Symphonic Metal

florianblaschke wrote:

... the lines of Estatic Fear (see "Somnium Obmutum"), or (early) Empyrium; some avantgarde metal; some folk metal; and last but not least the aforementioned post-rock/metal. Godspeed You! Black Emperor partly act like an orchestra made out of electric guitars played in unconventional ways, more like violins - certainly a unique twist on the idea to combine rock music and orchestral sounds somehow.

View Profile | Leave florianblaschke a shout

florianblaschke wrote:

If the term "symphonic metal" is restricted to bands using a real full symphonic orchestra, the genre would be extremely small. For example, Visions of Atlantis haven't used a real orchestra, either, on Trinity, and Edenbridge didn't do so before MyEarthDream. Even Epica don't use a full orchestra on their albums. Nevermind that no band except Therion tours with a live orchestra. The restriction makes as little sense as the requirement of a lead vocalist singing in a classical style - which actually makes a little bit more sense, now that I think of it. But while most people may spontaneously associate the term "symphonic metal" with orchestral and choral bombast, or at least a synthesiser-based imitation of it, it is certainly true that other genres could lay claim to the term just as well: melodic prog metal à la Dream Theater (I've read the description "symphonic progressive metal" in fact), being based as it is on the classic symphonic (prog) rock of the seventies; doom metal along

View Profile | Leave florianblaschke a shout

florianblaschke wrote:

One criticism about "Kingdom of Heaven" and the album as a whole that I agree with to some extent - in principle - is that it is too repetitive. But if the repetition was removed, the songs would be shorter, but even more complex and difficult to get into. ;-)

View Profile | Leave florianblaschke a shout

florianblaschke wrote:

"Kingdom of Heaven" is great, but not easy to get into because it is, as you say, kind of chaotic. But that's not a bug, it's a feature. It has a unusual song structure and fits the progressive metal mold indeed. The instrumental part in the middle always reminds me of Opeth, and in a good way because truth be told, I've always found it hard to get into Opeth myself: their music is very gloomy and chaotic and jazzy; hard to swallow for me. But I've come to like their sound; their music is definitely autumn music, full of shades of brown, gray and black, like a muddy November. Very atmospheric, but a little too bleak and depressive for my taste.

View Profile | Leave florianblaschke a shout

nDroae wrote:

"Son of the Sun" was impressive and clearly symphonic in the true sense. Y'know, speaking of songs being carefully crafted, I read that Epica's "Kingdom of Heaven" took three years to compose, but to me it's rather boring. I can't tell if that's entirely because I don't like progressive metal much, or also in part because the song turned out messy. :-P I actually want to invest less time expanding my musical horizons from now on than I have since 2006; I bought a load of music in that time that I don't really enjoy, although sometimes I like it better when I listen to it again a year or more after the first time. This, for example. XD

View Profile | Leave nDroae a shout

ringwraith10 wrote:

Though I agree with you, florianblaschke -- music shouldn't be something that a band can produce in an hour. A song needs to have more thought and effort put into it than many of the popular songs that people are listening to right now. To me, not only does the music need to be of a high quality or unique in some way, but the lyrics need to mean something. I've heard some REALLY crappy songs recently that make me want to vomit -- they have very little effort put into the music, and the lyrics look like the songwriters opened a dictionary, closed their eyes, and put their finger on a word and used that method for creating lyrics. Not cool.

View Profile | Leave ringwraith10 a shout

ringwraith10 wrote:

The problem here is that the "metal" genre has become so confusing and convoluted recently. Not only do we now have genres like "nu-metal", which can't decide if they're metal or hard rock, but certain old metal bands are now being slammed for not being metal enough *cough*Metallica*cough*. I find it hard to determine whether something is actually *metal* or not, and it seems that this genre is now up for individual interpretation.

View Profile | Leave ringwraith10 a shout

florianblaschke wrote:

You see, the genre is not always easy to appreciate but demands some dedication and time of you. "Growers" are a good thing, in my experience. There are songs and albums that I immediately loved and that I never tired of but those are very rare. Good music is music that you can listen to again and again, even after many years and changing tastes or further experiences (whether in music or in life) and you keep discovering new aspects. I know I have taken years to get into some genres, bands and albums that are among my favourites now. If that's not your thing and you want a quick fix, no problem, but that's not what THIS genre is about. It's not mere background music. For an example (somewhat random) of a symphonic metal song that's also a carefully crafted metal song see "Son of the Sun" by Therion and pay attention to the guitar, especially the beginning riff and the solo at 4:00.

View Profile | Leave florianblaschke a shout

florianblaschke wrote:

ringwraith10: IF a band arranges all their orchestra parts THEMSELVES in addition to writing the outlines, I sure DO respect that accomplishment. But you cannot take that for granted and impressing your audience through the virtuosity of guest musicians (and the accomplishments of hired guns) instead of your own is lame. nDroae: Sorry for you, but you see, the question "metal or not?" is not just a subjective assessment and that you need a certain background and experience for a proper estimation. I highly respect all the true metal, whether traditional, power, speed, thrash, death, black, doom, gothic, prog, avantgarde, folk or whatever, even if I don't enjoy all those genres equally, and all bands that display musicianship, but I oppose dumbing down the genre. Alternative metal is a case in point, because it is based on hardcore punk rather than metal and lacks the sophistication of real metal. I'm not much into, say, technical death metal but I do respect the sophistication thereof.

View Profile | Leave florianblaschke a shout

nDroae wrote:

I have read that part of the Wikipedia article before, but I can't translate it into an ability to tell whether something I'm listening to is metal (or good metal) or not, since I've never been a serious student of music. Avant-garde vs. alternative metal is interesting, I was under the impression that "alternative metal" was just a fad tag for metal-influenced rock music like Flyleaf. :D

View Profile | Leave nDroae a shout

ringwraith10 wrote:

I seem to be a little late in this conversation, but I do want to say that if you DO write the parts for an orchestra (including writing the arrangements for all of the different instruments), that is certainly talent. If a band were to include an orchestra playing an arrangement that THEY wrote, then I can't see any reason to criticize them. I can't definitely name any bands that have done this, though, as I haven't researched the topic. For all I know, there might not be any. I'm just saying that if a band WERE to do this, it would be an admirable feat.

View Profile | Leave ringwraith10 a shout

florianblaschke wrote:

What annoys people is mainly the impression that the orchestra is used as a way to cover up the deficits and weaknesses that the music otherwise has, and make easy-listening rock music that uneducated listeners associate with the "genius" image of symphonic composers. As for metal from a musical point of view, try this and this.

View Profile | Leave florianblaschke a shout

florianblaschke wrote:

Correction: "There's more to orchestra metal than the orchestra parts." Oh, and hiring someone to write or arrange the orchestra parts is even less worthy of admiration. It certainly doesn't turn you into a great composer.

View Profile | Leave florianblaschke a shout

nDroae wrote:

Ah, I hadn't considered the origin of the term or possible meanings. To me "symphonic" has only meant definition 1a: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/symphony "an elaborate instrumental composition in three or more movements, similar in form to a sonata but written for an orchestra and usually of far grander proportions and more varied elements." I like definition 4 though. I should add that I still don't think I really know what metal is either. :-P

View Profile | Leave nDroae a shout

florianblaschke wrote:

Outsourcing musicianship from the band to guest musicians goes right against the spirit of metal, which includes a certain level of musicianship and "extremeness" in the band that makes it more challenging to fully appreciate than mainstream pop. It's easy to find skilled guest musicians and write challenging parts for them. There's nothing admirable in that, it's just showing off other people's skills and your own financial power. That said, it's easy to impress with an orchestra because everything sounds better when it is played by a skilled orchestra, especially Disney-esque soundtrack-ish music that is an imitation of an imitation of an imitation of real classical music.

View Profile | Leave florianblaschke a shout

florianblaschke wrote:

If orchestras were relevant to symphonic metal it would be called orchestra metal. But it isn't. Actually "symphonic" is a far more precise description if you look at the original meaning of the word: "sounding together". You don't need a real orchestra at all to achieve a "symphonic" sound. cognitive21st: There is more to orchestra metal than the orchestra parts, and the metal part. Orchestra metal with mediocre metal parts and mediocre songwriting as well as mediocre vocals is mediocre, as impressive as the orchestra parts may be. At the base, symphonic or orchestra metal is still METAL (at least that's what the term says - it doesn't say "metallised orchestra pop rock" or something like that), so I will judge it mainly by the metal parts - the orchestra is just a nice aside but not essential to the music. After all, when you go see the band, who is playing is the band, not the orchestra, especially when it comes from backup tapes.

View Profile | Leave florianblaschke a shout

nDroae wrote:

Okay... Therion and After Forever aren't more popular than Nightwish or WT, nor is that what florianblaschke meant. I don't think they're better, either, but it doesn't matter. According to the true definition of symphonic metal, orchestra is irrelevant; symphonic structure in the music would be all that matters. However I think it's best to ignore that and equate "symphonic" with "orchestral" because otherwise you'll just be a lone voice yelling at the mob to run the other way, pointless. And Evanescence is not gothic rock; that was first-generation goth music back in the late 70's and 80's: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_rock Evanescence are gothic and rock but not gothic rock. I realize that calling out misuse of the "gothic rock" tag is also yelling at the mob, but in that case my respect for first-generation goths compels me to. :) That's not the case with symphonic metal.

View Profile | Leave nDroae a shout

cognitive21st wrote:

@florianblaschke (your 3rd last comment) : who said those bands are better....being more popular does NOT mean you can classify them as better.......if you dont like it then its not better for you!! and if you do then it is!!!

View Profile | Leave cognitive21st a shout