when bands do minor and dissonant harmonies like Alice In Chains, it's as powerful as a major chord harmony that you hear on pop songs, if not more just because of it's dissonance. But, my mom would probably say they were singing off key.
Another thing is timing. I think when you go with the paradigm of a bass locking in with the kick drum, it's going to be harder to play a melodic bass line in Metal. I'm old, so I'll use old references. For example, Steve Harris was one of Metal's most melodic players, but he wasn't playing to blast beats with kick drums playing 16th notes. When things started to speed up, is when you saw the bass becoming more percussive as opposed to melodic. Now, I could just be ignorant because I not exposed to as much metal nowadays, so if there is an example of a guy playing melodic bass to a blast beat, I'd love to hear it. Not being sarcastic, I'd love to hear it just for the art of it, and to get ideas. But back to popularity, the timing of Metal does make it harder for the masses to consume because it's not always in 4/4 120 bpm. IMO, it takes a more sohpisticated ear to groove to something in 9/4, and it's not the snare on the 2 and 4 that most people are accustomed to hearing. When people clap along to a song, it's the 2 and 4 on 4/4. If you do something else, it'll be harder for them to clap along.
I think if you're into major chords, and melodic playing that fits in a standard 4/4 scheme, then Metal might be something hard to ingest. But if you're not, then that's probably one of the reasons why you're into it.
As a musician who probably won't be playing in a Metal band any time soon, or ever again, I really appreciate the musicianship of lots of Metal bands. The endurance and passion required to play a live show, the intricate licks and solos that deviate from the standard pentatonic, the odd time signatures, the complex drum beats, the driving riffs, etc. I dig the Beatles alot too, and have been playing their stuff for years. But I like them for different things. The Beatles are great because of their songwriting, innovations in production, vocal harmonies, melodic bass playing, etc. Basically, if I wanted to listen to "melodic" music, I'll listen to the Beatles. If I wanted to listen to something dissonant, I'm throwing on some Metal. And sometimes I'll throw on some Smithereens if I'm looking for something more in between.
I think one of the things that make popular artists like the Beatles popular is the scales and time they use. There's some great examples posted here, but if you give them a listen, they don't incorporate much of the major scale (if at all). The minor, diminished, and the exotic scales give it less of happy feel than say "Twist and Shout". So if people think of "melodic" as major scale, then I can see why people may not see Metal as being melodic. It's melodic, but there's more harmonic dissonance being used, thus a lesser appeal to the masses. But in my opinion, when bands do minor and dissonant harmonies like Alice In Chains, it's as powerful as a major chord harmony that you hear on pop songs, if not more just because of it's dissonance. But, my mom would probably say they were singing off key.
Another thing is timing. I think when you go with the paradigm of a bass locking in with the kick drum, it's going to be harder to play a melodic bass line in Metal. I'm old, so I'll use old references. For example, Steve Harris was one of Metal's most melodic players, but he wasn't playing to blast beats with kick drums playing 16th notes. When things started to speed up, is when you saw the bass becoming more percussive as opposed to melodic. Now, I could just be ignorant because I not exposed to as much metal nowadays, so if there is an example of a guy playing melodic bass to a blast beat, I'd love to hear it. Not being sarcastic, I'd love to hear it just for the art of it, and to get ideas. But back to popularity, the timing of Metal does make it harder for the masses to consume because it's not always in 4/4 120 bpm. IMO, it takes a more sohpisticated ear to groove to something in 9/4, and it's not the snare on the 2 and 4 that most people are accustomed to hearing. When people clap along to a song, it's the 2 and 4 on 4/4. If you do something else, it'll be harder for them to clap along.
I think if you're into major chords, and melodic playing that fits in a standard 4/4 scheme, then Metal might be something hard to ingest. But if you're not, then that's probably one of the reasons why you're into it.
As a musician who probably won't be playing in a Metal band any time soon, or ever again, I really appreciate the musicianship of lots of Metal bands. The endurance and passion required to play a live show, the intricate licks and solos that deviate from the standard pentatonic, the odd time signatures, the complex drum beats, the driving riffs, etc. I dig the Beatles alot too, and have been playing their stuff for years. But I like them for different things. The Beatles are great because of their songwriting, innovations in production, vocal harmonies, melodic bass playing, etc. Basically, if I wanted to listen to "melodic" music, I'll listen to the Beatles. If I wanted to listen to something dissonant, I'm throwing on some Metal. And sometimes I'll throw on some Smithereens if I'm looking for something more in between.
While I agree with what you just said, it in no way addresses the post you were quoting.
Burlington said most modern metal bands just look like normal folks.....you replied with a comment about the size of their following and how the music isn't palleteable to most people. Thats totally irrelevant to the point raised.
jive1
Commercial User
I think alot of people who were making the McCartney and Beatles comments were just trying to get a rise out of the OP, and it has succeeded.
I must agree that my comment was nitpicky. But, it seems to me like the guy I quoted is possibly referring to bands like Attack! Attack! or 5 Finger Death Punch. Two bands that do have a look to them, but IMHO do not speak for metal as a genre. They are the pop side of metal, simply doing what is fashionable.
Look at bands like Lamb of God, Between The Buried and Me, and Black Dahlia Murder. No costumes or get ups there.
The point I'm trying to make is that most of these "pop metal" bands do not speak for metal whatsoever. But to those who are only shown bands like that, they make think that every metal band is that way!
