GREATEST METAL ALBUM CUP - Winner: Iron Maiden - Seventh Son of a Seventh Son!

[Magnus]

So, I was about to contrast this to your earlier statement about growls being "cheap, unpleasant, and blatantly inauthentic" and call you out on a contradiction I thought I'd spotted, but in all fairness, re-reading the post that sparked it all, I don't think it qualifies as anything other than a statement of opinion. I disagree with those adjectives, but I'd say I've been harsher on bands and music I disliked in the past and I never meant to impose my opinion on others by making my statements.
That being said, I agree with you saying harsh vocals are "inauthentic" in a sense that they are not a natural way of singing. Maybe it would have been helpful to point out that the same goes for other forms of singing such as falsetto, which even has it in its name - that way, a misunderstanding could have been prevented. Whether you think that's a cheap way of doing vocals or not is probably a matter of opinion. I would disagree because growling and harsh vocals require specific training (which you acknowledge, I know) and I don't think you're making the right point when you say, "it’s objectively easier to make some kind of growl than to hit a clean tone on the right note." "Some kind of growl" is not the sort of growl you hear with good metal vocalists. It's a specific growl, which I would argue requires the same level of skill as achieving a clean tone in your register.
Whether it's unpleasant is of course a matter of taste, and I agree that most people would agree with you, although to get back to the above, I don't give a shit about what most people think. Personally, I think the vocals of Johan Hegg or Henri Sattler are great to listen to and I enjoy them a lot.

As a note, I personally don't consider growling "singing" in the dictionary sense that is being used here, although I also think those definitions are quite narrow. I don't think we can draw a clear line between "singing" and "not-singing". But I think that in order to discuss that, we should all come to an understanding that we are not saying "singing=good, not-singing=bad".

So many words and nothing on camembert, mozzarella, or any other other cheese from The Cheesemaster? Disappointing.
Back to the Six Nations rugby game. Go Scotland!

Edit: And what a game it was! Well done Scotland!

 

[JudasMyGuide]

OK, let me try to make a serious contribution and add an exhibit to this discussion: Are the vocals in the last minute of this song stylistically different from those in the rest of the song? Are they singing or not?

1. Yes, they are, but it's just a different approach to growling. Feels more majestic, definitely. 2. Tough to say - they are "singing" insofar as pretty much every type of vocalisation in non-artificial music is being called singing, it does check the boxes (melody, rhythm, timbral quality) and technically speaking, growling probably should be classified sub-technique of singing of sorts, though a limited technique at best.

But I would not like calling the vocalist "singer" in the same way I call other actual singers whose palette of technique is broader and more expansive. Because like I said, the expressiveness is severely lacking with this approach and it shows in the emotional scope of the work.

You yourself demonstrate it:

Also, in case anyone's wondering, the lyrics of the last part translate to:

Apple and pear trees were blooming
Mist was floating on the river
Katyusha went out to the banks
On the steep and lofty banks

She was walking, singing a song
About a grey steppe eagle
About her true love
Whose letter she was keeping

And I think that's beautiful.

I agree that the lyrics are beautiful. But performed in this way it just lacks the emotional meaning. Growling is abrasive, aggressive, dissonant... and that can be used to various ends, whether its in the meaning (true aggression; alienation; horror; larger-than-life presence, connected with romanticism and decadence even, which is where a lot of the poetic Opethy stuff falls) or in the means (stressing the rhythmic nature of the music; keeping the vocals as a percussive instrument in order to concentrate on the technicality of the rest of the music - which is BTW the modus operandi of a lot of death metal, from my experience; the hopeless atmosphere of various acts, black metal included).

But I find it absolutely nonsensical to use it to express what you just wrote, unless you want to be po-mo and "ironic" and going against the expectations just for the heck of it.

She is definitely not singing a song about her true love in the manner that's being demonstrated is what I'm saying. And the mist must be that yellow-green toxic mist that London outlawed ages ago.

That being said, I agree with you saying harsh vocals are "inauthentic" in a sense that they are not a natural way of singing. Maybe it would have been helpful to point out that the same goes for other forms of singing such as falsetto, which even has it in its name - that way, a misunderstanding could have been prevented.

I actually agree with this, I guess. And BTW - even a very well trained falsetto has a lessened timbral quality, so the comparison is not completely off.

Whether you think that's a cheap way of doing vocals or not is probably a matter of opinion. I would disagree because growling and harsh vocals require specific training (which you acknowledge, I know) and I don't think you're making the right point when you say, "it’s objectively easier to make some kind of growl than to hit a clean tone on the right note." "Some kind of growl" is not the sort of growl you hear with good metal vocalists. It's a specific growl, which I would argue requires the same level of skill as achieving a clean tone in your register.

Never disputed the technical aspects. Doesn't make it easier or lazier or "cheap" - just makes you a one trick pony, of sorts (if that's all you do all the time).

As a note, I personally don't consider growling "singing" in the dictionary sense that is being used here, although I also think those definitions are quite narrow. I don't think we can draw a clear line between "singing" and "not-singing".

Okay, won't argue there.

But I think that in order to discuss that, we should all come to an understanding that we are not saying "singing=good, not-singing=bad".

Worse doesn't mean bad. The fact it can't do all of the things the other stuff makes it "worse", so to speak, but not "bad" which is where I go against both the growl-haters and the growl-lovers. A guy who can only sing cleanly is a better singer than a guy who can only growl, whatever the technical hardships. And if they can do both, now we're talking.

 

[JudasMyGuide]

Oh, and BTW - this match is brutal. That is, really straining and merciless, for all you Croatians and such.

 

[Jer]

I’ll post some thoughts on my nominees a little later, but I want to be clear that the version of So Far, So Good...So What! that I nominated is the original mix with lots of reverb, and not the remix/remaster that dried up the sound to try to make it more like Rust In Peace. To me the soupy reverb is a critical part of the feel of that album.

 

[LooseCannon]

I think it is weird to express absolute opinions on art, something designed to be interpretable by the eye of the beholder (or ear of the listener, if you so prefer).

 

[JudasMyGuide]

I think it is weird to express absolute opinions on art, something designed to be interpretable by the eye of the beholder (or ear of the listener, if you so prefer).

Well, even interpretation has its rules and limits (hi, Umberto!)

But OK, fair point, I guess.

 

[Diesel 11]

Oceanborn is probably my second least favorite Nightwish album but I’d vote for every Nightwish album over most other records. Near perfect discography.

And Horror Show > Rainbow. Imo.

EDIT: and go Symphony X.

 

[JudasMyGuide]

Oceanborn is probably my second least favorite Nightwish

You’re an idiot. Goodbye.

Spoiler

 

[srfc]

Candlemass - I know this track but not the whole album, it's pretty good, I'll have to check the whole album out, singer is good as are the Iommi style riffs, rhythm section is very very basic though or maybe just the bass player.

Accept - opinion given before

Candlemass with the win

Rainbow - Not sure what song it is as the video isn't showing up, does it matter though? They're all fuckin great! Kill the King and Gates of Babylon are tracks that 99% of bands in this game would never get within an asses roar of even if they spent all eternity practicing.

Iced Earth - We had this the last time I think, is this written about how Schaffer fantasizes about having been the one who assassinated Jack Kennedy? Joking aside the track isn't bad at all and the riff gets the head nodding.

Rainbow with the win, if Iced Earth win this you all should be charged with knowingly engaging in an act of physical violence against Heavy Metal.

Nightwish - video won't play, I picked Sacrament of Wilderness as it's the first track that will play for me, music is pretty good, vocal and keys are preposterous. The final chorus gear shift key change is my pet hate in music and it makes my skin crawl.

Iron Maiden - opinion given before

Iron Maiden with the win

Megadeth - An album that didn't really click with me until the remaster, but when it did it's great, In My Darkest Hour is the best track they ever did, Set the World Afire has one of their best riffs, Hook in Mouth and Mary Jane are brilliant. 502 and Liar are pretty good if a little juvenile. The cover of Anarchy in the UK isn't great but all their first 4 albums have a silly little cover or interlude and Anarchy is the best of those.

Symphony X - There's a Rainbow vibe off this if you ignore the guitar riff, a bit better than the other album

Megadeth with the win

 

[karljant]

Ok... let's leave singing, growls and cheese to other times (ok... perhaps we can still talk about cheese). Nevertheless this is one of the easiest rounds to date IMO.

Restless And Wild is the only record here I'll dish while giving props: greatly influential and featuring a couple of excellent tracks. Nevertheless it's going against one of my nominees: the mighty Epicus Doomicus Metallicus, one of the best debuts ever. These dudes picked the doomy Sabbath side, slowed it down some bpms, added a more pompous, depressive and heavy feel to it and created the be all end all when it comes to Epic Doom Metal. Want to know what pure Doom is really all about? Look no further than this 6 tracks. All of them killer but man... Solitude, Demon's Gate and A Sorcerer's Pledge are absolute masterpieces. Johan's voice is absolutely superb and dramatic. It was a pity he left the band soon after and it took decades for him to return. Plus he got replaced by Messiah, a vocalist I never enjoyed the least and that absolutely estranged me from the band (yup... people find strange I don't like Nighfall or Ancient Dreams but I can't stand the man's voice). But as for Candlemass first record all I can say it is one of the most daring, atonishing and influential records of its time.

Screw Iced Earth. The title track from Long Live Rock N' Roll alone shows Rainbow miles ahead of anything these dudes are doing here.

I wish I stopped voting for The Final Frontier, an album I enjoy but I think has it no place in a greatest metal record game. But it seems they have been getting lucky with their adversaries because speaking of wishes... Nightwish? It's already Night indeed and my only Wish is that they sod off. Iron Maiden.

So Far, So Good... So What? Wow... What a monster of a record! The first Mega album I saw coming out and got me absolutely KO. To put this in historical perspective: after kicking two absolutely excellent musicians from the band due to absolutely outrageous behavior that was hurting the band as result of similar problems Mustaine himself was going through (megatons of drugs) this dude manages to pull out a nearly perfect Thrash album. First let's get the only meh moment out of the way: Anarchy In The UK. It's a bit weak of a cover and if it was the last song it would pass but among so many great songs it sounds off. Into The Lungs Of Hell is a mind blowing instrumental and a bold way to start the album and connects perfectly with the apocalyptic masterpiece that is Set The World Afire. And what to say about the perfection of tracks such as In My Darkest Hour and Hook In Mouth (my two favorites). Hell, even the most immediate and aggressive stuff like Liar and 502 is stellar as is Mary Jane. And to know Mustaine mad this thing loaded in a crap load of heavy drugs is simply surreal. Make no mistake: this isn't my favorite Mega record simply because there's something called Rust In Peace but it's close second. As for Symphony X they can go on an Odissey really far away from me: I would appreciate it immensely. Megadeth.

 

[srfc]

A couple of good dismissive comments in there about nightwish and symphony x

 

[Deleted member 7164]

Zare: Rapping good but not it's not singing. Growling good but it's not singing. Singing good but it's not growling or rapping

FTFY

 

[karljant]

A couple of good dismissive comments in there about nightwish and symphony x

After all this growling and singing and Mozzarella discussion I gotta roast. With no explanations. Sorry but it's my new M.O. eheheehhe

 

[Diesel 11]

You’re an idiot. Goodbye.

I was just listening to it a moment ago, and I was like, “wait why is it so low? Oh right, because I’m a fanboy who thinks every album they’ve put out is amazing.” The truth is out.

 

[Perun]

1. Yes, they are, but it's just a different approach to growling. Feels more majestic, definitely. 2. Tough to say - they are "singing" insofar as pretty much every type of vocalisation in non-artificial music is being called singing, it does check the boxes (melody, rhythm, timbral quality) and technically speaking, growling probably should be classified sub-technique of singing of sorts, though a limited technique at best.

But I would not like calling the vocalist "singer" in the same way I call other actual singers whose palette of technique is broader and more expansive. Because like I said, the expressiveness is severely lacking with this approach and it shows in the emotional scope of the work.

I disagree that the expressiveness is lacking, it's just a different way of expression that growling and harsh vocals in general allow for.

You yourself demonstrate it:



I agree that the lyrics are beautiful. But performed in this way it just lacks the emotional meaning. Growling is abrasive, aggressive, dissonant... and that can be used to various ends, whether its in the meaning (true aggression; alienation; horror; larger-than-life presence, connected with romanticism and decadence even, which is where a lot of the poetic Opethy stuff falls) or in the means (stressing the rhythmic nature of the music; keeping the vocals as a percussive instrument in order to concentrate on the technicality of the rest of the music - which is BTW the modus operandi of a lot of death metal, from my experience; the hopeless atmosphere of various acts, black metal included).

But I find it absolutely nonsensical to use it to express what you just wrote, unless you want to be po-mo and "ironic" and going against the expectations just for the heck of it.

She is definitely not singing a song about her true love in the manner that's being demonstrated is what I'm saying. And the mist must be that yellow-green toxic mist that London outlawed ages ago.

Well. First of all, I wasn't actually trying to make a point related to the singing/non-singing/growling discussion by quoting the lyrics. I was trying to 1. simply be funny by pointing out that this bitterly evil black metal song has lyrics about blooming apple trees, pears and a pretty girl at the end and 2. trying to provoke some curiosity as to why that might be, because I think this band is very good and quite underappreciated. I'll go on a tangent about this, but I'll put it in spoilers because it's not relevant to the discussion here.

Spoiler: Katyusha

So, context: The end section of the song I linked to is taken from "Katyusha", a piece that sources commonly refer to as a Russian folk song. This is not entirely accurate depending on what you view as a genuine folk song, because it was written by a guy called Matvey Blanter in 1938 at the height of Stalinist terror in the Soviet Union. It's a propaganda song meant to lift the spirits of soldiers by reminding them of their beautiful homeland and the girl they have waiting there. This does not become clear in the two verses in the Committee song, but is very apparent from the rest. The song became rabidly popular during the Second World War and beyond. It became so popular that Soviet soldiers nicknamed a rocket launcher used in the war "Katyusha", and this weapon came to great prominence towards the end of the war when the Soviets were marching on Berlin. This is what the Committee song alludes to. It gets into the head of a Soviet soldier and sort of mixes the message the original "Katyusha" song had with the idea that the rocket launcher is, in a way, the Katyusha the song is about as a representative and saviour of the Rodina. And to drive that point home the song is played in the end, and it's up to you to decide whether it's sung by soldiers during their charge or if it's the song "Katyusha" is singing while the rockets are launched. This comparison of the terrifying sound of the rocket launcher to music was made both by Soviets and by Germans, the latter called it Stalinorgel or "Stalin's organ". The terror of this sound must have been deep, at least I remember my grandmother's face when she told me about it once when we were looking at one of those things. The Committee are not the first band to write a song about the Katyusha, Sodom already did that, but I think it's a rewarding topic to put into music because the sound specifically is something Soviets and Germans had contrasting associations with during the war: The former heard it as a sound of victory, strength and liberation, the latter as a sound of terror, defeat and devastation.

tl;dr: the use of the song is neither "post-modern" nor "ironic", it's an attempt to capture a very specific feeling and atmosphere during the Second World War by using some authentic music.

Never disputed the technical aspects. Doesn't make it easier or lazier or "cheap" - just makes you a one trick pony, of sorts (if that's all you do all the time).

Well, I never said you disputed it, I was talking to @Jer specifically with that statement. And I also didn't say that he disputed it. But to respond to the "one trick pony" thing - yes, that is arguably true, but it's necessary to point out that black and death metal put lesser emphasis on the vocals and more on the musical side of things. The music is usually not written to accommodate greater vocal variety, it's meant to do other things.

Worse doesn't mean bad. The fact it can't do all of the things the other stuff makes it "worse", so to speak, but not "bad" which is where I go against both the growl-haters and the growl-lovers. A guy who can only sing cleanly is a better singer than a guy who can only growl, whatever the technical hardships. And if they can do both, now we're talking.

This is pure semantics, and I leave you to believe this.

 

[Deleted member 7164]

I don't think the voice modulates at all. I would have to hear the vocal track isolated to confirm it.

If you're wondering how is it possible that a monotone voice (fixed frequency) can fit seamlessly into various chord progressions or melodies, in that deep, entire octaves are in the range of several hertz. And the (non pitch perfect) human ear cannot do the real distinction so with some natural vibrato in the voice the growler covers nothing and everything at once, it's neither melodic or dissonant, it is neutral.

Good growlers do try to modulate as well as one can in that range. If there's enough there to be called vocal melody then yes, that particular growler sings at that moment. Enough as in what can be called a vocal melody vs calling it a bass line.

All this is just definitions tho.

When does something become a football match? What are the requirements for that?
Some might say two people, a parking lot and a tin can. Some might say two people, goal posts, and a football.

 

[Perun]

I don't think the voice modulates at all. I would have to hear the vocal track isolated to confirm it.

I think it does, but it's not very strong, that's for sure.

 

[Magnus]

Of course, the only two albums I really like here are against each other. Restless And Wild is one of my favourite Accept albums but Epicus Doomicus Metallicus is one of a kind, and one of those rare occasions when the debut surpassed everything afterwards. Would have happily voted Accept's over any of the other.
I really, really dislike Nightwish but TFF has stayed too long. Couldn't make myself vote for Korn last time but Nightwish is kinda more acceptable, even though it still leaves a bad taste.
Other two votes are against rather than for, again.

 

[Saapanael]

The bathory upset is more an indictment against Van Halen Imo, given how extreme metal typically performs.

I'm still disappointed about forgetting to vote. Fair Warning is a great album. By the way, I just discovered that all of Van Halen's classic albums are super short, at 30-35 minutes each.

 

[JudasMyGuide]

I disagree that the expressiveness is lacking, it's just a different way of expression that growling and harsh vocals in general allow for.

If I was misunderstood, I'm sorry again. By all means, growling is expressive. But the range of the stuff that is possible to be expressed by it is significantly limited, that was my argument regarding "expressiveness".

Well. First of all, I wasn't actually trying to make a point related to the singing/non-singing/growling discussion by quoting the lyrics. I was trying to 1. simply be funny by pointing out that this bitterly evil black metal song has lyrics about blooming apple trees, pears and a pretty girl at the end and 2. trying to provoke some curiosity as to why that might be, because I think this band is very good and quite underappreciated. I'll go on a tangent about this, but I'll put it in spoilers because it's not relevant to the discussion here.

So, context: The end section of the song I linked to is taken from "Katyusha", a piece that sources commonly refer to as a Russian folk song. This is not entirely accurate depending on what you view as a genuine folk song, because it was written by a guy called Matvey Blanter in 1938 at the height of Stalinist terror in the Soviet Union. It's a propaganda song meant to lift the spirits of soldiers by reminding them of their beautiful homeland and the girl they have waiting there. This does not become clear in the two verses in the Committee song, but is very apparent from the rest. The song became rabidly popular during the Second World War and beyond. It became so popular that Soviet soldiers nicknamed a rocket launcher used in the war "Katyusha", and this weapon came to great prominence towards the end of the war when the Soviets were marching on Berlin. This is what the Committee song alludes to. It gets into the head of a Soviet soldier and sort of mixes the message the original "Katyusha" song had with the idea that the rocket launcher is, in a way, the Katyusha the song is about as a representative and saviour of the Rodina. And to drive that point home the song is played in the end, and it's up to you to decide whether it's sung by soldiers during their charge or if it's the song "Katyusha" is singing while the rockets are launched. This comparison of the terrifying sound of the rocket launcher to music was made both by Soviets and by Germans, the latter called it Stalinorgel or "Stalin's organ". The terror of this sound must have been deep, at least I remember my grandmother's face when she told me about it once when we were looking at one of those things. The Committee are not the first band to write a song about the Katyusha, Sodom already did that, but I think it's a rewarding topic to put into music because the sound specifically is something Soviets and Germans had contrasting associations with during the war: The former heard it as a sound of victory, strength and liberation, the latter as a sound of terror, defeat and devastation.
tl;dr: the use of the song is neither "post-modern" nor "ironic", it's an attempt to capture a very specific feeling and atmosphere during the Second World War by using some authentic music.

This is honestly fascinating. Believe me, I know Katyusha the song (and it did come to mind when I read it in the text, but I didn't want to be presumptious and was thinking "hey, it's just a name"), but I never actually thought about translating it, so I didn't recognize it.

I still can't help but think its usage might be a little bit post-modern and ironic and I hope you know what I mean (least of all - it's being used as a "prop", including its intended or applied emotions), but okay. Still, to me it would work more if I recognized the melody there. Maybe when I'm gonna listen to it again, I will as well (I don't know it if is there), but fine, fine, sure.

But to respond to the "one trick pony" thing - yes, that is arguably true, but it's necessary to point out that black and death metal put lesser emphasis on the vocals and more on the musical side of things. The music is usually not written to accommodate greater vocal variety, it's meant to do other things.

Yes and I believe I stressed that in my previous post - I wholeheartedly agree the growls have their usage and make perfect sense in certain genres - which... well, are limited. I mean, I love the first two albums of Cryptopsy, but it's mostly just one mood. And some cool musical stuff, but I wonder how scarred a person would have to be to listen only to that for the rest of their life.

This is pure semantics, and I leave you to believe this.

Why, what I wanted to say is that despite me "condemning" growls as a "lesser" form of art/expression as opposed to singing proper, I still don't hate it, neither do I think it is bad which I thought you was implying I'm doing. I only dislike it when it's taken out of its proper place or done to an excess. Which is why I started this whole thing - fighting against yet another "harsh vocals = baaaad". I think it's worthy, but not comparable to some other forms of vocal expressions. If you think I'm talking out of my ass... well, you wouldn't be the first one