|
Post by Evilluke on Oct 9, 2009 7:14:52 GMT -5
"Metal has always been both powerful and musical, the best of both worlds. You can experiment with almost anything"
Interesting quote I read in an interview today that has got me thinking. Do you agree?
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte on Oct 9, 2009 7:17:03 GMT -5
Experimentation is not tr00.
|
|
|
Post by Nickyboi on Oct 9, 2009 7:24:42 GMT -5
You definitely can, but not all experiments are successful. Some are abject failures.
I think some aspects of metal work incredibly well with some aspects of industrial, for example. I also think it's fascinating when you get a bit of prog thrown into the mix (I suspect Dan will hate me for saying that).
In a way, I do think metal was a very progressive thing until it got to a point where all the progress being made was shit, so it started looking back and getting introspective - but then a load of shit copy-cat bands started making it.
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte on Oct 9, 2009 7:31:17 GMT -5
You definitely can, but not all experiments are successful. Some are abject failures. I completely agree with you on this! Metal is a very good genre to experiment with, but then again I think music full stop has so much scope for experimentation. There aren't really any rules stopping you from combining sounds, musical notes, vocals, random samples etc in any way that you want, although music critics will probably go out of their way to invent a new genre for you if they like it. The only limits on musical experimentation are those you impose yourself. If, for example, you wanted to be in an average grind band (AGB for short) then you would be setting a limit on yourself there and then. You'd be unlikely, for example, to incorporate penny whistles, violins and a bodhran into an AGB. However, if you were experimenting with free form noise making you could do whatever you wanted, and perhaps the outcome could be classed as metal, or extreme, or whatever.
|
|
|
Post by Nickyboi on Oct 9, 2009 8:11:08 GMT -5
Absolutely. But I think the best "experimentation" is often the most subtle; trying to incorporate wholesale change is daft, since it's likely to be nowhere near your original subject matter and in which case, you've got to question what the point was.
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Oct 9, 2009 10:38:57 GMT -5
I don't mind the idea of prog elements being included into metal at all, the problem is that the vast majority of bands that actually do this, miss the point and think that progressive means either, including syncopated riffs based on a root note with a higher octave discord and throwing in a sweep (The Dillinger Escape Plan), or just dull, sterile fretwanking (Cynic, Dream Theater). The very term progressive seems pretty redundant these days, the reason bands like King Crimson, Yes, Genesis, Amon Duul II etc were labelled progressive is because they were that. Though they were all lumped under the same tag, they were experimenting and trying something that was new for the time, and had their own identities. These days progressive means to copy and update the sound of established progressive rock bands.
So, now I've got that out of my system, in theory I think progressive metal is a great, great idea. I've just not seen anything that falls under that tag that has proved it can be done yet. For example though, I suppose Nile could be tagged as progressive, with their use of Egyptian folk instruments, and even folk music in their death metal compositions makes them stand out, which is something you can't deny, like them or love them. Necros Christos take a similar approach.
So, to sum up what I'm incoherently ranting about; yes, I do think that there is plenty of room for experimentation and progressive ideas in metal. It's just that not many bands do it, because it's easier to copy popular bands and promises more success, and those bands who do do it usually either fail at it (after all, the word experimentation is used for a reason - most experiments aren't successful), or use it in a subtle way that gives a band "that little bit extra".
|
|
|
Post by Evilluke on Oct 9, 2009 10:52:59 GMT -5
Some very excellent points. The context of the quote came from mentioning playing in hardcore bands, and I suppose by comparison there isn't much room for experimentation or progression there at all.
Obviously I don't know a terrific amount about other genres but metal is seeped in tradition and I know a lot of people view experimental stuff with great suspicion and often outright hatred. I've actually got a record that boldy boasts that it contains 'no progression or any other weakness' on it. It's interesting as, like Nick says, I think metal was a very progressive genre, at least in the early days. I would agree that todays 'progressive metal' bands are not really experimenting at all but basically pissing about with complicated guitarwork.
Does too much experimentation take you away from 'metalness'? I think this is the key for me - if a band is 'metal' they can experiment all they want, but to stray too far from your metal roots and it becomes a band thing - Ted Maul, for example, don't qualify as a metal band at all in my opinion, neither would a band like Korpiklaani.
Good point about Nile, I am not a fan of this band but they do have their own musical identity, albeit one which a lot of other bands quickly started ripping off!
|
|