Interesting Question

I was doing an online quiz at 2 A.M. (don't ask, it's a summer week-end...) titled "Which metal sub-genre are you?" which I found a link to from an Iron Maiden forum. The quiz was surprisingly good, realistic, and to the point, but equally surprising was that my result was doom metal. This is strange because I've never listened to that particular sub-genre of metal; my only venture in that direction has been early Black Sabbath, which heavily influenced the sub-genre (it is even said that the name for it came from Black Sabbath's "Hand of Doom"). Maybe I should give it a try some day.

However, that was not the point of my post, and as you can see, I haven't presented an interesting question yet as my title promises. The question in question (pun not intended) was a question in the quiz, "What quality do you value most in a band?" A hard question in itself, but the options presented (especially options in such an online quiz where usually one option is the definite answer and the rest are rubbish) should help you answer that, right? Apparently not in this case:

• Artistic integrity, insulation from trend.
• Technicality, the proficiency of the musicians.
• Atmosphere, where the music takes you.
• Energy, killer live shows, music which invigorates or empowers you. The intensity of the music.
• Depth of lyrical content, and what emotions the music evokes.

The first two are perhaps less important for me, though they matter too, as I discussed a few weeks ago. The last three, however, are for me, completely impossible to choose from. Even in the most neutral conditions, it would be hard for me to choose, and on top of this, it can depend on my mood a lot.
Sometimes I'm all for the underground, "insulated" (as the quiz puts it) feel of metal, and this is truest with those less-known (to the mainstream) bands. It is sometimes great to talk with another metalhead and the other people around you have no idea of what you're talking about. Artistic integrity is also important, which is one of the reasons I still don't consider myself a Metallica fan; I can't accept what they did in the 90s and 2000s.

I'm not a huge fan of progressive metal and all the skill and proficiency that's needed for those hour-long solos. Or to clarify, I don't think that sheer skill and uniqueness alone makes a good band. It's when mixed with other good characteristics that skill plays a role. Just look at Hangar 18 by Megadeth. The song has 11 solos, most of them very short (the song is only 5 minutes long), but they are excellent solos and performed with great skill. Especially the final two minutes, the epic guitar duel between Dave Mustaine and Marty Friedman (or other guitarists later on) shows another side of metal that is rarely even associated with the whole genre: skill.

Atmosphere is a huge factor in my music, though the term is quite abstract. But in the end, metal is all about atmosphere to me. Even the hard rockers have atmosphere, it's just of a very different kind. However, the best songs in terms of atmosphere are usually long, mid-tempo, and progressive. It's those songs that really take you away, but they're also the hardest to define. I am generally of the opinion though that the best songs are the most atmospheric.

If atmosphere shows the deep, meaningful side of metal, then the energy and killer live shows show the other side. If going to church is the highest form of worship for religious people, then a live metal concert is the highest form of music for a metalhead. And yes, I just compared music to religion, please don't flame me just for that; I personally value music above religion, but that's a topic for another day. But back on the topic, it was the energy, heaviness, and intensity of metal which first drew me in, and only then I discovered the deeper side. And it's still the heaviness and energy which makes live shows so good.

The final one, lyrics and emotion, are quite hard to separate from atmosphere. Lyrics can greatly contribute to atmosphere, whereas emotion and atmosphere are very hard to separate. But I like emotion on all levels in metal; a song doesn't have to have amazing emotion (most metal doesn't) but it's a definite bonus when it's there.

That question sort of helped me on my quest of discovering why I really love metal so much. I can't properly single out any of those options; they're all reasons why I like metal. There is no one reason and even those five probably aren't enough. But they did help to quantify and rationalise some of those reasons and put them to words, which I myself couldn't have done.

I Walk Among You - Review

I haven't written any CD reviews yet on my blog, so I thought I'd copy here a review I wrote for Encyclopedia Metallum today on Iced Earth's new EP "I Walk Among You:"

For Iced Earth fans who think any record without Matt Barlow on it is not worth hearing, this EP is probably worth its weight in gold. For people who enjoyed Tim "Ripper" Owens' work more, it's probably not worth buying. People who enjoy both eras of Iced Earth migh want to check this out, but with caution. I belong in the last group, and I have mixed emotions about it.

The real meat of this EP is of course the new track, I Walk Alone. That's where Matt's voice really shines through. Ripper could have sung the song pretty well, but it's so suited to Matt's voice that I have a suspicion Schaffer altered it after Matt rejoined the band. The songs were originally written for Ripper, after all. But regardless of who's singing, it's still an excellent song and a worthy successor to Framing Armageddon; I just hope it accurately shows what the next album will be like.

The next three tracks are re-recordings of some of the best songs on Framing Armageddon with Matt on vocals (though the instrumentation isn't changed at all, save in production). The first one is Setian Massacre, and with Matt, the song lives up to its name. Sadly, Matt really massacres the song, and it was definitely better with Ripper. Matt just doesn't have quite the high range that Ripper did and it's these songs with high notes where Ripper beats Matt hands down. Matt doesn't even properly hit the highest notes in the three opening screams. So 1-0 for Ripper, I'm afraid. Good thing Matt didn't try to do Ten Thousand Strong or Framing Armageddon, though.

I bought the physical CD as well as the extra track from iTunes, A Charge to Keep. This one I have more mixed feelings for. Matt puts more emotion into the verses, but Ripper again beats Matt in the chorus. It's again a matter of Matt's emotion and lower range versus Ripper's high notes. And Matt's voice doesn't fit layered vocals nearly as well as Ripper's. I'm gonna call this one a tie.

The last one, The Clouding, is the longest track, and fortunately, it is also the one where Matt's voice shines. Slow, emotional songs à la "A Question of Heaven" are where Matt excels, and this is one of those songs. Even in the last four minutes, which is the part with the heavy riffing, Matt beats Ripper, but only when he sings alone. His voice, again, doesn't suit the layered vocals. However, this song is definitely the best of the remixes, and the change of singer turns a good song to a great song.

Overall, this EP really isn't worth it for the re-recordings alone, unlike the last EP, "Overture of the Wicked", where the re-recordings of the Something Wicked trilogy was really an interesting change. There, the whole songs were replayed and re-recorded, and even the whole vocal textures were changed, which meant that the songs sounded natural for Tim, instead of just Ripper trying to sing Matt's notes. That is not the case on "I Walk Among You", where Matt is just trying to sing the same notes as Ripper and fails miserably in most cases. It was still interesting to hear how Barlow fared, however.

However, the new song is definitely strong, just like Ten Thousand Strong was on the last EP. It's the real content of the EP, and the re-recordings are just bonus. And ultimately, it did what it was supposed to do: made me anticipate The Crucible of Man even more.

Judas Priest Live at Jäähalli 3/6/2008

I just got back from Judas Priest's concert in Jäähalli, which was the first gig of their tour. The opening band was Kiuas, but I missed them due to only ending work at the same time that they started playing. However, Judas Priest more than made up for this.


Judas Priest are definitely a very good live band and sound both heavier and better live than on record. However, Rob Halford is sadly not a very good frontman, and was probably the worst frontman of the headlining bands I have seen (which are Kai Hansen, Andi Deris, Dave Mustaine, and Mikael Stanne). The band's playing was also a bit sloppy, and especially the guitar solos were sadly butchered on more than one occasion. This seemed more common with KK than with Glen, but this may be a biased observation as I saw KK better than Glen from my spot and so paid more attention to his solos.
However, Priest made up for this with something that they have more of than almost any other band: attitude. Judas Priest are one of the oldest heavy metal bands around, and they've learnt a trick or two along the way. They also had a great stage. The drums were mounted on a very high stand, and under this was an actual elevator. They used this elevator to bring an actual motorbike on stage during the encore; Helloween might have had their puppet show and Dark Tranquillity may have ruled by Stanne's charisma, but they didn't have motorbikes. And Halford was wearing more leather than anyone in the audience, which I guess is fitting since they have a song named Hell Bent for Leather.

They started the set with a song from their upcoming album, Nostradamus. I thought this was a bad choice as an opener, since the audience didn't know it at all and therefore the beginning was a bit lame on the audience's part. Halford's entrance was great, though; there was another elevator to the right and when the rest of the band started playing he suddenly shot through the floor onto the highest platform. He was also dressed in a silver (yes, silver as in shiny silver) robe and carried a staff with the Judas Priest cross. I thought it was pretty cool, but some of the audience didn't agree with me.

The setlist was, approximately in this order (about 70% accuracy I'd guess):
Nostradamus song
Metal Gods
Eat Me Alive
Between the Hammer and the Anvil
Devil's Child
Breaking the Law
Hell Patrol
Nostradamus song
Dissident Aggressor
Angel
The Hellion/Electric Eye
Rock Hard, Ride Free
Sinner
Painkiller
---
Hell Bent for Leather
The Green Manalishi
You Got Another Thing Coming

The crowd gave a mixed reception, though I generally shared their mood. The Nostradamus songs weren't that amazing, and the second one was downright boring. However, they went absolutely crazy during Breaking the Law and the like. I screamed my voice hoarse and probably many others did too.

Highlights of the setlist were pretty much everything except the Nostradamus songs. My only complaint is that they DID NOT PLAY UNITED! Angel is a good ballad, but United would have been a better one.

Megadeth

Continuing my somewhat irregular series of introducing my favourite bands, here I am writing about Megadeth. I never meant this as a series when I wrote about Iced Earth, but after I wrote the one about Judas Priest I had a sneaking suspicion this might develop into a series. So here it is.

Since I've started each post in this series with a video, I might as well do it now and make it a habit. Here is a video from Megadeth's Helsinki concert in February, which I attended.



Megadeth is a very special band for me for a multitude of reasons. The primary reason is that they are probably the only band which I loved completely at first hearing. I got Megadeth's Greatest Hits: Back to the Start as a birthday present a year ago in April. I plugged it in straight away, quite curious since I had never listened to Megadeth before. Fortunately, I played it in the big living room stereos instead of my computer's speakers, since what came out first was Holy Wars... The Punishment due for you. That opening riff was so amazing that it spread a crazy grin across my face, and I probably started headbanging straight away (though I'm not sure). It was that opening riff of Holy Wars that literally made me a Megadeth fan in ten seconds, and the song is still my favourite from the band.

After this initial phase of Megadeth love, when I listened to the album time and time again, Megadeth fell into oblivion for some time. They only remained a casual band for me, and I attribute this partly due to the poor song selection of the greatest hits album. The average quality of the songs wasn't so great. I did want to get some more Megadeth stuff but never really did. During the subsequent summer and fall they got considerably little play time on my iPod. I never stopped liking them, but my initial love had died out. Megadeth was threatening to go the Black Sabbath route for me; kept, liked, but little listened.

Fortunately, fate intervened as I got Megadeth's compilation box set, Warchest, as a Christmas present, more surprisingly from my uncle who is as far from a metalhead as you can realistically get. This boxed set gave me access to a great amount of Megadeth songs and again caused me to listen to the band a lot. However, even then Megadeth could have drifted into obscurity, as usually I have little patience for greatest hits compilations; I like listening to the original albums. However, apparently I was destined to be a Megadeth fan, as a third turn of events happened: Megadeth was starting a new tour, including a gig in Finland. At first, I was hesitant; I was not yet a huge fan of Megadeth, and I wondered whether it was worth the money. Then the field tickets (and good seating tickets) were all sold out, and because of this, I resolved to not go.
However, I think some cancellations happened, because I later found some good seats. I was still hesitant, but since I was having a hard time in school then, I thought that a concert would definitely cheer me up and help with stress. So I bought a ticket for my second-ever concert, with full awareness that I would be going alone and would not even be in the field.

I regret not buying that ticket earlier, since then I could have been in the field and had even a better time. However, the concert was still amazing, and it was that which sealed my love for Megadeth. It was almost like fate; I got all my Megadeth records as presents, and a perfectly-timed gig consolidated this. In a different time and a different place, I might not have become a Megadeth fan, but now they are in my absolute top 5 bands. And that's not an easy place for a band to get to.

It's not just about the music

When I was at the gym today a Nightwish song was played over the speakers. Usually it's just radio-friendly semi-crap played there, and this was a nice exception. It made me realise that I haven't listened to the band in ages. Not since February, probably, with the exception of a few songs here and there (a few being one or two per week on average, I would guess). Then I realised that this is the same for Children of Bodom. However, in the winter, they were both some of my favourites.

So what happened? Do I just have an aversion for Finnish metal? Or did I use Finnish metal to ward off the darkness of Finnish winter? Or on a more serious note, did I just grow tired of them? Perhaps to a certain extent, but that's not the whole story. Even though I love music, it takes more than just good music to make me a fan. And those two bands didn't go further than the music.

With Children of Bodom, I grew more disillusioned with their image and attitude than their actual music (though that played a part too). Two things played a part in this were their excessive fascination of killing and their stupid swearing. Ok, sure, this is metal we are talking about, but I still don't think a band needs to sing so much about killing. The whole band is named after an infamous triple murder in Finland (the Lake Bodom murders). And their every album cover features the grim reaper. This is sort of the borderline as far as my ethics go in relation to band lyrics and images: I do try to avoid excessive killing, blood, etc. in lyrics since I think you can make good metal lyrics without going overboard. Same goes for swearing; it's immature, stupid, and if they can't come up with anything else to fill their lyrics with than "fuck" every other word, then they're not worthy of my attention. Sure, artists can swear on stage, but you don't have to mix it in the music.

With Nightwish, it was more to do with the music, but image also played a part. First of all, I can't stand the gothic image of the band. I'm sure Anette would have fit perfectly well in the band (and probably been more good-looking) with her original blonde hair, for example. Even "darker" metal acts (okay, ignore black metal) don't dye their hair and wear only black clothes. It's as Nightwish they is enhancing their sub-par music with an over-the-top image, which means something is wrong. And nowadays, I do think the music is sub-par. The guitar, especially with newer Nightwish, is very simple, with basic riffing and very little else to it. The whole music, and the singles especially, sounds like pop a lot of the time (and this is proven by all major Finnish radio channels giving the band airplay). The lyrics aren't bad, but they're not good either. The only really interesting bit are the epic symphonic elements, but you can add those to any band and make it sound better.

The dividing line is that I would not go to a concert of either Nightwish nor Children of Bodom. I could see both of them headlining festivals (Ruisrock and Sauna Open Air respectively) this year, but CoB is definitely closed already due to transport problems (I won't have my driver's licence by that time), and I am not quite sure I want to go to Ruisrock. There is the extra incentive of At the Gates on their reunion tour though.

So what do I look for in a band besides the music? For example:

• thoughtful lyrics
• good/listenable quality throughout their career
• honesty and uncompromising attitude

Of my absolute favourite bands, Iron Maiden, Iced Earth, Dark Tranquillity, and Megadeth would at least fit this category easily. Helloween does not really fall into any of those categories because of their ventures into pop (caused by their old frontman Michael Kiske), but in recent (last 10-15) years they've been a lot better and I can forgive them that. And their concert was great, the whole band was really great on stage. I didn't add stage presence to that list, since it doesn't contribute to me listening on record. Stage presence is only really applicable live.

So what other bands might not make it on that list? In Flames and Metallica, for example. Both produced excellent or amazing music early in their careers, but both ventured too far from their chosen paths into metalcore and alternative metal respectively. However, I still listen to their early material, and I would definitely go to a Metallica gig now if I could.

Splitting hairs

It's been sort of a personal joke for me that the "genre" tag on MP3 files is somewhat useless for me, as less than 5% of my music library would not fall under the genre of metal. However, this is most certainly not the case, as there are (in most cases) clear divisions between sub-genres of metal. In my music library, there is folk metal, heavy metal, melodic death metal, metal (just metal, meaning it doesn't fall under anything else), power metal, progressive death metal, symphonic power metal, and thrash metal.

To the average non-metalhead reader, and probably some metalheads too, divisions like this might seem pointless and non-existent, especially since the whole of the metal genre can be considered to be a mere sub-genre of rock. Progressive death metal and melodic death metal, who really cares? I am quite strongly against this stance, however. Usually, divisions between metal sub-genres are very clear. Helloween and Megadeth, both among my favourite bands, are very distinct in sound and style, and they are both excellent representatives, or actually, the innovators, of their respective sub-genres (power and thrash respectively). In most cases, you can clearly define a given genre and many bands which fit into it.

However, there are drawbacks to this kind of approach too. Sometimes a band might shift from one genre to another in its career, like Iced Earth has moved from thrash to power metal. Or it might mix up a lot of genres into a fairly unique type of music, like Children of Bodom. I tag them as Melodic Death Metal just because of the growled vocals, but their playing is more akin to power metal and their growled vocals could almost be in black metals, and they even incorporate thrash elements. And I still don't know what to call Metallica's Black Album; it's not thrash like before it nor alternative like after it, but it's not just basic heavy metal either. I've just resolved to call it "metal".

Some might call distinguishing between melodic death metal and progressive death metal hair-splitting, and to a certain extent I do agree. However, the only real similarity between the two is growled death metal vocals; the two can't even be grouped under death metal properly because the instrumentation in generic death metal is vastly different than in either melodic or progressive. Death metal uses atypical, complex structures, and is more akin to "noise" to the untrained ear. Melodic death metal is more melodic (duh), often incorporating keyboards, and draws more influence from generic heavy metal like Iron Maiden (which is one of the reasons I so love it). Progressive death metal has many long songs and is basically progressive metal with growled vocals. Someone might say that anything with growled vocals is death metal, but I disagree. It's like saying anything with a guitar, bass and drums is rock: a vast oversimplification.
And power metal or symphonic power metal? Power metal is a broad genre, and is in general lighter and more melodic than other metal. Symphonic power metal is a sub-genre of this, but incorporates orchestral/symphonic elements (duh again), and is often combined with a female singer. A big enough difference for me to separate the two, especially as the symphonic power metal tends to be much more goth-feeling in its imagery.

Different sub-genres also feel very different, at least to me. Thrash metal is just godly when you're looking for sheer aggression or technicality, depending on the band and age. (E.g. Early Megadeth and Metallica are very aggressive but they evolved into a more technical direction later in their careers.) Power metal is best when listened to in a good mood, whereas death metal is, for me at least, good "angst music" that tends to help with being in a bad mood. It helps me get into a better mood, it does not make me wallow in self-pity as some might assume. Something to do with the growled vocals I think. And basic old heavy metal is a good all-rounder for any situation; I can listen to Maiden anytime anywhere.

However, it all does tie together in the end, and that's what I think is so beautiful about metal. Even though there are these different sub-genres which are almost distinct enough to be separate sub-genres, in the end it all falls under the umbrella of metal. A metalhead can relate with another metalhead, even if they don't listen to the same sub-genres of metal.

Tiers

Typically, I think in a very organised manner. Yesterday, I realised how this applies even to how I view my music; subconsciously, I tend to divide the bands I listen to into groups. However, these groups are not in terms of genres, overall popularity, or the amount of songs I own by them, but in terms of how much I like them. While this might spawn a "duh" reaction from most readers, I was surprised to realise how they form an almost hierarchical structure with "tiers." While studying for a math test, I took a short break to jot them down on paper. It went something like this:

Tier 1: Only one in this slot, the ultimate favourite, and it will forever be Iron Maiden. Unless I suffer irreparable brain damage in an accident and stop being a metalhead, of course.

Tier 2: These four are the ones below Maiden, which I listen to regularly and very often. They form the absolute core of my musical taste, along with Maiden of course. They are Megadeth, Dark Tranquillity, Helloween, and Iced Earth. There is no strict order to them and they vary with time; at the moment, DT would probably be number 1 in this group. A few months ago it was Megadeth, before that Helloween, and before that Iced Earth. Interestingly, I have seen all of them live except Iced Earth. I think that this group is also affected by past concerts.

Tier 3: This could also be called tier 2.5, as they are all ones which could not quite make it to Tier 2. Bands in this group fluctuate between tiers 2, 3, and 4. Some are growing favourites, others are dropping out of intense listening. At the moment, I would say the bands in this tier are Judas Priest, Gamma Ray, and Metallica. I would guess that Priest will get a promotion to tier 2 in two weeks once I see them live.

Tier 4: Other good bands which I listen to fairly often and which I enjoy, but usually the case is that I don't own a large discography from them. Children of Bodom, In Flames, Amon Amarth, and Bruce Dickinson are in this group. Note that this group consists mainly of melodic death metal, though there is no particular reason for this.

Tier 5: Other bands which I have songs from but which are not being listened to actively. All were in higher tiers before and have dropped here, or are new additions which I have not listened to enough to make my mind. In this group are Opeth, Nightwish, Kalmah, AC/DC, and Ensiferum.

Quite understandably, this order does not cohere to how well the band is known in general. Nightwish and AC/DC are very popular but their ranking has dropped for me, whereas Dark Tranquillity, Bruce Dickinson, and Helloween are quite obscure to the general public. Though, to be fair, I was quite surprised today when a girl in my class actually happened to know Bruce Dickinson when we were talking about music whereas she didn't know such a well-established band as Megadeth. But I guess there are always exceptions.

So, what was the point of this post? Nothing really. Just food for thought. Or food for my thought, more accurately. And it'll be interesting to read this in a year's time, as I haven't previously gone to the details of my music taste in one post in such a manner before.