Kuuso on 15/5/2012 at 06:55
It's just that weird preconception that metal is the uberest genre of them all thus requiring more dedication and seriousness than pop music that makes this shit so annoying. Go tell that to any trained jazz or classical musician and they'll gently smile at you and ruff your hair.
Those trained musicians usually love their mainstream artists as well, because they can appreciate music for what it is.
catbarf on 15/5/2012 at 07:16
I listen to Iron Maiden, Metallica, Megadeth, Black Sabbath, Dio, Judas Priest, Rammstein, and a bunch of other metal bands, because I enjoy the composition of the pieces. Does image really matter that much? Sure, they may look like a bunch of Lord of the Rings extras (and don't get me started on ridiculously over-the-top acts like Manowar) but I don't think that reflects much in the music, besides maybe generic lyrics (again, Manowar, I'm looking at you).
I don't know about metal being the most difficult genre to play, but fett's right in that some bands, like Iron Maiden, do put out work that is, from a technical standpoint, very advanced, and as someone who's played classical violin for eight years and guitar for three I can appreciate the music theory behind their songs. Can't we just enjoy what we enjoy without drama or being overly concerned about image?
Angel Dust on 15/5/2012 at 07:37
Have Iron Maiden changed significantly over the years? I'm only familiar with their classic stuff and while they aren't complete amateurs or anything, they've never struck me as being a particularly accomplished band technically. I mean, it's not like they're Dream Theater* or anything.
* who I don't like either so lets not start some tedious argument.
Quote Posted by Kuuso
It's just that weird preconception that metal is the uberest genre of them all thus requiring more dedication and seriousness than pop music that makes this shit so annoying. Go tell that to any trained jazz or classical musician and they'll gently smile at you and ruff your hair.
QFT. I'm a guitarist myself (10+ years) and even though I still love my rock/metal guys (Tosin Abasi is a current favourite), I know that most, if not all of them , will come off second best when compared to your top jazz and classical players - especially in areas such as dynamics, phrasing, rhythmic variation and improvisation. There are some who do compare, like Guthrie Govan, but many rock/metal guys are technically proficient in a very narrow way.
PigLick on 15/5/2012 at 08:09
yeh, metal as some sort of technical yardstick? ffs
ps- I think Iron maiden are frickin awesome
or in other words, what Angel Dust said.
Angel Dust on 15/5/2012 at 08:25
Oh yeah, on topic: I'm really loving the documentary episodes + supplementary material so far and, to reiterate what others have said around the net, I feel like I'm going to get my money's worth with these alone. Schafer & co seem like a lovely and passionate bunch of people.
Thirith on 15/5/2012 at 10:22
Somewhat off-topic: I finished Stacking yesterday, the second Amnesia Fortnight game by Double Fine. It's slight but very charming and witty - in fact, I'd say it accomplishes what it sets out to do very well. If you like light adventuring and the quirky humour and worldbuilding of Double Fine's 'big' titles, definitely give this one a chance.
henke on 15/5/2012 at 11:13
Quote Posted by fett
Not sure why being a "grown man" has anything to do with it.
Well I don't think you'd need to worry about being ridiculed for buying IM albums if you were a kid or a teenager.
And no you're not supposed to be listening to John Mayer. You're supposed to be listening to Nick Cave!
catbarf on 15/5/2012 at 15:39
Quote Posted by Angel Dust
Have Iron Maiden changed significantly over the years? I'm only familiar with their classic stuff and while they aren't complete amateurs or anything, they've never struck me as being a particularly accomplished band technically. I mean, it's not like they're Dream Theater* or anything.
Compared to advanced jazz or classical like you mentioned, they're not incredible by any means, but for a rock/metal band I think their technique is definitely on a pretty high level comparatively. I think metal's a genre where a lot of the people who get into it have no formal musical education. That's fine, you don't need to play violin or piano or whatever to understand or play metal riffs, but I think the bar is definitely set higher for certain other genres where a good understanding of theory is necessary. In other words, I'm usually not expecting too much, so the bands that can stand up on a technical level are a pleasant surprise, and Iron Maiden puts a couple of strong techniques and styles to very effective use.
fett on 15/5/2012 at 18:20
Quote Posted by Kuuso
It's just that weird preconception that metal is the uberest genre of them all thus requiring more dedication and seriousness than pop music that makes this shit so annoying. Go tell that to any trained jazz or classical musician and they'll gently smile at you and ruff your hair.
Those trained musicians usually love their mainstream artists as well, because they can appreciate music for what it is.
No offense, but the misnomer that jazz and classical require more technical proficiency is largely crap. I've played all three extensively and metal (at least the bands DT is citing) are far beyond the diddlings of jazz musicians or the commonly myopic abilities of the average classical violinist. Which is why the cliches are extremely frustrating. Either way, it's a bit subjective, particularly for those on the outside looking in, so I won't belabor the point.
I do want to delineate between mere "dedication and seriousness" and noticeable levels of technical proficiency. This is the "science" that I mentioned, which is a separate issue entirely from album art or image, which are marketing tools above all. Iron Maiden attempted a slight shift away from those tools in the mid-nineties to near disastrous results. That speaks more of the fans than the band, but their recent return to the classic imagery has no bearing on the fact that they continue to make art that is both progressive and relevant in the present. But yeah, it's definitely a self-perpetuating problem. The irritation is that someone of Jack Black's stature could do much to depict the genre in a more balanced and accurate way, and he's instead chosen to perpetuate the worst of its cliches (School of Rock, etc.).
Point is, the genre has evolved far beyond its leather and spikes roots into something more diverse than probably any other genre can claim. But it tends to pay homage to those roots, something most other modern genres don't (do Justin Beiber or Lady Gaga respect The Beatles at all?). That associates bands like Neurosis or In Flames with Ozzy Osbourne and Ratt when there's really nothing in common at all except a few guitar tones and the relative aggressiveness of the vocals. Unfortunately, the genre and media has largely refused to extend its imagery beyond those early pioneers.
I think you might be assuming that the dissection of all this means that metal fans only listen to metal and look down on other genres. Obviously that's not true of the bands themselves or we wouldn't have everything from The Police to Sade showing up as influences in the genre. Most metal bands cite The Beatles, Elvis, Elton John, Billy Joel, The Cure, U2, etc. as influences and many times you can hear it in the subtlies of the writing and playing. I don't think either dethy or I are saying "METAL IS THE BEST EVERYTHING ELSE SUCKS," but there's a legitimate case for the book being wrongly judged by its covor, as well as lamenting the general ignorance regarding the technical superiority. It's no different from saying "minor league players are inferior to major league players." One is more accomplished than the other as evidenced by their performance and the amount of work required to reach that level. Whether the music has any soul is completely subjective, but skill is not. It's a simple fact that Eddie Van Halen or Adrian Smith is a more accomplished guitarist than John Mellencamp or Dave Matthews, judging by speed, clarity, difficulty, scale familiarity, time changes, etc. Doesn't mean one is more tasteful or fun to listen to than the other - it just means that one is harder to produce, same as any other art or sport.
I'm off to listen to some Fleetwood Mac at present. So there. :p
Also, henke: Fuck Nick fucking Cave. Objectively shitty music if there ever was such a thing.
PigLick on 16/5/2012 at 03:27
Im not sure you have played jazz like you think you have, it is by far more technically and mentally challenging than any metal, and that ISNT subjective. Metal may possibly require more dexterity than other genres, but that is only a small part of technical skill. By dismissing jazz as 'doodling' you have already told me enough about where you are at musically.
Classical playing, at least at the top levels, would require the most training and discipline out of all the styles of music I am familiar with. Your mindset on this whole 'metal vs everything else' is frustrating and reminds me of when I was a teenager and was into Satriani and Vai, and no one could fucking touch them, or so I thought.
A little anecdote - Steve Lukather and Robben Ford were playing some gig in LA and Eddie Van Halen was there, they invited him up to play a few blues jams or something. Eddie quit the stage after 5 minutes, saying "I've already run out of ideas and these guys are just starting".
