Remind me why Swans isn't considered metal?
Is it just that they don't use the right kind of distortion? Because when they're heavy, they're heavy. I feel like it's more a distinction based on who's making the music and not what the music actually sounds like.
(Of course not every Swans release is similar to metal, SFTB being an obvious example, but a lot of the recent stuff as well as the early stuff teeters close to metal than I think people give them credit for.)
Other urls found in this thread:
Metal comes from blues and hard rock, Swans was born out of No Wave, post-punk and industrial.
Is Big Black metal?
Are the Butthole Surfers metal?
Is Merzbow metal?
Are Les Rallized Denudes metal?
Its called no wave, retard. Metal doesn't own the concept of heavy music.
>Metal comes from blues and hard rock
And Swans doesn't? Because they very much do, especially the blues part. Of course, it doesn't really sound like it, but neither does metal.
Not nearly as much as metal does, Black Sabbath and pretty much all Doom bands are just playing blues rock with distortion on 10 most of the time.
Find me one blues album where they play the same chord for about 10 minutes.
>if a band plays the same chord for 10 minutes it's not influenced by blues
>Doom and Sabbath are playing by blues
>Pic related is just stretched out Sabbath/blues, and basically plays the same chord for 10 minutes.
Also, not every Swans song is about playing the same chord for 10 minutes. I'm not saying all Swans songs can be considered metal.
Also, just because it doesn't retain specific parts of blues structure doesn't mean it's not influenced by it. Anyway, by just choosing Sabbath and doom, you're just cherrypicking from other metal genres that are less (overtly) influenced by blues.
Swans namedrops Chester Burnett (Howlin Wolf) in one of their song titles. His music is based on a lot of repetition (especially the songs he wrote).
Compare this riff to To Be Kind era Swans: youtube.com
This is the most retarded post I've seen in a long time. It's so clear you never listen to metal and have listened to next to none of it.
Which subgenre of metal would you fit them under?? They aren't thrash ,black, death, doom, or literally anything in between. They don't take a lot of noticeable inspiration from any metal bands. They aren't a part of a metal scene. They don't associate with other metal artists. Gee, I wonder why they aren't considered a fucking metal band? Just because a band is "heavy" does not make them metal at all. I love Swans and I love metal but this post is one of the most summer things I have ever seen on this entire board.
Drone Metal is way more Drone than Metal, and Swans are already called Drone or Drone-Rock by most people.
Anyway, disregarding the instrumentation of Swans, their attitude is also much more punk/industrial than it is Metal. As in, they have lyrics that are simultaneously more grounded in reality, not fantasy, but heavily use metaphor instead of outright saying it.
And if that doesn't please you, how about they just don't "feel" like metal, nor do they identify themselves as such.
>They aren't a part of a metal scene. They don't associate with other metal artists. Gee, I wonder why they aren't considered a fucking metal band?
That's my point. If one of the heavier, more expansive, distorted Swans songs had appeared on a metal album, it would be considered as such. Making genre distinctions based on things that don't have to do with the music itself is stupid, but that's what people do anyway.
>As in, they have lyrics that are simultaneously more grounded in reality, not fantasy
>Eat the beast, keep him in
>Take the blame, speak the name
>Lunacy, lunacy
>Lunacy, lunacy
>Hide beneath, your monkey skin
>Feel his love, nurture him
>Kill the truth or speak the name
>Lunacy, lunacy
Yup, no element of fantasy whatsoever there.
You are too far gone in autism to have a conversation with
When I said fantasy I meant more shit about ghosts and fairies and dragons and orcs and shit.
Y'know, the stuff that way too many metal artists write about.
Dude thats a real poor way to define metal
>I can't show that you're wrong so I'll stop talking to you!
There you go.
Burzum is literally a tolkien black speech word, Emperor puts fucking goblins on their album cover, Bolt Thrower is named after a fucking gun in WARHAMMER 40K, shitloads of power metal bands talk about generic fantasy shit, searching "fantasy" as a lyrical theme on Metallum gets 2,616 entries.
Black Sabbath themselves always talk about fucking witches and wizards, and their worshipers in the doom scene follow suit.
Did you even read the rest of the paragraph you cherry-picked from?
>Which subgenre of metal would you fit them under?? They aren't thrash ,black, death, doom, or literally anything in between. They don't take a lot of noticeable inspiration from any metal bands.
>Just because a band is "heavy" does not make them metal at all.
>Butthole Surfers
They have some sludge in their music
Are you really saying that if a band considered "metal" released a track like Bring The Sun, people would consider that as "not metal"? If an "experimental black metal band" released that track alongside tracks that were black metal but deviated from that format somewhat, people will go, "oh, that one track though, that could never even be perceived as tied to metal!"
Get outta here with that shit. You know that certain Swans songs, if released under a different name, could easily pass as metal. Or do you not listen to Swans?
Because Swans comes at the subject of heaviness from the feminine/minimalistic side of pure expression as opposed to metals focus on refinement. The intent is why Swans sound different and wouldn't be considered metal.
>The intent is why Swans sound different and wouldn't be considered metal.
So you'd agree that sonically, they'd be considered metal, at least for some of their songs, if you didn't know their background and history?
because metal doesnt = distortion and heavy
Read the full sentence. Intent is why they SOUND DIFFERENT. There is a noticeable difference between how the sound, from the riffs, to the instrumentation, to the distortion, and to the way the convey certain moods/feelings/emotions.
Oh my bad, glossed over that.
>all heavy guitar music is metal regardless of composition
No sweat. If you listen to more metal from different and Swans you'll start to hear the difference. If you want something that meets the two worlds halfway, check out Boris. While most of their stuff is firmly in the metal category, they have a few tracks that wouldn't be out of place on Filth or the Seer.
I'm aware of Boris, obviously.
Also, no, seriously, go listen to Bring The Sun and tell me some moments can't pass as black metal or doom metal.
I'm asking this question not because I consider Swans to be metal (because I don't, actually), I just figure by setting up a kind of bait-y thread like this can open up a discussion about genre distinctions. I really don't think they're as strict as people treat them to be, and have a lot more to do with the preconceived notions of the artist than people usually are willing to recognize.
Also, Boris might even be a better example of my point, since I'm pretty sure I've seen them say in an interview that they didn't really consider themselves "metal" (though I guess metal traditions are somewhat different in Japan to begin with), but that's how the westerners thought of them, and they just kind of accepted it. And so albums/songs that they release are considered metal, some of which might not be considered metal if a different band had released them.
>seriously, go listen to Bring The Sun and tell me some moments can't pass as black metal or doom metal.
That song literally has nothing to do with black or doom metal
are you fucking retarded
I don't know, are you? Obviously that's not where Gira's drawing his ideas from, but can those sounds pass as metal given the right context? Absolutely.
there is no fantasy.
the only relation swans has to the blues is some similar themes of shit this is a bad time im in the middle of, ie some content.
swans is the blues, if the blues had never existed until yesterday.
Boris have said that they don't want to be held back by genres, they've even made dream pop albums before, but their heavy stuff is very firmly in the metal genre. I think you have to really listen to Swans' mixing to hear that they aren't metal. It's very percussive focused as opposed to riff and guitar driven. Even at Boris's most Swans like, they're still guitar centric. I know I'm probably butchering this description, but I hope you get what I'm talking about.
There's one riff about two thirds of the way in that, if listened to alone, I could describe as stoner metal. But that's still a stretch
>I think you have to really listen to Swans' mixing to hear that they aren't metal. It's very percussive focused as opposed to riff and guitar driven.
That's a fair point. But would you say that metal can't be percussion-driven, though? Obviously, most of it isn't, but I'm sure if you looked for examples you could find some.
ITT:
>b-but guys go listen to Bring The Sun!!
i think i will
There probably is some, but then it borders on non-metal. It can be percussion heavy, but in metal the drums fit the riffs so to speak. But that's just one aspect. Another is the style type of distortion. Metal generally has focus on distortion to give texture to the guitar sound, while with Swans, the distortion is a by product of cranking the amp to the point of near failure. You can hear the difference in the sound as well. A better way to explain it might be to compare Pete Townsends approach to getting his tone from a Marshall to Dave Davies cutting a speaker with a knife. Both going for distortion, but through different means and for different reasons. That's metal vs Swans approach to distortion.
metal is stupid
swans are art.
on RYM industrial metal is almost green
if they were gonna be classified as metal, it'd either be industrial metal (early) or drone metal (later).
It's such a goddamn good song so I will!
It's the go-to for me in combination with Toussaint L'Ouverture.
It's because they play no inessential notes and the lyrics are disturbing instead of "disturbing". You know what I mean by that.
The context being the perceptions of an acne-ridden suburban loser who's been mistakenly introduced to non-pleb music by a more sophisticated friend who'll be ghosting his ass when they go off to college.
too deep for metal IDK, maybe headbangers don't realize satan & unseen religious figures/ aren''t disturbing, people are disturbing
this is based on metal as it was in the 80s...plenty of people who love metal love swans
Holy shit you fuckers actually had this discussion
Why the fuck not?
The other way around.
Nice ez bait switch
>he likes Swans
embarrassing
because they're good
>I feel like it's more a distinction based on who's making the music and not what the music actually sounds like.
> Of course, it doesn't really sound like it, but neither does metal
Really activates the almonds
This. Swans is an art band. Metal is juvenile.