Stoney

I mean, it’s a joke, right?

JovaNNotti!?

@JDV666 the certainty comes from the fact that you sign with "666" in your nickname and you start your question on a war footing. Out of 100 records in your collection, how many are metal and how many are from other musical genres? How many composers do you know from classical music, jazz, funk, folk, country, post-rock, punk, electronic, sacred music, liturgical, chamber, opera, drama, ballet, Celtic music, flamenco, blues, Latin music, reggae, soul, boogie-woogie, dixieland, bebop, samba, swing, garage, kraut, stoner, AOR, psychedelic music, lounge, techno, ska? If you really listened to "everything" and appreciated "music," why would you define yourself simply as a "metalhead"? Perhaps because, with most of your listens being metal and similar genres, your taste is refined and educated in that type of music, am I wrong? So what will your approach to music be, guess? And I took you as a generic example, make it clear, don’t tell me that “you” are different, that you are not exactly a “metalhead,” etc., because that’s not the point. Take care.

But the fact that metalheads are "open" doesn't mean anything. "Musical culture" either. The problem isn't what you listen to or how much you listen to, the problem is the approach. And unfortunately, metalheads approach music in exactly the same way, whether they're listening to Pink Floyd or Megadeth.

This wave of new "metal" groups is the ugliest thing to come out under the rock label in decades. All the singers sound the same, all with this mix of "melody and power" that is so expressionless and static that it got old even before it started. Both the aggressive tracks and the ballads are filled with those damn chanting melodies with the chorus underneath, all following the same formula and the same nonexistent progression, where the refrain pops up every measure from a chord, so banal, predictable, and annoying that they seem like Ligabue with the distortion cranked up. The worst of the worst.

Very great.

In the end, I listened to them and I didn’t hear all these genres. To me, it seems they only make one, which is what they do best, that is metal; the others are just some embellishments that serve to give a bit of color now and then and the intention of variety. This is a metal band that creates music meant for a metal audience, who, expecting double bass, big guitars, and growls, sees such variety as an original novelty. I do recognize their good intentions; after all, they are professionals with the technique to play any genre and they enjoy doing it. However, if we want to be picky, fun and technique aren’t enough; expression is needed: every professional can propose any genre, but not necessarily "play it". It remains a mystery, then - but this is an existential question of mine - why the typical metalhead, who usually doesn't care about 9 out of 10 jazz pieces and roughly abhors any form of commercial rock, goes crazy when "jazz" pops up as an interlude between two verses full of growls and double bass, or accepts pieces like "Desert Of Song" (an extremely radio-friendly track) only when proposed by a group that actually plays brutal. Who knows. Anyway, at times they are pleasant and yes, probably better than many others. At the very least, a bit more creative than the average of this type of music.

No, maybe I didn’t explain myself well, I didn’t say it’s “wrong” to go from Pink Floyd to Gorgoroth, it can be done perfectly well. I asked why this should be considered a merit compared to a band that plays a single genre all in 4/4, for example. Because in my opinion, either there’s an artistic need that compels you to use such different musical genres, or, as I believe, they just sit there and say “let’s see what happens when we start with a funky piece and end up in black metal,” just for the sake of it. Which is even more schematic than doing only brutal or only rock/folk, far from being devoid of blinders. Unless, of course, they have other artistic merits beyond these, which, however, are not mentioned in the review. Well, just my usual mental gymnastics, by now you’ve understood that I’m a pain in the ass. But words are important (quote).

I don't understand why transitioning from Pink Floyd to Meshuggah in the same piece is considered a merit or a reason for admiration. Really, can someone explain this to me? It's a genuine question.

Well, it’s almost obvious that no one takes the lyrics seriously, and that’s certainly not the issue. The truly serious problem, if anything, is that music itself is taken seriously. That’s what really scares me.