maudlin of the well interview thread one Exposé: A thought I have about "progressive," "experimental" or avant-garde music is that the attempt to bring something new to any genre might have an effect in removing it from whatever genre it started in in the first place. It seems like MotW's music does just that with metal, it takes some of the elements and then runs with them. Not to say that you classify yourselves as any of the above, but to what extent to you see MotW as a metal band, considering how many other elements come into the music? Byron: I think that we're a "metal" band simply because there is a greater emphasis on heavier sound in several aspects. Genres are a little silly, too; by trying to classify any band, by placing them into a genre, that's how they are labeled. We really aren't a metal band by definition. Like I said, though, we do place more emphasis on creating a heavier atmosphere. A really good band, I think, should always be evolving and learning from past experiences. Oftentimes, a band will start in one direction, then meander this way and that, searching for their own sound. When this has been accomplished, they have gained the freedom to explore different realms of artistic expression; thus, they are growing creatively and spiritually. On the other side of the coin are bands like Deicide. I would have to agree with many critics in saying that they really haven't evolved that much. That's not necessarily a bad thing, however. They have chosen to recycle the same music and subject matter for many years now. Their brand of Satanism is as rigid as the Christianity they abhor; it's just as stubborn. So why change? At least they're doing what they do correctly. Toby: I think that's a good point. I read a review once that talked about how a lot of metal bands will try to take elements of other genres and use them to enhance their metal, but we are more like a band who plays with metal from the outside looking in. I kind of agree with that, and I like the idea. As time passes I'm developing an even greater desire to avoid calling us a metal band because I'm realizing how much that term focuses on the scene and the politics in the scene, in lieu of the music, and I'm not a fan of the concept of a scene. Also, our compositional style is really different, and it's constantly developing into something that would really be as unfair to metal to call us a metal band as it would be to jazz to call us a jazz band. I mean a couple of the most imperative things to making a music "metal" would be (in my opinion) palm-muted distorted guitar and riff-based songs. In our new stuff, we're doing a lot more open chords, less palm-muting, and there are virtually no riffs. It's more, just continuous like some classical music. And I would like if our music, which has elements that are only historically found in metal (like the death vocal) was called something else, so that the "death vocal" was no longer exclusive to metal. Josh: I definitely see Maudlin of the Well as a progressive band, in that we are creating music that "makes use of...new ideas, findings, or opportunities" (Merriam-Webster!). Unfortunately I don't think the label "progressive," as a genre of music, is an accurate one. MotW evolved from a metal band, and I would say that most of us come from a strong metal background. I know that I went through a phase where all I would listen to was Metallica, Slayer, etc. Half of us went to Hampshire College, which exposed us to a huge amount of new music - most notably Yusef Lateef and for myself, jazz/funk along the lines of Herbie Hancock and Parliament/ Funkadelic. Certain members of the band are actually just being introduced to the joys of metal. But to directly answer your question, no we are not a metal band. I see metal as being sort of a lowest-common-denominator for our music, since without a doubt we do include sections and even whole songs of "brutal melodic death metal<hah!>", but in the writing process we don't ever really consider what genre we're writing in. It's honestly just what sounds good to us, and it could pull from ANY style. Exposé: I think it's safe to say that genre stratification is usually a tool most useful to the consumer rather than the musician. It is sort of double-sided though, because on one hand the musician does not want to be stratified or pigeonholed in any particular genre or scene, but on the other hand, a great deal of listeners, fans or consumers often do their music purchasing based solely on the elements that draw them to a certain style of music. In fact, you mention some of these elements common to metal such as the palm-muting and riff-based songwork (the latter element also common to 70s fusion), and I could probably add double-bass drumming to the list. Coming from an angle more educated about "progressive rock" and less so about metal, I have found it interesting, that despite your distinct departure from the metal genre, listeners not so used to metal coming from an analogous viewpoint often "hang up" on the metal elements despite the fact that these elements are not all that prevalent in all of MotW's music. This may be a long way of getting to a point/question, but what I am asking is what perspective (touching on the point you made about the death vocals) does the band have on these metal elements - including the attraction to them, their particular place on MotW's music, how they might look to an outsider who has discovered your music? In fact, I remember reading that one of your vocalists felt that Maudlin of the Well made metal a genre worth listening to... Toby: A good majority of us in the band are metal fans... but it's not as simple as that, of course. For example, I think most of what is considered "metal" is complete garbage, whereas my favorite music in the world is really good metal. It's just rare to find a metal band who really has that kind of amazing compositional ability. To me, the composition or song, the emotion, those things are the important things in music, not the amazing technical ability that someone has. I love hearing sloppy punk bands bang the piss out of their instruments to get their point across. Josh - I fully agree. I'm fairly bored by most metal bands, but the metal that I DO like, I LOVE. Not much other music can make me feel the way that my favorite metal songs do. Toby: Anyway, like I was saying, for some reason death vocals, pummeling double-kick drum and chunky palm-muted riffs appeal to me, but it's the lack of good bands and the utter stupidity of the scene that turn me off to "metal". One 15-year old (not a metal fan, music snob) kid was screaming at me yesterday about how we ruined the song "Bizarre Flowers/A Violent Mist" by adding death vocals - so that's a good example of the "outsider's perspective." I think something like that is just something that you just like or don't, or grow to like, or grow to hate. I mean, I don't like the sound of alto saxophone. It's just a sound that bugs me unless used PERFECTLY (like in Pink Floyd's "Us and Them.") I think death vocals are kind of the same way - just a sound. Hopefully there'll be some people who've never heard a death vocal or blast beats or chain riffs before that hears us and finds it appealing. But you know we don't really play death metal like death metal musicians do. We play a more "My Dying Bride" style death metal, that's more noticeably divided and you can hear the notes more - it sound less "brutal", but comparatively I sometimes feel like we play death metal more like a punk band trying to play death metal than a death metal band crushing the earth. So I would hope, that if someone has never heard death metal, then hears us, they don't think that's what death metal sound like. Maria, on the other hand, had never heard much or any metal before she met me, and at the time she made that comment, had pretty much no knowledge of the genre. I think she was basing her comment on the prejudices that she had about a genre that she had only heard talked about, and I and a few others of us were pretty offended when she said that. continued > thread two