most important heavy metal characteristic

riffs in strict definition terms, vocals in personal taste terms

I want riffs to every wall in my metal music. The other things could conceivably break a song for me, though, even in the presence of good riffs. And I think drums could have been included as an option, in a way that although you're dismissive of the role bass might play in metal, great drums in any band are as key of a component for me.

i might say "atmosphere" as a sub for production/recording....my enjoyment of metal seems to hinge on production to a surprising degree.

Thought sort of went unfinished there. While drums in any band are super-key, make-or-break shit for me, in metal they're as important as massive guit riffage, if not moreso.

It depends on the sub-genre

Standing at the back of the disco with your arms crossed going "when are they gonna play any DECENT music?"

Hmm. My gut says riffs.

What do you mean by atmosphere? Presentation and trappings? Overall vibe?

Or as cad said above, production/recording?

Banging on the table with your fists and bellowing "Batteeeeuuughhh Batteeugh Inda Neeeuuurrrrrrggggghhh!!!"

riffs > atmosphere > solos is pretty much how it breaks down for me, everything else either adds to or detracts from this

Having a three hour argument about why Manowar are superior to Dimmu Borgir

Sensible answer: Vibe. So I guess that means Atmosphere. I like Emperor, Nile etc because they create a particular image in my head.

(doom metal) riffs! (black metal) atmosphere second.

Continuing with wilful misunderstanding of the question: Never getting your hair cut despite male pattern baldness

three hour Manowar arguments are good until you mistakenly accuse someone of Burzism (again - all apologies Doran!)

I don't think he reads ilm now

I know. I feel bad about that.

Calling the fruit machine "False Metal"

Throwing up on the railway station steps but kind of looking cool while you do it.

Calling the steps "False Metal"

i would like to think aero was trying to start a legit thread, not one for dog latin to shit all over, but i could be wrong.

Just wait until skot posts youtubes and pics like he usually does

Hey, some of Skot's videos are really awesome songs! I vastly prefer those to lazy zings.

but yes in doom metal its the riffs. in BM i like atmosphere.

flooding is flooding, jon

a good atmosphere is key to a nice, relieving BM

(sorry, lame zing myself)

TBF I'm not normally one to do flooding or zingy stuff, I just thought this was what the thread was going to be about, so I was disappointed. Sorry Aero.

I think the image is important for lots of people.

Well if we're going to talk image, there are a lot of ways to break that down. Image of the music (i.e. the presentation of it)? Image of the musicians - do they need to walk the walk offstage? Image of the fans? FWIW, I think only the first of these three is important to me in the least.

riffs

one guess

all sorts of stuff probably meant a lot to me as a teenage fanboy but i cdn't give much of a fork about anything extra-musical in my dotage

needs *gothness option for dan

pitchfork score riffs

illegibility of band name script

exception that proves mookieproof's rule:

http://www.absinthechamber.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/waking_the_cadaver_logo.jpg

Waking the Cadaver, one of the more shitty metal bands I've ever heard.

^^ cool album artwork is a good barometer of decent metal

xpost

jesus, imagine scribbling that on your pencil case.

Smithy what is your preference?

you know I kinda started this because I'm not 100% clear on which of these stands above the rest! like EZ my gut immediately says "riffs." My favorite metal bands are the ones with the unimpeachable riffs. But atmosphere (which is a function of production choices & playing styles I think, and to a lesser degree, of a band's musical "philosophy" for lack of a better term: of what they believe about their music) seems very key to me in metal...early doom is where this is articulated first I think but it's great black metal bands (and early death metal bands) who really explore what atmosphere is all about...a band like Katatonia has the most incredible riffs but the atmosphere gives them a place to live. and then lyrics paired with themes are important because even though v. v. v. few metal bands have lyrics I consider "good" in the sense of "well-said, quotable, good writing," they can paint a picture - fill out the frame to let the music take me someplace else. which is what I want from my heavy metal.

but at the end of the day it's probably gonna be riffs

Riffs + Atmosphere in a dead heat for me.

Smithy - A lot of people who play an instrument always mention to me "space" and "dynamics" Is that an important thing in metal? And can you explain what the hell they mean to someone who has no talent whatsoever who even struggled with the recorder at primary school?

aero stated my position pretty perfectly, and much better than I would have. And yes, it boils down to living or dying by the riffs.

no option for volume?

I dunno about "riffs". A lot of black, death and grindcore I'd argue doesn't exactly have memorable riffs, more like blasts of SOUND (or NOISE if you prefer). It's the way that sound is manipulated that's important. Of course the riffing is always there, but it's not like that much extreme metal is "Smoke On The Water" or "Smells Like Teen Spirit" riffy... So in most cases I'd say riffs is the least important.

But of course this all depends on your stylistic preferences - some styles of metal are much more riffy than others.

Some riffs are also hooks, some are merely foundations.

voted heavyosity

Also, I find appreciating metal merely for the riffs can seem awfully dry and vacuous - for me it's definitely the overall imagery, wanting to be ensorcelled by khaos, rather than drooling over technicality and method.

Amplifier tone is srsly important to me. After that comes riffs/rhythm.

cookie monster

mullets + spandex

if a heavy track has a mighty riff, I can overlook weakness among the other listed criteria here. The same cannot be said for any single other of said criteria, so riffs win.

Atmosphere is that way for me.

honestly a lot of absurd metal i started listening to because i think it's really funny. if i could choose my favorite thing about metal that would be it.

for example
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ura3jCQEt8

I ended up voting guitar solos and it was a hard choice for me but it's true. I am guessing that I will be the sole vote there.

Melody, as if it was any surprise.

I voted riffs, but the real answer would be something like momentum. Or giganticness. The thing that connects different kinds of metal I like is power -- it can be huge and diffuse like black metal, or focused and tight like NWOBHM, but there's always this visceral oomph to it. (Visceral Oomph itself is only an umlaut away from a good metal name.)

Ömphalos

Now I come to think about it, I remember posing this question to a true metal mate of mine a few years back, and his answer was "I listen to it for the 'vibe'".

This sort of ties into a pet theory of mine, that no music fan is ever properly satiated because there will always be a degree of disconnect between the music being played and the situation of the listener. You could describe it in concentric onion-skin terms, seven circles of music apprehension if you will:

7. - Listening to music in an inappropriate context (i.e. techno in a library or church organ in a pub).

6. - Listening to music in a less-than-ideal setting, like over a crackly radio or over shop tannoy speakers

5. - Listening in a comfortable setting such as your bedroom, your car etc...

4. - Experiencing music in a live setting or played in a club, or as the soundtrack to a film or music video or watching a generative screensaver like MilkDrop

3. - Playing the music yourself as part of a band or orchestra or as a producer

2. - Hearing the music in the exact situation specifically denoted by it. i.e. riding down the highway on a Harley in the early seventies listening to "Born To Be Wild"; standing under an overpass in a rainy Northern town litening to the Smiths; riding up a lightning-struck mountain on the back of a horse, sword in the air listening to Manowar...

1. - Total immersion in music to the point of physically becoming the music itself. Literally being, feeling and understanding those notes and sounds on an utterly tangible, yet abstract level.

As music listeners we almost never attain level 2 and never ever ever attain level 1. The only way you can trick your brain into believing it's attained level 1 is through some serious suspension of reality (perhaps aided through the use of psychotropic drugs maybe?). I think the only time I've come close to this state is when I've been just dropping off to sleep and imagined a piece of music in my head that is so beautiful that it could never be reproduced, with mental images to go with it.

The other way is through dancing/moshing which is kind of an expression of wanting to become the music - representing it with body movements etc. Disco lights, music videos live projections are all a part of aiding you towards level 1, but it's really rather crude when you think about it.

In order to connect with a bit of music you have to subconsciously acknowledge this degree of disconnect between yourself, your environment and the actual sounds being pushed out of the speakers, or else it's just noise. You can appreciate a great guitar solo, but unless that solo achieves some sort of feeling or image, it's just someone hammering out notes - you may as well be watching someone type really well on a keyboard.

Sorry, this might be a bit OT. Not sure if it merits its own discussion or thread...

It's interesting to try and parse out something we do so seemingly seamlessly and fully... I don't think I quite understand your #2, though; if anything, that's the one that strikes me as "rather crude" among all the things you mention. It reminds me of those user-generated youtube vids where there'll be a lyric like "my heart's breaking in two" along with a graphic of a little valentine heart tearing in half. In other words, music is archetypal and universal, maaaaan. You don't actually have to be riding a Harley in 1972 for "Born to be Wild" to make you feel like a badass, and I'd argue that you don't even have to speak English either... Also, funny that you think #1 is unattainable; for me, your #3 attains your #1! If you're playing the music, you are literally physically producing it; doesn't get much less disconnected than that, surely?

of course we parse out levels every time we listen to music. I think levels 1 and 2 are more deep-seated subconscious desires rather than attainable things. That's what makes music interesting compared to a lot of other artforms - no matter what, there's always a level of disconnect. You will never attain an ultimate and true oneness with the sound you're hearing. You don't have to be riding a Harley while listening to "Born TO Be Wild", but that is the image that is largely associated and denoted by that song, its lyrics, its cultural cache through Easy Rider. You could easily be cycling or driving in traffic or jumping around in the pub; but ultimately you'll kind of wish or imagine that you weren't there. As a listener, you have to fill in the contextual gaps and make do with the surroundings you're given. Level 2 relies heavily on a modicum of background knowledge (i.e. cultural and contextual touchstones - who Steppenwolf were, what Easy Rider was, what the lyrics are trying to say). If you were a baby, listening with unprejudiced, uninformed ears, you'd be more on the number one level because you are not as aware of the context surrounding that piece of music, or what the piece is trying to say, but you'll still somehow be left with an impression of that sound.

Playing the music is not the same thing as physically becoming the music. Sibelius wrote music for orchestras, but his music isn't about playing in an orchestra. The piece as a whole may be representative of a certain setting, or even an abstract emotion or concept. And then there's that intensely deep level that a lot of instrumental music, particularly dance music can evoke. I'm talking about an almost Freudian desire to physically become a light pattern or spark of consciousness that represents the music - not only to perceive or create the notes but to BE the notes and sounds.

new "you're a weirdo, I never listen to music that way" answers

To make it more clear, here's a track called "Bouncing Bucephalus Ball" by Aphex Twin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIeA2ct5Sew

You can listen to it in a number of ways, but it's what you're imagining that counts. Is this soundtrack music that describes your day to day life, the position you're sitting in right now and the words you are reading? Or are you thinking about an electronic composer working on a laptop or analogue machine? Or are you listening to a metal pinball bouncing around a physically-defying landscape?

There's no correct answer here because all three are true. but if you let your mind go and forget about the context and environment, you're left with that largely abstract, impossible image. My argument here is that there's an existential futility in being a music fan and knowing you will never physically become or witness that steel pinball. It's entirely down to you to imagine it.

x-post

That's what makes music interesting compared to a lot of other artforms - no matter what, there's always a level of disconnect. You will never attain an ultimate and true oneness with the sound you're hearing.

I don't see how music is different from other artforms in that regard; which forms do you have in mind that involve no level of disconnect (I think "distance" is a better word than "disconnect" here FWIW)? For me, music is the realm where I feel the least amount of separation with what's being produced.

going back to metal, you can admire a guitar solo for its physical prowess, but if that's where the buck stops then you're kind of making yourself into a spectator watching sport. I don't believe anyone really listens to music like this unless they're a total guitar geek. The music still has to create an image or emotion through the unspoken language of the melody, the way certain notes rise and fall or are hit with different velocities. A guitar could sound like a crunchy biscuit or a majestic palace or an evil goblin or many of these things. The cool thing is that we're so bombarded with these images within a piece that it becomes easier to think about other things, like what the band would look like on stage or what the lyrics are about, that we don't consciously and explicitly process these images - rather, they all add up to giving you a holistic musical experience.

xpost, well, I guess there'll always be disconnect and interpretation. Visual art generally requires a certain amount of active input from the viewer depending on how contextual it is. But a still life of a vase is a still life of a vase - the only disconnect is you can't look at it from every angle or pick it up and start pouring water from it.

You can listen to it in a number of ways, but it's what you're imagining that counts. Is this soundtrack music that describes your day to day life, the position you're sitting in right now and the words you are reading? Or are you thinking about an electronic composer working on a laptop or analogue machine? Or are you listening to a metal pinball bouncing around a physically-defying landscape?

I'm reading a book about wine right now (really a book about aesthetics that just happens to use wine as its subject) by a really compelling writer named Terry Theise. Just last night I read this, which your post reminded me of immediately:

"Here's what I think you're after: a point of utter receptivity in which you're seeing only the wine instead of seeing yourself seeing the wine... If you don't see past your own discrete palate, you can't get past What am I getting from the wine? It starts and stops with "I." What am I getting, what do I think, how many points will I give it?"

It sounds like you're hung up a bit on listening to yourself listening to music. Just relax! I don't think it's hard to lose yourself and "become one" with what you're hearing; it's definitely not impossible, except maybe in some ultra-literal impossibility-of-physics kind of way.

It sounds like we listen to music really differently, though, based on this x-post; I actually pretty much never imagine visuals to accompany what I'm hearing, not even when things are being evoked explicitly by lyrics. I think that's making it hard for me to identify with what you're wrestling with here.

ha ha ha ha
dog you are the best

rhythm/riffs

duh

The wine analogy largely fits. But surely you must be imagining something when you hear music? Or else it's just sound. It's the difference between someone hitting a hammer, or a bird singing and hearing a song...

I'm not w/Clarke, I say "don't relax" and always hear and comment on the composer/performer's intent + politics + message in every little production detail and nuance

This metal poll has taken a pontificating turn and I don't know if the gods are pleased

x-post

I mean, I understand on a taken-for-granted level that these are human beings producing these sounds which have to some extent been composed (whether laboriously ahead of time or on-the-spot or a combination thereof). But yeah, it's "just sound"!

no it's not it is people crying out of compassion and screaming out of rage

When I listen to Morbid Angel, I always just end up getting depressed that I'm not actually a ghoul storming a church and crushing the priest while beholding Satan's rise. I feel like I can never fully inhabit the music.

xxpost But if it's just sound, how do you determine why you like one sound and not another; why something might make you feel happy or sad; what kind of happy or sad is that? If it's nothing more than just sound then how are you supposed to receive any kind of emotional or imagerous (?not a word?) reaction. Why might a sequence of notes make you think of an open field in rural England, or your childhood home, or an enormous deathmachine from another planet?

When I listen to Morbid Angel, I always just end up getting depressed that I'm not actually a ghoul storming a church and crushing the priest while beholding Satan's rise. I feel like I can never fully inhabit the music.

― Clarke B., Thursday, 18 October 2012 14:23 (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Spot fucking ON! Absolutely. Of course if I felt like this all the time then I'd probably have gone out of my mind by now; but I believe that this desire exists and is subconsciously pervasive in the listener. We have to suspend ourselves between reality and this abstract and unattainable desire if we want to connect to the music.

hence why people sometimes people do listen to music and say "it's just noise" - they are unable to connect to it in any way; it evokes absolutely no response in them. They may as well be listening to a washing machine cycle.

I remember studying philosophy of language in college and getting myself all heated up: "WHERE is meaning stored in the mind, if in the mind at all? HOW is this *sound* I utter CONNECTED to an object out there in the world? What is the MECHANISM by which these utterances or squiggles on a page can quite literally MEAN objects or thoughts or desires?" Eventually you get to the point where you wonder, "How can I even talk at all? What if it's impossible to actually understand someone else, like what they REALLY mean?" But then you have to, like, get your oil changed or go to the doctor or talk to a girl you like and all of a sudden you're just talking. And being understood. And understanding. It's both kind of miraculous and also the most natural and ordinary thing in the world. PUT THE BOOK DOWN!

hence why people sometimes people do listen to music and say "it's just noise" - they are unable to connect to it in any way; it evokes absolutely no response in them. They may as well be listening to a washing machine cycle.

― make like a steak and beef (dog latin), Thursday, October 18, 2012 9:30 AM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

There's a pretty sizable gulf between not engaging with something as intentionally produced music at all and wanting to transmogrify into a shiny bouncing sphere.

doom metal riffs make me want to dance

xxpost amen to that clarke. in fact part of what i'm saying is that the listener has to subconsciously undergo a kind of aesthetic contract to make the most of the situation he or she finds themselves in when hearing a piece. you have to step in and step back - find that biting point between fulfilment of that total immersion wish, and not understanding or responding to the music at all.

Getting as close to that immersion is the goal though - it's why we have club visuals, vibrating dancefloors, ever increasingly loud soundsystems, choreography, music videos, music-enhancing drugs etc... they all work towards making that music more tangible.

It makes me wonder why they don't just invent some sort of simulator, like one of those sensory deprivation tanks that creates a near-holistic experience of sound, colour and possibly movement that would take you as close as possible to that musical nirvana. Cool idea, but then what? It would only be the equivalent of spoonfeeding you someone else's interpretation of a sound. That's why music works so well because music is so highly personalised that only YOU can interpret the music through your own distortions and touchstones and emotions.

But aren't you spoonfeeding yourself an interpretation when you imagine so explicitly what the music is evoking in you? Isn't that a distancing act, a very focused self-consciousness that prevents you from immersion? It's really not that hard to immerse yourself in music, I don't think; the stuff is quite literally inside you, vibrating little bones in your ears.

I'm not sure what you mean by "spoonfeeding yourself". This isn't about an explicit thought process where one thinks almost out-loud "Is this music? How does it make me feel? What images is it making me think of? What is the meaning behind this collection of notes and bars?". Thank fuck I'm perfectly at home with dancing around in a club and having fun. I'm not going to have an existentialist breakdown in the middle of the dancefloor, crying because I know I'll never get to experience Todd Terje's 'Inspector Norse' form the vantage point of a gigantic robot goose.

But still, we use this kind of abstract language when we describe music. Other than in the most academic of contexts, we rarely talk about music in terms of "I like that switch from Dm7 to Am". We're more likely to say "these keyboards sound chirpy" or "this song makes me happy" or "this is music for dickhead teenagers" or "That noise sounds like someone hitting a rusty pipe" or "this makes me think of a clown on a bouncy castle" or "it's like a huge beam of light breaking through pink clouds". As soon as we start discussing music in these terms we're implicitly acknowledging that that First Circle of listening appreciation exists and, by extension, is desired by the subconscious.

(very sorry for thread derail, for those not interested in this line of thought btw).

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

this is one of the craziest threads in ILM history imo

When I listen to Morbid Angel, I always just end up getting depressed that I'm not actually a ghoul storming a church and crushing the priest while beholding Satan's rise. I feel like I can never fully inhabit the music.

― Clarke B.

i figure as long as i feel like beavis and/or butthead in that one episode, i'm good

this is one of the craziest threads in ILM history imo

― burrito smalls (some dude),

why so?

Riffs will walk this poll btw

options make no sense, discussion is confused because of bad options

i figure as long as i feel like beavis and/or butthead in that one episode, i'm good

― j., Friday, 26 October 2012 03:33 (4 hours ago) Permalink

heh heheh heh heh heheh, you said it j.

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

Those are some crushing riffs.

hunh

wonder if a different distribution of 'lyrics/themes' and 'atmosphere' would have affected it