On June 28 2011 23:04 shucklesors wrote: 'Commercial' is more clean vocals, more relaxed instrumentals, less minor/sad sounding songs and guitar solos that are similar to their previous album or slower. If I'm not wrong, I heard they're planning to add 'more HQ sounds such that the guitar feels less distorted' into the definition.
that's not deathcore, sorry
This is not really related to the topic, but I've always believed that how "commercial" the music was depended almost entirely on song structure. The things you mention do factor into the equation, but they play a smaller role. For example, older Opeth like Morningrise meets the commercial requirements almost perfectly, yet its not considered commercial at all. On the other hand, Arch Enemy after Wages of Sin (like Doomsday Machine) doesn't meet any of those requirements, but it's considered commercial shit.
Like I say, those things are considered, especially in black metal where the lo-fi sound is a requirement, but I think song structure is the determining factor.
On June 28 2011 23:04 shucklesors wrote: 'Commercial' is more clean vocals, more relaxed instrumentals, less minor/sad sounding songs and guitar solos that are similar to their previous album or slower. If I'm not wrong, I heard they're planning to add 'more HQ sounds such that the guitar feels less distorted' into the definition.
that's not deathcore, sorry
This is not really related to the topic, but I've always believed that how "commercial" the music was depended almost entirely on song structure. The things you mention do factor into the equation, but they play a smaller role. For example, older Opeth like Morningrise meets those requirements almost perfectly, yet its not considered commercial at all. On the other hand, Arch Enemy after Wages of Sin (like Doomsday Machine) doesn't meet any of those requirements, but it's considered commercial shit.
Like I say, those things are considered, especially in black metal where the lo-fi sound is a requirement, but I think song structure is the determining factor.
i think that your argument about song structure is intertwined with the simpleness and catchiness of a song which makes it more appealing to the masses and thus commercial. definitely a characteristic of most ___core songs.
Personally i'm just not a fan of deathcore, just sounds bad to my ears. The breakdowns I find repetitive and don't really lend anything to the composition. The vocals similarly i have a hard time listening too. All around it just isn't for me.
I don't really think there is a controversy, some people are just very vocal about their opinions and seem to try too hard to rationalize a simple statement "i don't like the sound".
On June 28 2011 23:04 shucklesors wrote: 'Commercial' is more clean vocals, more relaxed instrumentals, less minor/sad sounding songs and guitar solos that are similar to their previous album or slower. If I'm not wrong, I heard they're planning to add 'more HQ sounds such that the guitar feels less distorted' into the definition.
that's not deathcore, sorry
This is not really related to the topic, but I've always believed that how "commercial" the music was depended almost entirely on song structure. The things you mention do factor into the equation, but they play a smaller role. For example, older Opeth like Morningrise meets those requirements almost perfectly, yet its not considered commercial at all. On the other hand, Arch Enemy after Wages of Sin (like Doomsday Machine) doesn't meet any of those requirements, but it's considered commercial shit.
Like I say, those things are considered, especially in black metal where the lo-fi sound is a requirement, but I think song structure is the determining factor.
i think that your argument about song structure is intertwined with the simpleness and catchiness of a song which makes it more appealing to the masses and thus commercial. definitely a characteristic of most ___core songs.
Yes, this is definitely also a factor. I was trying to think of how to express it, but catchiness is a good way.
The weird thing is that even with all these factors considered, commercialness still dependes entirely on the way the community treats the music. Old Arch Enemey like Burning Bridges should be commercial, according to my criteria, yet it's not considered to be commercial at all. But I mean, listen to this song:
It should be commercial, but the community doesn't treat it like commercial music and so it's not :p
On June 28 2011 23:04 shucklesors wrote: 'Commercial' is more clean vocals, more relaxed instrumentals, less minor/sad sounding songs and guitar solos that are similar to their previous album or slower. If I'm not wrong, I heard they're planning to add 'more HQ sounds such that the guitar feels less distorted' into the definition.
that's not deathcore, sorry
This is not really related to the topic, but I've always believed that how "commercial" the music was depended almost entirely on song structure. The things you mention do factor into the equation, but they play a smaller role. For example, older Opeth like Morningrise meets those requirements almost perfectly, yet its not considered commercial at all. On the other hand, Arch Enemy after Wages of Sin (like Doomsday Machine) doesn't meet any of those requirements, but it's considered commercial shit.
Like I say, those things are considered, especially in black metal where the lo-fi sound is a requirement, but I think song structure is the determining factor.
i think that your argument about song structure is intertwined with the simpleness and catchiness of a song which makes it more appealing to the masses and thus commercial. definitely a characteristic of most ___core songs.
Yes, this is definitely also a factor. I was trying to think of how to express it, but catchiness is a good way.
The weird thing is that even with all these factors considered, commercialness still dependes entirely on the way the community treats the music. Old Arch Enemey like Burning Bridges should be commercial, according to my criteria, yet it's not considered to be commercial at all. But I mean, listen to this song:
On June 28 2011 23:04 shucklesors wrote: 'Commercial' is more clean vocals, more relaxed instrumentals, less minor/sad sounding songs and guitar solos that are similar to their previous album or slower. If I'm not wrong, I heard they're planning to add 'more HQ sounds such that the guitar feels less distorted' into the definition.
that's not deathcore, sorry
This is not really related to the topic, but I've always believed that how "commercial" the music was depended almost entirely on song structure. The things you mention do factor into the equation, but they play a smaller role. For example, older Opeth like Morningrise meets those requirements almost perfectly, yet its not considered commercial at all. On the other hand, Arch Enemy after Wages of Sin (like Doomsday Machine) doesn't meet any of those requirements, but it's considered commercial shit.
Like I say, those things are considered, especially in black metal where the lo-fi sound is a requirement, but I think song structure is the determining factor.
i think that your argument about song structure is intertwined with the simpleness and catchiness of a song which makes it more appealing to the masses and thus commercial. definitely a characteristic of most ___core songs.
Yes, this is definitely also a factor. I was trying to think of how to express it, but catchiness is a good way.
The weird thing is that even with all these factors considered, commercialness still dependes entirely on the way the community treats the music. Old Arch Enemey like Burning Bridges should be commercial, according to my criteria, yet it's not considered to be commercial at all. But I mean, listen to this song:
It should be commercial, but the community doesn't treat it like commercial music and so it's not :p
damn i havent listened to arch enemy in a while. but i totally get what youre saying. but i think arch enemy with their old male vocalist is in a way comparable to morningrise and before opeth.... both have a sort of raw sound that lacks the oomph and presentation of commercial music, which bar them from becoming such. on the other hand, stuff from doomsday machine and their newer albums is kinda like ghost reveries from opeth - more refined sounding with more professional presentation, making them more commercial-able. im not sure if that made sense, but idk how else to say it lol
On June 28 2011 23:04 shucklesors wrote: 'Commercial' is more clean vocals, more relaxed instrumentals, less minor/sad sounding songs and guitar solos that are similar to their previous album or slower. If I'm not wrong, I heard they're planning to add 'more HQ sounds such that the guitar feels less distorted' into the definition.
that's not deathcore, sorry
This is not really related to the topic, but I've always believed that how "commercial" the music was depended almost entirely on song structure. The things you mention do factor into the equation, but they play a smaller role. For example, older Opeth like Morningrise meets those requirements almost perfectly, yet its not considered commercial at all. On the other hand, Arch Enemy after Wages of Sin (like Doomsday Machine) doesn't meet any of those requirements, but it's considered commercial shit.
Like I say, those things are considered, especially in black metal where the lo-fi sound is a requirement, but I think song structure is the determining factor.
i think that your argument about song structure is intertwined with the simpleness and catchiness of a song which makes it more appealing to the masses and thus commercial. definitely a characteristic of most ___core songs.
Yes, this is definitely also a factor. I was trying to think of how to express it, but catchiness is a good way.
The weird thing is that even with all these factors considered, commercialness still dependes entirely on the way the community treats the music. Old Arch Enemey like Burning Bridges should be commercial, according to my criteria, yet it's not considered to be commercial at all. But I mean, listen to this song:
It should be commercial, but the community doesn't treat it like commercial music and so it's not :p
But thats what the Gothenburg sound is, "catchy" death metal if you can call it that.
Back when they were making good music lol
[snip youtube vids]
Also Morningrise stuff can hardly be called commercial when all the songs are 10+ mins lol
That's exactly my point :p Even though the Gothenburg melodic death sound has all the characteristics for commercial metal, it's not considered commercial (at least not the earlier stuff). At the same time, the guy earlier in the thread posted his own characteristics for commercial music which Morningrise meets perfectly, but it's not commercial because the song structures differ so much from commercial music's.
So, to sum up my position. Song structure and catchiness are the two main determinants of commercial music, but in the end it depends entirely on what the metal community decides.
Also, Punish My Heaven is the best DT song, and Moonshield is the best In Flames song. Nice choices!
to me, the huge turnoff in anything that is ___core (as op put it) are the breakdowns. they rarely serve a purpose; in fact in more than a few cases they sound highly generic and don't fit well into the rest of the song. another point is the huge scene/fashion shit that comes with it. i don't deny that there is somewhat of a dresscode in original metal as well, but i like that, in contrary to the colorful kiddie crap that all those "deathcore" bands endorse.
and a lot of other stuff that people have been mentioning... stupid production, riffs stolen from good bands from the 90s (namely at the gates, at the gates and at the gates as louuster stated above me), lots of bad clean vocals etc.
i don't deny that i do like some individual bands or songs. for example the faceless, who hardly have anything to do with ___core tbh. it's more like very modern prog (death) metal. i used to highly dislike "planetary duality" due to the retarded production (listen to the bassdrum....) but i listened to it so much (because it used to be the only tape that my best friend had in his care for a long time) that i grew to like the creative riffing. and they have no breakdowns, what they have is rhythmic parts that point more into the direction of djent stuff (which i like a lot ).
so that's my very educated, but confused opinion. lol.
On June 28 2011 23:04 shucklesors wrote: 'Commercial' is more clean vocals, more relaxed instrumentals, less minor/sad sounding songs and guitar solos that are similar to their previous album or slower. If I'm not wrong, I heard they're planning to add 'more HQ sounds such that the guitar feels less distorted' into the definition.
that's not deathcore, sorry
This is not really related to the topic, but I've always believed that how "commercial" the music was depended almost entirely on song structure. The things you mention do factor into the equation, but they play a smaller role. For example, older Opeth like Morningrise meets those requirements almost perfectly, yet its not considered commercial at all. On the other hand, Arch Enemy after Wages of Sin (like Doomsday Machine) doesn't meet any of those requirements, but it's considered commercial shit.
Like I say, those things are considered, especially in black metal where the lo-fi sound is a requirement, but I think song structure is the determining factor.
i think that your argument about song structure is intertwined with the simpleness and catchiness of a song which makes it more appealing to the masses and thus commercial. definitely a characteristic of most ___core songs.
Yes, this is definitely also a factor. I was trying to think of how to express it, but catchiness is a good way.
The weird thing is that even with all these factors considered, commercialness still dependes entirely on the way the community treats the music. Old Arch Enemey like Burning Bridges should be commercial, according to my criteria, yet it's not considered to be commercial at all. But I mean, listen to this song:
It should be commercial, but the community doesn't treat it like commercial music and so it's not :p
But thats what the Gothenburg sound is, "catchy" death metal if you can call it that.
Back when they were making good music lol
[snip youtube vids]
Also Morningrise stuff can hardly be called commercial when all the songs are 10+ mins lol
That's exactly my point :p Even though the Gothenburg melodic death sound has all the characteristics for commercial metal, it's not considered commercial (at least not the earlier stuff). At the same time, the guy earlier in the thread posted his own characteristics for commercial music which Morningrise meets perfectly, but it's not commercial because the song structures differ so much from commercial music's.
So, to sum up my position. Song structure and catchiness are the two main determinants of commercial music, but in the end it depends entirely on what the metal community decides.
Also, Punish My Heaven is the best DT song, and Moonshield is the best In Flames song. Nice choices!
yeah, because it was original and they did have a production that was appealing to the ears. compared to the generic american crap.
do you guys know eucharist? best band from the genre
On June 28 2011 23:54 drooL wrote: to me, the huge turnoff in anything that is ___core (as op put it) are the breakdowns. they rarely serve a purpose; in fact in more than a few cases they sound highly generic and don't fit well into the rest of the song. another point is the huge scene/fashion shit that comes with it. i don't deny that there is somewhat of a dresscode in original metal as well, but i like that, in contrary to the colorful kiddie crap that all those "deathcore" bands endorse.
and a lot of other stuff that people have been mentioning... stupid production, riffs stolen from good bands from the 90s (namely at the gates, at the gates and at the gates as louuster stated above me), lots of bad clean vocals etc.
i don't deny that i do like some individual bands or songs. for example the faceless, who hardly have anything to do with ___core tbh. it's more like very modern prog (death) metal. i used to highly dislike "planetary duality" due to the retarded production (listen to the bassdrum....) but i listened to it so much (because it used to be the only tape that my best friend had in his... care for a long time) that i grew to like the creative riffing. and they have no breakdowns, what they have is rhythmic parts that point more into the direction of djent stuff (which i like a lot ).
so that's my very educated, but confused opinion. lol.
ps: i also hate karate kids. fuck off
yeah i dont really have the oldschool dm background to hold these particular grudges against deathcore. and yeah, bands definitely go overboard with breakdowns in ___core.... you gotta put things in with good taste and balance, which is why my favorite kind of music is the kind that balances heaviness (breakdowns), melodicness (maybe synth, or just pretty guitar riffs), and badassness all in one go - and several (but definitely not all) deathcore bands do a good job of putting those together imo.
as for the faceless and deathcore - they definitely had a few breakdowns and deathcore elements (which seemed out of place) in their first album but grew out of that in planetary duality. but when they did use breakdowns in the first albums, it was in small, unexcessive amounts mixed in with technicality, melodicness, and creativity. so i love both albums
On June 28 2011 23:04 shucklesors wrote: 'Commercial' is more clean vocals, more relaxed instrumentals, less minor/sad sounding songs and guitar solos that are similar to their previous album or slower. If I'm not wrong, I heard they're planning to add 'more HQ sounds such that the guitar feels less distorted' into the definition.
that's not deathcore, sorry
This is not really related to the topic, but I've always believed that how "commercial" the music was depended almost entirely on song structure. The things you mention do factor into the equation, but they play a smaller role. For example, older Opeth like Morningrise meets those requirements almost perfectly, yet its not considered commercial at all. On the other hand, Arch Enemy after Wages of Sin (like Doomsday Machine) doesn't meet any of those requirements, but it's considered commercial shit.
Like I say, those things are considered, especially in black metal where the lo-fi sound is a requirement, but I think song structure is the determining factor.
i think that your argument about song structure is intertwined with the simpleness and catchiness of a song which makes it more appealing to the masses and thus commercial. definitely a characteristic of most ___core songs.
Yes, this is definitely also a factor. I was trying to think of how to express it, but catchiness is a good way.
The weird thing is that even with all these factors considered, commercialness still dependes entirely on the way the community treats the music. Old Arch Enemey like Burning Bridges should be commercial, according to my criteria, yet it's not considered to be commercial at all. But I mean, listen to this song:
It should be commercial, but the community doesn't treat it like commercial music and so it's not :p
But thats what the Gothenburg sound is, "catchy" death metal if you can call it that.
Back when they were making good music lol
[snip youtube vids]
Also Morningrise stuff can hardly be called commercial when all the songs are 10+ mins lol
That's exactly my point :p Even though the Gothenburg melodic death sound has all the characteristics for commercial metal, it's not considered commercial (at least not the earlier stuff). At the same time, the guy earlier in the thread posted his own characteristics for commercial music which Morningrise meets perfectly, but it's not commercial because the song structures differ so much from commercial music's.
So, to sum up my position. Song structure and catchiness are the two main determinants of commercial music, but in the end it depends entirely on what the metal community decides.
Also, Punish My Heaven is the best DT song, and Moonshield is the best In Flames song. Nice choices!
yeah, because it was original and they did have a production that was appealing to the ears. compared to the generic american crap.
do you guys know eucharist? best band from the genre
I haven't listened to Eucharist in years! It was one of the first metal bands (like, first 50) that I listened to and I remember Fallen being my favourite song at the same time as Arch Enemy's Burning Bridges.
Soon after that I went through a very long doom phase, which makes sense to me now. Clearly I liked the slower sound at that time.
On June 28 2011 23:54 drooL wrote: to me, the huge turnoff in anything that is ___core (as op put it) are the breakdowns. they rarely serve a purpose; in fact in more than a few cases they sound highly generic and don't fit well into the rest of the song. another point is the huge scene/fashion shit that comes with it. i don't deny that there is somewhat of a dresscode in original metal as well, but i like that, in contrary to the colorful kiddie crap that all those "deathcore" bands endorse.
and a lot of other stuff that people have been mentioning... stupid production, riffs stolen from good bands from the 90s (namely at the gates, at the gates and at the gates as louuster stated above me), lots of bad clean vocals etc.
i don't deny that i do like some individual bands or songs. for example the faceless, who hardly have anything to do with ___core tbh. it's more like very modern prog (death) metal. i used to highly dislike "planetary duality" due to the retarded production (listen to the bassdrum....) but i listened to it so much (because it used to be the only tape that my best friend had in his... care for a long time) that i grew to like the creative riffing. and they have no breakdowns, what they have is rhythmic parts that point more into the direction of djent stuff (which i like a lot ).
so that's my very educated, but confused opinion. lol.
ps: i also hate karate kids. fuck off
yeah i dont really have the oldschool dm background to hold these particular grudges against deathcore. and yeah, bands definitely go overboard with breakdowns in ___core.... you gotta put things in with good taste and balance, which is why my favorite kind of music is the kind that balances heaviness (breakdowns), melodicness (maybe synth, or just pretty guitar riffs), and badassness all in one go - and several (but definitely not all) deathcore bands do a good job of putting those together imo.
as for the faceless and deathcore - they definitely had a few breakdowns and deathcore elements (which seemed out of place) in their first album but grew out of that in planetary duality. but when they did use breakdowns in the first albums, it was in small, unexcessive amounts mixed in with technicality, melodicness, and creativity. so i love both albums
you seem like a cool guy i was just rereading the OP to see what your actual point was and i picked up that you said you listen to deathcore for "no bullshit heavyness". so i hope you don't mind if i point you to a couple of bands that you should check out for "no bullshit heavyness AND NO BULLSHIT BREAKDOWNS EITHER LOL!!" :D
check out obituary, entombed, ashpyx, grave (!!), dismember, disfear (crust/punk), late at the gates (TSD and SOTS), gorefest. there are more of course, but these are that just came to my mind. dismember, entombed and at the gates are probably the most melodic bands from those 3, if you like your stuff that way. would be interested in how you like them.
On June 28 2011 23:04 shucklesors wrote: 'Commercial' is more clean vocals, more relaxed instrumentals, less minor/sad sounding songs and guitar solos that are similar to their previous album or slower. If I'm not wrong, I heard they're planning to add 'more HQ sounds such that the guitar feels less distorted' into the definition.
that's not deathcore, sorry
This is not really related to the topic, but I've always believed that how "commercial" the music was depended almost entirely on song structure. The things you mention do factor into the equation, but they play a smaller role. For example, older Opeth like Morningrise meets those requirements almost perfectly, yet its not considered commercial at all. On the other hand, Arch Enemy after Wages of Sin (like Doomsday Machine) doesn't meet any of those requirements, but it's considered commercial shit.
Like I say, those things are considered, especially in black metal where the lo-fi sound is a requirement, but I think song structure is the determining factor.
i think that your argument about song structure is intertwined with the simpleness and catchiness of a song which makes it more appealing to the masses and thus commercial. definitely a characteristic of most ___core songs.
Yes, this is definitely also a factor. I was trying to think of how to express it, but catchiness is a good way.
The weird thing is that even with all these factors considered, commercialness still dependes entirely on the way the community treats the music. Old Arch Enemey like Burning Bridges should be commercial, according to my criteria, yet it's not considered to be commercial at all. But I mean, listen to this song:
It should be commercial, but the community doesn't treat it like commercial music and so it's not :p
But thats what the Gothenburg sound is, "catchy" death metal if you can call it that.
Back when they were making good music lol
[snip youtube vids]
Also Morningrise stuff can hardly be called commercial when all the songs are 10+ mins lol
That's exactly my point :p Even though the Gothenburg melodic death sound has all the characteristics for commercial metal, it's not considered commercial (at least not the earlier stuff). At the same time, the guy earlier in the thread posted his own characteristics for commercial music which Morningrise meets perfectly, but it's not commercial because the song structures differ so much from commercial music's.
So, to sum up my position. Song structure and catchiness are the two main determinants of commercial music, but in the end it depends entirely on what the metal community decides.
Also, Punish My Heaven is the best DT song, and Moonshield is the best In Flames song. Nice choices!
yeah, because it was original and they did have a production that was appealing to the ears. compared to the generic american crap.
do you guys know eucharist? best band from the genre
I haven't listened to Eucharist in years! It was one of the first metal bands (like, first 50) that I listened to and I remember Fallen being my favourite song at the same time as Arch Enemy's Burning Bridges.
Soon after that I went through a very long doom phase, which makes sense to me now. Clearly I liked the slower sound at that time.
ha, you're now my new best friend. i love eucharist so much... such a good band, so many thoughts and memories with them. and i'm kind of getting into a doom phase myself now my favorite song from "mirrorworlds" is "the eucharist" and also "with the sun".
I'm not going to comment on the -core and partially newer melodic death but suffice to say I'm severely not a fan. Grind influenced death, like when Napalm Death grew out of the grindcore or like Coffins here is fucking awesome.
On June 28 2011 22:46 Crabman123 wrote: Ok first Born of Osirirs are obviously influenced by Nile but are really really really really bad and are unlistenable and a disgrace to nile . Also the production values on the Whitechapel and Suicide Silence are downright aweful and just sound like one big wall of sound coming at you. Deathcore has no reedeming values that cannot be filled by other genres. Death Metal has so much stuff that totally outclasses Deathcore by comparison. Comparing Death, Cannible Corpse, Cryptopsy, and Vader to ANY deathcore band is just insulting to them. Now I know that you didnt compare deathcore to them but seriously why would you ever listen to deathcore when there is so much good deathmetal and tech death available to you? The differences between deathcore bands are almost negligable and maybe the only semi-acceptable deathcore band is The Faceless.
I can't tell if you're a troll or part of the problem. He explained why he listens to what he does.
If it sounds good, listen to it. Haters gonna hate, don't pay any attention to slim minded fucks like youtube_metal_bro07 up there.
Forget death/metal core, who needs that when you can listen to grindcore which is basically the sound of 100 cattles being strangled to death. You don't understand anything, but heh, you don't have to, that is the beauty of it.
In a more serious manner, can someone clearly define what these "core" things are? I am a huge metal fan, but I am not sure I know what the "core" genre is.
I just don't understand the whole debate, listening to more mainstream metal or more underground doesn't make you more special either way. I rather someone listen to generic *core music and honestly like it than hear about hipsters that only like underground "real metal" and vice versa.
Anyway, I'm one of those guys who transitioned from rap into Alt rock into metalcore. Some examples with videos.
I like breakdowns from Parkway Drive, August Burns Red, and For Today.
If I want more sweeps I'll listen to The Human Abstract (not their new album) and Return From Exile Human Abstract
Return From Exile
If I want to go to bed or relax, Darkest Hour, A Day To Remember, Silverstein, and Four Year Stong.
As a part of the so called metal elitist party, I'll try to explain our hatred as best I can. Metalcore and Deathcore = Nu-Metal. Same jumpdafawkup mentality for the most part, same level of commercial success overall. I want something more out of metal then just "OH DUDE THAT BREAKDOWN WAS SO BR00TAL", I want atmosphere, I want feeling, and I get none of that out of core genres. All I hear are 16-24 year old bros making heavy and stupid music just for the sake of being heavy.
deathcore sucks because chuggachugga breakdowns and pig squeals do not equal music
also of the few deathcore songs i've listened it follows this formula without fail -> chug chug -> diminished arpeggio -> chug chug -> breakdown -> breakdown ->breakdown -> dimished arpeggio -> breakdown
i mean if that's what you guys find enjoyable, more power to you but it just sounds absolutely ridiculous. i'm aware that black and death metal can sound pretty silly with the grunting and screeches, but for me the extent which deathcore bands take it go into realm of self-parody while being unaware of being parody.
i'm not exactly sure if the faceless counts as deathcore, but i've heard them lumped in and their songs definitely have breakdowns + pigsqueals + other deathcore elements. i saw them live when they opened for cynic and meshuggah. i guess in some aspects they had a cool live sound; they definitely exceeded by expectations (mostly because i was expecting people to boo them off the stage. core at a cynic/meshuggah concert? seriously?) but for whatever reason i just couldn't really enjoy their music. i guess that might be more of a problem with that specific band though.
EPT
. I actually do enjoy some bands but it gets boring after a few songs.
