What, exactly, makes the difference between a band that has growls, and one that is death metal? For example, Epica isn't classed as death metal, though there is growling throughout. Is this due to the lyrical content and/or other factors? If so, what are they?

We can't simply give the name "death metal" because growls are in it, right? I mean, isn't there at least one pop album out there that might have at least some type of growl on it? Probably.

You can't tell based on vocals only; the riffing is different, the drumming is different,.. the whole composition style is different. You can easily tell the differences in the songs if you listen to some Obituary and then Epica.
Epica may have a bit of death metal influences from time to time, but their music definitely doesn't revolve around it.

Written by Night Theater on 18.11.2012 at 15:24


We can't simply give the name "death metal" because growls are in it, right?

This shouldn't be the case, but it is. See: virtually every modern tech-death album.

There's also the differences between deathcore, metalcore, death metal and melodic death metal. All 4 of those genres have bands that employ growls but they are not the same in composition. And some of them overlap a little, like Whitechapel is a deathcore band but they have their moments where they are playing death metal. Bloodshot Dawn is a melodic death band but they have moments where they are playing straight death metal.

Written by Guest on 18.11.2012 at 18:09

Written by Night Theater on 18.11.2012 at 15:24


We can't simply give the name "death metal" because growls are in it, right?

This shouldn't be the case, but it is. See: virtually every modern tech-death album.

Could you elaborate, please?

I know death metal is different instrumentally to other metal genres - and, including within it; for example, there is deathcore, death 'n' roll, blackened death, grindcore, etc. I am more getting at something like, say, themes. Would you still class something as death metal if it (ignoring instruments for a second - and, in another case, including them, but are both the same) had growls, but had a lighter, more vibrant theme, and lyrics?

Sorry for the double post.

Written by Night Theater on 19.11.2012 at 05:40

I know death metal is different instrumentally to other metal genres - and, including within it; for example, there is deathcore, death 'n' roll, blackened death, grindcore, etc. I am more getting at something like, say, themes. Would you still class something as death metal if it (ignoring instruments for a second - and, in another case, including them, but are both the same) had growls, but had a lighter, more vibrant theme, and lyrics?

Sorry for the double post.

Essentially what you're asking, as far as I can gather, is can death metal have a thematic focus which isn't about death, or the themes usually used within the genre, and still be called death metal. I'm not sure whether I can answer it but I will say that when a band sets out to play death metal they usually subscribe to a general kind of theme and implement their own individual take on that theme. The thematic element seems to me to be an essential component of what makes death metal what it is.
Within death metal this general theme seems to be more constrictive as well in comparison to other genres. Personally I think progressive metal represents the widest selection of themes as it isn't exactly as focused as say death metal is in that way.

But that's probably treating things too simplistically, I mean despite how specific your definition of death metal is it would still be pretty broad thematically speaking. And it's not as if other sub genres don't use similar themes as that of death metal.

Augury is a good exemple of Death Metal not using typical Death Metal Themes.

Written by R'Vannith on 19.11.2012 at 18:46

Written by Night Theater on 19.11.2012 at 05:40

I know death metal is different instrumentally to other metal genres - and, including within it; for example, there is deathcore, death 'n' roll, blackened death, grindcore, etc. I am more getting at something like, say, themes. Would you still class something as death metal if it (ignoring instruments for a second - and, in another case, including them, but are both the same) had growls, but had a lighter, more vibrant theme, and lyrics?

Sorry for the double post.

Essentially what you're asking, as far as I can gather, is can death metal have a thematic focus which isn't about death, or the themes usually used within the genre, and still be called death metal. I'm not sure whether I can answer it but I will say that when a band sets out to play death metal they usually subscribe to a general kind of theme and implement their own individual take on that theme. The thematic element seems to me to be an essential component of what makes death metal what it is.
Within death metal this general theme seems to be more constrictive as well in comparison to other genres. Personally I think progressive metal represents the widest selection of themes as it isn't exactly as focused as say death metal is in that way.

But that's probably treating things too simplistically, I mean despite how specific your definition of death metal is it would still be pretty broad thematically speaking. And it's not as if other sub genres don't use similar themes as that of death metal.

Thanks for replying.

Close, but you're assuming the case of the initial metal already being death metal, and proposing the question if it can still be called death metal. The answer to that is, well, yes. However, what I am saying/asking is that can that piece of metal (anything not considered death metal) that has similarities to death metal, be called death metal, or, if not, why not? Again, as I posted before, you need to consider my question of ignoring (in one case), and including all characteristics (in another case).

Essentially, besides instrumental characteristics, why does a band that implements growls not be considered death metal? Is this due to lyrical/thematic content and/or other factors? Or, is it the case that the only thing that separates death metal from non death metal (metal that uses growls, though), the instrumental characteristics? If so for the latter, why is there such a thing as "death 'n' roll? Since such a genre exists (considering it doesn't have traditional death metal instrumental characteristics - unless it's blended with other sub-genres), why would we not label other bands that aren't considered death metal (though employs growls), non death metal? If this happens - and, it does - then it must come down to lyrical/thematic and/or other reasons. Am I right?

Cheers.

It's certainly a matter of musical style and structure. I don't see lyrics and theme factoring into it. At least I can't think of any borderline case that would be resolved by such considerations.

Death metal sounds like death metal. It has a family resemblance to previous death metal acts. Some styles that aren't all that close to previous death metal have also received the label. That's all there is to it.

Written by IronAngel on 21.11.2012 at 09:31

It's certainly a matter of musical style and structure. I don't see lyrics and theme factoring into it. At least I can't think of any borderline case that would be resolved by such considerations.

Death metal sounds like death metal. It has a family resemblance to previous death metal acts. Some styles that aren't all that close to previous death metal have also received the label. That's all there is to it.

So, lyrics about cuddling pink, fluffy bunnies would still be death metal?

"Death metal sounds like death metal." Yeah, but your statement is a bit circular. I understand that it would, naturally, sound similar, somewhat, to what came before it, but you'll have to expand, please.

Lastly, I wouldn't say "[t]hat's all there is to it," as there is more to explain... I'm even talking more about it now.

Written by Night Theater on 21.11.2012 at 11:16

So, lyrics about cuddling pink, fluffy bunnies would still be death metal?

"Death metal sounds like death metal." Yeah, but your statement is a bit circular. I understand that it would, naturally, sound similar, somewhat, to what came before it, but you'll have to expand, please.

Yes, I see no reason you couldn't write death metal about bunnies. I'm sure something equivalent already exists.

It's not a circular definition if you read it like this: for a new band A to be labelled death metal, it must bear enough resemblance to previous bands B, C, D, ... to who are already labelled death metal. And that's what being part of a genre really means, isn't it? There's no definition, no necessary and sufficient conditions, just an organic history of development and loose family resemblance. It also means you probably couldn't understand death metal by taking only the earliest example and a modern, quite different one. You'd have to see the big picture. And you also need to remember the borders are fluid and constantly negotiated: what might not have been considered death metal ten years ago might be unproblematic today, and vice versa. Whether something is doomy death or death doom, or grindcore or death metal, is pretty arbitrary.

I'm not a death metal expert, and even if I was I probably couldn't give you a definition. I imagine there are technical terms you could use to describe typical traits, but that wouldn't be conclusive and I certainly don't know them. All I can tell you, like I said in the recent "what is metal" topic, is to listen. Listen to bands that are death metal, then listen to bands that aren't death metal, and you'll get a pretty good "feel" for what it sounds like.

If you don't know where to start, you can always type "death metal" into the genre field and see what comes up (not to say RYM is infallible; some of the first examples like Death and Opeth are really unrepresentative):
http://rateyourmusic.com/customchart

Written by Night Theater on 21.11.2012 at 07:05

Thanks for replying.

Close, but you're assuming the case of the initial metal already being death metal, and proposing the question if it can still be called death metal. The answer to that is, well, yes. However, what I am saying/asking is that can that piece of metal (anything not considered death metal) that has similarities to death metal, be called death metal, or, if not, why not? Again, as I posted before, you need to consider my question of ignoring (in one case), and including all characteristics (in another case).

Essentially, besides instrumental characteristics, why does a band that implements growls not be considered death metal? Is this due to lyrical/thematic content and/or other factors? Or, is it the case that the only thing that separates death metal from non death metal (metal that uses growls, though), the instrumental characteristics? If so for the latter, why is there such a thing as "death 'n' roll? Since such a genre exists (considering it doesn't have traditional death metal instrumental characteristics - unless it's blended with other sub-genres), why would we not label other bands that aren't considered death metal (though employs growls), non death metal? If this happens - and, it does - then it must come down to lyrical/thematic and/or other reasons. Am I right?

Cheers.

Ah, I see, so you're asking what exactly is it that restricts bands such as Epica who use growls from being classed as death metal. First of all I'm sure that many death metal fans will gladly let you know that there is a world of difference in the style of the growl itself. I don't think I can clarify if such a difference actually exists but lets assume for a moment there isn't a considerable difference.

Beside the instrumental characteristics I would say lyrical/thematic content makes a significant contribution in terms of distinguishing what is death metal and what is not. As Iron says there it depends upon precedent and a consensus that the bit of metal that you are looking at is classed as death metal. The instrumental characteristics are what define any genre but theme is also relevant. For instance:

"I see no reason you couldn't write death metal about bunnies" Now I think that it's clear to everyone that that is not usually what death metal has as a theme. Obviously though its a fairly specific and outlandish example. I think you can point to certain things and safely say what theme is and what theme isn't something that would fit well with death metal compositions. Just as we form an idea of what death metal sounds like we also form an idea of a generic standard of thematic content.

Iron uses a very useful adjective "organic". Music certainly isn't rigid, it is after all an art form, something which requires, and is essentially composed of, loose boundaries to enable creative processes. This relates to theme just as much as the music itself, death metal doesn't "require" a particular theme. But it does associate itself with a general theme via consensus, that is we all have some general idea of what death metal should sound like and what theme it should have.

However the thematic content is not set in stone and far less so than the instrumental characteristics.

Written by R'Vannith on 21.11.2012 at 13:18

Written by Night Theater on 21.11.2012 at 07:05

Thanks for replying.

Close, but you're assuming the case of the initial metal already being death metal, and proposing the question if it can still be called death metal. The answer to that is, well, yes. However, what I am saying/asking is that can that piece of metal (anything not considered death metal) that has similarities to death metal, be called death metal, or, if not, why not? Again, as I posted before, you need to consider my question of ignoring (in one case), and including all characteristics (in another case).

Essentially, besides instrumental characteristics, why does a band that implements growls not be considered death metal? Is this due to lyrical/thematic content and/or other factors? Or, is it the case that the only thing that separates death metal from non death metal (metal that uses growls, though), the instrumental characteristics? If so for the latter, why is there such a thing as "death 'n' roll? Since such a genre exists (considering it doesn't have traditional death metal instrumental characteristics - unless it's blended with other sub-genres), why would we not label other bands that aren't considered death metal (though employs growls), non death metal? If this happens - and, it does - then it must come down to lyrical/thematic and/or other reasons. Am I right?

Cheers.

Ah, I see, so you're asking what exactly is it that restricts bands such as Epica who use growls from being classed as death metal. First of all I'm sure that many death metal fans will gladly let you know that there is a world of difference in the style of the growl itself. I don't think I can clarify if such a difference actually exists but lets assume for a moment there isn't a considerable difference.

Beside the instrumental characteristics I would say lyrical/thematic content makes a significant contribution in terms of distinguishing what is death metal and what is not. As Iron says there it depends upon precedent and a consensus that the bit of metal that you are looking at is classed as death metal. The instrumental characteristics are what define any genre but theme is also relevant. For instance:

"I see no reason you couldn't write death metal about bunnies" Now I think that it's clear to everyone that that is not usually what death metal has as a theme. Obviously though its a fairly specific and outlandish example. I think you can point to certain things and safely say what theme is and what theme isn't something that would fit well with death metal compositions. Just as we form an idea of what death metal sounds like we also form an idea of a generic standard of thematic content.

Iron uses a very useful adjective "organic". Music certainly isn't rigid, it is after all an art form, something which requires, and is essentially composed of, loose boundaries to enable creative processes. This relates to theme just as much as the music itself, death metal doesn't "require" a particular theme. But it does associate itself with a general theme via consensus, that is we all have some general idea of what death metal should sound like and what theme it should have.

However the thematic content is not set in stone and far less so than the instrumental characteristics.

Yes, thank you, great post, and I agree with pretty much all you said. So, you would say a band, such as Epica, isn't considered death metal at all? At least by those who know a lot about death metal? Just clearing up some points. Cheers.

Written by Night Theater on 21.11.2012 at 13:45

So, you would say a band, such as Epica, isn't considered death metal at all? At least by those who know a lot about death metal? Just clearing up some points. Cheers.

No worries. Someone more familiar with death metal than me would likely be more than eager to point that out for you! I don't think it requires a lot of knowledge, just a general understanding of what death sounds like and what they are going to put into their lyrics/image/theme etc.

I'm still not convinced about lyric and theme being relevant, though. Maybe it's just that I've never paid any attention to lyrics myself, and I can still (on a general level, at least) tell genres apart. It's generally only in rap that lyrics are central to substyle classification. Then of course there are qualifiers like "Outlaw Country" or "National Socialistic Black Metal" but they're still country and black metal. (Some purists would say black metal must have certain ideological and lyrical content and that Christian or "white" metal isn't black metal, but I utterly disagree.)

I'm not sure if death metal has any particular lyrical and iconographic theme that sets it apart from the rest of metal. (Anti-)Religion, occultism, violence, death, gore, history, mythology, fantasy and literature, pseudo-philosophy, politics, sci-fi, I imagine it's all there. And whales, of course. Big, flying whales. With such a wide spectrum, I don't know if you could pinpoint even the "typical" or "average" death metal theme. Certainly not one that would set it apart from other styles of metal.

Epica aren't death metal because, well, they don't really sound like death metal. They fit pretty nicely under the "symphonic metal" catch-all. They're not particularly heavy. However, don't get too confused about it: I personally would admit that they have sections which wouldn't be out-of-place on a death metal record. If they built their music around those parts, I imagine they would be known as a death metal band. But then again, a country song could have a chord progression or guitar solo that could fit into folk metal. It's the whole that, naturally, is the decisive level. And many of the growled vocal parts in Epica's music are still in line with the symphonic style rather than adopting new kinds of riffs or something. Take the 3:30 mark of Chasing the Dragon, for example; it's still that same plodding rhythm that doesn't remind you of Morbid Angel at all.

You might also be confused by the "melodic death metal" label. The truth is, most of what's called melodeath (originals and followers of the Gothenburg scene, most typically) aren't actually death metal at all. At this point I think it's fair to call it its own genre, and often it has connections to thrash metal or melodic black metal (and power metal, perhaps) as much as to death metal. I'm talking about bands like mid-late In Flames. And of course Children of Bodom, who are closer to power metal than anything else.

If you want to get an idea of what the death metal blueprint might be, I suggest you check out albums like Morbid Angel - Altars of Madness, Bolt Thrower - The IVth Crusade, Autopsy - Mental Funeral and Atheist - Unquestionable Presence for some classics. And something early from Death, I guess. I prefer their later work which isn't really representative of death metal, though. Personally I like more modern, unorthodox approaches like Gojira and Akercocke, though.

Written by IronAngel on 21.11.2012 at 17:19

I'm still not convinced about lyric and theme being relevant, though.

That is totally irrelevant for death metal, thrash metal, doom metal etc. etc., indeed

Couldn't agree more, imo the lyrical themes are absolutely irrelevant. They could be "singing" about pretty butterflies and noone would give a damn.

and btw imo the "Diff between growled non-death metal and actual death metal " is basically the music...the name of the topic answers itself. Every vocal style can be implemented to any music style....but the music determines in which genre it'll be put, not the vocals...or that might just be me cuz in over 90% of the music i listen to i completely ignore the vocals and most of the time don't even bother reading the lyrics, but just listen to the music

No, the vocals are certainly one genre-typical trait. They're more important for some genres than others. They certainly don't alone decide the genre, but they're part of the "music" as much as the guitar or whatever.

It's just that "growled vocals" or "harsh vocals" in general are very common across different metal genres, and won't alone give you a very good indication of what the band's playing. But it would be arbitrary and ludicrous to claim they're not a relevant musical element like any other.

Written by IronAngel on 21.11.2012 at 17:19

I'm still not convinced about lyric and theme being relevant, though. Maybe it's just that I've never paid any attention to lyrics myself, and I can still (on a general level, at least) tell genres apart. It's generally only in rap that lyrics are central to substyle classification. Then of course there are qualifiers like "Outlaw Country" or "National Socialistic Black Metal" but they're still country and black metal. (Some purists would say black metal must have certain ideological and lyrical content and that Christian or "white" metal isn't black metal, but I utterly disagree.)

I'm not sure if death metal has any particular lyrical and iconographic theme that sets it apart from the rest of metal. (Anti-)Religion, occultism, violence, death, gore, history, mythology, fantasy and literature, pseudo-philosophy, politics, sci-fi, I imagine it's all there. And whales, of course. Big, flying whales. With such a wide spectrum, I don't know if you could pinpoint even the "typical" or "average" death metal theme. Certainly not one that would set it apart from other styles of metal.

Epica aren't death metal because, well, they don't really sound like death metal. They fit pretty nicely under the "symphonic metal" catch-all. They're not particularly heavy. However, don't get too confused about it: I personally would admit that they have sections which wouldn't be out-of-place on a death metal record. If they built their music around those parts, I imagine they would be known as a death metal band. But then again, a country song could have a chord progression or guitar solo that could fit into folk metal. It's the whole that, naturally, is the decisive level. And many of the growled vocal parts in Epica's music are still in line with the symphonic style rather than adopting new kinds of riffs or something. Take the 3:30 mark of Chasing the Dragon, for example; it's still that same plodding rhythm that doesn't remind you of Morbid Angel at all.

You might also be confused by the "melodic death metal" label. The truth is, most of what's called melodeath (originals and followers of the Gothenburg scene, most typically) aren't actually death metal at all. At this point I think it's fair to call it its own genre, and often it has connections to thrash metal or melodic black metal (and power metal, perhaps) as much as to death metal. I'm talking about bands like mid-late In Flames. And of course Children of Bodom, who are closer to power metal than anything else.

If you want to get an idea of what the death metal blueprint might be, I suggest you check out albums like Morbid Angel - Altars of Madness, Bolt Thrower - The IVth Crusade, Autopsy - Mental Funeral and Atheist - Unquestionable Presence for some classics. And something early from Death, I guess. I prefer their later work which isn't really representative of death metal, though. Personally I like more modern, unorthodox approaches like Gojira and Akercocke, though.

Interesting comments. Thanks for the posts.

So, for you, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Yes, I think I would agree with you there.

Written by Malphas on 21.11.2012 at 19:12

They could be "singing" about pretty butterflies and noone would give a damn.

You say they could sing about pretty butterflies. Do they? Is it plausible to assume that they do or would? I don't think so, unless it is to be completely unorthodox and oppositional to what other potential themes could be used.

I'll admit here that the potential for possible theme is far more difficult to pin down than I made out, as you point out here Iron:

"I'm not sure if death metal has any particular lyrical and iconographic theme that sets it apart from the rest of metal. (Anti-)Religion, occultism, violence, death, gore, history, mythology, fantasy and literature, pseudo-philosophy, politics, sci-fi, I imagine it's all there. And whales, of course. Big, flying whales. With such a wide spectrum, I don't know if you could pinpoint even the "typical" or "average" death metal theme. Certainly not one that would set it apart from other styles of metal."

I'll also add that the idea I have of this "standard of thematic content" is pretty vague, to be honest. I base it somewhat on the name of the sub genre itself "death" metal. That to me implies that the theme is likely to have something directly or remotely to do with death.

But you have a fair point as well Marcel. This sort of generic theme idea would probably have to hold up in relation to other genres as well (Power, Thrash, Doom etc)

Tell me though, if I ask you "Hey guys, listen to this death metal album", will you not have some assumptions as to what the lyrical/thematic content is going to be? The way I see it is that the theme isn't integral or something which defines death metal. It IS, however, characteristic of it or something representative of it.

You can slap any theme you like on death metal potentially. But this potentiality varies depending upon what you expect to have associated with the death metal music itself. On the more unlikely side you have fluffy bunnies or pretty butterflies. I'm sure if someone told you that: "This death metal album is brutal! The bunnies man, they're fuckin' fluffy" I think most would at least think you are bit irregular/drunk/high etc.

On the other hand, on the more likely side, what is a typical theme for death metal? That's more difficult to answer than I initially thought. I think it's safe to say though that when you think of death metal you have some sort of preconceived image of what the albums theme is going be about. This also depends to a considerable extent upon personal ideas rather than appealing to any objective standard of what a death metal theme is and should be.

You got a point there but i think it's worth a mention that (at least I perosnally) have never heard anyone say anything like "hey dude, check out the lyrics of this new cannibal corpse song, it's so beautiful, it's like Johann Wolfgang von Goethe wrote it"...i would even go as far to say that most death metal lyrics are plain stupid, just trying to be "brutal" to fulfill the cliche of what death metal lyrics should be...that is why i'm saying that a lot of people don't pay much attention to the lyrics themselves (even though the growling vocal style fits the music very well, it doesn't always have to be a review of the "saw" movies) as bands like augury and mithras or even death's lyrics on the last few albums (although you could say that those last few albums weren't typical death metal...but still) are doing pretty good with very different lyrical themes....that's why i sarcastically implied that they could even sing about fluffy bunnies of pretty butterflies and noone would notice->death metal lyrical themes have become so generic, dull, repetitive and boring that people don't even bother reading them anymore