Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Use of female vocals in Metal (gimmicks aside)

Women in metal are useless. They just weren't there. They are mostly vocalists and bassists (hardly important or decisive in shaping song) and it reflects their clueless, vanity and lack of creative thought. Onielar however could be taken as a exception because she is guitarist/vocalist and from what I've heard she writes band's material. Some of it are of good quality. It is inspired, from what can be heard by Immortal and early Behemoth. She's also not excessive, and rather modest about appearance. She's not like those "divas" without any credibility for metal listener. However, her vocal isn't carrier of some exceptional atmosphere. I can recommend those:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMjbUKK0ANA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuJJTqMS5-E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XK8A8T2VPQI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQ98MTAytkE

Women in metal are useless. They just weren't there. They are mostly vocalists and bassists (hardly important or decisive in shaping song) and it reflects their clueless, vanity and lack of creative thought. Onielar however could be taken as a exception because she is guitarist/vocalist and from what I've heard she writes band's material. Some of it are of good quality. It is inspired, from what can be heard by Immortal and early Behemoth. She's also not excessive, and rather modest about appearance. She's not like those "divas" without any credibility for metal listener. However, her vocal isn't carrier of some exceptional atmosphere. I can recommend those:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMjbUKK0ANA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuJJTqMS5-E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XK8A8T2VPQI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQ98MTAytkE

It is not the right topic to discuss about "utility" of women in metal. However Onielar is a crazy genius. Read the lyrics, listen to albums...


Women in metal are useless. They just weren't there. They are mostly vocalists and bassists (hardly important or decisive in shaping song) and it reflects their clueless, vanity and lack of creative thought.
I've never heard any beautiful music composed by a woman, Mythic comes close but they do not compare with the best of the genre. It might be a good idea to open a potentially interesting thread discussing the ability (or lack there of) of women to compose music. I do not believe all women are clueless or lack creative thought, or even non-artistic. They just seem to be better at disciplines such as literature rather than composing music. I personally, don't know why and would like to discover why this is.

lucifugum, tymah, and darkened nocturne slaughtercult (already mentioned) come to mind as examples of bands that successfully employ female vocals.  the gradual inclusion and acceptance of women metalists is hardly new, and is rapidly losing it's position as something unusual enough to remark upon. 


If metal is the music of warriors, women have at least 45,000 years of evolution going against them: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/12/061207-sex-humans.html


If metal is the music of warriors, women have at least 45,000 years of evolution going against them: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/12/061207-sex-humans.html
I probably don't need to point this out to anyone but this article reads as if the way men and woman perform their roles in society is only a "social construct" and not based in biological difference in the sexes. I'm just wondering why you linked that biased nonsense. There seems to be some sort of fetish around here for linking to shitty "science" articles.

The social-construct BS is padded on. The raw information presented via the article suggests that these differences likely ARE biological - which is the whole reason behind the "scientists wish to point out, however, that this does not mean bla bla bla" without further explanation as to why not.

The social-construct BS is padded on. The raw information presented via the article suggests that these differences likely ARE biological - which is the whole reason behind the "scientists wish to point out, however, that this does not mean bla bla bla" without further explanation as to why not.

Isn't modern science so nifty?