Is metal the only genre that still has any "culture" behind it?

Is metal the only genre that still has any "culture" behind it?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=FkYCZnEpFAE
youtube.com/watch?v=9-gRJ-fHDjI
youtube.com/watch?v=GzJA1xQxTCU
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

soundcloud rap desu

What?

What culture? Buying dogshit because it sounds like 400 other records and shitting on the floor at Wacken?

This

Hahahah what

Western Common Practise, Jazz and generally traditional folk music of various different cultures are the only genres with culture behind them.

Nothing in popular culture, nothing in subcultural music (like metal) is actually worth anything at all.

This. Its the only real genre anymore

I don't feel like arguing with autistic sheltered teenagers about the existence or lack thereof of punk music and culture today

every genre is a form of culture
it is substantial for a genre

every genre has it's own culture.

the gods made heavy metal

not even fucking memeing when i say vaporwave has more culture behind it than fucking meal

No, it was degenerate faggots who couldn't play blues

No. I'd say hip hop does, too. Everyone I know who likes hip hop talks and dresses the same way. It's actually quite embarrassing. Albums don't get released, they "drop." The music industry is "the game." Everything "bumps in the whip." I guess it's not a real culture as it's mostly just internet larping, but I think it's similar to metal in that way.

That said, though metal tends to be more fantastical in lyrical and musical content, metalheads don't actually think they live in that world. They just enjoy the music. Hip hop fans seem to get into the fantasy a lot more.

As an outsider, I kind of like metal's culture. It leads to a lot of interesting and experimental music, sounds that you can't get anywhere else.

Nothing experimental with chugging low E

@77462861
This isn't even worth a (You)

>a genre cannot be inherently bad as a concept but every genre is quickly ruined, deflated, and sucked dry by the talentless artists that occupy and employ it, thats why every genre is bad

Meh I was a metalhead for 5 years. It's void and mediocre, even stuff like Dream Theatre.

Metal is too complex for your mind

black metal is the classical music of our time. you just can't handle the darkness.

Sounds like you didn't listen to much metal. Especially if your example is fucking Dream Theater.

youtube.com/watch?v=FkYCZnEpFAE
youtube.com/watch?v=9-gRJ-fHDjI
youtube.com/watch?v=GzJA1xQxTCU

Hahahahahahahahahhahah


No. Metal is childish and it's delusional to think first inversion arpeggios over chuggs is "complex".

No counterpoint, no complex modulations that aren't just random and arbitrary.

It's definately not. No polyphony, no counterpoint, no functional harmony.

Harmonic minor scale does not equal classical. Sorry.

It's clearly too deep for you

I litsened to pretty much everything from Marduk to Iron Maiden

>examples
That's not complex, it's chaotic, unbalanced, uninspired repetitive tiresome nonsens.

Arbitrary dissonance does not equal complexity.

Yeah sure, "deep". No it's childish.

Western common practise is deep.

>That's not complex, it's chaotic, unbalanced, uninspired repetitive tiresome nonsens.
Explain why, or you're not actually saying anything.

>even stuff like dream theater
bait

>first example
The vamp in the beginning for example is made up of arbitrary dissonances without any semantic phrasing.

I'm asking you how, user.

I've been a metalhead for years and this shit is still cringeworthy. Shut the fuck up.

Nope not bait. Alot of metal heads refer to Dream Theatre as complex on par with western common practise, which is completely delusional and ignorant.

I'm glad you don't hold them in high esteem either

>Establishment of leitmotif that is developed several times throughout the track
>"arbitrary dissonances"

Keep trying son.

It's arbitrary because there are no leading tones, no structural relation or coherency, no connection between the chords. It's just dissonance on top of dissonance, without the musical semantics of tension and release.

No you're not.

It's not a leitmotif, it's just dissonance.

>without the musical semantics of tension and release
I can't tell if you're being serious. We are talking about the Ved Buens Ende album?

Yes, and the second example is even worse. Dull D harmonic minor riff followed by machine gun noise and growling. For fuck's sake growling.

No polyphony, no counterpoint, no harmony. Just landing on dissonant tones without any coherence or relation to anything tonal, which makes the dissonance meaningless. No tension to release, only cringeworthy tension.

The third example was atleast a bit interesting with its polyphony, dynamics, use of pauses and timbres that are not just distorted electrical guitar (highest form of cringe). Though the blast beat with its lack of groove, rythmic drive or even syncopation is still insufferably childish and vulgar, equal to a 4-year old banging the piano for 10 hours straight.

I didn't know I needed to talk like I've never spoken to a human being in my life to like metal. Keep tipping that fedora, kid.

Lets not pretend like its hard to play blues.

You're the one tipping so hard you think I'm tipping, m'soy

wtf happened to varg, the dude looks like he's 60

what the fuck

>implying blues is difficult

is that the jigsaw puppet on his cheek? :')

liar

Exactly, blues is easy as fuck. That's my point; degenerate faggots who couldn't even play blues.

He went to prison.

he's transforming into odin

Truth hurts

Jesus christ Adorno I thought you were dead, get out of MU

I'm not a Marxist

Lmao at all this "I listen to classical I know my shit" peeps

>it's chaotic, unbalanced
How's this a bad thing? Combined with the dissonance it's obviously going for a particular aesthetic if you were too dumb to figure that out.
Dude the first couple measures alone sets up the main phrase (which is two measures long) that gets developed upon through the rest of the track. "Classical" music listener my ass, how can you even listen for counterpoint if you can't even hear this.
>no leading tones
One of the most common things in metal though particularly death metal what are you smoking?
>no structural relation or coherency
Metal often has something akin to sonata form condensed to a song format (so you'll have your ABAB before going into a development phase after which comes recapitulation.) That track does this as well.
>no connection between the chords
Oh there is connection, but it's chords full of NCTs and chords using concepts that go outside common practice period itself (which at this point is very much outdated from a composition perspective.)
>without the musical semantics of tension and release
The first track has the calmer parts that aren't as abrasive, the second track has the slow doomy bits, and the third track uses non-metal parts as the release to the tension.
>No polyphony, no counterpoint, no harmony
So do you not listen to most of the common practice composers either, then? Most of them didn't delve that much into polyphony nor counterpoint, and those that did like Bach were pretty tame in the realm of harmonic progression. You CAN step outside common practice period to find guys like Stravinsky who can do all three really well, but then you actually gotta step outside common practice to do that.
>Though the blast beat with its lack of groove, rythmic drive or even syncopation
Nigga it's metal, it needs to be viscerally intense, too. That's what makes it the best genre of music.

why is metal the only genre which Sup Forums-males think it's okay to be completely ignorant about but dismiss the entire genre is if they've heard it all. it's always someone who heard dream theater and cannibal corpse or some deathcore band one time and think it's fine to say "all metal sucks and is for kids." It's like listening to skrillex and thinking all electronic music sucks

Because it's far more inaccessible than everything else talked about on metal? Grasping the idea of how harsh metal vocals perfectly fit the distorted aesthetic of the electric guitars only gets tougher as people grow older since getting older means it's tougher to learn or understand alien ideas, including vocals that can seem grating. At its extremes the genre's musically far more intense than almost everything else loved here while the genres like certain punk or noise or no wave that do match metal's intensity are nowhere near as structurally complex.

*than everything else talked about on Sup Forums

Good post.

Punks are out there they just wear sweatpants now

Black Metal does have culture behind it; albeit a counter-culture but still valid, just as punk arose by the same means. The main focus of a genre of music changes, it doesn't always have to sound like it has been stencilled. Like most forms of entertainment, music has progressed from being an art that geniuses are held in high regard for.
Anyone can create music and as long as it sounds good to people, they've succeeded.

>due to my Uncanny knowledge levels of music theory, I deem all that I don't listen to uncultured and unintelligent

He said culture, you fucking moron.

>He said culture, you fucking moron.
I'm not a "he".

>Chaotic, unbalanced
>How's this a bad thing?
>being this degenerate

>main phrase that gets developed
It barely gets developed at all. Landing on different arbitrary notes is not developement.

>leading tones common in metal
Major 7th in harmonic minor maybe. Other than that, nope.

>muh metal do sonata form
No. Not one bit. And I wasn't referring to form when I said "structural relation or coherency", I was referring to the structural relation and congruens between the themes, harmonies and rythms.

>but they do have connection
No, it's just chord after chord with excessive dissonance. There are no lines, lead tones, phrases that connect the chord changes which would make them more semantical.

>release-tension
One dissonant track followed by a not so dissonant track is not tension going to release by transformation. It's just tension, followed by not so much tension.

>common practise don't do polyphony nor counterpoint and Bach no harmony
Dude lol. Every composer in the common practise period wrote polyphony and counterpoint (granted to varying degrees), that's one of the essentials of common practise, alongside functional harmony.

>Stravinsky
Yes you're right, Stravinsky did it well. I'm going to pressume you're not a full blown autistic retard and not interpret that as a comparison between metal and Stravinsky.

>lacking rythmic drive, groove, syncopation, only having autistic repetitive tantrum beats makes it the best genre
You can create visceral intensity without crash-crash-crash-crash-crash...

Being the ranter in this thread, I'm not bashing metal on prejudicial grounds, but on grounds of experience and that I learned stuff.

>metal= necessarily more intense than other genres
>metal= necessarily more structural complexity than other genres

It is Wednesday my dudes

Industrial. But only if your gay

I am. now that you know my gender wanna fuck

Sick of metal but this fucker trying to invalidate it through first quarter music theory lmao. Rules are made to be broken, especially in music. If music still revolved around counterpoint, leading tones , and shit to be real, it wouldn't be art, it'd stay math, which it mostly was in classical music, it was then discovering the groundwork for harmony that we use today, music doesn't need to focus around one key with tension and release to be artistic, listen to serial music or post tonal shit.

>Rules are meant to be broken
I agree following the rules 100% is meaningless, but rules are meant to be broken only in congruent meaningful ways, creating new rules, not just throwing it all out replacing it with chaos (which is equally meaningless as pure order).

>art that follows rules is math
Boy oh boy I guess random shit mixed with indian food is art then.

>Music doesn't need to focus around one key...
Indeed, that's what modulations are for. But randomly changing keys without coherence is just as nonsensical as throwing random words and phrases on a paper.

>post tonal
Begone, degenerate filth.

That's called degeneration.

Do you think what Schönberg did was random? Or what Webern did? Or Boulez?

I never said it's at the top for either, but that it is certainly a combination which makes it harder to digest.

"tension and release" is the result, not the process. It is what the listener experiences. Having a more dissonant passage resolve into a less dissonant passage still results in a release from the tension built before. Otherwise you would only listen to the safest baroque music to consider it "good" . Trying to box everything in an autistic adherence to functional harmony and voice leading is what people who just start learning about theory do to pretend like they know how to criticize music objectively.

Metal finds its greatest strength in breaking away from conventions in sometimes the dumbest most brute-force like ways, but results in music that is intense and exciting. This type of thing is not out of the ordinary; the general change of western music has been defined by those who get away with breaking those rules and making something new but coherent to those who listen to it. It becomes self evident by the persistence of that style of music within the greater sphere of music. Metal has succeeded in that.

this guy hated jazz with a passion though

If there's passion and an aesthetic reason (or maybe, aesthetically, none, intentionally, or non intentionally even, fuck) then it's art. That's just what it is user.
If the music gets too formulaic and hellbent on following all these rules and being complex then it starts to feel pretentious and trite and that's a whole different can of worms.

I think rules should always be broken, but preferably you know the rules before you break them, and not because you just don't know what you're doing.

Just feels like you watched a youtube vid 'music theory for beginners with game grumps' or something and now wanna debate it to the world but for like, literally no good reason other than to show you know words like counterpoint or leading tones first inversion arpeggios, this or tension/release, which like I said, are things you learn in first quarter music theory, and become invalidated as a necessity pretty damn fast as the art evolves.

Things like mentioned, the Rite of Spring, is pure tension, the fact that it rarely ever resolved is what made it so powerful and have the effect it did at the time.

I'd way rather a chugging E (as much as I hate it as well) than some pretentious fuck trying to turn it into this pseudosoulful contrived formulaic bullshit desu, it'd sound overgrandiose and cheesy as fuck.

Nope, they had a system. Don't act like metal musicians devise such systems

>being this degenerate
>can't come up with anything outside ad hominem
Metalhaters BTFO
>It barely gets developed at all. Landing on different arbitrary notes is not developement.
It isn't arbitrary different notes, it's literally building off the same damn riff. Like, are you deaf and rely too much on your professors and books to do the analysis for you?
>Major 7th in harmonic minor maybe. Other than that, nope.
Dude that first album literally has diminished in it learn to pay attention.
>No. Not one bit.
Untrue. Sonata form is based in Exposition, Development, and Recapitulation. Metal's "lets do something akin to verse chorus then go off into developing riffs" is the only place in popular music you see this alongside prog rock.
>I was referring to the structural relation and congruens between the themes, harmonies and rythms.
Which is...part of how sonata form based structure works. Go find your class notes on how it works, and reread them.
>No, it's just chord after chord with excessive dissonance.
This is objectively not true like ffs dude if you listen to the either of the things for more than ten seconds you can hear when it repeats the phrase.
>more semantical
Not even just metal, but classical as well doesn't give a fuck about outdated takes on semantics that at the end of the day have no objective basis in their existence. Hell, even guys like Mozart or Beethoven didn't care about this either as you'll note how often they break rules.
>One dissonant track followed by a not so dissonant track
But that's not what I said happen, nor what actually happens in the track. Like dude, don't waste your time posting such a long post if you're not even going to carefully listen to the music nor even read what I said.
>Dude lol. Every composer in the common practise period wrote polyphony and counterpoint (granted to varying degrees)
No they didn't. By that logic everything is polyphony because of representations of multiple lines.

>I'm going to pressume you're not a full blown autistic retard and not interpret that as a comparison between metal and Stravinsky.
That's clearly not what I was insinuating and the fact that you think so makes me wonder your ability of reading comprehension. Context seems to be lost on your who talks about semantics.
>You can create visceral intensity without crash-crash-crash-crash-crash...
What does this even mean?

Having one dissonant part followed by a not so dissonant part is not "resolving", it's just stacking.

I never said functional harmony is essential, and it's not "trying to box everything", lol it's building something with every detail in great coherence with every other detail, which in turn creats a part which should then be congruent with a different part with equally congruent details and so on making a whole that is meaningful, and not just compiled of stacked things, like a well written story, and not just stand-alone episodes of Simpson's season 22.

Metal is as exciting as running across an empty street.

thanks had to make sure

Why is functional harmony meaningful? Also does anything that doesn't follow common practice conventions not have any kind of resolution? Because that's ridiculous, and I wonder if you have listened to anything post-common practice at all, not even just the metal posted itt.

> Says art with rules is math
>"well then random shit is art then?"
> if it's the intention
> somehow art with rules is just math even when there's intentions.

>following rules is pretentious but doing random shit and calling it art cuz muh intentions is not the height of post-modern pretentious filth
Wew

>rules should always be broken
If one breaks all rules all the time, what you get is pure chaos. Don't pretend you like that.

>you're a n00b youtube music theory
Nope, on third year bachelor's degree

>theory, even the simplest one, gets invalidated
Wut lol

>The Rite of Spring
It is not pure tension. It has alot of it, majority of it yes, but it is done with rythmic drive and structural coherence. The Rite of Spring isn't atonal and it isn't pure chaos.

>I'd rather chugging E...
Okay

>Having one dissonant part followed by a not so dissonant part is not "resolving", it's just stacking.

Again, you confuse the process with the result. There are numerous ways to achieve a release of tension beyond convention harmony. Every aspect of sound production over time must be considered (rhythm, texture, timbre, dynamics etc). It is how the sounds effect the listener that dictate when tension and release is occurring. "Stacking" is easily one way of achieving that, based on the inherent dissonance you achieve from layering sounds to be more dense and complex in timbre, then removing layers after the fact, or shifting the sounds to a new form of sonic unity. Even any other way that achieves that effect with the listener.

>Metal is as exciting as running across an empty street.
it is certainty more exciting than listening to you huff your own farts yet you seem content with that.

Again, functional harmony isn't necessarily meaningful if the key center stays thesame, with no modulation or chromaticism. But, functional harmony lays a solid ground that meaningful expressions can arise from and that's because it [functional harmony] is derived from the harmonic series, a series (or distribution) of relations of frequencies that is found in nature, and in things such as wealth distribution (see Pareto distribution), word frequency in a language (Zipf's Law), The sizes of human settlements, file size distribution of Internet traffic which uses the TCP protocol, hard disk drive error rates, clusters of Bose–Einstein condensate near absolute zero, sizes of sand particles and meteorites, numbers of species per genus, areas burnt in forest fires and many more. It is nature, it is us, that's why it's meaningful.

But yeah of course other types of music have these things.

A lot of the things you mentioned don't correlate with that kind of just tonal functional harmony though. The harmonic series in actuality is far more sophisticated than that, and it can be seen in most music that has come 20th century and after of post-tonality (atonality, serialism, microtonality, etc.)

And again for the third time, I never said functional harmony itself is necessarily essential. Debussy and Ravel wrote modal and not functional, but there works didn't come out as degenerate filth.

>but there works
>there works
Lmao
>degenerate filth
Imagine having such shit ears that you can't appreciate anything beyond baby level modal not even the true extents and limits of the approach.

>when you thought western culture was shit from the start

Ooo a typo

Who said I can't appreciate anything beyond Debussy and Ravel? Lol I used them as examples. Great deduction there, potato.

Let's say Messiaen, happy?

No. Visit the Mississippi Delta for the Clarksdale blues festival and you'll see that Delta Blues has a huge amount of culture behind it.

>implying others itt don't listen to classical music as well
>implying we don't know exactly what you're insinuating
You're just another common practice baby that took a year or two of theory and think they know what they are talking about. The thing is, people like you don't know shit about the music outside what your teachers and professors had to explain to you themselves. It's why a lot of your own explanations and analysis of other music itt has been wanting because it represents similar concepts but in completely different contexts whether it's metal or classical in the 20th century but you don't have Mr./Mrs. whatever to help you explain it.

>I know what you think.
Good for you pal.

I know alot of different music, I've gone from The Smiths to Linkin Park to Masa Sumide to Gojira to Animals as Leaders to Marduk to Weather Report and to classical, with everything between. So just stop with your "I know your kind yada yada", it's just embarassing.

>The Smiths to Linkin Park to Masa Sumide to Gojira to Animals as Leaders to Marduk to Weather Report and to classical, with everything between.
cringe

I know, I grew out of it.

NOTHING MADE AFTER THE BEATLES HAS ANY CULTURE OTHER THAN THE CULTURE OF GREED

Nah, I was expecting literally this exact response. And based on response, you're acting exactly like I expected. Your theory classes make you think you're too good to listen to stuff that doesn't approach musical processes in the same way thus you shit on everything else. That's the interesting thing. I never said that you don't know other music. Just that now you are used to what your teachers told you, and that changed your view. This was the biggest point I was making. Too damn predictable.

>user the prophet

Yeah you can stop trying to tell me who I am and what my intentions are. This is Sup Forums, of course I'm going to shit on stuff, I mean where do you think you are, potato. My teacher's don't even tell me that much, it's mostly reading. It's not like my only musical experience is from formal musical education lol I was a complete auto-didact before I enrolled at the Royal College of Music, and I also fucking quit to pursue engineeeing physics instead.

>"culture"
What? get your head out of your ass

...