Geoff Tate: 'Metal as a Genre Is Incredibly Limiting'

"It explores very few emotions, angst and violence being predominant," former Queensryche singer explains.

Ultimate Guitar

Former Queensryche singer Geoff Tate recently revealed not being a big fan of the genre labeling, as he finds the musical genres themselves artistically limiting.

"The way I feel about 'metal' is I just don't like genres in the first place," the singer told Rock River Times. "I think genres are limiting and are kind of like wearing handcuffs for a person who's a writer or who is creative, because that means there is this box that you have to conform to.

"Like I said earlier, Chris [DeGarmo] and I were never interested in being confined by other people's vision. Our vision was the one we wanted to explore in, and I think that's a very healthy place to be."

Focusing on the heavy style, Geoff added, "Metal, as a genre, is incredibly limiting - it explores very few emotions, angst and violence being predominant. Once you've written from that point of view, there's only so many other ways that you can fashion and write music in order to express yourself.

"That's what I've always been interested in, exploring all those different facets and all those different emotions of humanity through music. We just didn't feel it was necessary to only spend time creatively exploring anger and violence [laughs]," he concluded.

In recent Tate news, the singer has announced plans to lay low and "disappear" from the music scene for a while. As reported, Geoff has recently lost the Queensryche lawsuit, only keeping rights to "Operation: Mindcrime" and "Operation: Mindcrime II" records.

132 comments sorted by best / new / date

    "it explores very few emotions, angst and violence being predominant" I'm sorry, but this is completely wrong. It's sad when people who play metal don't even understand what it's about. Metal cannot limit you, it's you who can limit yourself within it if you start to lack creativity.
    It's especially ridiculous because Queensryche themselves disprove his point. We're talking about the band that wrote Silent Goddamn Lucidity. The new Todd La Torre Queensryche album has some happier songs on it as well, not that Tate has listened to it.
    Lol, what? How in the hell does "Silent Lucidity" disprove his point? That's not a metal song at all. It's only by branching out from metal and exploring other stuff that they were ever able to write a song like "Silent Lucidity". Also, the heavy songs on the TLT album are totally full of angst. You gotta be kidding me.
    Silent Lucidity isn't metal? Oh, you're another person who thinks that "metal" just means "heavy and aggressive". Okay then. Sorry, but "metal" is defined by composition, not by guitar tone.
    Yeah, bro. Let's be contrary for the sake of being contrary. Even though it's not heavy and aggressive, "Silent Lucidity" has all the other traits of a metal song. Anyone can hear that. I mean, Pink Floyd's composition style had always defined metal music as we knew it in the early days and was the very template for metal bands writing songs in 1990. Right on.
    Yeah, man, let's be a d*ck for the sake of being a d*ck instead of arguing logical points. It's okay to disagree, but it's not okay to argue petty crap. Good metal can be very melodic instead of centered around heaviness and aggression. Just look at Over the Hills and Far Away by Nightwish, the overly popular Through the Fire and Flames by Dragonforce, or even Crazy Train, which has an entirely political message and nothing to do with rage whatsoever. Better yet, look at Jag Panzer's concept album Thane to the Throne, which is entirely centered around the Shakespearean play Macbeth. Or look up Axel Rudi Pell, a German power metal band which even does heavy love songs, and has covered the Leonard Cohen song Hallelujah in heavy metal form masterfully.
    Don't worry guys, this is just Geoff Tate's only fanboi, white knighting his gay love for him and had come to defend his douchnozzle ass like he does in every thread about Goof Tate. How anyone could possibly defend him is beyond me, but.
    It sounds like Tate hasn't paid much attention to metal over the past... 20 years or so. We didn't need this article to know that though.
    He's right. If you limit yourself to one genre then you're pigeon-holed into that genre. Look how many people freaked out when Metallica released Load, definitely not thrash metal, more blues/hard rock.
    It's really the labels that Pigeon-hole a band into a genre, so they can be marketed. But look at Faith No More, one of my all time favorite bands. They are not really pigeon-holed in any genre. They have touched on a LOT of genres on their albums. A Great Band finds a way to make it work...Plus Billy Gould is a freaking genius.
    There is only one band needed to make everything he is saying sound like total bullshit Opeth.
    Yes, Opeth are apparently a 'broad' and 'creative' band because they use acoustic guitars sometimes.=
    Someone's only listened to about 3 Opeth songs.
    I don't know what Opeth songs you'd have to listen to to seriously get a conclusion they're a generic metal band with just acoustic sections thrown in.
    I've listened to Blackwater Park, My Arms Your Hearse and Heritage. Could you recommend an album where they have another idea?
    How have you listened to MAYH and Heritage and still have not come to the conclusion they're extremely creative?
    I think how bullshit his opinion about metal is is already being said by everyone, so instead I'll say the other obvious thing: because pop-rock which repeats every existing pop-rock cliché ever (poppy backing vocals, simplistic and predictable song structures, 4-chord riffs, you get it) is an INCREDIBLY mind-opening and broad genre. And that's the only thing he's been doing for the past few years.
    Exactly. It's funny that he thinks metal is limiting, while he's the one that since he took over Queensryche has been putting out pretty much the same tasteless crap for over 15 years. As everyone said already, metal isn't limiting (in fact, it's one of the broadest genres); skills and talent are the limits, and Tate has been out of both for a very long time. If the stuff he made Queensryche play had been good, even if it wasn't metal people would still like it, but the problem is that it's crap, regardless of the genre. But that's what he doesn't get.
    I can't believe how big of a douche you are. Let me rephrase what you said about pop-rock; because metal which repeats every existing hard-rock cliche ever (aggressive vocals, distorted guitars, double bass drums, you get it) is an INCREDIBLY mind-opening and broad genre. Rinse and repeat for every genre. It's funny how most guys on are don't see metal as limiting and are offended by it and yet make cliched statements about other genres. Butthurt much? @Jazz1992; 'Metal cannot limit you, it's you who can limit yourself if you start to lack creativity' well this is something that differs from person to person, as you're saying yourself, what you're saying is not exactly an unbreakable rule. Calm the **** down people. Some 300 million people in the world don't have food. Syria's in a civil war as well as Ukraine's stuff isn't looking too good, as well as a bunch of other things. But it's so goddamn important to complain about what somebody said about a genre. WAKE UP from your own little world.
    Congratulations on writing probably the dumbest post of May... The "metal clichés" apply pretty much only to the most generic, uncreative bands who indeed follow the same patterns and sound over and over again. Except they're just a percentage, and for the most part, these bands hardly ever get any popularity . Some of the most popular and famous metal bands of the last decade: Meshuggah, Opeth, Gojira, Cynic, Devin Townsend's one million projects... Damn Metallica rip-offs, all of these. On the other hand, most of Tate's recent material is the perfect cliché pop-rock. And it's not just general ideas ("aggressive vocals, distorted guitars, double bass drums" - you've described 90% of the ENTIRE metal AND hardcore genre, because these are incredibly versatile tools), pop-rock can also be done differently, but his take was that exact cheesy [I hate this word but it fits well here], self-parody type which is the worst. I'm not sure why I actually replied to this in a serious way, but then I won't reply to the last paragraph for sure until I know what stuff are you smoking.
    Hey and thank you too. 1. Same goes for pop-rock. 2. I didn't say, mention anything about Tate's material. What I posted was meant to understand what he is saying. 3. You don't understand why I think people should care less about these comments of this guy Tate than for actual, real problems? What stuff are YOU smoking?
    1) Er no, the most popular pop rock bands are the same shit repeated over and over and over again. Nickelback has been doing that for I don't know how many albums. (Although they're at least better than Tate's recent material.) 2) And I was, that was my original point in the first place. 3) I don't know how many different strawmen you've created with this one, but I think every possible one. Do I even need to answer this?
    Um. There's a bit of irony in that statement. I mean you're criticizing them for focusing on petty stuff when more important things are going on around the world? Isn't that awfully petty in itself?
    you're right, there's exponential ways you can use palm-muted open chords under useless sweeping arpeggios...all joking aside, he is right that sticking to one genre, regardless of genre does limit your creativity by definition....leave it to metal fans to be butt hurt that someone has legitimate criticism about the must be blasphemy!!!
    That's not why everyone is upset. Obviously, it's true that sticking with one genre and never branching out is limiting yourself. But that's limiting yourself. Not being limited by a genre. And besides that, the fact that he singled out metal is just bullshit through and through. Because metal is actually among the least limiting genres there is, and the music that he's famous for himself (the reason he even has a soapbox to stand on to say shit like this) is among the best examples of how diverse metal can be. If he had said, "crappy modern bands with no variety or creativity are incredibly limiting", it would be impossible not to agree. But to say "metal as a genre is incredibly limiting" is simply not true, and laughably ignorant, especially coming from someone who should absolutely know better, having been directly involved in making music that completely disproves his own statement.
    lol, that comment was so funny, i just had to log in to retort. while Geoff Tate is a cheap bruce dickinson impersonator and Queensryche will always be a second rate iron maiden, he is right. just think about the last band that you considered to be "good". i swear that any band you find will not be the ones who are genre-pushers (like Ulver, Metallica or Megadeth), but bands that recycle the same shit over and over and over (like slayer, opeth, iron maiden, children of bodom and pretty much every other black or death metal band out there)
    I can agree about Slayer, Maiden or Children of Bodom, but Opeth recycling the same shit over and over? LOL There are plenty of bands nowadays pushing the limits of the genre they've been put into, which are the proof Tate's wrong: Opeth, Mastodon, Leprous, Haken, The Safety Fire, Between the Buried and Me, Cynic, Devin Townsend, Ihsahn... and those are just a few.
    "Opeth recycling the same shit over and over" could also work as the funniest quote of May. Also, besides a good post, upvoted for Leprous.
    Actually I consider bands who push themselves and the genre to be better than bands who stick to their comfort zone. That's why I'm not a huge AC/DC fan. They really don't branch out stylistically. To me complacency like that is just a shame.
    Dawh, he's trying to justify his new Jazz-Fusion album!
    Thats a shame for him, I always saw metal as the genre where I could express any emotion with as much or as little intensity as I saw fit!
    I think everyone "lost" the Queensryche lawsuit, especially the fans...but the band hasn't been the same without DeGarmo, so maybe it was inevitable. Anyway, as for metal being "limiting"...I can't disagree. Someone above used "Silent Lucidity" as proof that metal wasn't limiting, but I remember when that song came out...and man, the usual bellows of "SELL OUT" were going on, just as can be expected. Metal has its limits, even with all the sub-genres involved. Its fans have snarled openly at Metallica since the Black Album, and the way thrash tapered off in the early 90's showed that it needed a reboot. I like a lot of metal, but I'll always prefer "hard rock", because no one complains if a hard rock band has a metal song, a bluesy song, some sleazy tunes, and a ballad on the same album. Metal bands get accused of everything from selling out to being artistic failures if they deviate from their "direction"...and that's putting artists in a box. Metal is great, but songrwriters have moods just like everyone...and fans need to understand that. Historically, many of them don't.
    That's all true, but it doesn't mean the genre itself is limiting. It's not. Closed-minded "fans" place limits on themselves, regarding what they are willing to listen to and enjoy. That doesn't mean the genre is limited. Just ignorant listeners.
    Do fans not, in some significant way, define a "genre?" In the end, I think it's important to note that the music business is still supply and demand based.
    I'm pretty sure that getting rid of Tate was exactly what the band needed. American Soldier was a potentially good album massively weakened by unnecessary poppiness, Dedicated to Chaos is one of the greatest self-parodies ever. It's scary to think what would come next. And compare to what they released without him. Seriously, every genre has stupid, close-minded people who won't accept evolution. Listen to any prog rock? Have fun dealing with the "all-knowing" group of "fans".
    OH, NO..."Metal is limiting. It only explores a few emotions". In about 5 minutes on google & youtube, Mr. Tate could disprove his own point without even trying hard. Ugh.
    People don't get his point. He's not only talking about metal. He's really talking about all genres. Metal was just an example. If you write into a genre, genres are limiting. Certain bands are metal bands and they need to write into that genre to keep their fans happy. A good example is Metallica. When Metallica released Load and Reload which weren't "metal enough", fans got upset. Also, many bands say they are a thrash metal band and only write that genre. But genres aren't born like that. For example thrash metal was born when people started playing faster and heavier music. I don't think they were trying to make a new genre. They just played music they liked and it got faster and heavier and new subgenre was born. Same with heavy metal. Bands like Black Sabbath started playing bluesy music a lot heavier and added heavy distortion to guitars and sang about dark subjects. They didn't try to invent a whole new genre.If you are trying to write into a genre, you can't really experiment because the genre kind of has rules. When you just write music and don't care about genres, your music is more "free". So I don't think he hates metal. He just said that metal can limit you just like any other genre can limit you. His point was that people just repeat themselves when they write about same stuff over and over again. Many people stay inside of their comfort zone and aren't willing to experiment with new stuff (because it's not "metal enough").
    "Metal as a genre is incredibly limiting" He may have also been trying to make a point about genres in general, but he singled out metal, very specifically. Which is just laughable, especially coming from him.
    I don't think metal as a genre is limiting. The fans are the ones who limit the genre. They like to cling on the notion of "true metal" and tend to shun and undermine anything that strays from it.
    Metal is only about angst and violence if bands choose to write that way. Listen to Killswitch Engage's Alive or Just Breathing to get a good example on how metal isn't just pigeonholed by that kind of narrow-mindedness
    He has never listened to Agalloch or Cynic. That would change his mind.
    Metal is actually probably one of the genres that basicly has no limits at all.
    Exactly this. Metal is no more limiting than any other genre, and is in fact far less limiting than almost all other genres. Tate is a retard, who no longer deserves any respect in the music industry. I hope he "lays low" for the rest of his life.
    Personally, I agree with him completely. It doesn't have to be limiting i.e. people incorporating other genres like elements of jazz into metal. Overall though, the techniques and structures that are used in metal are really repetitive. A lot of people tend to stay inside this box-like thing being closed minded about other genres because you need to be 'metal', don't get me wrong It's been apart of my life for years but that whole outlook is really sad, especially if you're working towards becoming a working musician in the future (like myself). Metal is ****ing brutal, emotive and will always be ****ing amazing and more like a family than any other genre, but I have to admit without any other external influences, people will find themselves writing the same music over and over again.
    If it's very simple metal yes. There are plenty of metal acts that expresses many different emotions throughout their music.
    Sorry that every song can't be Silent Lucidity, Geoff. The only thing that is limited is your creativity. You're friggin band couldn't even put up with your sh** and they bounced!
    I keep seeing this argument about metal that it is a genre than can only be used to express sadness, anger, angst or just negative emotions in general. This is definitely not the case. There is no genre that can only convey specific emotions, either all genres convey all emotions depending on what the song is about or none of them do. If you want to write a sad song then write a sad song. If you want to write a happy song then go ahead, it's not gonna be more or less difficult than writing the sad one. In the end, the people who hear their music will draw their own emotions from it depending on the times in their life they link your song to.
    I don't want to downplay Tate's role in Queensryche, but DeGarmo was the main creative force in the band. Albums without Chris had their moments, but were usually pretty bland.
    Aka, "I can't write metal without Chris, and I can't sing it anymore because I drank too much wine"
    Well of course, the whole point of giving an identity to any style or genre means it has to work within a limited scope.
    I love metal, and I barely relate to the lyrics/themes in the first place, so on that point Geoff doesn't bother me. If he, or anyone, can say that metal as a genre is musically limited, they just need to do some research. If Gorguts and Dio can exist in the same overall genre as Dragonforce and Portal, the genre is only as musically limited as you are creative. That is to say, if you're not creative, you will feel stifled by any genre. You can be as melodic, dynamic, and dissonant as you want in the confines of a single song. I do like to see metal 'experts' come out of the woodwork to say Geoff's right though. It's like saying, I don't have a clue either, so Geoff's right.
    People who don't play or have anything to do with metal shouldn't comment on or about metal.
    Music is art, and art is only as creative as you are. Geoff Tate hasn't written a decent set of lyrics in 20 years. He is the problem, not metal.
    He's mad cause hi last effort wasn't well received within the metal community.
    Heavy Metal Death metal black metal Doom meatl Symphonic Metal Folk Metal Djent Metalcore Deathcore Technical death metal Speed metal Limited ? I think not
    He may have a point: when you subject yourself to a genre, it can be quite limiting at times, not just for the musicians, but the fans also point it out. If a death metal band does an acoustic piece (or quite a lot of acoustic pieces), fans may start to say 'oh, this band isn't death metal'. For instance, I haven't heard many death metal, death-core, etc. bands do more than a couple acoustic pieces (where the rest of the music they have written is full of growls, pig-squeals, etc.). If you get what I mean (haven't explained it that well)... However, it is only limited by the band, especially those who rely on the fans a lot (they may not want to lose their fan-base by changing sub-genres).
    I don't know who this guy is, but he is right. Metal is what I know best and I know that without influence of other genres it's one of the most limiting genres out there. Especially in the way most metal listeners aren't open to new ideas (not taking a jab - also like hardcore etc - fanbases tend not to support a band branching out their style)
    If you think anything Tate said here is right, then no, metal is not "what you know best". You obviously don't know metal, at all. Metal is not limited in the least. There's more variety under the "metal" name than any other single genre in music.
    There may be more variety but once in any subgenre of metal a band can't use much more than 2 subgenres before they have to claim progressive so people don't go "their first album was the best". Thrash, death metal, metalcore, black metal, doom metal, traditional metal... Every subgenre is extremely limiting and as soon as a band tries to expand their sound then they're in a whole other realm with a different scene and different expectations. I'll put it this way: a metalcore band can't play with a black metal band and it'd be weird for a post-metal band to play with a death metal band
    That works in every music genre ever. And every band in every music genre ever gets an increasing amount of whiners if they change their style, it's inevitable. E.g. Katatonia has touched something like 6 genres/sub-genres throughout their discography and they've played with some very, very varied bands.
    He's the former singer for the band Queensryche. (His own band is basically the "Geoff Tate & Backing Band" show.) And much of the music that he was formerly involved in (as the singer) disproves his entire point.
    Okay. I don't mean to be rude, but you say metal is what you know best and you don't know who Geoff Tate is? And it all depends on the fans really. All the metal heads I know love seeing new experimental stuff from their favorite bands. I get tired of bands who recycle the same formula personally, but maybe that's just me.
    And this retard just lost what was left of my respect for him. Clearly has no ****ing clue what he's talking about. Metal is limiting? As a genre, metal is no more limiting than any other genre, and is in fact considerably less limiting than the vast majority of other genres. Geoff, listen to Dream Theater's Take the Time , Dio's Rainbow in the Dark , Queensryche's Silent Lucidity (a song I would hope you're familiar with), or really any number of metal songs, just about any metal band that's not terrible, then get back to me about how "limiting" metal is, and how it's only "angst and violence". Fucking moron. Guy's a disgrace to music.
    "...just about any metal band that's not terrible". i think he was talking of people like you. douches limiting metal to their "true metal" expectation.
    Well, if he listed "Take The Time" and "Silent Lucidity", then he's definitely not one of those people, as this is exactly the kind of songs trve kvlt metvlheads hate.
    .... I was saying the terrible bands are the ones that don't play a range of emotions and disprove Tate's "point". Did you even read my comment, or just scan for a sentence you could take out of context and bitch about? I mentioned Take the Time and Silent Lucidity, for shit's sake.
    Seriously, Tate is talking like a 16 year old girl who's never even listened to anything remotely heavy before, and was just forced to listen to the Black Dahlia Murder, and responded by writing off the whole genre like, "omg it's so mean. I don't like it!"
    I agree up to some point. I play/write heavy music but I try to avoid the "metal" label as much as I can, not because metal itself is limiting me but because, in most cases, metalheads tend to be elitist/picky douchesbags.
    Let's turn this news post around with some notable arguments against Tate's comments, yeah? John Arch - A Twist of Fate (album). Blows me away to this day.
    No, being a talent-less hack with as much musical integrity as Justin Beiber is extremely limiting. Metal can express emotions a lot of genres can't touch cos of taboo, so the fact that tate's emotional range is so limited is far more indicative of him, not Metal. Anyway, he's lost the Queensryche name, so just late Tate die the embarrassment he is, instead of whatever further marks against his name he'll clearly add.
    I agree somewhat with Mr. Twate, it's all very well exploring other emotions other than anger, sorrow, heartbreak, depression etc. but i'm yet to hear a metal song that can convey happy feelings, for example without being a) corny or b) incredibly juxtaposed due to the nature of of the music and growling/singing/screaming/generally making a buffoon of oneself. I like (very little)metal as much as the next guy (as i'm no longer 13) but he is right. Even medieval style clean stuff struggles to have anything 'glass half full' rather than 'empty'. Despite generally being a happy chappy I happen to dislike the majority of any music that his happy (just a personal preference) but it in my opinion metal struggles to do anything that doesn't lean towards the angry/sad side of things. I'm not bashing metal in the slightest and happy to be proved wrong if anyone can share any metal music that errs on the side of happiness! *edit without making me want to punch myself in the crotch because it is cheesy!
    You've got to go for more old-school stuff if you want happier metal that isn't stupidly cheesy. Most Judas Priest isn't very angry until you get to Painkiller, for example. For a newer example:
    Thanks for sharing mate but still in my mind a little cheesy. If, when listening to a song and I can picture members of the band in spandex and with hair blowing in the wind all I can think is a ripe Camembert or grilled haloumi
    Sorry, I mean't to upvote your comment. Also, I don't get why you're getting downvoted; you perfectly show that you're open to change of opinion and get downvoted? What is this? Conservatives vs democrats??
    Sounds like you have some issues. Why would music make you want to punch yourself in the crotch? Come on.
    Try some Helloween. I'm Alive is pretty happy. Even Black Sabbath did a few positive songs. N.I.B. is a love song from Satan's point of view for instance. A lot of Rainbow songs are positive and happy. And if Ronnie James Dio and Ritchie Blackmore aren't metal in your book then f*ck you.
    Well, "metal" can refer to lots of different music. I can think of a few examples of "happy metal", but someone else could easily see them as rock. I'm talking about the likes of Jason Becker and Yngwie. The cheesy part could be impossible to overcome though imo, because I don't think that's necessarily a property of the music itself; I think some people are just less comfortable with a sort of feel or can't relate to it and that strange feeling we get is called cheesiness. I can't think of an example of "happy modern metal" I don't find cheesy. There are brighter moments in lots of metal though, and I find a bit of that gives minor-based music this really grand feel some would call "epic".
    i don't agree with the content, but as a whole, metal is a very limiting genre. This is mainly due to the fans though. If you do anything different in metal, you are hated. If you experiment, you get hated. It's pretty sad that fans just won't accept that musicians are people and they should be allowed to explore their musical range
    If your notion of 'experimenting' in metal is writing a ballad, chances are you will be met with resistance. If you actually 'experiment' you might be renowned for it, and it might even define your career. That's the difference. It's not experimenting if you do nothing new or just change styles. To say a band is experimenting when they remove any dissonance, weirdness or overt aggression from their music in favor of a more palatable sound kind of invalidates the meaning of the word 'experimenting'. This is not to say there's anything wrong with ballads if that's what you want to write, but let's call a spade a spade here. That's not experimenting, that's not thinking outside the box, and if you're a thrash band or something going into that style, you're basically just sanding all unsavory elements from you sound until it's easier listening. Not experimenting at all. You better believe you'll get this same reaction in other genres. Jazz fans will bash Kenny G for playing safe, vanilla elevator music, punk fans will bash pop punk. Fans of hip hop bash Drake and Lil Wayne, even guys like Talib Kweli for being boring. It's nothing new, but people want to believe metal is this creatively sterile, regressive genre simply because a lot of fans don't want to hear ballads.
    I think it can be limiting, but not to the extent that he claims. If you know how, you can make it display any emotion you want, even meditative (Cloudkicker), but the sonic quality of pure metal does limit the expression of those emotions to the intense side. This limit is only relative, however, and doesn't bound creativity or expression at all, only that it bears a signature sound to it.
    All these comments going back and forth. My turn Metal is limiting. If I were playing Jazz or bluesy sounding stuff, I can explore any emotions I want. Metal is hardly about resolution or anything positive in an upbeat way unless you listen to black veil brides. Musically, yeah it takes on many forms and so on but man oh man, should you try something new you lose out big time on following. I love it and it's all I listen to really, but I wish it could expand a bit
    Eh, there's dummies that say asinine shit all the time. Perfect example here. Honestly I can't even fault him because opinions, especially those expressed via internet or interviews or tv are bogus at best only because they're subjective. Does that mean this comment is bogus? Might be tripping out a bit...
    No genre is "limiting", genres just describe music in words, still subjective. If you can't express yourself using metal than it's probably because you suck as a metal musician. Stick to other genres, whatever. No one in "metal" will miss him, I'm sure...
    its tru, but peeps find loopholes called subgenres lol : ) i personally dont see it fully as limiting but if u want to limit yourself to just one specific genre and nada else then yes, and i get what the guys says abt its hard to bounce back after u have wrote alotta sad stuff. but it can still be done. and personally i look at all types of metal as a ladder to climb for your skills in classical music : ) or even blues for that matter