[Aman]

Just a quick observation...

This one aspect of the music industry has always baffled me. Could anybody explain to me the reason behind the trend of classical musicians making the transition to metal? I notice that quite often metal bands make significant classical-style hybrids. A lot of metal musicians are former violinists/cellists/etc. Some of these are virtuoso string instrumentalists who decided classical wasn't right for them, but what all of these people have in common is that they eventually make the transition to metal instead of another genre.

What is it about metal which is so appealing to classical musicians specifically? Normally we see that musicians "upgrade" to classical music, as seen in popular musicians like Elvis Costello, Roger Waters, and Paul McCartney (even though all of these musicians release extremely questionable "classical" pieces). However, I find it interesting that a lot of musicians that start off on classical eventually end up in metal. As much as I really enjoy the metal in my collection, I fail to see any musical or cultural connection between these two genres. This has always confused me greatly.

I hope at the very least some here can relate? Am I just completely nuts and seeing things that aren't there? Or can somebody perhaps offer a hypothesis?

 

[roadtonowhere08]

I think metal and classical go together perfectly. It really adds to metal. When done right, it really is moving. I emphasize that it has to be done right and properly integrated, otherwise it is a silly gimmick. If I had to guess why the musicians trended toward metal, I would say that metal can incorporate their classical talents much more effectively than most other genres. Perhaps they just wanted to rock? I dunno, but it would be interesting to see their music collections.

 

[asmox]

I don't claim to know the motivations of any particular musician, but metal's sonic landscape is obviously very broad and inviting to those who wish to experiment and meld various styles and cultures into a single musical entity while retaining instrumental virtuosity.

The great thing about metal is that it isn't a strictly defined style so much as it is a feel. How else could you take bands like Death, Sunn O))), Virgin Black, Behold... the Arctopus, Peccatum, and Stolen Babies and collectively call them "metal"? They have very little in common outside of overdriven guitars. How many ridiculous sub-sub-subgenres of metal are there? Metal bands, past and present, have mixed the traditional metal framework with so many different musical styles and cultures far beyond their own that the term "metal" has become extremely nebulous.

That's where the connection is, IMO. In the musical boundaries that constrain metal - or lack thereof.

What classical musicians are you referring to, by the way?

 

[mbhaub]

Personally, I can't see why others do it. So-called "classical" music has a totally different aesthetic value. One favors beauty, balance, proportion, harmony. The other seems to value loudness, vulgarity, coarseness, ugliness. Classical demands high technical skills and years of training to master an instrument. Metal seems to require only the basic skills, a loud amplifier, and the ability to shout rather than sing. Can you tell I loathe metal?
So why the transition? For many musicians, they play to make a living. And let's face it, there's more money in other arenas than classical in today's American "culture". I know many players who take gigs playing country western. A trained violinist can outplay most fiddlers any day. Some do it because they find it fun. This is especially true of drummers. In music written too much before 1900, percussionists don't have a lot to do in symphony concerts, so rock/pop/jazz/metal/country provide an outlet.
Personally, I could never do it. I value my hearing too much to play in any group that requires electonic amplification to be heard. And I have never figured out how any can really enjoy metal. It is so ugly and barbaric. Why not bring some beauty into the world?

 

[roadtonowhere08]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbhaub /img/forum/go_quote.gif Personally, I can't see why others do it. So-called "classical" music has a totally different aesthetic value. One favors beauty, balance, proportion, harmony. The other seems to value loudness, vulgarity, coarseness, ugliness. Classical demands high technical skills and years of training to master an instrument. Metal seems to require only the basic skills, a loud amplifier, and the ability to shout rather than sing. Can you tell I loathe metal? So why the transition? For many musicians, they play to make a living. And let's face it, there's more money in other arenas than classical in today's American "culture". I know many players who take gigs playing country western. A trained violinist can outplay most fiddlers any day. Some do it because they find it fun. This is especially true of drummers. In music written too much before 1900, percussionists don't have a lot to do in symphony concerts, so rock/pop/jazz/metal/country provide an outlet. Personally, I could never do it. I value my hearing too much to play in any group that requires electonic amplification to be heard. And I have never figured out how any can really enjoy metal. It is so ugly and barbaric. Why not bring some beauty into the world?

You are listening to the wrong metal then...

I could say that all classical is boring and for old rich people, but them I would be making a generalization...

 

[robm321]

I wasn't aware of this trend. Are you sure it is a trend or just "seemingly"?

My guess is usually like with jazz most musicians start classically trained and then as they get older want to do the more "fun and free" less disciplined stuff. I would say of the popular styles (is metal still popular?), metal would let them use their virtuosity much more than pop, country, hip hop, or alternative rock.

Just guessing though.

On guitar I started with rock/metal and got into classical and jazz because I started to get bored and wanted to expand to something (don't hate me... deeper/more complex). I own and enjoy some metal modern and old (high school nostalgia), and would say Vivaldi (especially the 4 seasons) and Beethoven... maybe even Brahms is not so far from having elements of metal in their music

 

[asmox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbhaub /img/forum/go_quote.gif Personally, I can't see why others do it. So-called "classical" music has a totally different aesthetic value. One favors beauty, balance, proportion, harmony. The other seems to value loudness, vulgarity, coarseness, ugliness. Classical demands high technical skills and years of training to master an instrument. Metal seems to require only the basic skills, a loud amplifier, and the ability to shout rather than sing. Can you tell I loathe metal?

I can tell that you likely have minimal understanding of - and minimal exposure to - metal (and likely no desire to develop one or the other). Those things considered, I'm not surprised that you loathe it.

Metal can be incredibly simple, and it can be wildly complex from instrumental and compositional standpoints. It can be ugly, and it can be beautiful. It can be loud, and it can be tranquil. It can be dark and brooding, or uplifting and celestial. The statement quoted above is a gross, unfair, and completely uninformed generalization of a very broad genre of music.

 

[skellington]

Much classical music is discordant, loud and violent. Infact I would say much moreso than the average musical genre.
I think there is a degree of mutual respect between some classical and metal musicians because of the high level of technical ability needed to play this music, but I wouldn't say it was a general trend.

 

[titaniumx3]

I think both forms of music share the same love for instrumental virtuosity and experimentation, independent of popular styles and common musical dogma. If anything, metal is like an evolved form of classical which itself has always been restrained to some degree.

 

[Assorted]

Quote:

Originally Posted by titaniumx3 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think both forms of music share the same love for instrumental virtuosity and experimentation, independent of popular styles and common musical dogma. If anything, metal is like an evolved form of classical which itself has always been restrained to some degree.

Exactly. That's why Mozart would've been the most popular metal musician if he was alive today.

 

[skellington]

Unrelated perhaps, but I think classical is heavier than metal at times because it cannot rely on distortion, just on timing, volume and harmonics.

 

[Thelonious Monk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbhaub /img/forum/go_quote.gif Personally, I can't see why others do it. So-called "classical" music has a totally different aesthetic value. One favors beauty, balance, proportion, harmony. The other seems to value loudness, vulgarity, coarseness, ugliness. Classical demands high technical skills and years of training to master an instrument. Metal seems to require only the basic skills, a loud amplifier, and the ability to shout rather than sing. Can you tell I loathe metal?

gotta agree with what asmox said, that's a pretty big generalization. sissy.

 

[MetalManCPA]

I need names. I honestly don't know of any metal artists who once actually played in a classical environment professionally. I bet many of the metal artists growing up were taught classical, though.

I also feel metal and classical blend quite well. For instance, I am now listening to Dimmu Borgir's United in Unhallowed Grace off of the Spiritual Black Dimensions album. Quite a classical background/flair to the song.

 

[Assorted]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbhaub /img/forum/go_quote.gif Personally, I can't see why others do it. So-called "classical" music has a totally different aesthetic value. One favors beauty, balance, proportion, harmony. The other seems to value loudness, vulgarity, coarseness, ugliness. Classical demands high technical skills and years of training to master an instrument. Metal seems to require only the basic skills, a loud amplifier, and the ability to shout rather than sing. Can you tell I loathe metal? So why the transition? For many musicians, they play to make a living. And let's face it, there's more money in other arenas than classical in today's American "culture". I know many players who take gigs playing country western. A trained violinist can outplay most fiddlers any day. Some do it because they find it fun. This is especially true of drummers. In music written too much before 1900, percussionists don't have a lot to do in symphony concerts, so rock/pop/jazz/metal/country provide an outlet. Personally, I could never do it. I value my hearing too much to play in any group that requires electonic amplification to be heard. And I have never figured out how any can really enjoy metal. It is so ugly and barbaric. Why not bring some beauty into the world?

Are you sure that's what metal is about? I find more soul in some metal artists than some, even professional, classical musicians. Both are very talented.

I agree with country fiddlers being inferior to violinists in the technical realm, but there are alot of violinists who started classical and switched to fiddling.

Besides, amplification is what some people prefers. The radio sometimes talks about how the electric guitar is more exciting than orchestra (which I whole-heartily disagree).

 

[Assorted]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MetalManCPA /img/forum/go_quote.gif I need names. I honestly don't know of any metal artists who once actually played in a classical environment professionally. I bet many of the metal artists growing up were taught classical, though.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the majority of the popular culture musicians have some degree in musical education.