maudlin of the well interview thread two Toby: 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. Exposé: 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. Sam: I think this is a central point. There is some history and precedent of metal bands moving towards lighter, more "commercially/mainstream acceptable" elements - Atheist comes to mind, Opeth maybe, The Gathering, a couple of others I'm not putting my finger on right now. But, you don't see so many bands coming from the opposite direction. I guess what I'm saying is that metal fans (or even hardcore punk fans) who are accustomed to things like death vocals, heavy palm-muting, double-bass, etc., have an easier time appreciating non-metal music that incorporates those elements than someone who is not exposed to metal. It's a really tough crossover to make, I think. To someone who hasn't heard Morbid Angel or Cannibal Corpse, the idea of someone growling into a microphone is usually just funny, or at least bizarre. I know it's a catching point for a number of my friends, who say "I really like it, but I'm not into that guy snarling all the time..." I can think of at least one review from a progressive music webzine where the reviewer's primary complaint was with the death vocals. In answer to the larger question, love it or hate it, metal is a scene. It's a matter of what record labels get their releases where, who people talk to about the music, the shows fans go to, and the shows that bands get set up with. It's not like we could send out a press kit and expect to be booked on a show opening for Portishead, you know what I mean? I don't mean to make motW sound like tragic victims of pigeonholing, because I can't honestly say that we've made any great attempts to break the mold in terms of what shows we play and how we promote ourselves, but we're a part of the scene at least for the time being. So, yes, we are a metal band by association, if not by music. And I don't think we'll be the ones to break that up. But hey, who knows? Exposé: This interplay among fans, critics, and musicians in the metal scene seems to have an analog in the progressive rock scene. When the term "progressive" was applied to rock in the late 60s/early 70s, it was often used in a similar way to the definition Josh quoted earlier, while nowadays it is often an indicator of a certain symphonic rock style formulated by Yes, Genesis, Emerson, Lake and Palmer etc. So there is this high level of cognitive dissonance in meaning that seems similar to the intent of artists in the metal scene, where on one hand you have the example given by Byron regarding Deicide, a group determined to continue to occupy the same style they always have, and on the other hand those determined to push the boundaries forward, whatever they might be. With metal, it seems, there is also a third sort of definition, where "progressive" or "technical" metal, if you will, is the indicator given to bands like Dream Theater, Fates Warning, or Symphony X. In this area, instrumental sophistication and complex song-styling seems to be the concentration, but MotW does not seem to fall comfortably in this area at all. What are your thoughts on complexity, instrumental prowess, and compositional sophistication, and MotW's obvious departure from "progressive" metal as occupied by the technical groups? Greg: I think I will be getting made fun of by the rest of the band, but I really love progressive rock bands like Rush and Genesis, and as far as "progressive metal" goes I really do love Dream Theater. I believe that these groups were, in fact, "progressive" for their time. I mean I am not the best technical player, but for me music is based on emotion and passion, and I find passion and I find emotion in the music, even in Dream Theater. I never saw them just as a band who plays really crazy stuff. Of course, that's what they are known for, but I mean they do what they do because they love doing it. Basically, for me to love a band there has to be some emotional, spiritual connection, no exceptions, and, to me, bands like Rush and Dream Theater have a soul and they have a spirit and I have felt it, so I can listen to them and love them. It's the clones of said bands who are soulless and ruin it. I can't stand most tech metal but I still love Dream Theater. Maybe you can make fun of their wanky singer, but passion and emotion in music comes through for me in all forms, whether as slickly performed as Dream Theater or even in the sloppy raw stuff which Sam mentioned. If the passion is there and the emotion is there who cares if the song is sloppy or tech, it all matters on what you get out of it and how the music makes you react. Terran: This seems to bring up the old question of emotion and complicatedness (some people consider complexity to be a different thing), which I think is often grossly oversimplified. Music is inherently emotional, and the greatest music instills emotion in the listener. But to do that requires not only emotion but also a certain degree of skill. I'm generally not a fan of tech bands, but I'm really not into punk at all either. Sloppiness doesn't bother me in certain situations, but I really don't find it endearing the way a lot of other people do. If someone just started playing guitar six months ago, it won't bother me to hear them play really simple riffs and get into it. We all start off not knowing anything, and I've certainly never claimed to be any virtuoso. But if they've been playing for five years and still sound like they just picked it up six months ago, I don't care how "emotional" they look on stage, I'm not impressed. Not everyone goes the direction of playing concertos. Some people work more at mastering meter (for example), being able to internalize a metronomically steady beat and play not only on it, but subtly in front of it or behind it, depending on the piece they're playing and the effect they want to achieve. I'm not claiming that classical technique is the only kind. But whatever style you're into, if you're really emotional about it you're going to work at it, and if you work at it you're going to develop some type of skill. And while I do agree that it is possible to focus so much on certain aspects of technique that the emotional content is neglected, I think it's just as common for people to use that argument as an excuse not to put the effort into expanding their own skills, both in performance and composition ("If I write anything that's not in 4/4 it won't groove"). In my book playing (or writing) sloppy pentatonic scales is neither the only nor the most effective way of being "emotional" (which is one of the reasons I like playing in this band). Sam: Well, my view on instrumentally progressive groups like Dream Theater, Fates Warning, and others in non-metal categories (drummers like Dave Weckl come to mind) is pretty negative. That segment of music feels, to me, like "music for musicians" which is something I've never been very interested in. That stuff certainly has its place, and can do quite a bit to further the expectations and boundaries for technical accomplishment, but I don't like the idea of a closed circle of artists making things for each other. I'm sure there are quite a few Dream Theater fans who don't play music themselves, but it sure seems like their fan base gets off on 21/32 time signatures way more than the average population would. On the other hand, this brings up the whole question of avant-garde music as well, a great deal of which will only be appreciated by musicians for the potential changes in standardized structures and whatnot that it brings along. Of course this stuff is very important, it advances many aspects of the art by informing the later work of other musicians. It's never been something I've really wanted to make, though. I've always wanted to produce some type of effect in a more general audience. I don't know if I can speak for the whole band, but there you go. The thing for me about Dave Weckl or Dream Theater is that the music has no effect on me. If the complex structures and tricky lines in their music worked toward the end of producing some sort of reaction in me I would appreciate it. As it is, I only hear odd time signatures and 64th notes. To me, it's got no soul. I'm vastly more interested in, as Toby put it, "sloppy punk bands bang the piss out of their instruments to get their point across." I think it is absolutely beautiful to see a group of people practically learning their instruments on stage, but still getting the feeling dead on. I think it speaks to the magical, mysterious nature of music itself that people who not only break, but *ignore* the standards of music can produce just as affecting music and someone who has spent half their life in a rehearsal studio. That being said, it's still really fun to nail a fill in 7/8. Toby: I'll keep my answer short on this one for fear of it turning into a long rant. I have the tendency to act really possessively about music, like for example, my initial reaction would be to say "Bands like Dream Theater and Spiral Architect have the wrong idea about music," although I know that there's no "right" or "wrong" ideas about music. It can be fun, political, religious, commercial, avant-garde, whatever. There are a lot of different kinds under this umbrella word, "music." I think it's OK to want to make music for a dish soap commercial, and it's OK to make music for the sole purpose of sparking new ideas on how to create sound. This of course doesn't mean that I still don't get pissed off about some stuff in music. My logical point of view tells me that bands like Dream Theater are OK to do what they want, but my heart tells me they have the wrong idea about music. I think if you're making music to impress people, then you're an asshole. It's conceited, egotistical, and selfish, three personality traits which the world seems to consider negative. Music is powerful in its every honest aspect, and when the power is serving the purpose of making someone into a star, it seems kind of corrupt. Basically, I see technical prowess as important, because as a musician, you want to be able to express yourself. If you want to write something beyond your ability, it's either important for you to practice it until you can play it, or it's not. It's up to the musician to decide to what extent they want to be able to express themselves. Using this as a basis, it seems that the more virtuosic you are on your instrument or as a composer, the freer you are to express yourself accurately. And again, in the case of a punk guitarist for example, he might not care to express himself beyond three loud, fast power chords. Unfortunately, some instrumentalists have focused SO MUCH on the skill, that they never learned anything else about music, like emotion or metaphysics-- so they believe they're really accomplished when they're really just very isolated. Terran: I think making really good music is always a balancing act. You want your performance to be impressive, but not so flashy as to be distracting, and you want your songs to be simple enough to avoid pretentiousness, but complex enough to provide interest. I also am convinced that different aspects of music resonate more with different people, and you can see this both in people's tastes and in their ambitions. Some people really love to hear a great musician play, and don't care as much about what piece they're playing, and others love certain compositions, and will happily overlook a flawed performance to hear their favorite piece. It comes as no surprise to me that Greg, who I'd say is the most accomplished instrumentalist in the band, enjoys listening to "tech" bands like Dream Theater, while Toby, who writes all the music, can't stand listening to great performers if he doesn't like the song. continued > thread three