Page 1 of 7
#1
Before you answer, let me clarify some things:

1. I'm mainly referring to the Metal popular with UG, that is very much based on technical performance. Music where instrument performance is highly focused. So that'd be guitarists like Buckethead, Marty Friedman, Paul Gilbert, Jason Becker, etc. I guess band examples would be like Children of Bodom or stuff like that. (Keep in mind, I don't listen to any metal at all, so I'm not good with names and genre titles. I have nothing against it, and I have respect for it as it is a demanding genre, musically. Just ain't my cup of tea).

2. When I say legitimate art form, I'm not speaking so much literally.

See, I go to Texas State University, and my major is in music performance. Instrument is classical guitar. If you look at the history of that instrument, it was sort of an instrument that classical musicians didn't take as seriously as say the oboe, or violin. Some musicians were taken seriously like Mauro Giuliani or Giulio Regondi, but it was just kind of a lower class instrument. It really wasn't until the late 19th and early 20th century that it really started to be taken more seriously and legitimately.

But it still isn't quite like the violin or flute. I'm from Houston, but none of the schools here like U of H, Rice, etc. offered much to do in classical guitar, but they offered education in pretty much every other classical instrument. At my school that I go to now, there still is sort of a prejudice with guitarists that we aren't as musically educated as the other classical musicians. We're just people who like rock music, who decided to major in guitar just so we could go to college. Things like that. They don't give the guitar studio the kind of money they give to the trombonists, etc.


So if you take a genre like Bluegrass, Blues or Country, they obviously aren't taken seriously in music schools or colleges to the degree of classical music or jazz. But I think the musicians of those genres couldn't really care less. I mean, the founders and pioneers of genres like that are often self-taught, and didn't need to study under maestros to perform their music. I'm not saying it's any worse, nor am I saying all of it is easy to play, but it was made more by amateurs and people with any musical education.

But do you think that Metal is a genre of music where the musicians do want it to be taken just as seriously, and be just as respected, as classical or jazz in school? They want to be viewed more legitimately, and not like an amateur genre of music?

Also, do you think Metal should be viewed more legitimately in comparison to genres like classical or jazz? Or maybe less legitimately?

I ask this here simply because Metal is probably the most popular genre here. And I've noticed Metal music does take more of an interest in classical music, music theory, etc. than other genres of music like punk or blues.

TL;DR: Go find another thread.
#3
The Pit is absolutely the worst place to discuss anything to do with metal. We could go to a Barbie forum and have more civilised discussions on it.
#6
Quote by Butt Rayge
The Pit is absolutely the worst place to discuss anything to do with metal. We could go to a Barbie forum and have more civilised discussions on it.

That's because the Pit is full of indie kids.
Like podcasts? Listen to these!
BEER!
VIDEO GAMES!
MOVIES/GEEKY SHIT!

_______________________________________________
Last edited by zappp : Today at 4:20 PM. Reason: Suck on my balls, UG
#7
Short answer: Metal is a legitimate energy-driven artform in many examples to vent emotions through technical skill


Long Answer: Not really concerned, because I don't care to debate this issue lol
Quote by ErikLensherr
Don't belittle it like that, your mom produces top quality stuff.



C4C
[thread="1339859"]Hammerhead[/thread]
[thread="1341152"]Anglerfish[/thread]

VOTE
Thrustor: 2012
#8
Quote by Colgate Total
That's because the Pit is full of indie kids.

And 'metalheads' who only listen to Pantera, A7X, BMTH and BTBAM.
#9
It's definitely not taken very seriously among people who aren't metalheads or music nerds. I think there's definitely merit due to the technical aspect. But metal is also fairly new as a genre, and there's music schools popping up everywhere that accept metal, so I wouldn't expect it to have a following like that of classical or jazz.
“Just to sum up: I would do various things very quickly.” - Donald Trump
#10
higher levels of the acceptance of metal at an academic level will come with time as metal becomes more and more musically complex (inb4 'but metal IZ COMPLEZ DUH' - the majority of metal isn't complex and the minority that is is not does not have a huge amount of normative influence) and also begins to have a more lasting effect on other musical genres. In comparison to Jazz and Classical music, for example, metal is a relatively young genre... give it like 30 years or so.
Still there is SOME academic acceptance of metal... some guy wrote a really good paper on the rhythmic complexity of meshuggah: http://www.jstor.org/pss/10.1525/mts.2007.29.2.219
#11
Quote by Butt Rayge
The Pit is absolutely the worst place to discuss anything to do with metal. We could go to a Barbie forum and have more civilised discussions on it.

This is actually an interesting and well articulated question, so hopefully we'll get some more sophisticated discussion this time around.


I think you hit the nail on the head, Madcap. Whereas most electronic and indie music is more concerned with sonic textures, lots and lots of certain types of metal and shred is more about composition and virtuosity -- similar to the more "scholarly" genres (like jazz and classical) -- but the artists generally aren't respected in those scholarly circles like they (theoretically) should.
#12
Not so much now, I don't think.
Quote by necrosis1193
John Entwistle once in a while. I had to try to find him when I saw The Who two years ago.


Quote by sticksause
butthose bagpipes sound awesome.
#13
I think metal isn't neccessarily respected an an ART form because there is a lot of garbage (get over it metalheads) in between that try and dictate the genre, as there is every genre. There are many acts that try to be more in your face, louder, and more technical then the next act. Yet there are definitely metal acts who use their technical prowess to create a work of art or defining point in music; or just simply as vehicle to express their emotions. There is definitely artistic aspects to the genre, but most acts overlook these aspects
Quote by ErikLensherr
Don't belittle it like that, your mom produces top quality stuff.



C4C
[thread="1339859"]Hammerhead[/thread]
[thread="1341152"]Anglerfish[/thread]

VOTE
Thrustor: 2012
#15
Quote by Butt Rayge
And 'metalheads' who only listen to Pantera, A7X, BMTH and BTBAM.


Does that mean I'm not a "metalhead?"
"You're not hardcore unless you live hardcore"
#17
to some degree, i think the concept of artistic merit and especially "legitimate art" is pretentious

art and entertainment is all left to interpretation isnt it? even the most consumer catering commercial tune can be quality i guess.
#19
Metal struggles to be an art form to anyone who can't take the time to look past the go to bands, such as Pantera, Metallica, and various other classic metal acts. but i don't think art is something that ever strives to be considered legitimate, which is to say they could care less if someone views them as "Art" if they really are trying to make "Art" they made it to make it.
and i say this because after countless interviews watched, articles read, and time spent thinking on the matter i came to realize that in order to make music i could play i had to enjoy it, i had to care about it, i had to stop thinking of it as something to be admired from the get go, it just has to be and from there the world will turn as it will.
metal is music, music is art, but both of these are not absolutes, merely my own opinion. someone, somewhere, more than likely hates music in all forms and thinks it is the scum of the earth (i mean odds of this exist right?), and someone out there probably thinks metal is JUST noise. does that mean it is not music, that it is not art. i personally don't think so.

tl;dr : it's all a matter of opinion as to whether metal is art or not.

^ the previous post may or may not be coherent, ill come back and read it later to find out
Quote by haha
every time I see your username I press F8 out of curiosity then I have to give myself a big ol' facepalm


Quote by ouch
What the hell? F8 doesn't do anything interesting This toy is lame


Quote by TheReverend724
I can have a beer later, I need to level Charmeleon NOW!
#20
Quote by Zoot Allures
Of course, as we know there's 'real' metal, and 'fake' metal. Based upon what the person at the time decides to dislike based on how many annoying young teens like it and whatnot.


labelling "real metal" and "fake metal" is just as novelty and pretentious as labelling "legitimate art" to "non art" .
#21
Quote by Zoot Allures
Of course, as we know there's 'real' metal, and 'fake' metal. Based upon what the person at the time decides to dislike based on how many annoying young teens like it and whatnot.


Define "real metal" and "fake metal".
"You're not hardcore unless you live hardcore"
#22
Quote by piratemetalhead
labelling "real metal" and "fake metal" is just as novelty and pretentious as labelling "legitimate art" to "non art" .

Exactly, usually it involves some irritating comparison between two metal bands, one being lesser known than the other and supposedly 'heavier' than the other, therefore making this band superior in every way, more tr00 as metal and all that stupid bullshit.
Quote by stealstrings
Define "real metal" and "fake metal".

i was being sarcastic. there is no 'fake metal' or 'real metal'.
Last edited by Zoot Allures at Dec 29, 2011,
#23
Quote by due 07
I think you hit the nail on the head, Madcap. Whereas most electronic and indie music is more concerned with sonic textures, lots and lots of certain types of metal and shred is more about composition and virtuosity -- similar to the more "scholarly" genres (like jazz and classical) -- but the artists generally aren't respected in those scholarly circles like they (theoretically) should.
Exactly. And like you said, theoretically they should, but although they focus on similar elements of music, does metal compare in terms of virtuosity to classical music? Or are its compositions worthy of being spoken in the same breath of classical or jazz? I picture a lot of people here would say yes, but I think a lot of classical musicians would say no.

My thoughts are that I haven't really looked into Metal enough to say that it's just as demanding in terms of virtuosity as classical music (compositionally I highly doubt Metal is on par with classical, but really it's almost not even fair to compare them compositionally), but I feel like it's never gonna be taken seriously (or it will be a long time) because its image. It's very dark, evil, and it sort of is a rejection of "appropriateness" which is very contrasting to classical. That might seem insignificant, but I feel like Arts, especially music, are sort of judged by that first impression.
#24
Quote by Zoot Allures


i was being sarcastic. there is no 'fake metal' or 'real metal'.


"You're not hardcore unless you live hardcore"
#25
On the subject of real and fake metal: Of course there is real and fake metal, just as there is real and fake classical music. Adding distorted guitars and drums doesn't make something metal just as adding an orchestra to a song doesn't make it classical. Now, I admit that the people using the term 'fake metal' are usually uneducated ****jobs, but that doesn't mean that the term itself is illegitimate.


Quote by The Madcap
I picture a lot of people here would say yes, but I think a lot of classical musicians would say no.



Pretentiousness and an overinflated sense of self-worth in the classical world?
Check out my band Disturbed
Last edited by StewieSwan at Dec 29, 2011,
#26
Lets break it down.

Metal is music, music is usually a form of self expression, self expression is art.

Therefor metal is art.

Niccolo Paganini's music was art, I cant see why Paul Gilbert's or Buckethead's cant be.
Purple string dampener scrunchy.
Last edited by Guitar0player at Dec 29, 2011,
#27
I know classical guitar is really hard and there are quite some techniques behind it. I used to play classical and I was always a bit bummed out by people who just picked up a guitar, learned a couple of chords and said they could play guitar.
Metal I don't really care about to be honest. I just think it's not music that is enjoyed by a lot of people same as some composers make classical music that is really hard to listen to. People admire it but don't really like it.
~And the raindrops in the cars

Keep on falling from off the bars

Blocking out a good song

Playing on the radio~
#28
I see metal as being a sub-genre within the macromacrogenre of rock/pop music. The notion of treating it as a wholly separate entity, and thus the premise of yr question, seems silly to me.

And while I'm generally of the opinion that one needn't get too heady about rock music, certain bands or projects within that realm certainly do strive toward something bigger, something more, errr, "legitimate", artistically and intellectually speaking, but I don't think that's not limited to metal. But, I mean, who draws the dividing line? Should all metal be taken seriously as form of "high" art? Should all rock be taken seriously as a form of "high" art? Are Metallica on the same plane as, say, Frank Zappa, is Zappa on the same plane as Thelonious Monk on the same plane as Beethoven, and so on in that vein.
Last edited by neidnarb11890 at Dec 29, 2011,
#29
Quote by The Madcap
Exactly. And like you said, theoretically they should, but although they focus on similar elements of music, does metal compare in terms of virtuosity to classical music? Or are its compositions worthy of being spoken in the same breath of classical or jazz? I picture a lot of people here would say yes, but I think a lot of classical musicians would say no.

I know jack about metal and even less about classical, so beats me. These are just the musings of a bored due. ¯\_(ツ_/¯
#30
Quote by StewieSwan
On the subject of real and fake metal: Of course there is real and fake metal, just as there is real and fake classical music. Adding distorted guitars and drums doesn't make something metal just as adding an orchestra to a song doesn't make it classical. Now, I admit that the people using the term 'fake metal' are usually uneducated ****jobs, but that doesn't mean that the term itself is illegitimate.

Exactly. Avenged Sevenfold, for example are basically a pop-rock band. They're the Nickleback of the metal world.


Quote by due 07
I know jack about metal and even less about classical, so beats me. These are just the musings of a bored due. ¯\_(ツ_/¯

Potential rap album name. Or poetry collection...
Last edited by Butt Rayge at Dec 29, 2011,
#31
Quote by Butt Rayge
Exactly. Avenged Sevenfold, for example are basically a pop-rock band. They're the Nickleback of the metal world.


This.
"You're not hardcore unless you live hardcore"
#32
This argument is pointless... people will never agree on something so subjective and taste driven.
Gear:
MXR Super Badass -->
BOSS SD WAZA -->
FENDER CD 140 SCE -->
MXR M300 REVERB -->
TC ELECTRONIC FLASHBACK
ESP EC 401 VF TSB -->
BOSS KATANA HEAD 100 WATT -->
MILF Tease
#33
All art is legitimate, The answer and solution to this debate will never come because music is a subjective art form, not everyone likes a certain type.

Quote by Butt Rayge
And 'metalheads' who only listen to Pantera, A7X, BMTH and BTBAM.


But...but.. BTBAM is always relevant!

always


Quote by Saint78
Jackal is like 90.

Quote by Jackal58
Buy stock in Viagra. Imma gonna fuck you in the ass.
#34
I never post in this forum, but it's nice to see topics like this pop up.

I've been through a college music program (as a player who's primarily rooted in metal/rock/instrumental guitar music) in which you could take two paths, either classical or jazz, and a lot of the programs I've encountered have been similar. There's some merit to this for pedagogical reasons, but in general it's because these are the main genres considered to be "serious" for people who are studying the instrument. As far as I'm concerned it's not the best way to go about things, simply because student interest in the subject should be one of the primary considerations of the institution, but I suppose that's another discussion.

What I'm trying to get at here is that the "serious" art forms to me are termed that way because they tend to attract people who are more committed to studying the instrument and music in general. Guitar is a very easily accessible instrument, and a lot of what people listen to (and therefore initially want to play) within genres defined as "metal" is fairly easy to pick up. People feel great when they hear this music and can tune to drop C or something and slam out a few simple chords; it's much harder to enter classical or jazz playing as a stone cold beginner, simply because there's generally more involved in making the actual music. Like anything else, there's easier classical/jazz material and intensely difficult metal music, but most people are interested in and able to play what they hear and deem to be metal.

Rock and metal players tend to catch a shit ton of flak from people simply because there are a lot of lazy players who don't want to learn or practice; again, it's generally harder to be a jazz guitarist who doesn't practice consistently than a beginning rock or metal player who does the same. Rock and metal players aren't generally respected by players from these other genres (I should know) and certainly not by the educational institutions designing these programs. It's more to do with perception of the genre than anything else in my opinion, and until that changes metal will still struggle to be recognized (by most) as anything other than stupid palm muted chords that are easy to play.

Not sure if any of this made sense, I might still be jet-lagged.
#35
Quote by Guitar0player
Lets break it down.

Metal is music, music is usually a form of self expression, self expression is art.

Therefor metal is art.

Niccolo Paganini's music was art, I cant see why Paul Gilbert's or Buckethead's cant be.
It's not so much whether Metal is legitimate, philosophically. It's more about if it's worthy of being viewed so in the same vein as classical or jazz.

Classical is legitimate, and Country and Blues are just as legitimate, but there's differences in what they seek to give off and express. Classical music, and the way it's taught in schools, focuses a lot on instrumental virtuosity and composition. And its compositions tend to be more complex than your average pop tune. Metal (the kind I mentioned in OP) tries to give off and express these same elements; virtuosity and complex composition. So because of that, the topic is whether or not it truly is on par with classical. Is the virtuosity that it takes to perform metal music on par with classical? Or are the compositions of Metal on par with classical, when examined theoretically?
#36
Quote by StewieSwan
On the subject of real and fake metal: Of course there is real and fake metal, just as there is real and fake classical music. Adding distorted guitars and drums doesn't make something metal just as adding an orchestra to a song doesn't make it classical. Now, I admit that the people using the term 'fake metal' are usually uneducated ****jobs, but that doesn't mean that the term itself is illegitimate.


Pretentiousness and an overinflated sense of self-worth in the classical world?

What would i have to do to make a fake metal song? I'm curious about doing this
#37
Quote by Zoot Allures
What would i have to do to make a fake metal song? I'm curious about doing this

Write a pop song and dress it up as metal.
#38
Quote by Zoot Allures
i was being sarcastic. there is no 'fake metal' or 'real metal'.

There are clear musical and ideological differences between "false metal" and "true metal". It's the snobbery that's bollocks, not the distinction between them. It's fine not to be true metal, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

And I think genre is a pretty arbitrary way of distinguishing between art and entertainment, since it's more based on tradition than the actual musical content. Something like Burzum was clearly intended to be art, Pantera probably weren't. There's also jazz that was intended as dance music, and classical that's not very technically demanding. It seems unfair to pit entire genres against each other.
#39
It's not "legitimate" and it doesn't need to be.

...modes and scales are still useless.


Quote by PhoenixGRM
Hey guys could you spare a minute to Vote for my band. Go to the site Search our band Listana with CTRL+F for quick and vote Thank you .
Quote by sam b
Voted for Patron Çıldırdı.

Thanks
Quote by PhoenixGRM
But our Band is Listana
#40
Quote by Butt Rayge
Write a pop song and dress it up as metal.

What would I have to do to write a real metal song?

Who writes the rules on what is & is not metal?

To me, the reason these are even issues because metal exists within the realm of rock & (in the broadest, rock-encompassing sense of the word) pop music.