Written by Troy Killjoy on 06.07.2012 at 18:47

The thread wasn't set up to debate whether or not other genres have cliches - it was to specify whether or not symphonic metal had joined the likes of other established genres in terms of becoming a "tired out" sound. Cal (account deleted) is a big fan of symphonic metal and wanted to see what others thought of his opinion, it's not like he was trying to separate this problem from other genres.

I was merely agreeing with a point that had already been made in this thread. I did not divert the topic to include other genres, as it had already been diverted before I posted anything. I don't know why you waited for my post to highlight this...

As for whether symphonic metal itself has become "tired out", I'm not sure I can really give a truly informed opinion on that, as I'm not really much of a fan of that genre... I hear a lot of generic-ness in the genre, but then again, as I'm not a fan, I haven't really delved deeper into the genre to see if it's just the more mainstream symphonic bands that are generic, or whether the genre as a whole is the same...

Had nothing to do with me waiting on your post to mention that. It was the combination of posts diverting off topic and discussing other genres' stereotypes and cliches. I felt it necessary at that point to remind users that this thread was designed to discuss the theory of symphonic metal becoming a cliche rather than to compare the cliches of symphonic metal with the cliches of other genres. You can create a "genre cliche" thread for that discussion if you wish.

As for the topic, I agree with those who believe symphonic metal has become stale. I think with the exception of some lesser known bands (that I haven't ever bothered to listen to) the mainstream whole of symphonic metal has either been simply repeating itself or completely moving on from the origins of the sound to something completely different. Typically this "evolution" leads to pop music. Or at least pop-influenced metal.

Written by Troy Killjoy on 07.07.2012 at 06:40

Had nothing to do with me waiting on your post to mention that. It was the combination of posts diverting off topic and discussing other genres' stereotypes and cliches.

I think it's perfectly OK to mention that other genres have cliches when you are making the point that, yeah, symphonic metal is cliched too and so what all metal is. I think that's perfectly on topic and relevant to the discussion of whether or not symphonic metal being cliched is necessarily that big of a deal.

Overall I feel like it's moving into more avant-garde and extreme genres; Sigh and Fleshgod Apocalypse are good examples of this. It's adding weight to many of these groups' catalogues. To the more melodic side of things I feel it's not used properly by many bands, but not overused. If they executed it slightly better I wouldn't have a problem.

With regards to stuff like Nightwish or Epica: meh..... I think it's okay for the moment. I don't see a huge saturation (at least as much as more conventional genres such as thrash) but I feel like it's more of a stylisation to begin with, not a properly founded genre. Different forms of metal are affected by it and I feel that it's like technical metal: when done right it will turn heads, no matter how many wannabes jump on the bandwagon.

Hmm...I am also a fan of many metal sub-genres, including symphonic power metal bands such as Nightwish and Epica, I don't think they are a cliche', but then I don't live in Europe or America. Metal fans are very clearly a minority where I live, and there are few metal fans here that would even know what symphonic metal is. Most metal fans here haven't moved beyond mainstream metal bands and metalcore bands. But what metal genre doesn't have it's own cliche's? Not many - four or five guys with long hair thrashing about and growling their displeasure at social conformity are far more of a cliche, but I still love it. I also think Imaginaerum is a great album, I was surprised to find out it was so unpopular. Still it doesn't affect my opinion of that album or make me want to conform to the most popular choice. Or any other album I happen to enjoy that isn't popular. So I guess that makes me crazy by your definition, I've got no problem with that.

Good point... I have noticed that myself, but I still like it. I just think "Oh I like this band more than I like this..." They are still good, though sometimes I think the keyboard/orchestra is doing too much of the work.

Completely agree with this. It seems that other bands are noticing how popular symphonic metal is and are trying to jump on the bandwagon and instead of adding to the genre of sympho metal are mostly just mimicing it. Xandria obviously comes to mind in being a Nightwish copy and also Shade Empire copying Dimmu/Fleshgod. There first albums got them into the industry but those bands latest have really propelled there career by copying symphonic elements of other bands and others are starting to take notice and doing the same.

I love symphonic metal and I do enjoy Xandria's and Shade's latest but to me they mostly just stave my appetite until the original sympho bands release something. Unfortunately as mentioned the big bands are fading in quality so sympho is becoming a stale genre, with people jumping on the bandwagon and half-assing their symphonic elements.

I find Folk Metal to have the exact same problem right now concerning copy-bands emerging and the big bands fading. These 2 genres are bound to crash and burn any time now...

For me, there are still some great symphonic bands. Kamelot used some orchestrations and this is not to make something commercial...I think symphonic metal is not dead. Maybe the symphony has been to much used in metal and today most of metalheads are looking for something more direct, "in your face"...And that's why symphonic metal bands are too underrated nowadays...Anyway, I've loved the last Xandria's album. It's very good. But the taste is something very personal and intimate...So, please, be objective and not subjective when you judge and album : that's not because you don't like an album that others won't appreciate it.

The original post on this thread hit the nail on the head in my opinion. A lot of symphonic metal bands seem to have become overly dependent on the bombast element and keyboard orchestration of the music which sometiemes makes the genre seem really insincere and void of emotive elements. In some instances, even when the orchestrations are beautiful and melodic it makes me feel like I'm listening to a soundtrack and not a metal band.

This is part of what formed my band, Heliosaga. The keys take a backseat to the guitars. Take a listen. I hope you like it.

Written by Susan on 23.05.2012 at 19:20



Idea #2: The genre IS actually morphing, so much so that the quality bands get labels like "prog" or "power" instead of just "symphonic."

I'm going with this, I wouldn't say the new bands lack quality, they just play a different style of music, legitimizing symphonic metal as it's own genre rather than just power metal with female vocalists and slightly more keyboards and whatnot. If anything, I'd say this means it's now LESS of a cliche. I mean, I could make the same argument saying death metal has been crap since Death broke up because it's no longer like a heavier version of thrash. The new stuff appeals to different people, it has more of a pop than classical focus, but that doesn't mean it's horrible, it does what it does.

Written by deadone on 29.09.2014 at 09:34

Written by Ganondox on 29.09.2014 at 08:49


I'm going with this, I wouldn't say the new bands lack quality, they just play a different style of music, legitimizing symphonic metal as it's own genre rather than just power metal with female vocalists and slightly more keyboards and whatnot.

I'd call it pop with guitars personally...

Pop with guitars:

Written by deadone on 30.09.2014 at 02:36

Written by Ganondox on 29.09.2014 at 11:01


Pop with guitars:

Pop with distorted guitars then.


Really the likes of Epica etc are so far away from Metal. Same applies to most of the "Flower Metal" stuff.


Metal is by definition dischordant, aggressive, raw, anti-social. Even the Glam guys maintained a harder edge (though a lot of them played hard rock).

Pop with distorted guitars:


Epica is pretty clearly metal, there is big difference between pop metal and just pop with distorted guitars. By definition, metal is just rock music with THICK distorted guitars and an emphatic beat. The combination is usually interpreted as being aggressive, but it depends on the context and the person listening to it. Anyway, I for one find modern symphonic metal to sound way more aggressive than glam metal, I don't hear any edge in glam whatsoever. I actually hear more edge in the hard rock leaning glam metal than in the more purely metal stuff.

Written by deadone on 30.09.2014 at 03:12

Written by Ganondox on 30.09.2014 at 03:01


Epica is pretty clearly metal, there is big difference between pop metal and just pop with distorted guitars. By definition, metal is just rock music with THICK distorted guitars and an emphatic beat. The combination is usually interpreted as being aggressive, but it depends on the context and the person listening to it. Anyway, I for one find modern symphonic metal to sound way more aggressive than glam metal, I don't hear any edge in glam whatsoever. I actually hear more edge in the hard rock leaning glam metal than in the more purely metal stuff.

I hear no aggression in most symphonic metal.

My point about glam was that even as a virtually non-metal genre it can sound grittier and harder than symphonic metal (Guns N Roses, WASP, Skid Row are all ballsy "edgier" stuff).

Modern symphonic metal in my mind has a Eurovision Song Contest vibe about it - sugary, overproduced, poppy, hollow sounding, cliched. A lot of power metal has actually gone that way too - e.g. new Helloween spends a fair bit of time being a pop rock album.

"I hear no aggression in most symphonic metal. "

Seriously? Epica uses freaking thrash riffs and death growls. I wasn't even looking for an aggressive song, I just picked a random song by them. If you are going to say symphonic metal lacks aggression, at least pick something like Within Temptation,

I wouldn't call WASP or Guns N' Roses glam (heavy metal and hard rock respectively), and Skid Row was only glam on one album. This is what I consider glam metal to be:

Light melodic riffs, but more riff driven than hard rock is.

Written by deadone on 30.09.2014 at 03:29

Written by Ganondox on 30.09.2014 at 03:19

Written by deadone on 30.09.2014 at 03:12

Written by Ganondox on 30.09.2014 at 03:01


Epica is pretty clearly metal, there is big difference between pop metal and just pop with distorted guitars. By definition, metal is just rock music with THICK distorted guitars and an emphatic beat. The combination is usually interpreted as being aggressive, but it depends on the context and the person listening to it. Anyway, I for one find modern symphonic metal to sound way more aggressive than glam metal, I don't hear any edge in glam whatsoever. I actually hear more edge in the hard rock leaning glam metal than in the more purely metal stuff.

I hear no aggression in most symphonic metal.

My point about glam was that even as a virtually non-metal genre it can sound grittier and harder than symphonic metal (Guns N Roses, WASP, Skid Row are all ballsy "edgier" stuff).

Modern symphonic metal in my mind has a Eurovision Song Contest vibe about it - sugary, overproduced, poppy, hollow sounding, cliched. A lot of power metal has actually gone that way too - e.g. new Helloween spends a fair bit of time being a pop rock album.

"I hear no aggression in most symphonic metal. "

The verses are aggressive - I'll give you that. The chorus's are Eurovision pop. The song confirms a lot of my opinions on the genre: sugary, overproduced, poppy, hollow sounding, cliched.


I actually thought they sounded like this:




From what I've heard of Nightwish and Within Temptation they're mainly along the gutless ones. Some Nightwish songs are nice.



As for glam, it was more a scene than a sound. Guns N Roses, Skid Row and WASP were all part of that scene. Even Motley Crue played more hard rock in their heyday than metal but they still got called Glam Metal.

There is metal riffing and drumwork in the chorus as well, it's just less apparent, you probably won't notice it unless you are specifically looking for it. As for the other song, you can call it gutless if you want, but I maintain it's still significantly more aggressive than glam metal, even most traditional heavy metal. Definitely metal.

I use glam metal to refer to the sound of bands like Poison and Bon Jovi (before they went pure hard rock), and hair metal to refer to the scene. Not sure if I can count Twisted Sister as hair metal though, they dressed like girls, but in a different manner.

Written by deadone on 30.09.2014 at 04:09

Written by Ganondox on 30.09.2014 at 03:39



There is metal riffing and drumwork in the chorus as well, it's just less apparent, you probably won't notice it unless you are specifically looking for it.

If you have to "look for" metal bits it's not metal. I hear bits in Dave Matthews Band that remind me of metal but it sure as hell is not metal (Don't Drink The Water has such tension and anger that most metal bands never achieve).

Quote:
As for the other song, you can call it gutless if you want, but I maintain it's still significantly more aggressive than glam metal, even most traditional heavy metal. Definitely metal.

No idea what heavy metal you're listening to.

And compared to most things metal since 1983, that Epica song is gutless pop both stylistically and vibe wise.

Quote:
I use glam metal to refer to the sound of bands like Poison and Bon Jovi (before they went pure hard rock), and hair metal to refer to the scene. Not sure if I can count Twisted Sister as hair metal though, they dressed like girls, but in a different manner.

You can use whatever classification you want, but there are generally accepted conventions.

And in the past scene was important - hence grunge, glam or NWOBHM none of which had a well defined sound. This was the case especially before the genres became fully defined.

1. You don't need to look for metal in the song, only in the chorus because the symphonic elements are drowning it out. The song doesn't stop being metal, it would be insane to think the song isn't metal just because it has a lighter chorus.
2. No, the real question is what type of pop are you listening to. It's got obvious metal riffing and whatnot, so it's metal. Pop and metal aren't mutually exclusive.
3. The convention I use is the standard, as much as there is a standard. All music calls glam pop metal, but it still stands that there is a clear musical genre associated with the scene even if not all the bands in the scene had said sound.

Written by deadone on 30.09.2014 at 05:02

Written by Ganondox on 30.09.2014 at 04:18


1. You don't need to look for metal in the song, only in the chorus because the symphonic elements are drowning it out. The song doesn't stop being metal, it would be insane to think the song isn't metal just because it has a lighter chorus.

I agreed the verse is metal. The chorus is not.

Quote:
2. No, the real question is what type of pop are you listening to. It's got obvious metal riffing and whatnot, so it's metal. Pop and metal aren't mutually exclusive.

Man I'll crank stuff like Lady Gaga and Dido every one in a while or when the wife takes control of the stereo. And I do have a soft spot for watching that Eurovision drivel that so many symphonic/power metal bands seem to be aspiring to soundwise.

Quote:
3. The convention I use is the standard, as much as there is a standard. All music calls glam pop metal, but it still stands that there is a clear musical genre associated with the scene even if not all the bands in the scene had said sound.

Convention you use is not standard - Skid Row, Guns N Roses and WASP are all universally regared as part of glam scene.

1. If the song is metal, the chorus is metal, it's pointless to make such a distinction as the song is meant to be regarded as a whole, not overanalyzed into parts which cannot exist on their own. You can probably find parts that are way less metal in most metal songs.
2. I don't know Dido, but Lady Gaga doesn't sound anything like symphonic metal, though she is one of the better current pop stars. Eurovision I can see some similarities with, the essential difference being the lack of metal in Eurovision songs, which makes a pretty big difference.
3. I wouldn't say they are universally regarded as part of the glam scene, I've seen Guns N' Roses separated from it a lot, and grouped with the scene like once or twice, but regardless, the convention I use is standard when making the distinction between the scene and the sound, and the distinction often needs to be made, like when describing the difference between Skid Rows first album and later material, or how Guns N' Roses shook hard rock up with their more aggressive sound. Regardless, the fact stands that their are heavier and lighter glam and symphonic bands, whether or not Guns N' Roses is glam does not change the fact Poison is undeniably glam, and most symphonic metal is still heavier than they are.

Written by deadone on 30.09.2014 at 07:49

Written by Ganondox on 30.09.2014 at 06:32

1. If the song is metal, the chorus is metal, it's pointless to make such a distinction as the song is meant to be regarded as a whole, not overanalyzed into parts which cannot exist on their own. You can probably find parts that are way less metal in most metal songs.

Totally agree.

Written by Ganondox on 30.09.2014 at 06:32

2. I don't know Dido, but Lady Gaga doesn't sound anything like symphonic metal, though she is one of the better current pop stars. Eurovision I can see some similarities with, the essential difference being the lack of metal in Eurovision songs, which makes a pretty big difference.

Of course Lady Gaga sounds a lot better and a lot more unique than most symphonic metal.

There's been a few songs in Eurovision that have actually had that same "underlying heavy guitars"

Quote:

3. I wouldn't say they are universally regarded as part of the glam scene, I've seen Guns N' Roses separated from it a lot, and grouped with the scene like once or twice,

I got into Guns N Roses in 1992. They were always labelled as part of glam scene.

I only saw them being separated out in the modern age when all of a sudden everything was being classified according to the exact sound they played. And that separation was only by some of the whatever fans they had on forums. The media generally just refers to them as Guns N Roses these days without ascribing any genre, other than the occassional reference to them as a rock band (meaningless in itself as even Metallica gets called a rock band).

I suspect this "precise categorisation" on internet plus universal accessibility to music has destroyed concept of geographic or trend scenes. Under these modern age principles, NWOBHM, glam and grunge don't really exist. Even Nu-metal becomes problematic.

Quote:
but regardless, the convention I use is standard when making the distinction between the scene and the sound, and the distinction often needs to be made, like when describing the difference between Skid Rows first album and later material, or how Guns N' Roses shook hard rock up with their more aggressive sound.

I've never seen this distinction of yours in the press.

As stated some fans do it.

But then Skid Row and Guns N Roses are so generally uncool in metal circles, one doesn't see much discussion on them. Skid Row's conversion to more harder edged stuff is well known, but even then "Slave To The Grind" was rooted in hard rock and had glam metal vibes all through it (ballads, lyrically, and overall sound).

Glam Metal was more than just Poison or Bon Jovi. The early glam was far more extreme too - be it Motley Crue's early stuff or W.A.S.P. or Twisted Sister or whatever. Increasing commercial viability brought forward the Poison's, Warrants, Bon Jovi just like commercial viability of Nu Metal led to Linkin Park or Trash Metal resulted in Black album, Countdown To Extinction etc.

And back to topic - the Nightwish and Within Temptations are the commercialised versions of what Therion started two decades ago. Hence the cliche and increasing pop orientation of many of these bands (check out new Within Temptation) and lesser affiliation with metal. Indeed a big chunk of European mainstream metal has gone down this path.

Not going to argue with most of this, just saying that there is at least a loose sound associated with NWOBHM, grunge, glam, and nu metal, though NWOBHM doesn't really work as a genre. I'd consider Quiet Riot's Metal Health to be the first true glam album as something distinct from previous metal, but I'm not expert on the scene or the genre.

"I've never seen this distinction of yours in the press." That's because the press has a million different ways of dealing with any genre until they finally agree on something. The 80's are long gone, so glam is regarded as genre. While I do think the internet has changed the idea of geographic scenes because it lead to internet based scenes and easier flow of memetic information internationally, this talk of "precise categorization" is nonsense, I think you just don't understand how genres work and just obsess over the labels some people use. If anything dividing by regional scenes is more obsessive categorization. The fact is the broader metal scene is different now, and it's not a single united front, so the way of categorization also changed.

Taking influence from Therion and moving towards a poppier sound does not make the sound a cliche, that's just how things evolve. It's only a cliche if it DOESN'T evolve and is just a gimmick kept for tradition. Again, might as well say death metal is a cliche, I say there is more base to that. " Indeed a big chunk of European mainstream metal has gone down this path." Well, I like pop metal, so I'm not complaining. IMO European metal tends to be much better than American metal, pop or no pop. American bands tend to focus more on aggression, while Europeans bands focus more on melody and whatnot, and I find the latter much more interesting.

Guys please trim the quoting tree a little.

"The European bands used to focus on aggression " Aggression/melody is just a simplification of what I believe to be the difference in ideology, it doesn't always manifest that way. I say the trend actually goes all the way American hard rock vs European heavy metal, once a distinction could be made. While hard rock is generally more melodic than heavy metal while heavy metal is more aggressive, it's the more stripped-down, everyman ideology of American metal that drives that, while the European ideology is more ambitious. It may go even further back to the blues versus classical music. Anyway, let's compare subgenres started in the US versus America, I think it drives my point.

European: Traditional, Power, Black (while one of the most extreme forms of metal, it's actually usually quite melodic), Gothic, Symphonic, Melodeath
American: Thrash, Glam(an exception, but they are mostly gone now, and it ties more with hard rock), Death, Progressive (really the main exception to the trend, both with the early bands and now), Groove, Nu, Metalcore, Sludge

While many of the bands you listed are very aggressive, they generally don't sacrifice melodic complexity to do so. Napalm Death should be noted that they came from hardcore punk, and at the time British hardcore was more metal influenced than American hardcore.

Ok, now back on topic.

Erg, we've already agreed on the main point here, and this is way off topic. We need to get back.

I'm not going to talk about every single scene, that would take too much effort, just the main genres, but yes, Stockholm Death and Teutonic Thrash are exceptions because there is always exceptions. However, more noisy texture abrasion does seem to be a more European thing, except in sludge metal, and that may be related to the ideology.

"Original Black is also abrasive." It's also still more melodic than it has any right to be, eg. it lacks the chugging riffs of thrash and death metal, instead having dissonant melodies.

"The melodic side of it started from Helloween but didn't become prevalent until mid-1990s" For the sake of the discussion, only the melodic side of power metal has any relevance. The less melodic stuff is mainly American anyway.

I wasn't talking about melodic metalcore, I was talking about metalcore, period. The non-melodic metalcore is some of the least melodic and most aggressive metal around. Anyway, in comparison to melodeath melodic metalcore puts less focus on melody (eg. recycled riffs) and more on aggression (eg. breakdowns), and it's more everyman, the American versus European dichotomy can easily be seen between the two genres.

Nu metal is NOT melodic, it's only slightly more melodic than hip-hop and way less melodic than traditional heavy metal, it just often has melodic singing in the choruses and the most popular nu metal is the poppiest nu metal. Also, while groove metal is melodic (sometimes, some has very little melody and is just a rhythmic groove), it's melodic in the blues way, not in the classical way, and when I said the focus is on melody I meant in the classical.

The Bolt Thrower (sick grooves, in fact I've heard them described as the first death metal band with a focus on melody even though they are nothing like melodeath) and Bathory (epic riffing) I've heard is actually fairly melodic.

EDIT: Okay, tv tropes mentions the European inversion in the 80's as well, so you win there. Still, I maintain the ideological difference is older, for one extreme was underground in Europe and became mainstream in US, so I guess that means something.

Written by deadone on 03.10.2014 at 03:43

Written by Ganondox on 02.10.2014 at 10:48


I'm not going to talk about every single scene, that would take too much effort, just the main genres, but yes, Stockholm Death and Teutonic Thrash are exceptions because there is always exceptions.

You're ignoring the historical context - these were earlier genres than symphonic metal or melodic DM.

Quote:
However, more noisy texture abrasion does seem to be a more European thing, except in sludge metal, and that may be related to the ideology.

I'll agree here. Europeans love to overlayer everything. They also struggle with writing "lose. organic" metal. Continental European metal often has a stiffness about it that US/UK metal doesn't have/

Quote:
"The melodic side of it started from Helloween but didn't become prevalent until mid-1990s" For the sake of the discussion, only the melodic side of power metal has any relevance. The less melodic stuff is mainly American anyway.

Power Metal by definition is melodic. My point referred to "overall" metal including all genres.

Quote:
I wasn't talking about melodic metalcore, I was talking about metalcore, period. The non-melodic metalcore is some of the least melodic and most aggressive metal around. Anyway, in comparison to melodeath melodic metalcore puts less focus on melody (eg. recycled riffs) and more on aggression (eg. breakdowns), and it's more everyman, the American versus European dichotomy can easily be seen between the two genres.

Metalcore is a huge area hence generalisations are difficult.

The breakdown emphasis in popular metalcore was not really a defining feature of a lot of the bands involved in the genre e.g. KSE, Shadows Fall, As I Lay Dying, Trivium, etc. In fact a few of them started off as melodeath bands.

And melodeath was originally a helluva lot more aggressive and less melodic (e.g. At The Gates, early In Flames, Corporation 187, Carnal Forge, Darkane etc ) It was only about 2000 that the melodic side overrode the aggressive bit.

Quote:

Nu metal is NOT melodic, it's only slightly more melodic than hip-hop and way less melodic than traditional heavy metal, it just often has melodic singing in the choruses and the most popular nu metal is the poppiest nu metal.

Stuff associated with Nu-metal ala Papa Roach, Linkin Park, Il Nino and even Spineshank etc was very melodic.

Quote:
Also, while groove metal is melodic (sometimes, some has very little melody and is just a rhythmic groove), it's melodic in the blues way, not in the classical way, and when I said the focus is on melody I meant in the classical.

I agree there.

Quote:
The Bolt Thrower (sick grooves, in fact I've heard them described as the first death metal band with a focus on melody even though they are nothing like melodeath) and Bathory (epic riffing) I've heard is actually fairly melodic.

Listen to early Bolt Thrower (In Battle There Is No Law or Realms Of Chaos) or Bathory pre-Hammerheart (early Black to pure Thrash).

Quote:

EDIT: Okay, tv tropes mentions the European inversion in the 80's as well, so you win there. Still, I maintain the ideological difference is older, for one extreme was underground in Europe and became mainstream in US, so I guess that means something.

I think the ideological difference is far more confused. Some of the most melodic metal of the 1980s came out of US (e.g. Queensryche) whilst some of the most aggressive stuff came out.

I do think British Metal is more similar to American metal in terms of this ideology.

Okay, it's obvious you are focusing way to much on the fact I said "American bands tend to focus more on aggression, while Europeans bands focus more on melody and whatnot" while the interpreting it European bands are more "melodic" than American bands, when I meant something very different which I clarified in the next post as my initial explanation wasn't very good. I guess it's better to think of European metal as "epic", and American metal as, I dunno, "macho" I guess. Aggressive, but aggressive in a certain manner, not abrasive, more rhythmic, and appealing to working class men. It's like the European bands want people to listen to their music at home, while the American bands just want you to like mosh at their concerts, that's sorta the impression I'm getting.

I mentioned way more than just symphonic or melodeath, and I did take historical context into account, I just got some of it wrong by ignoring early extreme metal aside from American thrash.

And early metalcore was way less melodic and more aggressive than modern metalcore, old melodeath was still very melodic, so old melodeath had even more of a melodic and less aggressive than old metalcore. Regardless, the fundamental ideology is obviously different, the metalcore bands sing about politics and girlfriends, while the melodeath bands sing about philosophy and depression. The initial reference point was actually with death metal anyway, obviously melodeath is melodic compared to other death metal.

I wouldn't consider Ill Nino to be a melodic band, at least not from anything I've heard from them, and even Linkin Park isn't that melodic.

Okay, the early Bolt Thrower is far less melodic than later Bolt Thrower (still isn't completely devoid of melody, it's very hard to do that and have a song with any unique content), but I think all the Bathory I know is in fact pre-Hammerheart. Then again "A Fine Day to Die" might be different from most their songs, I listened to two songs from "Under the Sign of the Black Mark", both were based around horrible completely monotonous riffing (in the very least any noticeable melody disappeared into the guitar tone), but one had a melodic segment.

I covered Queensryche when I said progressive metal is the main exception to American trends. Obviously there are tons of exceptions and it's much more complicated than that, you can't generalize every band by where they come from.

Now that I think about it, most British metal may be more like European metal than American metal, but there is definitely more European styled metal bands in Britain than the US.

If it's not melodic, then I'm pretty it doesn't qualify as melodic death, because I'm pretty sure melodic death is inherently melodic. All the bands you listed are also classified as thrash metal, so I think that explains that. Anyway, again, doesn't matter that early metalcore had nothing to do with melodeath as as I said before the comparison I was making was between death and melodeath, not melodeath and metalcore, melodic metalcore is just a ripoff of melodeath.

For one, bands like Iron Maiden and Judas Priest do have some working man appeal and were considered working class bands because that's how heavy metal was then, but they also have strong fantasy elements and epic melodies that for the most part American bands lack. So I guess British bands along those lines lay somewhere in the middle of the spectrum.

Okay, I meant all the band except At the Gates and Edge of Sanity. Edge of Sanity isn't generally melodeath anyway, they are just progressive rock fused with death metal like Opeth, which ends up being melodeath at times. I'm also pretty sure early At the Gates isn't considered melodeath, as Heartwork is considered to be the first melodeath album, and two At the Gates albums are before that, while the first one afterwards, Terminal Spirit Disease, is quite melodic. And yes, In Flames has had death metal elements at least up to Come Clarity, Clayman is just as melodeath as Colony is, it's pretty obvious the two albums are the same genre of music.

No, I'm not ignoring the historical context, historical context is the only reason I'm saying Judas Priest or Iron Maiden are in anyway like American heavy metal because as you said, things hadn't really segregated yet.

Regardless, EoS is all over the place, so it can't be stated melodeath can be unmelodic because they have some unmelodic songs.

I said early ATG wasn't melodeath, not that they weren't a pioneer. Everything you said there is invalid as of such.

It's melodeath, not pure death metal. If melodeath was just death metal with more melody it wouldn't be considered it's own subgenre. It's somewhere between melodic traditional heavy metal and death metal, so it's melodeath. Even if the elements can't be placed exactly as death metal, it still has death metal aggression. And it's definitely not groove metal, that would be like DevilDriver.

PS. The term is cookie monster, not cookie cutter, vocals.

No, you can't. I'm not even going to argue this because you logic is so ridiculous. Venom and Napalm Death definitely are pretty working class, but they clearly a different vain than both Iron Maiden or Pantera, or even each other.

"You do realise by your definition, Carcass can't be melodeath cause most of their albums weren't melodeath." No, because it doesn't work that way. Carcass was grindcore, and then turned into melodeath, EoS never had a pure melodeath album as far as I'm aware and just moved from pure death metal to progressive death metal. The album Heartwork matters, not Carcass as a whole, in the history of melodeath.

"They are universally regarded as a leading band in melodeath." I never said they weren't! Why can't you get that into your thick skull of yours? It's just that as far as I'm aware, there first couple albums were just plainold death metal (unless they were in fact melodic), then they became a melodeath pioneer. I specifically said ATG became melodeath with/by Terminal Spirit Disease, learn to fucking read.

No, the death bit is not meaningless, it just doesn't mean what you think it means. And yes, it is the same type of aggression as aggression between a melodic and unmelodic metal can be compared, the difference is In Flames is melodic while Cannibal Corpse sounds like someone throwing up (okay, I don't hate that song, that one riff is pretty cool, but it's not like it sounds that much like earlier death metal either. If that falls in the same category as Death and Possessed's music I don't see why In Flames wouldn't). Rather you should be comparing it to melodic non-death metal like this:

" In fact closest would be ATG or EOS or Dismember's more melodic moments, neither of which you even call melodic DM." Actually I did, for both bands, you just never processed that for some reason. You were the one saying the early UNMELODIC moments of the bands were melodic death metal, which is absurd, as even if the melodic death could potentially be unmelodic or not death metal, obviously the pioneers of the genre would have to be both otherwise there is no reason the genre would be named as such.

"Most Melodic DM is quite inoffensive. " Oh boohoo, not could be worse than music not offending you. Well I for one find modern pop music to be quite offensive. You keep going on and on about how offensive GLAM METAL is to non-metal listeners, but now you insist melodeath with all it's screaming, aggressive riffs (yes, the riff in Episode 666 is aggressive, it just has less aggressive lick in it and is less aggressive than freaking goregrind) and depressive themes is quite inoffensive. REALLY? Anyway, considering you put the aggressiveness of melodeath at the same level of thrash, even though thrash is both more aggressive than traditional heavy metal and less melodic than either traditional heavy metal or melodeath, shows there is a different sort of aggressiveness to melodeath, which is the "death" part. The fact is sound ranging from (early-mid) In Flames to (mid-lat)e At the Gates is well defined as melodeath, and over-categorization would be trying to break that up.

Groove metal has always been one of the most aggressive forms of metal, I consider Pantera more aggressive than At the Gates for one. I specifically chose DevilDriver because they fuse melodeath with groove metal. It's not incidental at all.

"It's not just rythmic pounding like a lot of death metal." Well duh, it's melodic, not rhythmic, but there is still plenty of pounding in all the Arch Enemy I've heard. I also fail to hear any groove whatsoever, just melodic parts, aggressive parts, and melodic aggressive parts.

Okay, I hear exactly one groovy part, the barely audible riff at the begining with no melody (0:14). I'm also timestamp the difference parts: Harmonic/Lame Melodic 0:20, Minimalistic/Atmospheric/Plain Boring 0:40 , Aggressive Melodic 1:01, Pure Aggressive 1:10, Good Melodic (Because it's a guitar solo in a song with lame riffs, still a pretty lame guitar solo, the ending solo is better but still unremarkable) 2:25

This song is much better:

It manages to balance melody and aggression well.

Rather, I think you fail to understand what ideology means in the context of art criticism. I'm studying film criticism right now, and the same terminology applies to music. Ideology is more complex than being "working class", that was just a generalization to simplify the explanation, and it's often at least partially unconcious, so it's impossible to no for sure if two people have the same ideology and thus it's often measured by the culture. I've tried several different phrasing to describe an abstract concept, but known of them is completely accurate. The fact is, the schema is in my head, and Iron Maiden and Judas Priest clearly fall in the European branch, they just have a couple elements which are more American. If you disagree, fine, but your feeble attempts at redefining my schema which I poorly communicated to fit your schema isn't going to work. End of discussion.

"Might want to listen to Spectral Sorrows or Purgatory Afterglow. Enough melodeath for whole album to be regarded as melodeath. " Spectrual Sorrows certainly has some very melodic parts, but I'm not sure I'd say the album is really melodeath as a whole. Mainly just sounds like experimental death metal. Regardless, only the melodic parts could be considered melodeath, you can't call the non-melodic parts melodeath.

"You do realise we have various flavours of heavier Power, Thrash and Groove in the spectrum too." But it's clearly not any of those genres, it's clearly melodeath.

"By standards of Death Metal, it's not aggressive." OF COURSE NOT! That's part of the reason it's melodeath, not plain-old death, and why it's considered a separate subgenre genre. This is the most idiotically circular conversation ever.

"Putting words into my mouth." Fine, I'll use the exact words you used: "And even the Swedish stuff depends on the band - something like Corporation 187, Darkane or even The Haunted was quite unmelodic. Early ATG is not very melodic. Edge of Sanity could be completely abrasive, rythmic or completely melodic - schizophrenic little brilliant bastards." I even bolded the key part. Because you keep insisting all early ATG is melodeath, and that's it's unmelodic, the only logical conclusion is that you are saying that ATG's unmelodic moments are melodeath. Oh, and it seems to be pretty obvious that you have no idea what early metalcore sounds like, otherwise you wouldn't be insisting that old melodeath is more aggressive and less melodic than it. I never disagreed that old melodeath was less melodic and more aggressive than modern melodeath, just that it was still quite melodic.

Pretty sure I heard more melody in Hammer Smashed Face.

"In fact you're the one who incorrectly claimed that: progressive rock fused with death metal like Opeth." It's not incorrect, they certainly did fuse progressive rock with death metal, and Opeth also fused progressive rock with death metal.

"Your point?"

And so a couple popular songs have edgier themes. Your point?

"Actually it was really to do with vocals. That's the death part. " Yeah, and the vocals in all these bands are still death metal styled, just higher pitched and whatnot. It's not like no traditional death metal has those vocals styles.

"What's it with you and analysing bands based on 1 song?" Because I don't have time to waste analyzing every single fucking song, I've got work I need to do. I'm already wasting enough time as it is. It's the lead single from the album you were referring to, so it's the most natural one to analysis. If you can find a groovier one, then why don't you?

Obviously early melodeath would have been experimental as it's a new genre. There is still a big difference EoS and the other early melodeath, it has a much different sound than the Gothenburg stuff which defined the genre, or even Heartwork, and that makes all the difference. At least this is from what I've heard, as I haven't heard as much of them as the other bands, and I've never seen them connected to the development of melodeath. (And everything has non-melodic bits just as everything has some melodic bits, it means nothing that melodeath has some non-melodic bits, the whole is still very melodic)

"Also Caliban were considered metalcore when they came out. According to MS, they still are." I was giving Caliban as an example of early metalcore, how did you not get that? And while they aren't pioneers of metalcore, they are early metalcore in that they started before melodic metalcore became and the stuff I linked is in that early metalcore style. I haven't heard any of their Roadrunner stuff because I'm not into any sort of metalcore, so go figure.

" I had not heard any of their earlier pre-Roadrunner stuff by which time they were sounding very modern melodic." You would if you listened to the fucking song I linked. Rather I just dump an entire Earth Crisis album?

Sure, it has some melodic metallic bits, but it's mainly chugging, a far cry from melodeath. Actually reminds me a lot of death metal with less tremolo picking and more palm muting. Even if you point to the groove melodies in some of the chugs, that's still the American type of melodies, not the epic european type of melodies you can heard in At the Gates and whatnot.

"Stuff like Arch Enemy has got more towards Thrash." And despite Arch Enemy's vocals sound nothing like thrash, they are totally death growls.

"In Flames et al adopted more shouty style vocals." I wouldn't call his later vocal style shouty at all, it's screaming. Shouty is what thrash singers do (and shouting is what), early Death has a shoutier sound than In Flames, latter Death has more of a scream.

"I only put down Hammer Smashed Face cause I figure you don't listen to Death Metal and as such put down something you might've heard. Could've been any Cannibal Corpse song. Or Malevolent Creation or Monstrosity or Nile or whatever." While it's by no means my favorite genre, I've listened to PLENTY of death metal. Hammer Smashed Face doesn't even sound much like other death metal, has more grindcore in it, and even sounds like it has a bit of an industrial influence. Nile is the only of those bands I like, btw, middle eastern modes FTW. I've listened to way more than just single songs, I only have time to specifically analysis specific songs, though some bands I've heard more of then others. And no, I'm not going to go listen to entire albums, because I have no interest in doing as such, there is other music I'd much rather listen to. If you can't provide specific examples, there is no reason I should take you word.

"But then I listen to this shit and not just one song." Yup, not going to waste me time listening to shit.

Okay, fine, Skydancer is the first melodeath album, I can settle for that, but all the early melodeath isn't completely different, there is a difference between melodic death metal and death metal which is melodic (eg. Death N' Roll, latter Bolt Thrower).

"I really don't understand your approach.

It seems like you listen to single songs to analyse them and pigeon hole the bands in some neat category."

No, that's not my approach at all. When I need to get the feel for a band I'm unfamiliar with (either because I want to see if they interest me or they are being discussed) I listen to a sample of songs to get a vague idea of what a band sounds, not a single song. Obviously that's not a flawless approach, but it saves time when I need to listen to many different bands/albums. Anyway, it's not I never heard songs from any these bands before, it's just I need to listen to songs from specific albums to get the sound fresh in my head. While I've really gotten into them, I've listened to plenty of Arch Enemy, and a fair amount of many of the other mentioned bands, previously. There I was just analyzing a single song there to use as an example. It only takes a single case to show something is represented, there being the mix of aggressive and melodic sounds in Arch Enemy at that time.

"Personally I listen to music cause I enjoy it. " And of course that's the primarily reason I listen to music as well.

Of course there is going to be some difference between any given group of bands if none of them flat out copycats.

I wouldn't place With Fear The Burning Darkness as quite being melodeath yet, but whatever.

"(though in Amon Amarth's case a single song is sufficient)" haha

Just so you guys know: there is a difference between melodeath (AKA Gothenburg sound) and melodic death metal. Melodeath is defined as basically being heavy metal played with various death metal tropes (ie. heavier distortion, more down-tuned, extreme vocals etc.) whereas melodic death metal is simply death metal that happens to be more melodic than is the norm in the genre. Melodeath is NOT a form of death metal. So, Edge Of Sanity = melodic death metal, At The Gates = melodeath.