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

Login with username, password and session length

Neoclassical Heavy Metal

Raise_the_Dead

Neoclassical Heavy Metal
November 04, 2007, 09:39:10 PM
I'm looking for bands and albums that sound musically similar to Romantic classical / baroque music, esp. in the heavy metal / speed metal genres.  I'm not looking for BM / DM - just older metal with a blatantly classical sound or influence, as opposed to heavy metal bands which construct every single song around the same three chords (Manowar, most Iron Maiden, etc.).

So far I've got these:

Mercyful Fate - Don't Break the Oath
Destruction - Infernal Overkill (supposedly the next few albums are even better?)
Artillery - Fear of Tomorrow
Satan - Court in the Act
Sabbat - Evoke (I think this band sucks in the end, but this does have elements of what I'm looking for.)

Suggestions?

chrstphrbnntt

Re: Neoclassical Heavy Metal
November 05, 2007, 01:08:04 AM
Haggard's Eppur si Muove. It's good in an incredibly stupid sort of way.

AttheGates1996

Re: Neoclassical Heavy Metal
November 05, 2007, 02:19:29 AM
I know this is a stupid question but I've never been 100% on the definition of "neoclassical." Anyone care to explain for me?

Re: Neoclassical Heavy Metal
November 05, 2007, 03:31:51 AM
Quote
Destruction - Infernal Overkill (supposedly the next few albums are even better?)

Definitely get Eternal Devastation by them.

Tormentor - The Seventh Day of Doom & Anno Domini

Re: Neoclassical Heavy Metal
November 05, 2007, 04:44:58 AM
Quote
I know this is a stupid question but I've never been 100% on the definition of "neoclassical." Anyone care to explain for me?


Well if you take the actual definition of neoclassical it means composers of the modern era who write classical music that is extremely similar to that written in the classical period. But this site has used its own meaning for the word. On this site it means any artist that display some musical or idealogical similarities to classical music (and this is regardless of the period of classical music).

Re: Neoclassical Heavy Metal
November 05, 2007, 10:15:13 AM
The original poster is using "Neoclassical" in the sense of Yngwie Malmsteen, which is obvious in his description.  No need to get bogged down in wars of terminology.

Septicemia

Re: Neoclassical Heavy Metal
November 05, 2007, 05:38:26 PM
Quote

Well if you take the actual definition of neoclassical it means composers of the modern era who write classical music that is extremely similar to that written in the classical period. But this site has used its own meaning for the word. On this site it means any artist that display some musical or idealogical similarities to classical music (and this is regardless of the period of classical music).


The term NEOCLASSICAL refers to any art form, not just music (be it concert/classical music or otherwise) that  strives to replicate or work in the spirit of classical ideals. It should also be noted that neoclassicism doesn't necessarily have tonal or structural connotations.

ANUS's construal of the term is by no means contrived, though I'm certain self-proclaimed neoclassicist composers would raise their eyebrows at hearing Autechre or Lord Wind counted among their flock.

And to the original poster: the band that comes closest to what I believe you have in mind is Texas' Rigor Mortis.

Re: Neoclassical Heavy Metal
November 05, 2007, 08:12:22 PM
Quote
And to the original poster: the band that comes closest to what I believe you have in mind is Texas' Rigor Mortis.


I have a self-titled album by this band, sounds like early Slayer to me.

Re: Neoclassical Heavy Metal
November 05, 2007, 08:30:30 PM
Slayer's Show No Mercy

Re: Neoclassical Heavy Metal
November 05, 2007, 09:45:18 PM
I admit I certainly had trouble with this site's use of the word neoclassical when I first came here.  It seemed like they were just applying the word to any music that they liked that wasn't rock music.  The site looked like it was divided between metal and anything that is not metal.

Re: Neoclassical Heavy Metal
November 06, 2007, 02:18:01 AM
Quote

The term NEOCLASSICAL refers to any art form, not just music (be it concert/classical music or otherwise) that  strives to replicate or work in the spirit of classical ideals. It should also be noted that neoclassicism doesn't necessarily have tonal or structural connotations.

ANUS's construal of the term is by no means contrived, though I'm certain self-proclaimed neoclassicist composers would raise their eyebrows at hearing Autechre or Lord Wind counted among their flock.

And to the original poster: the band that comes closest to what I believe you have in mind is Texas' Rigor Mortis.


While it is true the term neoclassical can apply to any art form, when it relates to music it means modern composers who take to the conventions of the classical period (and to a lesser extent that of the baroque). A similarity in musical conventions naturally brings one closer to the ideals expressed in these times. It should also be noted that imitating Beethoven is not neoclassical despite the fact he was a classical period composers. The term is usually meant to describe the early style of the classical period like Mozart and Hayden.

As such the Anus definition of the word is a slight adaptation from the original. Since Anus extends this to all kinds of classical music rather then just the early classical period and treats idealogical similarities to be neoclassical even if no real musical link is evident.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoclassicism_%28music%29
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861682939/neoclassical.html

However as kontinual said no need to be get in to war over slight technicalities.

Looking at the list the first poster made I have myself asking, why is Iron Maiden excluded from that list when Mercyful Fate are freely permitted on?

Septicemia

Re: Neoclassical Heavy Metal
November 06, 2007, 12:57:07 PM
Quote

While it is true the term neoclassical can apply to any art form, when it relates to music it means modern composers who take to the conventions of the classical period (and to a lesser extent that of the baroque). A similarity in musical conventions naturally brings one closer to the ideals expressed in these times. It should also be noted that imitating Beethoven is not neoclassical despite the fact he was a classical period composers. The term is usually meant to describe the early style of the classical period like Mozart and HAYDN.

As such the Anus definition of the word is a slight adaptation from the original. Since Anus extends this to all kinds of classical music rather then just the early classical period and treats idealogical similarities to be neoclassical even if no real musical link is evident.  


For the most part I agree with you, I just think the "ANUS uses its own definition" argument is lame, and generally used by the untermensch that come in here and  try to take a cheap and uneducated stab at the site.

My one/main point, that probably was unclear in my first post, was that neoclassicism (as interpreting concert music) is a thoroughly vague term and can hardly be applied with nearly as much precision as can even classicism or Romanticism. Most of the neoclassical composers cited by that wikipedia article do not strictly (if at all) adhere to the classical forms/structures and do not write using the triadic interpretation of tonality, which was probably the largest artistic bit of that era (and indeed the Romantic era as well, though that began to fade come the wacky exploits of Wagner and Liszt).

The fact that such a vague grouping of composers can "lay claim" to neoclassicism, considering their music as classified is only neoclassical in that it was something of a reaction to the exploration that was happening around the early 20th century seems ridiculous. Probably a more accurate way of seeing their writing is as the spiritual vestiges of classicism that stood out because of what composers like Ligeti and Schoenberg were doing/had done to classical music.

However some of those "neoclassical" composers are quite good, despite writing 20th century music. I highly recommend listening to Prokofiev or Scriabin, who actually did (later in his life) write non-triadic music strictly in the classical form; weird that they wouldn't consider him a neoclassicist (yet they included BERNSTEIN?!)
_______________________

On Rigor Mortis:
Quote
I have a self-titled album by this band, sounds like early Slayer to me.


Yeah, in hindsight it does (mostly Show No Mercy though). I don't really listen to Slayer frequently and I guess I never made that connection.

Their EP(?) "Freaks" was actually the work of theirs that I was recommending. Most of the soloing is in that Malmsteen-esque neoclassical (minus the "shred"), and the songs are relatively long and cleverly assembled.

Other releases that come to mind:
Dark Angel's "Darkness Descends" and Helstar's "Nosferatu". "Nosferatu" even has an instrumental track with a harpsichord interlude to boot.

Raise_the_Dead

Re: Neoclassical Heavy Metal
November 06, 2007, 05:03:36 PM
Thanks for your suggestions everyone...  For some reason I totally forgot "Nosferatu" in my original post - but I will definitely have to look into Tormentor and Rigor Mortis.

Quote
Looking at the list the first poster made I have myself asking, why is Iron Maiden excluded from that list when Mercyful Fate are freely permitted on?


A couple of reasons:

1.) Mercyful Fate is closer to what I'm looking for.  
2.) I find that MF's music leans more toward classical than IM's, especially the solos, which are some of the best in the older style of heavy metal.
3.) I've been listening to metal long enough that I don't need people saying "Check out Iron Maiden!" in this thread  8)