most important heavy metal characteristic

Guitar solos are my least important.

and here it depends on the band! because if i'm listening to judas priest then guitar solos are super important, but so is the like basic rhythmic interaction between each member of the band, but then, those riffs!

this is a lot of fun to think about

Definitely riffs

Definitely riffs for me, but drums are a close, close second. The sound of Dave Lombardo whipping the shit out of his kit makes me so happy.

"space" is a pretty nebulous term, but depending on how you record something you can choose to let the environment (the studio, or the hall...or! you can do this artificially using reverb & other stuff) be part of the overall sound. you don't have too, and you can choose what gets a spacious treatment and what doesn't - I think of Primordial as a band who really go for a big spacious sound but like AC/DC opt for a much more compressed picture, except on the drums, which go wide-screen. But "space" isn't really a technical term.

To me, space refers to the actual space between notes. A sparse arrangement will have more space than a full-on all the time wall of noise type of arrangement. Which also allows more room to hear the actual physical space of the recording environment or added artificial reverb. So sometimes a song with a lot of space in can sound bigger and heavier than one where every moment is filled up with sound. For example the song Black Sabbath.

To me, space refers to the actual space between notes.

I thought it was something like that.

That definition of space is akin to aero's dynamics. I know I tend to use it to describe a specific type of dynamism (like wk's example of "Black Sabbath").

Well I think there are 2 kinds of dynamics. There are musical dynamics, where different parts of a piece of music are louder or softer (Black Sabbath is a good example again), but you could have a song with a lot of space and very little dynamics. like a minimal techno track that never changes.

But then there's the dynamic range of the actual recording: the distance between the peaks of the signal and the noise floor. That's the kind of dynamics people talk about in relation to heavy limiting used in mastering and that sort of thing. But again you could take a song like "black sabbath" and crush it until the waveform is a complete rectangle and it's still going to sound like it has musical "space", and even a musical contrast between the soft and loud parts, even though there is technically no dynamic range left in the recording.

so I don't think there's an easy relationship between the two concepts

I think it's riffs?

Like, I think about old Maiden vs new Maiden -- the riffs have fallen well off with exception of maybe a couple of Brave New World tracks, and maybe Paschendale on Dance of Death...i mean, it's not bad but compare that with almost every song on the first 5 albums just overflowing with major riffage and you realize that there's definitely something to 'good' metal hinging on riffs.

Lyrics to a minor extent for me. I like singing along with my metal where possible, but it's not necessarily required.

Vocals somewhat - King Diamond, Bruce, halford, Ronnie, Messiah...I'm a sucker for the big guns, the operatic dudes

riffs & atmosphere above everything else, but vocals and melody are important to me, too. i listen to metal not as metal, this stand-alone thing with entirely self-contained aesthetics, but as music, and even as pop, so i tend to want songs, memorable tunes and hooks.

rhythm for me, which I think of as the riff, beat, and bass propelling the song forward, but not too mechanically. The sense of marching or galloping marks takes a song out of hard rock or punk territory and into metal for me.

I don't know how I'd fit in some of the more atmospheric black metal I've read about that may lack that. I'll make a point to hear some mentioned in some threads and figure it out.

for me it's either riffs or rhythm and i can't really disentangle the two

― emo canon in twee major (BradNelson), Tuesday, September 18, 2012 4:22 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Yeah, the more I think on it, the more it's this.

a week left - any other thoughts?

voice voice voice voice voice voice voice

MERCYFUL FATE OR GTFO

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKml8LwF_0M

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVVvVFmoHnE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGDJvxjSR5c

thoughts

I'm no HM fan but riffs are the best part

Those three songs rule NV. I love long-haired Udo.

Udo's a bit of a god to me in any haired incarnation

I went with rhythm. The metal I love most is old Iron Maiden, and I think it's the charging rhythms that make them great.

Udo in Accept is a god; Udo doing an extended piano ballad version of "Balls To The Wall", far less so.

How did I miss this poll? I think it may be "interplay" for me, which I guess would fall under "rhythm" in this poll? Or is that reading "rhythm" too broadly?

I'm also a firm believer that chubby short-haired classic Udo was the model for Bobby Hill on King Of The Hill

I also think the importance of atmosphere is maybe a little overstated w/r/t black metal. If I hear a BM band and the first thing I think of is "wow, they're really trying to create that BM atmosphere," I probably won't be able to get into it. I'm somewhat with contenderizer above in that I try to listen to metal with my normal ears and not with some tailored metal ears. The best, most distinguished, and longest-lived BM seems to me to often have memorable, hooky riffs, dynamics, and captivating vocals. The atmosphere follows from those things.

Rhythm, obv

I listen to Emperor for "the atmosphere" first and foremost.

If I think of all my fave metal moments they're drum-related or at least the drums are doing something awesome

Torn between 'riffs' and 'melody' as I generally prefer melodic riffs as opposed to stuff that shreds or whatever. Riffs as hooks if you like. 'Atmosphere' would be the other big one for me.

Actually looking at the list, the first four options are all very important to me and the other four hardly matter.

Amplifier tone is srsly important to me. After that comes riffs/rhythm.

cookie monster

mullets + spandex

if a heavy track has a mighty riff, I can overlook weakness among the other listed criteria here. The same cannot be said for any single other of said criteria, so riffs win.

Atmosphere is that way for me.

honestly a lot of absurd metal i started listening to because i think it's really funny. if i could choose my favorite thing about metal that would be it.

for example
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ura3jCQEt8

I ended up voting guitar solos and it was a hard choice for me but it's true. I am guessing that I will be the sole vote there.

Melody, as if it was any surprise.

I voted riffs, but the real answer would be something like momentum. Or giganticness. The thing that connects different kinds of metal I like is power -- it can be huge and diffuse like black metal, or focused and tight like NWOBHM, but there's always this visceral oomph to it. (Visceral Oomph itself is only an umlaut away from a good metal name.)

Ömphalos

Now I come to think about it, I remember posing this question to a true metal mate of mine a few years back, and his answer was "I listen to it for the 'vibe'".

This sort of ties into a pet theory of mine, that no music fan is ever properly satiated because there will always be a degree of disconnect between the music being played and the situation of the listener. You could describe it in concentric onion-skin terms, seven circles of music apprehension if you will:

7. - Listening to music in an inappropriate context (i.e. techno in a library or church organ in a pub).

6. - Listening to music in a less-than-ideal setting, like over a crackly radio or over shop tannoy speakers

5. - Listening in a comfortable setting such as your bedroom, your car etc...

4. - Experiencing music in a live setting or played in a club, or as the soundtrack to a film or music video or watching a generative screensaver like MilkDrop

3. - Playing the music yourself as part of a band or orchestra or as a producer

2. - Hearing the music in the exact situation specifically denoted by it. i.e. riding down the highway on a Harley in the early seventies listening to "Born To Be Wild"; standing under an overpass in a rainy Northern town litening to the Smiths; riding up a lightning-struck mountain on the back of a horse, sword in the air listening to Manowar...

1. - Total immersion in music to the point of physically becoming the music itself. Literally being, feeling and understanding those notes and sounds on an utterly tangible, yet abstract level.

As music listeners we almost never attain level 2 and never ever ever attain level 1. The only way you can trick your brain into believing it's attained level 1 is through some serious suspension of reality (perhaps aided through the use of psychotropic drugs maybe?). I think the only time I've come close to this state is when I've been just dropping off to sleep and imagined a piece of music in my head that is so beautiful that it could never be reproduced, with mental images to go with it.

The other way is through dancing/moshing which is kind of an expression of wanting to become the music - representing it with body movements etc. Disco lights, music videos live projections are all a part of aiding you towards level 1, but it's really rather crude when you think about it.

In order to connect with a bit of music you have to subconsciously acknowledge this degree of disconnect between yourself, your environment and the actual sounds being pushed out of the speakers, or else it's just noise. You can appreciate a great guitar solo, but unless that solo achieves some sort of feeling or image, it's just someone hammering out notes - you may as well be watching someone type really well on a keyboard.

Sorry, this might be a bit OT. Not sure if it merits its own discussion or thread...

It's interesting to try and parse out something we do so seemingly seamlessly and fully... I don't think I quite understand your #2, though; if anything, that's the one that strikes me as "rather crude" among all the things you mention. It reminds me of those user-generated youtube vids where there'll be a lyric like "my heart's breaking in two" along with a graphic of a little valentine heart tearing in half. In other words, music is archetypal and universal, maaaaan. You don't actually have to be riding a Harley in 1972 for "Born to be Wild" to make you feel like a badass, and I'd argue that you don't even have to speak English either... Also, funny that you think #1 is unattainable; for me, your #3 attains your #1! If you're playing the music, you are literally physically producing it; doesn't get much less disconnected than that, surely?

of course we parse out levels every time we listen to music. I think levels 1 and 2 are more deep-seated subconscious desires rather than attainable things. That's what makes music interesting compared to a lot of other artforms - no matter what, there's always a level of disconnect. You will never attain an ultimate and true oneness with the sound you're hearing. You don't have to be riding a Harley while listening to "Born TO Be Wild", but that is the image that is largely associated and denoted by that song, its lyrics, its cultural cache through Easy Rider. You could easily be cycling or driving in traffic or jumping around in the pub; but ultimately you'll kind of wish or imagine that you weren't there. As a listener, you have to fill in the contextual gaps and make do with the surroundings you're given. Level 2 relies heavily on a modicum of background knowledge (i.e. cultural and contextual touchstones - who Steppenwolf were, what Easy Rider was, what the lyrics are trying to say). If you were a baby, listening with unprejudiced, uninformed ears, you'd be more on the number one level because you are not as aware of the context surrounding that piece of music, or what the piece is trying to say, but you'll still somehow be left with an impression of that sound.

Playing the music is not the same thing as physically becoming the music. Sibelius wrote music for orchestras, but his music isn't about playing in an orchestra. The piece as a whole may be representative of a certain setting, or even an abstract emotion or concept. And then there's that intensely deep level that a lot of instrumental music, particularly dance music can evoke. I'm talking about an almost Freudian desire to physically become a light pattern or spark of consciousness that represents the music - not only to perceive or create the notes but to BE the notes and sounds.

new "you're a weirdo, I never listen to music that way" answers

To make it more clear, here's a track called "Bouncing Bucephalus Ball" by Aphex Twin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIeA2ct5Sew

You can listen to it in a number of ways, but it's what you're imagining that counts. Is this soundtrack music that describes your day to day life, the position you're sitting in right now and the words you are reading? Or are you thinking about an electronic composer working on a laptop or analogue machine? Or are you listening to a metal pinball bouncing around a physically-defying landscape?

There's no correct answer here because all three are true. but if you let your mind go and forget about the context and environment, you're left with that largely abstract, impossible image. My argument here is that there's an existential futility in being a music fan and knowing you will never physically become or witness that steel pinball. It's entirely down to you to imagine it.

x-post

That's what makes music interesting compared to a lot of other artforms - no matter what, there's always a level of disconnect. You will never attain an ultimate and true oneness with the sound you're hearing.

I don't see how music is different from other artforms in that regard; which forms do you have in mind that involve no level of disconnect (I think "distance" is a better word than "disconnect" here FWIW)? For me, music is the realm where I feel the least amount of separation with what's being produced.

going back to metal, you can admire a guitar solo for its physical prowess, but if that's where the buck stops then you're kind of making yourself into a spectator watching sport. I don't believe anyone really listens to music like this unless they're a total guitar geek. The music still has to create an image or emotion through the unspoken language of the melody, the way certain notes rise and fall or are hit with different velocities. A guitar could sound like a crunchy biscuit or a majestic palace or an evil goblin or many of these things. The cool thing is that we're so bombarded with these images within a piece that it becomes easier to think about other things, like what the band would look like on stage or what the lyrics are about, that we don't consciously and explicitly process these images - rather, they all add up to giving you a holistic musical experience.

xpost, well, I guess there'll always be disconnect and interpretation. Visual art generally requires a certain amount of active input from the viewer depending on how contextual it is. But a still life of a vase is a still life of a vase - the only disconnect is you can't look at it from every angle or pick it up and start pouring water from it.

You can listen to it in a number of ways, but it's what you're imagining that counts. Is this soundtrack music that describes your day to day life, the position you're sitting in right now and the words you are reading? Or are you thinking about an electronic composer working on a laptop or analogue machine? Or are you listening to a metal pinball bouncing around a physically-defying landscape?

I'm reading a book about wine right now (really a book about aesthetics that just happens to use wine as its subject) by a really compelling writer named Terry Theise. Just last night I read this, which your post reminded me of immediately:

"Here's what I think you're after: a point of utter receptivity in which you're seeing only the wine instead of seeing yourself seeing the wine... If you don't see past your own discrete palate, you can't get past What am I getting from the wine? It starts and stops with "I." What am I getting, what do I think, how many points will I give it?"

It sounds like you're hung up a bit on listening to yourself listening to music. Just relax! I don't think it's hard to lose yourself and "become one" with what you're hearing; it's definitely not impossible, except maybe in some ultra-literal impossibility-of-physics kind of way.

It sounds like we listen to music really differently, though, based on this x-post; I actually pretty much never imagine visuals to accompany what I'm hearing, not even when things are being evoked explicitly by lyrics. I think that's making it hard for me to identify with what you're wrestling with here.

ha ha ha ha
dog you are the best