Sign in to follow this  
Culturekoi

Rock/metal bands with female lead vocalists- recommendations?

Recommended Posts

Your opinion on the matter died there. Also, not all metal is just screaming, then again After reading your post I have to wonder what you do consider music? Are you one of those kids constantly extolling the virtues of all things asian to his friends? COnstantly yammering on and on about J-pop? Do you listen to the recycled and often low talent american pop? Rap? or are you one of those people who insists that only music written by the old masters of the classical age to be music? Are you that guy who only listens to techno? Your obviously not the kid who worships avenged sevenfold and does nothing but talk about how they(or anyother similar band) are better then everything...

The good kind.

No.

No.

No.

No. Rap sucks in my eyes.

Yes.

No.

That's correct, I'm not that kid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Check out some of these bands and then come back and tell me it's all just noise:

Sepia Dreamer

Scale the Summit

Alcest

Agalloch

Be'lakor

Orphaned Land

Slumber

Estatic Fear

Daylight Dies

Of course there are countless more bands (Opeth, Insomnium, Garden of Shadows, Hanging Garden, Ne Obliviscaris, plus a million more) from a variety of different genres of metal who's music could not be described by any rational person as simply noise, and these are (mostly) bands who have harsh death/black vocalists as the only/primary form of vocals. Throw in genres with plenty of clear vocals (like power and symphonic metal, both of which have already been mentioned a billion times) and you'll quickly find that metal is full of stuff that goes well beyond the angry, brutal, blood-and-guts, kill everyone while giving praise to Satan stuff that most people think of when they think of metal.

Of course, none of this means that you have to like it, but it does mean that you'll look foolish to those who know better when you disregard an entire, highly-diversified genre of music as simply non-musical noise.

------------------------------

And now on a more revelent to this thread note, good find with Otep Codycrusader. I had heard of the band before, but I have never actually heard anything by them, and I didn't know they had a female vocalist either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's a really metal'd out band called OTEP, not sure if that's how you spell it, but that lady got some good vocals goin around in her throat
<--- that's one of her songs

This is awesome, thank you. This one will go straight to my MP3. :P (and possibly into my CD-collection if I can get a hold of it and their other songs are as cool as this too)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The symphonic label is far too broad with no real good definition as a subgenre - there's no credibility to labeling a band just that, because the symphonic label does not give any definition to the style of music, which genre definitions are supposed to do.

I never really thought too hard about it, but this makes sense to me. Thinking about all of the different bands with symphonic elements, I notice that there is a lot of diversity between them. For instance, Estatic Fear, Skyfire (Mind Revolution in particular) and Nightwish have a lot of notable differences between them, yet all of them have enough symphonic elements to warrant the "symphonic metal" label.

However, none of those bands are strait up "symphonic metal," as they are all part something else as well (doom, black, goth, power, what have you) and I can't really think of any band that is entirely "symphonic metal" and not "symphonic power metal" or "symphonic doom metal" or what have you. I think that "symphonic" is better off being a term that indicates a bands usage of symphonic elements to go along with whatever genre of metal they are playing, rather than being a genre in and of itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is awesome, thank you. This one will go straight to my MP3. :P (and possibly into my CD-collection if I can get a hold of it and their other songs are as cool as this too)

You're welcome man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is awesome, thank you. This one will go straight to my MP3. :P (and possibly into my CD-collection if I can get a hold of it and their other songs are as cool as this too)

You're welcome bro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aninymouse, thanks for introducing me to The Birthday Massacre. I'm a little upset with myself for not having heard of them before now, especially since I live near their original hometown.:oops:

Anyways, continue with whatever the hell you guys are discussing now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I never really thought too hard about it, but this makes sense to me. Thinking about all of the different bands with symphonic elements, I notice that there is a lot of diversity between them. For instance, Estatic Fear, Skyfire (Mind Revolution in particular) and Nightwish have a lot of notable differences between them, yet all of them have enough symphonic elements to warrant the "symphonic metal" label.

However, none of those bands are strait up "symphonic metal," as they are all part something else as well (doom, black, goth, power, what have you) and I can't really think of any band that is entirely "symphonic metal" and not "symphonic power metal" or "symphonic doom metal" or what have you. I think that "symphonic" is better off being a term that indicates a bands usage of symphonic elements to go along with whatever genre of metal they are playing, rather than being a genre in and of itself.

that's an element of using symphonic metal as a subgenre distinction, but there are a few bands that I'd classify as Symphonic Metal and not Gothic Metal. Within Temptation, namely. While I'm loathe to quote wikipedia, I actually believe the information is fairly accurate. And is there an authority that classifies musical genres? Doubtful.

A softer genre known as symphonic metal had evolved in the mid- to late- 1990s from gothic metal bearing strong similarities to its predecessor, with bands led by female singers including Within Temptation, Nightwish, and Epica. During this time the divide between gothic metal and the new-born symphonic metal became apparent; symphonic metal maintained a lighter approach, with more operatic and classical themes that often showed power metal influence, while gothic metal incorporated more aggressive elements of death metal and black metal directly into the music.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
that's an element of using symphonic metal as a subgenre distinction, but there are a few bands that I'd classify as Symphonic Metal and not Gothic Metal. Within Temptation, namely. While I'm loathe to quote wikipedia, I actually believe the information is fairly accurate. And is there an authority that classifies musical genres? Doubtful.

As I said, Wikipedia is one of the worst offenders in genre definitions - they often get classifications flat out wrong, and sometimes they don't even define them at all, which is inexcusable. As far as metal subgenres is concerned, Metal Archives almost always gets it right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess a lot of this depends on how we determine whether or not a newly added element (such as an additional instrument) changes a song enough to warrant it being placed in its own distinct genre/sub-genre.

How many new elements must be added, and/or to what degree must those new element(s) be integrated with the music in order for the music to be classified as it's own distinct genre/sub-genre? Unfortunately, trying to tell when the change(s) is (are) enough in number and/or degree to warrant the creation of a new, distinct genre/sub-genre is kind of like trying to determine when a heap of sand can no longer be considered a heap.

I guess you could try to remove the element(s) in question and ask if what remains is all that different, at it's core, from the music in which it finds it's origins. For example, remove the symphonic elements of Within Temptation and ask if whats left can be easily classified within the same genre as the other bands/music that their work is ultimately based off of.

If so, this would be a good sign that the creation of a new sub-genre is probably unnecessary and unwarranted, as the symphonic elements are merely ad-hoc additions to an already existent genre. However, if we remove their symphonic elements and find out that the remaining music is structurally discernible from the music it originates from, this would be a good sign that these elements have been integrated into their music to such a degree that it has altered one or more of the basic, defining aspects of their metaphorical "parents" in a meaningful way, and thus it probably deserves to be placed in it's own distinct category.

This, however, begs the question of whether or not the elements in question even need to alter the core defining aspects of it's parents in order to be given it's own distinct classification. However, if we assume that the ad-hoc addition of one or more elements to an already predefined genre is enough in and of itself to warrant the creation of a new, distinct sub-genre, then we really haven't gotten anywhere, as new questions such as "How many ad-hoc additions are needed?" and "What property(-ies) must these additional elements possess in order for the creation of a new sub-genre to be warranted?" inevitably arise, which just makes things more confusing.

As what constitutes a "meaningful alteration" to the music in question is ultimately unknown to me, in part due to my overall lack of knowledge of music theory, as well as my lack of knowledge of some of the "defining aspects" of Within Temptation's musical parents, it's hard for me to really determine if they and their peers deserve their own sub-genre, which means that I should probably stay out of this discussion (if this long ass post hasn't ended the conversation already :nicework:).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess a lot of this depends on how we determine whether or not a newly added element (such as an additional instrument) changes a song enough to warrant it being placed in its own distinct genre/sub-genre.

How many new elements must be added, and/or to what degree must those new element(s) be integrated with the music in order for the music to be classified as it's own distinct genre/sub-genre? Unfortunately, trying to tell when the change(s) is (are) enough in number and/or degree to warrant the creation of a new, distinct genre/sub-genre is kind of like trying to determine when a heap of sand can no longer be considered a heap.

I guess you could try to remove the element(s) in question and ask if what remains is all that different, at it's core, from the music in which it finds it's origins. For example, remove the symphonic elements of Within Temptation and ask if whats left can be easily classified within the same genre as the other bands/music that their work is ultimately based off of.

If so, this would be a good sign that the creation of a new sub-genre is probably unnecessary and unwarranted, as the symphonic elements are merely ad-hoc additions to an already existent genre. However, if we remove their symphonic elements and find out that the remaining music is structurally discernible from the music it originates from, this would be a good sign that these elements have been integrated into their music to such a degree that it has altered one or more of the basic, defining aspects of their metaphorical "parents" in a meaningful way, and thus it probably deserves to be placed in it's own distinct category.

This, however, begs the question of whether or not the elements in question even need to alter the core defining aspects of it's parents in order to be given it's own distinct classification. However, if we assume that the ad-hoc addition of one or more elements to an already predefined genre is enough in and of itself to warrant the creation of a new, distinct sub-genre, then we really haven't gotten anywhere, as new questions such as "How many ad-hoc additions are needed?" and "What property(-ies) must these additional elements possess in order for the creation of a new sub-genre to be warranted?" inevitably arise, which just makes things more confusing.

As what constitutes a "meaningful alteration" to the music in question is ultimately unknown to me, in part due to my overall lack of knowledge of music theory, as well as my lack of knowledge of some of the "defining aspects" of Within Temptation's musical parents, it's hard for me to really determine if they and their peers deserve their own sub-genre, which means that I should probably stay out of this discussion (if this long ass post hasn't ended the conversation already :nicework:).

IMO, if you can remove the element or instrument and still have something that sounds like a listenable song, then that element or instrument wasn't truly part of the song in the first place and was just slapped on to give the same genre slightly different feel. After all, is Metallica a symphonic metal band because an orchestra backed them in S&M? On the other hand, if, upon removing an element or instrument, you are left with something that can no longer rightly be called a song at all, that element was an integral part of the music and helped to define what it was.

Example: Symphony X. While some of their songs are flat out power metal, in many songs the guitar and keys are written in such a fashion that they add to the orchestral parts more than the other way around. If you were to remove the orchestral instruments from the songs you would wind up with something somewhat bizzare sounding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IMO, if you can remove the element or instrument and still have something that sounds like a listenable song, then that element or instrument wasn't truly part of the song in the first place and was just slapped on to give the same genre slightly different feel. After all, is Metallica a symphonic metal band because an orchestra backed them in S&M? On the other hand, if, upon removing an element or instrument, you are left with something that can no longer rightly be called a song at all, that element was an integral part of the music and helped to define what it was.

Example: Symphony X. While some of their songs are flat out power metal, in many songs the guitar and keys are written in such a fashion that they add to the orchestral parts more than the other way around. If you were to remove the orchestral instruments from the songs you would wind up with something somewhat bizzare sounding.

That's an interesting take on it. I think SotSS nailed it when he said that it depends on what constitutes a song to be considered a different genre. I found myself thinking about Dimmu Borgir when pondering this topic. They've got tons of orchestral parts in their songs sometimes but they aren't referred to as Symphonic, but Black Metal (right?). But I don't see why we would argue that something being symphonic doesn't make it another sub-genre. Since the word genre is just a fancy word for classification. Simply adding "Symphonic" to something or completely changing the genre are both just acts of classifying. So we might as well just consider Black Metal and Symphonic Black Metal as two different things.

Of course, there's always the degree of orchestra used in the song to consider. GOD I hate dealing with genres. hahaha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I already mentioned Go!Go!7188 earlier... but I'll do it again because I just found this song I hadn't heard before, and it's totally awesome.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=dgkJg2XHPqg&feature=related

Way to keep it on topic. hahaha. I personally don't get much out of GO!GO!7188 but I DID happen to notice their signature hanging on a wall in an izakaya when I lived in Okinawa. I felt cool. haaha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this