As someone who enjoys listening to heavy music (mostly progressive death metal + ___core bands and whatever else tickles my fancy), it really irks me that every time im checking out bands on youtube, the comments always end up in flame wars about the band being "deathcore" and how people should listen to "real metal" and proceed to drop some technical death metal band names. And i remember i posted on TL about a few deathcore bands before and was immediately called out and referred to "better" bands.
To give you an idea of what kind of stuff I like, I grew off of a lot of Opeth and Between the Buried and Me and transitioned into more ___core bands like Parkway Drive, Born of Osiris, The Faceless, Whitechapel, Suicide Silence, and Veil of Maya. I also really dig bands that evoke atmosphere, like Circus Maximus, Nightwish, and Cradle of Filth.
So the main reasons I think people hate on ____core bands are 1) they just don't like that kind of sound 2) because of the scene/scene kids that detracts from the music itself, which goes hand in hand with 3) people don't like the repetitiveness/clicheness of ___core bands. I personally like a lot of ____core bands, but can totally understand and respect the first reason. I definitely agree with the second 100 percent, kids who listen to this stuff to be part of the scene and act like dicks at shows are totally a turn off. But just cuz you listen to it hardly makes you a scene kid. And I don't deny the third statement, but I hardly think this is a reason to completely alienate a genre. Yeah, there are a lot of copycat bands that sound alike out there, but that doesn't mean you can't enjoy it for what it is. And there are some creative ____core bands out there that I personally think have a lot to offer... and some bands make "standard" sounding music, but they are just so good at it that they stand out regardless. I just don't understand the whole "too good for this" mentality that people have against ___core genres (especially deathcore).... is that really a legitimate reason to completely detach yourself from a genre?
Being a huge Opeth and BTBAM fan, I can't only listen to that kind of music because its just too long and deep for 100 percent casual listening, which is when i turn to deathcore and metalcore to get a good fix of no-bullshit heaviness. I get great satisfaction out of both kinds of music, and really think people who refuse to listen to deathcore because they are stubborn or elitist are really missing out on a lot of potential enjoyment.
I'd like to hear back from the metal community on tl about this.
The metal community is overwhelmingly elitist. When we feel that a subculture is encroaching upon our holy ground (extreme metal), we don't take very kindly to it.
Also, *core breakdowns get really fucking boring after a while.
I'm not really part of the underground metal community anymore, and I never shared the abhorrence that many in the community have for core music, but I understood the reasons for disliking __core to be as follows:
1. It's more commercial than "true" metal. I mean this in terms of both its aim and its sound. 2. Metal tends to be fairly subversive and progressive. This is not true for many core bands that make use of the more rock/pop music structures. 3. Core took many of the central elements of metal and turned it commercial. This is probably the biggest criticism. The metal community (which is very elitist to start off with) seemed to think of core as crappy metal made for mainstream consumption, which is like a betrayal. The hate directed at core bands is very similar to the hate directed at bands like In Flames and Arch Enemy these days.
I'm not really interested in arguing the legitimacy of these criticisms, but they seemed to be the common opinions held by the metal community when I was part of it.
On June 28 2011 22:24 OMin wrote: Being a huge Opeth and BTBAM fan, I can't only listen to that kind of music because its just too long and deep for 100 percent casual listening, which is when i turn to deathcore and metalcore to get a good fix of no-bullshit heaviness. I get great satisfaction out of both kinds of music, and really think people who refuse to listen to deathcore because they are stubborn or elitist are really missing out on a lot of potential enjoyment.
I think this sums up why the metal community hates core very well. The very things you get tired of metal is the same things that makes metal lovers feel that their music is superior. Because core lacks this, it's a cheap imitation of metal made for people who just like to pretend that they like metal.
Like I say, I don't necessarily agree with this point of view, but that's the view that's commonly held.
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.
OK, personally a huge metalcore fan. Why? I love music which have lyrics that discusses stuff other than sex, love, money and partying. I'm not as 'heavy' as you, but I feel I can definitely relate. I find a lot of christian metalcore (especially August Burns Red by far) very beautiful, generally because of the whole meaning and the positive aura given off from the song; I also definitely enjoy damn good bands like born of osiris (have you heard The Discovery it's ridiculously good). Just gonna share a bit of my thoughts.. My opinions on the reasons: 1) There are 2 type of haters. One type blindly (or deafly) just say 'shit no this sux im not listening' to any kind of music that they don't stand for, which I'm quite speechless about. The other type acknowledges good or well composed music whether or not they appreceiate the music or not, and I'm pretty darn fine with that. 2) I hate them. They look stupid, out of place and fake when they try to hang in with the genuine stuff. Especially scene bands that have no talent whatsoever. These few bands really do disgrace the metalcore scene.. 3) I don't understand this point, although I do know of quite a few who claim that to be a reason. Are they talking about the general sound of an album, the general sound of the band, or do they simply hear all guitar riffs by how distorted/minor they sound? I've even considered whether they just hear all breakdowns to be the same and give them no mosh feeling whatsoever. Glad to see there are pretty fervent ____core fans on TL too!
On June 28 2011 22:40 Daigomi wrote: I'm not really part of the underground metal community anymore, and I never shared the abhorrence that many in the community have for core music, but I understood the reasons for disliking __core to be as follows:
1. It's more commercial than "true" metal. I mean this in terms of both its aim and its sound. 2. Metal tends to be fairly subversive and progressive. This is not true for many core bands that make use of the more rock/pop music structures. 3. Core took many of the central elements of metal and turned it commercial. This is probably the biggest criticism. The metal community (which is very elitist to start off with) seemed to think of core as crappy metal made for mainstream consumption, which is like a betrayal. The hate directed at core bands is very similar to the hate directed at bands like In Flames and Arch Enemy these days.
I'm not really interested in arguing the legitimacy of these criticisms, but they seemed to be the common opinions held by the metal community when I was part of it.
On June 28 2011 22:24 OMin wrote: Being a huge Opeth and BTBAM fan, I can't only listen to that kind of music because its just too long and deep for 100 percent casual listening, which is when i turn to deathcore and metalcore to get a good fix of no-bullshit heaviness. I get great satisfaction out of both kinds of music, and really think people who refuse to listen to deathcore because they are stubborn or elitist are really missing out on a lot of potential enjoyment.
I think this sums up why the metal community hates core very well. The very things you get tired of metal is the same things that makes metal lovers feel that their music is superior. Because core lacks this, it's a cheap imitation of metal made for people who just like to pretend that they like metal.
Like I say, I don't necessarily agree with this point of view, but that's the view that's commonly held.
you're basically saying that ___core is a mainstream version of metal? i disagree very strongly. neither metal nor core is more or less commercial. both genres have mainstreamish bands and progressive non-mainstream stuff.
to be honest, the borders between deathcore and prog death metal are extremely fluent. the main differences being the style of the vocals and the breakdownish riffing in deathcore.
that's not "more commercial" at all. like seriously, not at all.
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 iand 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 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.
lol this is a prime example of what im talking about in the OP. could you perhaps go a little beyond "deathcore sucks" to explain what you just said? lol.
and as a sidenote, born of osiris has stated in an interview that they were not familiar with nile. but regardless i think both are sick bands
On June 28 2011 22:51 shucklesors wrote: OK, personally a huge metalcore fan. Why? I love music which have lyrics that discusses stuff other than sex, love, money and partying. I'm not as 'heavy' as you, but I feel I can definitely relate. I find a lot of christian metalcore (especially August Burns Red by far) very beautiful, generally because of the whole meaning and the positive aura given off from the song; I also definitely enjoy damn good bands like born of osiris (have you heard The Discovery it's ridiculously good). Just gonna share a bit of my thoughts.. My opinions on the reasons: 1) There are 2 type of haters. One type blindly (or deafly) just say 'shit no this sux im not listening' to any kind of music that they don't stand for, which I'm quite speechless about. The other type acknowledges good or well composed music whether or not they appreceiate the music or not, and I'm pretty darn fine with that. 2) I hate them. They look stupid, out of place and fake when they try to hang in with the genuine stuff. Especially scene bands that have no talent whatsoever. These few bands really do disgrace the metalcore scene.. 3) I don't understand this point, although I do know of quite a few who claim that to be a reason. Are they talking about the general sound of an album, the general sound of the band, or do they simply hear all guitar riffs by how distorted/minor they sound? I've even considered whether they just hear all breakdowns to be the same and give them no mosh feeling whatsoever. Glad to see there are pretty fervent ____core fans on TL too!
Deathcore is entirely different than metalcore. There are a ton of great metalcore bands that I listen too on ocassion but this thread is about Deathcore.
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 iand 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 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.
lol this is a prime example of what im talking about in the OP. could you perhaps go a little beyond "deathcore sucks" to explain what you just said? lol.
The only real complaint I have about deathcore is the production values. Almost every deathcore band I have ever listened to its almost impossible to be able to differentiate what instrument is making what noise at every single point during the song. Why would I listen to music that just sounds like one big heavy ball of mush?
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.
which of these bands play awesome brutal breakdowns, which deathcore is famous for? like.. none?
"Deathcore has no reedeming values that cannot be filled by other genres."
breakdowns dude, it's all about breakdowns. they sound so good. also deathcore is super progressive, yet more melodic than death metal (at least the bands i listen to). it's just a really good powerful mix.
On June 28 2011 22:51 shucklesors wrote: OK, personally a huge metalcore fan. Why? I love music which have lyrics that discusses stuff other than sex, love, money and partying. I'm not as 'heavy' as you, but I feel I can definitely relate. I find a lot of christian metalcore (especially August Burns Red by far) very beautiful, generally because of the whole meaning and the positive aura given off from the song; I also definitely enjoy damn good bands like born of osiris (have you heard The Discovery it's ridiculously good). Just gonna share a bit of my thoughts.. My opinions on the reasons: 1) There are 2 type of haters. One type blindly (or deafly) just say 'shit no this sux im not listening' to any kind of music that they don't stand for, which I'm quite speechless about. The other type acknowledges good or well composed music whether or not they appreceiate the music or not, and I'm pretty darn fine with that. 2) I hate them. They look stupid, out of place and fake when they try to hang in with the genuine stuff. Especially scene bands that have no talent whatsoever. These few bands really do disgrace the metalcore scene.. 3) I don't understand this point, although I do know of quite a few who claim that to be a reason. Are they talking about the general sound of an album, the general sound of the band, or do they simply hear all guitar riffs by how distorted/minor they sound? I've even considered whether they just hear all breakdowns to be the same and give them no mosh feeling whatsoever. Glad to see there are pretty fervent ____core fans on TL too!
Deathcore is entirely different than metalcore. There are a ton of great metalcore bands that I listen too on ocassion but this thread is about Deathcore.
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 iand 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 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.
lol this is a prime example of what im talking about in the OP. could you perhaps go a little beyond "deathcore sucks" to explain what you just said? lol.
The only real complaint I have about deathcore is the production values. Almost every deathcore band I have ever listened to its almost impossible to be able to differentiate what instrument is making what noise at every single point during the song. Why would I listen to music that just sounds like one big heavy ball of mush?
i dont know what kind of deathcore you listened to, but... try this...
On June 28 2011 22:51 shucklesors wrote: OK, personally a huge metalcore fan. Why? I love music which have lyrics that discusses stuff other than sex, love, money and partying. I'm not as 'heavy' as you, but I feel I can definitely relate. I find a lot of christian metalcore (especially August Burns Red by far) very beautiful, generally because of the whole meaning and the positive aura given off from the song; I also definitely enjoy damn good bands like born of osiris (have you heard The Discovery it's ridiculously good). Just gonna share a bit of my thoughts.. My opinions on the reasons: 1) There are 2 type of haters. One type blindly (or deafly) just say 'shit no this sux im not listening' to any kind of music that they don't stand for, which I'm quite speechless about. The other type acknowledges good or well composed music whether or not they appreceiate the music or not, and I'm pretty darn fine with that. 2) I hate them. They look stupid, out of place and fake when they try to hang in with the genuine stuff. Especially scene bands that have no talent whatsoever. These few bands really do disgrace the metalcore scene.. 3) I don't understand this point, although I do know of quite a few who claim that to be a reason. Are they talking about the general sound of an album, the general sound of the band, or do they simply hear all guitar riffs by how distorted/minor they sound? I've even considered whether they just hear all breakdowns to be the same and give them no mosh feeling whatsoever. Glad to see there are pretty fervent ____core fans on TL too!
Deathcore is entirely different than metalcore. There are a ton of great metalcore bands that I listen too on ocassion but this thread is about Deathcore.
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 iand 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 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.
lol this is a prime example of what im talking about in the OP. could you perhaps go a little beyond "deathcore sucks" to explain what you just said? lol.
The only real complaint I have about deathcore is the production values. Almost every deathcore band I have ever listened to its almost impossible to be able to differentiate what instrument is making what noise at every single point during the song. Why would I listen to music that just sounds like one big heavy ball of mush?
yeah i agree that deathcore can just be soundwalls... but sometimes thats exactly what i want to hear. but regardless, i think some deathcore bands have good things to offer if you can look past the production
On June 28 2011 22:24 OMin wrote: Being a huge Opeth and BTBAM fan, I can't only listen to that kind of music because its just too long and deep for 100 percent casual listening, which is when i turn to deathcore and metalcore to get a good fix of no-bullshit heaviness. I get great satisfaction out of both kinds of music, and really think people who refuse to listen to deathcore because they are stubborn or elitist are really missing out on a lot of potential enjoyment.
I think this sums up why the metal community hates core very well. The very things you get tired of metal is the same things that makes metal lovers feel that their music is superior. Because core lacks this, it's a cheap imitation of metal made for people who just like to pretend that they like metal.
Like I say, I don't necessarily agree with this point of view, but that's the view that's commonly held.
you're basically saying that ___core is a mainstream version of metal? i disagree very strongly. neither metal nor core is more or less commercial. both genres have mainstreamish bands and progressive non-mainstream stuff.
to be honest, the borders between deathcore and prog death metal are extremely fluent. the main differences being the style of the vocals and the breakdownish riffing in deathcore.
that's not "more commercial" at all. like seriously, not at all.[/QUOTE] '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.
On June 28 2011 22:40 Daigomi wrote: I'm not really part of the underground metal community anymore, and I never shared the abhorrence that many in the community have for core music, but I understood the reasons for disliking __core to be as follows:
1. It's more commercial than "true" metal. I mean this in terms of both its aim and its sound. 2. Metal tends to be fairly subversive and progressive. This is not true for many core bands that make use of the more rock/pop music structures. 3. Core took many of the central elements of metal and turned it commercial. This is probably the biggest criticism. The metal community (which is very elitist to start off with) seemed to think of core as crappy metal made for mainstream consumption, which is like a betrayal. The hate directed at core bands is very similar to the hate directed at bands like In Flames and Arch Enemy these days.
I'm not really interested in arguing the legitimacy of these criticisms, but they seemed to be the common opinions held by the metal community when I was part of it.
On June 28 2011 22:24 OMin wrote: Being a huge Opeth and BTBAM fan, I can't only listen to that kind of music because its just too long and deep for 100 percent casual listening, which is when i turn to deathcore and metalcore to get a good fix of no-bullshit heaviness. I get great satisfaction out of both kinds of music, and really think people who refuse to listen to deathcore because they are stubborn or elitist are really missing out on a lot of potential enjoyment.
I think this sums up why the metal community hates core very well. The very things you get tired of metal is the same things that makes metal lovers feel that their music is superior. Because core lacks this, it's a cheap imitation of metal made for people who just like to pretend that they like metal.
Like I say, I don't necessarily agree with this point of view, but that's the view that's commonly held.
you're basically saying that ___core is a mainstream version of metal? i disagree very strongly. neither metal nor core is more or less commercial. both genres have mainstreamish bands and progressive non-mainstream stuff.
to be honest, the borders between deathcore and prog death metal are extremely fluent. the main differences being the style of the vocals and the breakdownish riffing in deathcore.
that's not "more commercial" at all. like seriously, not at all.
Like I said, I don't personally feel this way, these are just the most common arguments that got brought up against _core whenever it was mentioned. I'm talking about back in 2002-2006 though, so it might have changed.
Also, as you mention in your post, there are very commercial bands in both metal and core. The "real" metal community hates both of these equally though. The difference is that elitist metal listeners believe that there are metal bands who are not commercial, while all core bands (or a very large proportion) are commercial according to them. In my experience, the difference is attirubted to the difference in structure between metal and _core, with almost no "real" metal bands relying on the conventional verse-bridge-chorus structure, while metalcore, which takes it song structure more from punk, being more conventional in this sense. That doesn't make it any less of a legitimate music form in my opinion, but I do believe that metal is slightly less conventional and harder to listen to for the average person (hence, less "commercial").
EDIT: Let me just reiterate that I'm not trying to argue the merit of the different genres of music. The OP asked why metalheads acted like this, and I gave him the common reasons from when I was part of that community. Also, I'm talking about metalcore in general, not deathcore.
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.
On June 28 2011 22:51 shucklesors wrote: OK, personally a huge metalcore fan. Why? I love music which have lyrics that discusses stuff other than sex, love, money and partying. I'm not as 'heavy' as you, but I feel I can definitely relate. I find a lot of christian metalcore (especially August Burns Red by far) very beautiful, generally because of the whole meaning and the positive aura given off from the song; I also definitely enjoy damn good bands like born of osiris (have you heard The Discovery it's ridiculously good). Just gonna share a bit of my thoughts.. My opinions on the reasons: 1) There are 2 type of haters. One type blindly (or deafly) just say 'shit no this sux im not listening' to any kind of music that they don't stand for, which I'm quite speechless about. The other type acknowledges good or well composed music whether or not they appreceiate the music or not, and I'm pretty darn fine with that. 2) I hate them. They look stupid, out of place and fake when they try to hang in with the genuine stuff. Especially scene bands that have no talent whatsoever. These few bands really do disgrace the metalcore scene.. 3) I don't understand this point, although I do know of quite a few who claim that to be a reason. Are they talking about the general sound of an album, the general sound of the band, or do they simply hear all guitar riffs by how distorted/minor they sound? I've even considered whether they just hear all breakdowns to be the same and give them no mosh feeling whatsoever. Glad to see there are pretty fervent ____core fans on TL too!
Deathcore is entirely different than metalcore. There are a ton of great metalcore bands that I listen too on ocassion but this thread is about Deathcore.
On June 28 2011 22:53 OMin wrote:
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 iand 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 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.
lol this is a prime example of what im talking about in the OP. could you perhaps go a little beyond "deathcore sucks" to explain what you just said? lol.
The only real complaint I have about deathcore is the production values. Almost every deathcore band I have ever listened to its almost impossible to be able to differentiate what instrument is making what noise at every single point during the song. Why would I listen to music that just sounds like one big heavy ball of mush?
i dont know what kind of deathcore you listened to, but... try this...
On June 28 2011 22:40 Daigomi wrote: I'm not really part of the underground metal community anymore, and I never shared the abhorrence that many in the community have for core music, but I understood the reasons for disliking __core to be as follows:
1. It's more commercial than "true" metal. I mean this in terms of both its aim and its sound. 2. Metal tends to be fairly subversive and progressive. This is not true for many core bands that make use of the more rock/pop music structures. 3. Core took many of the central elements of metal and turned it commercial. This is probably the biggest criticism. The metal community (which is very elitist to start off with) seemed to think of core as crappy metal made for mainstream consumption, which is like a betrayal. The hate directed at core bands is very similar to the hate directed at bands like In Flames and Arch Enemy these days.
I'm not really interested in arguing the legitimacy of these criticisms, but they seemed to be the common opinions held by the metal community when I was part of it.
On June 28 2011 22:24 OMin wrote: Being a huge Opeth and BTBAM fan, I can't only listen to that kind of music because its just too long and deep for 100 percent casual listening, which is when i turn to deathcore and metalcore to get a good fix of no-bullshit heaviness. I get great satisfaction out of both kinds of music, and really think people who refuse to listen to deathcore because they are stubborn or elitist are really missing out on a lot of potential enjoyment.
I think this sums up why the metal community hates core very well. The very things you get tired of metal is the same things that makes metal lovers feel that their music is superior. Because core lacks this, it's a cheap imitation of metal made for people who just like to pretend that they like metal.
Like I say, I don't necessarily agree with this point of view, but that's the view that's commonly held.
you're basically saying that ___core is a mainstream version of metal? i disagree very strongly. neither metal nor core is more or less commercial. both genres have mainstreamish bands and progressive non-mainstream stuff.
to be honest, the borders between deathcore and prog death metal are extremely fluent. the main differences being the style of the vocals and the breakdownish riffing in deathcore.
that's not "more commercial" at all. like seriously, not at all.
Like I said, I don't personally feel this way, these are just the most common arguments that got brought up against _core whenever it was mentioned. I'm talking about back in 2002-2006 though, so it might have changed.
Also, as you mention in your post, there are very commercial bands in both metal and core. The "real" metal community hates both of these equally though. The difference is that elitist metal listeners believe that there are metal bands who are not commercial, while all core bands (or a very large proportion) are commercial according to them. In my experience, the difference is attirubted to the difference in structure between metal and _core, with almost no "real" metal bands relying on the conventional verse-bridge-chorus structure, while metalcore, which takes it song structure more from punk, being more conventional in this sense. That doesn't make it any less of a legitimate music form in my opinion, but I do believe that metal is slightly less conventional and harder to listen to for the average person (hence, less "commercial").
yeah i definitely agree with the stuff you said. i gotta say even being a deathcore fan, that this "commerciality" is a lot worse in deathcore than in regular death metal.... but there are still great deathcore bands out there among the stereotypes regardless. i never thought about the last point you made.... it makes a lot of sense though, i can totally see how this would set off the old school dm'ers
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.
Death Metal always has a special place in my heart. I could care less about how comercial the band is though, as long as the music and vocals(a good screamer is always a +) are excellent and I will enjoy the music.
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
lol, i'm sorry if you really can't tell..
that sounds more "commercial" in the sense of regular/pop music. totally not the case for death metal/core
On June 28 2011 23:16 Kralic wrote: Death Metal always has a special place in my heart. I could care less about how comercial the band is though, as long as the music and vocals(a good screamer is always a +) are excellent and I will enjoy the music.
dude i feel the exact same way.... every cradle of filth upload on youtube is an argument about cof being black metal or not.... how about you just dont give a fuck and listen to them if you like them? i really think you are doing yourself a disfavor if you filter out bands by genre without giving them an unbiased assessment before deciding whether you like them or not.
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
lol, i'm sorry if you really can't tell..
that sounds more "commercial" in the sense of regular/pop music. totally not the case for death metal/core
OK maybe the sarcasm really wasn't obvious enough..
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.
You should just tell people to suck it. I couldn't careless what genre people classify the music i listen to as. Some people call it pop some call it grunge. I really couldn't careless.
I personally LOVE LOVE LOVE Between the Buried and Me. Have every album and love their music hardcore. Only one i didn't like was the self titled album. But i really don't care what genre people put it in. It's music.. Rock n' Roll baby thats what it all is.
I have a friend who loves this kind of music and he would fight people to the death about what the genre is.. so funny to watch him get riled up.
oh and "real metal" you should say.. you listen to iron? LOOLL troll
On June 29 2011 00:59 Demonace34 wrote: 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 to go to bed or relax, Darkest Hour, A Day To Remember, Silverstein, and Four Year Stong.
that actually goes along with my point, which was "if you alienate deathcore just by genre, you could be missing out".... and id say the reverse with death metal or substitute x genre for deathcore in that statement is equally true. give it a fair chance - don't judge an entire genre off stereotypical and boring bands, unless you really just don't dig the overall sound/style, which is an opinion i can respect if you gave it some reasonable listening.
duuude the human abstract! i remember my old bandmate and i were talking about covering vela together we ride the storm years ago - never happened lol
So is it only considered hardcore/death metal/etc. when they do the low incomprehensible rumbling voice? What if they sing normally with the same instrumental?
I'm guessing the voice is the main reason that makes it "death" metal?
On June 29 2011 00:59 Demonace34 wrote: 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.
On June 29 2011 05:59 Ravencruiser wrote: So is it only considered hardcore/death metal/etc. when they do the low incomprehensible rumbling voice? What if they sing normally with the same instrumental?
I'm guessing the voice is the main reason that makes it "death" metal?
No the voice isn't the only thing, there's also instrumentation , song structure , lyrical themes , typical rhythms , typical melodic choices among many others. Nice try to discredit a genre of music though.
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.
How have I never heard this band before? Thanks!
I love death metal, but I can't say I'm the type of guy who listens to tons of different bands; however, from what I've read/heard/listened to, the distaste for metalcore comes from 2-3 things: the vocals (not sure how to describe it, more like a mix between shouting and screaming than the death metal scream/growl), the breakdowns and the sometimes the small guitar leads/riffs that sound sort of... progressive/happy/high pitched. Mainly the breakdowns. Of course not all deathcore bands have all of the above.
Personally I'm not a fan of the sound, but I don't hate it indiscriminately.
Yeah, death metal/deathcore are generally characterized by growl/scream vocals with some cleans occasionally thrown in. some hardcore bands choose to center the vocals on higher clean singing with some screams on the side, but yeah, most of these bands are centered around growl/scream vox. death metal tends to use a more guttural type of growl with less highs usually, while deathcore has a less guttural and more "focused" sound to their vocals, with a lot of switching between the low/mid/high ranges... pretty much deathcore vocals have a sound that is more like hardcore vox than pure death metal vox.
On June 29 2011 05:59 Ravencruiser wrote: So is it only considered hardcore/death metal/etc. when they do the low incomprehensible rumbling voice? What if they sing normally with the same instrumental?
I'm guessing the voice is the main reason that makes it "death" metal?
On June 29 2011 08:04 OMin wrote: Yeah, death metal/deathcore are generally characterized by growl/scream vocals with some cleans occasionally thrown in. some hardcore bands choose to center the vocals on higher clean singing with some screams on the side, but yeah, most of these bands are centered around growl/scream vox. death metal tends to use a more guttural type of growl with less highs usually, while deathcore has a less guttural and more "focused" sound to their vocals, with a lot of switching between the low/mid/high ranges... pretty much deathcore vocals have a sound that is more like hardcore vox than pure death metal vox.
On June 29 2011 05:59 Ravencruiser wrote: So is it only considered hardcore/death metal/etc. when they do the low incomprehensible rumbling voice? What if they sing normally with the same instrumental?
I'm guessing the voice is the main reason that makes it "death" metal?
hey, did you check out some of the bands i suggested?
On June 28 2011 22:33 tirentu wrote: The metal community is overwhelmingly elitist..
Yeah this pretty much sums it up lol. I have been a huge metal fan since I was in high school and I don't give a flying fuck about this and that sub label and this and that core. I just like metal that sounds good. Opeth is the fucking shit, one of the bands I have enjoyed the most out of all of them. Nightwish and Cradle of Filth are pretty good I have definitely enjoyed some of their songs. I haven't heard of any of the other bands in the OP, not really surprised because I haven't been exposed to new music in a long time, I am getting old or something. =/
At first in my metal career I didn't appreciate much screaming/growling in my metal, I was more old school squeeze your balls type of vocals. But Opeth was actually the first one that I could really appreciate and enjoy and after that I was able to enjoy others, it is definitely an acquired taste.
Also it always seemed to me that the untalented jerks who never learned to play any instrument were always the most elitist of them all - a good musician can appreciate a wide range of genres and that is one of the reasons Opeth is so fucking good, they have a wide range of influences and you can hear it in their sound. There are tons of metal bands that are basically a one trick pony where one song may sound great but after that you realize they all sound almost the same, these bands are a dime a dozen.
On June 28 2011 22:33 tirentu wrote: The metal community is overwhelmingly elitist..
Not nearly as much classical musicians I can assure you that
We laugh at the metal kids and dismiss their music as garbage just like most other genres, and moreover we also laugh at their completely unfounded elitism.
You have to be elite to be elitist, and metal artists? Elite? Lol, in comparison to Lady Gaga perhaps.
An analogy/generalization would be that all the 12 year olds listen to Justin Bieber thinking they're the shit, while the metal community are 30 year olds listening to the likes of Metallica thinking their music is the shit and Justin Bieber is completely garbage. Well, the classical community would be 120 year olds, looking down at all the other genres with elitist batons and tuxedos.
The above is not my opinion (I listen to older stuff like slipknot and other genres), but is pretty true among most of my friends majoring/minoring in music. Still the undeniable fact remains that in terms of pure skill/training required to produce the sounds necessary to be deemed good music (in their respect audiences), it is classical music > blue/jazz > metal > rock > garbage music (rap/pop/RnB/etc., rock is where the classical musician in me draws the line).
I'm getting quite depressed that people think if you listen to deathcore you go for the breakdowns and nothing else. that ain't good critizism. I used to listen only to death metal but didn't really fit in stuff like Nile or Obituary and bands like children of bodom, cannibal corpse, in flames became quite boring to me.
Bleed From Within, that's the band that got me into deathcore. This band is still the best one around and makes the perfect transition of the more deathcore voices and the death metal guitar usage.
After that i learned about the bands Whitechapel, Suicide Silence, As Blood Runs Black, Chelsea Grin, black dahlia muder, bring me the horizon..
Nowadays I have a hard time finding some bands who are actually good. Personally I see a lot of people were going to hardcore/beatdown just to listen to the breakdowns and that doesn't suite me at all.
I really like the bands Despised Icon, Suffokate, Architects, xAFBx (straight edge band) Quite a shame despised icon quit, they totally changed my view on deathcore
All I know (as one who listens mostly to the sort of metal related to the "elitists"), is that it isn't metal to begin with. And that I agree with the sentiments posted by Daigomi, even if he himself doesn't want to voice his own stance on the subject.
To me, the metal subculture is a huge part of my identity, and the culture itself is something more than just the music. But it all begins in one end, and that IS the music itself. And when the __core genres get related to the metal culture, it feels insulting somehow. The music may be good, but that's irrelevant in the end. As a metalhead you get guilty by association. You can't talk to anyone who aren't already initiated in the culture about who you are as a metalhead, since the prejudiced views of the masses are dictated by something which isn't even relevant to the whole ordeal.
Meh... I feel like I can't write down my thoughts coherrently, sounds like I'm all butthurt, when in the end, I don't really care. (Even if I did when I was in my teens ) I damn the heat and and my fever, and give you some death metal instead!
On July 02 2011 05:18 Musclecore wrote: All I know (as one who listens mostly to the sort of metal related to the "elitists"), is that it isn't metal to begin with. And that I agree with the sentiments posted by Daigomi, even if he himself doesn't want to voice his own stance on the subject.
I think that's basically it. I mean if you posted some Nickleback videos, you propably would understand why you get those replies
I personally don't hate metalcore stuff. But for the most part i dont like it either (but i like the idea of not calling it metal ). Also, youtube comments are just dumb.
On June 28 2011 22:33 tirentu wrote: The metal community is overwhelmingly elitist..
Not nearly as much classical musicians I can assure you that
We laugh at the metal kids and dismiss their music as garbage just like most other genres, and moreover we also laugh at their completely unfounded elitism.
You have to be elite to be elitist, and metal artists? Elite? Lol, in comparison to Lady Gaga perhaps.
An analogy/generalization would be that all the 12 year olds listen to Justin Bieber thinking they're the shit, while the metal community are 30 year olds listening to the likes of Metallica thinking their music is the shit and Justin Bieber is completely garbage. Well, the classical community would be 120 year olds, looking down at all the other genres with elitist batons and tuxedos.
The above is not my opinion (I listen to older stuff like slipknot and other genres), but is pretty true among most of my friends majoring/minoring in music. Still the undeniable fact remains that in terms of pure skill/training required to produce the sounds necessary to be deemed good music (in their respect audiences), it is classical music > blue/jazz > metal > rock > garbage music (rap/pop/RnB/etc., rock is where the classical musician in me draws the line).
I'm not invested in this topic too much, though I love metal (along with other genres), but I just thought it was cute how you mentioned "older stuff like Slipknot" when Slipknot universally considered "not metal" (and yes, I realize it is classified as "nu-metal", but it is rap-rock), nor is it old. I'm not hating at all, just found it funny and odd.
On July 02 2011 05:18 Musclecore wrote: All I know (as one who listens mostly to the sort of metal related to the "elitists"), is that it isn't metal to begin with. And that I agree with the sentiments posted by Daigomi, even if he himself doesn't want to voice his own stance on the subject.
To me, the metal subculture is a huge part of my identity, and the culture itself is something more than just the music. But it all begins in one end, and that IS the music itself. And when the __core genres get related to the metal culture, it feels insulting somehow. The music may be good, but that's irrelevant in the end. As a metalhead you get guilty by association. You can't talk to anyone who aren't already initiated in the culture about who you are as a metalhead, since the prejudiced views of the masses are dictated by something which isn't even relevant to the whole ordeal.
Meh... I feel like I can't write down my thoughts coherrently, sounds like I'm all butthurt, when in the end, I don't really care. (Even if I did when I was in my teens ) I damn the heat and and my fever, and give you some death metal instead!
On June 29 2011 00:57 Bleak wrote: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.
There is no "core" genre. I think it's safe to say metalcore started when hardcore punk bands started leaning towards metal. And the I'm assuming that people with metal roots didn't hear about it from bands such as Integrity and Converge because they were part of the hardcore scene. Instead, those into metal heard it from, say, Killswitch Engage, and naturally ended up hating it in the guts.
But then again I'm a hardcore kid and this is the way it looks from my perspective.
Why would anyone listen to Deathcore when there are Death Metal bands that are a ton better? At least there is a cogent argument for those who listen to MDM like Insomnium or Mors Principium Est instead of Morbid Angel or Death since it's pretty different and doesn't aim at the same material.
On June 28 2011 22:33 tirentu wrote: The metal community is overwhelmingly elitist..
Not nearly as much classical musicians I can assure you that
We laugh at the metal kids and dismiss their music as garbage just like most other genres, and moreover we also laugh at their completely unfounded elitism.
You have to be elite to be elitist, and metal artists? Elite? Lol, in comparison to Lady Gaga perhaps.
An analogy/generalization would be that all the 12 year olds listen to Justin Bieber thinking they're the shit, while the metal community are 30 year olds listening to the likes of Metallica thinking their music is the shit and Justin Bieber is completely garbage. Well, the classical community would be 120 year olds, looking down at all the other genres with elitist batons and tuxedos.
The above is not my opinion (I listen to older stuff like slipknot and other genres), but is pretty true among most of my friends majoring/minoring in music. Still the undeniable fact remains that in terms of pure skill/training required to produce the sounds necessary to be deemed good music (in their respect audiences), it is classical music > blue/jazz > metal > rock > garbage music (rap/pop/RnB/etc., rock is where the classical musician in me draws the line).
First off, you're right. No community is more elitist than that of classical music on the internet.
That said, you really don't seem to know anything about the metal elitists you're dismissing. We believe Slipknot is not metal, and Metallica has sucked since 1990. Metal elitists respect classical and jazz music while spurning everything else. If a metal band becomes popular or sells records, it's because they've sold out and are no longer making good music. Metal elitists are hipsters with Viking beards.
There is a lot of elitism within the core listeners as well. It's not just "non-core" metal looking down on core metal. There are quite a few of my friends who listen to deathcore that despise a lot of lighter metalcore bands such as Bullet for My Valentine, Bring Me the Horizon, We Came as Romans, etc etc. They generally refer to the bands being "emo" and despise them for their scene kid following.
I listen to a variety of metal bands(everything from Asking Alexandria, to Veil of Maya, to All Shall Perish, to Dark Tranquillity, to Children of Bodom) though I generally hang in the core realm. Even though I am trending away from the more casual appealing bands such as BFMV, Atreyu, Avenged Sevenfold, I try not to look down on them or belittle them. For after all, they are the most easy to access bands, and they do a good job of opening minds to the metal scene.
On July 02 2011 20:58 Wegandi wrote: Why would anyone listen to Deathcore when there are Death Metal bands that are a ton better? At least there is a cogent argument for those who listen to MDM like Insomnium or Mors Principium Est instead of Morbid Angel or Death since it's pretty different and doesn't aim at the same material.
Oh you make it sound like we have to choose one thing to listen to. I love death metal, 80's pop and kpop, and none of them are even close to each other
When people say the 'Metalheads are elitist' that really gets me down and I can't help but take it to heart... Metalheads are not elitist.. they are no more or less elitist than the next person. I think it's just that you'll find Metalheads are more open to express how they feel with a passion. Everyone can be elitist, don't single out a subculture just because they might talk about it more. A lot of us Metalheads are very open minded to new music. http://www.youtube.com/user/RadBrad13?feature=mhee
There's nothing wrong with being elitist, as long as it's based on merit. What the hell could be wrong with simply only listening to the best music you can find? For me, that ranges from Beethoven to Immolation, and definitely doesn't include any of the metalcore bands listed in this thread. They sound juvenile and stupid to me. Guess I'm elitist. Oh no.
EPT
. I actually do enjoy some bands but it gets boring after a few songs.
