/ost/ - Music, Composing

I'm more of a Silvertone LB11 kind of guy, myself.

>>1458
You should see /dunk/

>>1451
For me it's Lemmy

>>1761
Lemmy makes bass autists seethe with his chunky, mid-ranged wall of sound because people would rather listen to him and his unorthodox style than some "proper" bassist who could technically play circles around him.

the Zack Wild bass riff on No More Tears is still king.

>>1773
Lemmy understood what most bass dorks don't: a bass guitar is still a guitar.

>>1777
>Lemmy understood what most bass dorks don't: a bass guitar is still a guitar.
A lot of guitar dorks aspire to be virtuosos then wind up doing nothing of note with the style.

>>1778
why is Grug on the right too?

>>1777
They're stuck on the idea that bass should either be about meekly playing root notes in the background of a song or feverish, self-indulgent onanism.

>>1780
To be fair, I prefer the former (root notes). At least it serves a musical purpose unlike the onanism.

>>1781
I would disagree. To point to a few examples, Geddy Lee and John Entwistle are more listenable than a boring root-note progression. Also in many cases, it doesn't serve a musical function. In genres such as metal, the bass is non-existent in many cases. There are even bands that do without the bass entirely with much success.

>>1829
The lack of bass in metal is to the genre's detriment. Black metal is the only style where you could really get rid of it entirely and still have it work, since it's all about the trebly guitars and cold atmosphere.

>>1830
Metal has never been a musical genre to start with, more akin to jazz but for edgy white people

>>1829
Those aren't wankers, they understand that you can give bass some complexity without crossing the bridge of pointless self-indulgence. I was saying I'll take root note droning over wank, but the ideal for me is a rich yet purposeful bassline. And yes, root note droning serves a purpose. You remove it and what you're left with almost always feels like it's missing something, it sounds thin. Unless you do things like baritone guitars or keyboards.

>>1830
you also have grindcore bands like Pig Destroyer, Wormrot, Magrudergrind, and Phobia that do without bass and sound just as full as bands with bass. also alotta one-man slam/porngrind projects do without bass as well yet still sound very bass-y.
>>1831
nice try trannypol.
>>1833
i guess "wanking" is up to interpretation. to some, anything more complex than a Nikki Sixx bassline is "wanking." also considering 80-90% of bass players are just failed guitarists, i don't think the few examples of bass wanking is that bad in comparison. root note progressions work for lighter, upper range styles of music but for some extreme metal bands, all they really need to do is crank the bass EQ up on the guitar amp. most modern metal is mixed in a way that only the sub-200 range of the bass (if that even) is remotely audible. you might as well just remove the bass and leave the bass frequencies in the guitar at that point.

>>1834
>nice try trannypol.
<Can't take a fucking joke
I'd say wanking for guitar in general has gone so over the top that Rings of Saturn and Instagram zoomer guitarists pushed Van Halen or Steve Vais playing into intermediate category.

>>1835
>sez lame racebaited joke
>*crickets*
<"h-huh huh y-you guys cant take a j-joke"
I think the shit quality in that kind of music has more to do with the fact that they're playing shitty music than their technical proficiency. for example, suicide silence, whitechapel, i declare war, oceano, etc. aren't wankers yet they're just as bad if not worse than rings of saturn. i do agree that wanking has gone "over-the-top" but i don't see that as a bad thing. buckethead is as over-the-top wanking as it gets yet i find alotta his music to be very enjoyable, because his music is actually interesting and unique unlike technical glam metal i.e. steve vai or guitar pro deathcore i.e. rings of saturn.

>>1836
>unlike technical glam metal i.e. steve vai
But Vai is cool.
The ultimate in guitar self-indulgence is stuff like djent or Dragonforce where the solos are some carefully crafted studio product that can't be done live.

>>1866
A lot of it is just metal guitarists being university-tier midwits and coming up with either the corny ice cream truck melodies to look "mature" or focus on technique to the point that it resembles a guitar lesson in album format more than anything

>>1866
Vai has some decent stuff here and there but most of it is pretty boring and what I'd call "technical glam metal," not necessarily because he's a guitar wank extraordinaire but his spin on 80's metal is uninteresting most of the time. At least Michelangelo Batio is so tasteless and unabashedly the absolute worst aspects of guitar virtuoso that he's at the very least amusing and entertaining whereas Vai doesn't have that sort of charm. I enjoy a bit of Dragonforce and I love Meshuggah so I guess we just got different tastes. Even though the former can't play their shit live, their studio work is decent. Not great but somewhat enjoyable.
>>1867
I would have to disagree. For every metal guitarist virtuoso, there are 100-1000 generic black/death/thrash metal guitarist that play the most banal, trite, and unnecessary music. I emphasize unnecessary since there are already 100,000's of black, death, and thrash metal bands from the 90's alone to listen to instead. Thus it doesn't come as a shock when the majority of people nowadays only listen to black, death, and thrash metal bands from decades ago. Why listen to the 10 local black metal bands in your area when you already listened to the creme de la creme of first, second, and third wave black metal? Guitarists are not making new and innovative music in general and the only exception is the weedley-weedley wankers; that's why they get dogpiled on the most because they stick out like a sore thumb among the sea of irrelevant mediocrity. Now I'm not a fan of the guitar wank music of today, not because of it's sheer technicality but because it's not relatable to me. I don't like shit like Chon-I didn't like emo music before it got insanely technical. I don't particularly care for stuff like Rings of Saturn because deathcore was crap when it was just 0-0-0-000-0; upping the musicianship and making songs about star wars doesn't really hide the fact that they're still playing deathcore. With all that said, that's really the only new, innovating thing going on right now in guitar music and it's really just a small pocket of people jumping this niche train. I believe all the lackluster Walmart-brand versions of Slayer, Cannibal Corpse, and Darkthrone are more conducive in the fall of guitar-orientated music because they're bringing absolutely nothing to the table. At least there's a small audience of wankers that would gladly wank each other off, what the hell do all these shitty local death and thrash metal bands bring to the table?

>>1872
Vai's early solo work actually had quite a bit of personality and restraint. Embed related is mostly just the same two riffs over and over but it's done in a fun way.

>>1889
I really like Tender Surrender and For the Love of God.

>>1872
I think I'd rather listen to the old boomer death/thrash bands from 30 years ago and punk music than listen to some midwit cope on an electric guitar because he isn't good enough to be a classical musician. the metal and punk guys aren't subtle about not being serious musicians and just doing things for the pure sake of it, and while that doesn't scream high society I still enjoy those more than hearing some wanker on his guitar rip off classical melodies with none of what makes either classical or metal what they are separately.

>>1872
> I believe all the lackluster Walmart-brand versions of Slayer, Cannibal Corpse, and Darkthrone are more conducive in the fall of guitar-orientated music because they're bringing absolutely nothing to the table.
I'd gladly take Transilvanian Hunger knockoffs over the lifeless garbage that passes for quality metal nowadays.
>>1910
At some point metalheads started becoming insecure and trying to push the idea that metal and classical music were related genres.

>>1935
>>1935
>At some point metalheads started becoming insecure and trying to push the idea that metal and classical music were related genres.
Prozak had a big part in that with his pothead schizo rants tying romanticist music to metal, and that meme took off and made metalheads even more inflated and retarded than before.

>>1937
Isn't Prozak Brett Stevens' pseudonym? I can't remember this stuff anymore but used to read ANUS back in the day even though the music reviews were pretentious as hell. It was still one of my gateways to wrongthink.

I recall Metal: A Headbanger's Journey featuring a talking head making the claim that if Beethoven were alive today that he'd probably be in Deep Purple.

>>1938
Yeah he's still around as stepfather of the alt right, trying to shill his hairbrained anarchoprimitive monarchy based off esoteric darwinism.
Prozak shits on Xysma for their rock albums so fuck him lmao

>>1910
>I think I'd rather listen to the old boomer death/thrash bands from 30 years ago and punk music than listen to some midwit cope on an electric guitar because he isn't good enough to be a classical musician.
Precisely my point. Why listen to bands nowadays that simply rip-off bands from 30 years ago when there's an endless supply of those kinds of bands even from 30 years ago? From my anecdotal experience, most metalheads subconsciously hold this same opinion in that they primarily listen to a plethora of bands from 30 years ago and ignore the new bands that are simply ripping off the bands of yore. These new bands are so unremarkable and uninteresting that metalheads think modern guitar virtuosos are not only new and popular in comparison. In reality, none of these modern guitar virtuosos have the impact of the Beatles or Guns N Roses or any other popular rock band but metalheads complain about them as if they do or have similar reach.
>>1935
>I'd gladly take Transilvanian Hunger knockoffs over the lifeless garbage that passes for quality metal nowadays.
Well guess what? They're there. There's probably a few even in your local scene matter of fact so you can see them live. But like I said, these knockoffs aren't getting any attention because why should they when the bands they're ripping off are still touring? Like I said, the only reason why guitar virtuosos today are getting any attention is because they're the only somewhat innovative thing going on.

>>1944
To add a little bit more to my point, the idea of what metal was in that day didn't survive the 90s, but the aesthetics and musical pretenses did and those have been horribly bastardized. Now, the only people left that aren't boomers living off of their relative fame are either hipsters looking for the next grift, normalfags mistaking it for pop music or young hopefuls thinking they can revive the genre with their 3rd rate Entombed tribute band.

>>1939
I know he's posting his articles on Affirmative Right, but a lot of his political content reads like word salad to me.

I never got the way these people try to act like metal is its own entity divorced from rock. Is it because they're nerds who don't feel comfortable with the hard-partying, good-time image of more mainstream rock styles? For all their strident rhetoric about seeing reality for what it is, they aren't even willing to see a style of music for what it is.
>>1944
>There's probably a few even in your local scene matter of fact so you can see them live.
I don't even think there are any black metal bands in my area.
>But like I said, these knockoffs aren't getting any attention because why should they when the bands they're ripping off are still touring?
I don't see why they shouldn't provided the older bands either gave up their old sounds or the newer bands can do just as good of a job as the older bands in their prime, although I'm sure most of the imitators fall short of mark.

Regardless, I stopped paying attention to the metal scene a long time ago, and even in the late 2000s I was listening primarily to older bands. Even the newer bands I was listening to then I haven't really felt the need to revisit at all.
>>1946
>the idea of what metal was in that day didn't survive the 90s, but the aesthetics and musical pretenses did and those have been horribly bastardized.
That's 100% true.

>>1948
> Is it because they're nerds who don't feel comfortable with the hard-partying, good-time image of more mainstream rock styles? For all their strident rhetoric about seeing reality for what it is, they aren't even willing to see a style of music for what it is.

Because most metalfags are self loathing and insecure. You could say that nu-metal or grunge was responsible for that, but every time metal was brought up in music stores, boomers would mention nerdy metalheads who liked Megadeth.

Metal in general just copes with not being seen as a serious art form, but the admittance of that also brings in really shitty, middle of the road reddit bands like Behemoth, CoF, Nightwish. basically whatever metal cuckchanners were into in 2009.

>>1948
>I never got the way these people try to act like metal is its own entity divorced from rock. Is it because they're nerds who don't feel comfortable with the hard-partying, good-time image of more mainstream rock styles? For all their strident rhetoric about seeing reality for what it is, they aren't even willing to see a style of music for what it is.
Because it is. It strayed off. Even the harder, purer forms of rock (thinking about the Rolling Stones here) don't sound much like metal. Let alone the poppy "rock" that came after. Punk can admittedly get closer to metal in its rawness.

>>1948
Metal is as much of a genre as it is a mindset, and genres change with the generations. Metal keeps a lot of its aesthetics from the 80s along with some of the 2000s dudebro tribal tat shit, but largely gets ripped on for not adapting aesthetically in that regard. The only problem with this I see is adapting to millennial/zoomer tastes makes it shittier and plagued with bisexual sexpest attitudes.

>>1948
>but every time metal was brought up in music stores, boomers would mention nerdy metalheads who liked Megadeth.
That was me in high school.
>>1966
>Because it is. It strayed off. Even the harder, purer forms of rock (thinking about the Rolling Stones here) don't sound much like metal.
The Rolling Stones don't sound much at all like modern metal, but they sound way closer to the pre-NWOBHM bands that they directly inspired.
>Punk can admittedly get closer to metal in its rawness.
That's because metal bands started borrowing from punk once it caught on. Without punk, metal in the form we know it today wouldn't exist. A lot of it can be traced back to the influence of Motorhead, and Lemmy commented that Motorhead would have been labeled as punk if they'd had short hair.