Viewing Thread:
"Punk vs. Metal"

Well?

AFAIAC, there are too many damn sub-genres. But pray continue, interesting discussion going on.

Bob_The_Moose wrote:

> Tech metal is a subgenre of heavy metal / Death metal. It is
> characterised by a show of skill, changeable time signatures, and
> often dissonant or atonal guitar riffs. Death metal and grindcore
> elements are often found in tech metal. Some bands employ elements of
> jazz into their music, such as dynamic time signatures, guitar solos,
> and drumming patterns. It has also been referred to as Math metal,
> although Math Metal is characterized more by odd time signatures then
> by technical riffs.

so.. Sikth, LoG, Soilwork and all the other bands we listed to start with.
good effort team, some fine guesswork :)

Fugazi rock.

I need to find my 13 Songs CD.

VM, I've been trying all day to work out a reply but it's just not working. I think you are right to an extent but it's hard for me to explain what I mean because I'm not really sure.

I mean, it's just my intepretation of stuff, I've never had anyone explain to me exactly what it means to be 'tech' but I've always got the impression that it's more to do with complicated rhythm patterns and structure rather than melody which is where theory has more influence.

If you get what I'm saying.

Or, we could look it up on Wiki:

Tech metal is a subgenre of heavy metal / Death metal. It is characterised by a show of skill, changeable time signatures, and often dissonant or atonal guitar riffs. Death metal and grindcore elements are often found in tech metal. Some bands employ elements of jazz into their music, such as dynamic time signatures, guitar solos, and drumming patterns. It has also been referred to as Math metal, although Math Metal is characterized more by odd time signatures then by technical riffs.

.

loki wrote:
> Sibs wrote:
> I canna remember who it was, but I'm sure I remember being in an MSN
> convo ages ago, when someone was basically telling us the 'history'
> of emo... Which was basically that a bunch of heavy screamy (now
> what
> would be deemed 'screamo'... sigh...) bands were called 'emo' or
> something, but now 'emo' encompasses all kinds of stuff from poppy
> stuff with pianos and acoutic songs to stuff that is very very heavy
> but has screamy vocals...
>
> It wasn't that long ago when emo (well, emo-core) meant more
> thoughtful harcore bands like Rites of Spring, Embrace and Fugazi. It
> was basically just an insult from the more violent hardcore kids aimed
> at punks who actually y'know, like had feelings and stuff (other than
> feeling like i want to smash someone's face in a moshpit).
>
> Nowadays so many wildly different bands are called emo that the term
> is basically meaningless. Except 'screamo' which does tell you
> exactly what the band sound like - but, as it is the most embarrasing
> genre name i have ever heard, i refuse to use that too!

Ha. Yeah. I'm much more into emo than I used to be, but I still don't paticularly like it.

P.S. Yes, Very_Metal, I know what I've done wrong.

Sibs wrote:
> I canna remember who it was, but I'm sure I remember being in an MSN
> convo ages ago, when someone was basically telling us the 'history'
> of emo... Which was basically that a bunch of heavy screamy (now what
> would be deemed 'screamo'... sigh...) bands were called 'emo' or
> something, but now 'emo' encompasses all kinds of stuff from poppy
> stuff with pianos and acoutic songs to stuff that is very very heavy
> but has screamy vocals...

It wasn't that long ago when emo (well, emo-core) meant more thoughtful harcore bands like Rites of Spring, Embrace and Fugazi. It was basically just an insult from the more violent hardcore kids aimed at punks who actually y'know, like had feelings and stuff (other than feeling like i want to smash someone's face in a moshpit).

Nowadays so many wildly different bands are called emo that the term is basically meaningless. Except 'screamo' which does tell you exactly what the band sound like - but, as it is the most embarrasing genre name i have ever heard, i refuse to use that too!

In short:

Once you know the rules you can get away with breaking them.


Same goes for Eng-a-lish. :)

Bob_The_Moose wrote:
> Very_Metal wrote:
> Bob_The_Moose wrote:
> Ooh, I remember seeing some maths related genre in another forum; I
> think it's more about technicality than theory.
>
> surely theory equates technicality?
> how do you seperate them?
>
> Well I always thought of stuff like time changes (and signatures),
> rhythm patterns and all that stuff as being the technical side, or
> stuff that's technique heavy... ie you need to be skilled to be able
> to play it. Not necesserily reliant on any or much theory. If you see
> what I mean.

ah, i see your point.
but surely those technical elements are induced by application of theory.
it's tough for me to explain as my theory sucks, but i'm a pretty high standard of player. the last proper band i was in, the singer was REALLY good at theory and a fantastic guitarist, but his grasp of theory allowed him to add elements into our music that made it so much more interesting and that wouldn't have occurred had he not known WHY it would work. Time/key changes are all well and good, but if you just use them and don't know why then the end result will suffer when you misuse them.

i suppose you could argue that the actual PLAYING of the instrument is the technical and the songwriting is the theory, but still, you'll need to know which notes to hit through theory before you get the technical results.
bah, bring on the improv, no better way to learn than by doing :D

Memorandum! wrote:
> bet your writing and improv skills aren't quite spectacular though
> :wink:

Heh, if I ever decide to write anything more complex than a simple riff then I'll just tab it.

I don't really have any desire to write anything anyway. I'm not in a band and I can't see me being in one in the near future.