Getting it's own post.

Electric Wizard is a combination of doom, stoner and sludge metal. Ufomammut (the album that I heard anyway) is pretty much the same.

Doom metal is sometimes used as an umbrella term and then it will include stoner and sludge as well as traditional doom metal. A shitload of Sabbath worship but Blue Cheer shouldn't be understated.

I'll make a post about a certain subgenre of doom somewhere today. Might be some stuff there that you like.

There's a reason most new music sux.

http://i.imgur.com/R3TMjeX.jpg

Of course modern pop sux by far, all written by about the same seven or so writers, and dumbed down more every year. But most everything in the modern rock scene? meh.. there must be some way outta here said the joker to the thief.

This one's easy - that shitty strobing light around the 0:40 mark that rapidly pulses with every drumbeat or rhythm guitar note. If you think your music is heavy, you don't need to visibly pulse that shit into my brain. Let the music speak for itself.

I've seen something similar in other Youtube metal videos, where the video itself shakes with every rhythm guitar note, as if you're in an earthquake. I guess it's supposed to make the song seem 'heavier' but it has the opposite effect because of how artificial it is. Just let the damn music play.

Im going to have to agree with Daywolf here.

Metal and Punk can be very similar and often are. But that is because they are both based off the same thing. However, at least in the beginning, Punk took a very different path away from Hard Rock than Metal did.

Punk was born out of rebellion. The whole idea of Punk was to put emphasis on the message. To do so, the music was stripped down to its simplest elements and played loud and poorly. In fact, it was not considered Punk to even know how to play the instrument (from a traditional learned experience). The idea was to be as raw as possible so that the real star of the show were the words and not the music.

Metal took a different path. Metal is extremely meticulous in its musical production. Favoring complexity in the composition over the lyrical portion of the song. Metal is a showcase of talent. The overwhelming theme is to showoff how well the instruments can be played.

This is what separates Metal and Punk. They are very similar in that they both are heavily influenced by the Hard Rock era. But, they were influenced in a very different way. Punk is not Metal. In fact, most Punk Rockers in the early days would probably kick your ass for even thinking they sound like metal. They were very against the style of Metal because it was too practiced thus losing the heart of what Rock and Roll was about. Metal was the opposite of that. They chose to be the best musically and technically as their homage to Rock and Roll.

What you say here has its merits. Nonetheless, what separates metal from glam rock (i.e. Motley Crue, Ratt, Poison and other 80s wankery) is the lyrical content. If the song is about sex, drugs and the rock&roll lifestyle, it's not metal. I mean, other than the Immigrant Song, 95% of Led Zeppelin's lyrical content was sex & drugs. Black Sabbath had dark lyrics, and it made all the difference. Plus, nothing sounded raw like THIS back in 1970. It's hard to believe this is freaking 46 years old.

More in your personal response essay on how you experience the music was the origination my comment. It was like you auditioning for a music critic job for npr.

Both of you are correct.

Don't get my wrong. By no means do I mean the lyrics of metal songs dont have merit. But, the lyrics and how they are presented are done so musically. In Punk, the lyrics are more akin to spoken word with very little thought to the overall musical composition.

War Pigs is a great example of Metal. The guitar is presented almost like a second voice in the band. This is especially true of the solo at the end of the piece. It's almost like another verse of the song with riffs and licks instead of words. This is a common occurrence in Metal of the time.

This is not where Daywolf and I disagree. I even said that they were different in their inception.

However, it's this I'm responding to:

Metal and punk have influenced each other musically (punk obviously had a huge non musical influence on inspiring people with their DIY attitude and lack of necessary playing skills) and there are punk bands who audibly have a metal influence and vice versa. There are fusion genres. That alone says it all.

I just know music and can speak about it. From early keyboard and guitar lessons, music theory, being in a band, playing a lot of live solo, composing music, helping a band start up, friends that started bands and helping with their set-ups, running boards, been around it for decades. All this from the 70's to today.

I haven't done any performing for years, but I usually have my les paul guitar plugged in most every evening, or one of my midi keyboards plugged into my studio software and vst's. Just bought a new pedal (another multi) and a few sets of fresh pure nickle strings last month.

I even listened to punk in the 70's (and other stuff), wasn't a fan of metal when it came around. Liked some songs though. Cowpunk has prolly been my fav over the years of punk.

And I still listen to some punk, but not regular of any new bands. More classic stuff from my old cd's like social distortion, X or ramones sort of stuff. A little more style than stripped down, not as hard, but far from metal. I study that though too, can play some Metallica, some black sabbath etc. More into playing really odd stuff though now, making/programming new sounds, sort of ambient swells, other spacy stuff sort of chill like. Other stuff, drones, blues, smooth jazz, odd time signatures, cover a lot.

As far as punk style, fusion says "aint punk rock". It's just done for commercialism. Really, people into metal didn't hang with people into punk, fights broke out. A lot of new stuff today is about $$

sorry i thought we were talking about music here