It happens on occasion. I don't listen to too many "soft" bands... the whole indie explosion that's been picking up steam (what a stupid expression) over the past 5 or 6 years (thanks in large part to Arcade Fire and Sufjan Stevens) hasn't really ever grabbed a hold of me, but it's had its moments. Primarily, as can be seen on this blog, heavy music is what appeals to me, but even then, at times it becomes too much. I'm desperately seeking more bands with a wide palette.
I feel like I've found a few, and I'm sure people could recommend me more, but here's who I've found so far that really appeal to me:
... guess that's about it... haha! I dunno really. I think of many more bands that appeal to me but when I really think about it, their music just offers me some sort of solace or peace, but it doesn't mean they are by any means "soft" at any point. MOTA and Opeth both, in my opinion, seem to attempt a balance of the two. MOTA really only does it on their album Quietly, while Opeth has always tried to mix the two styles on every album, but it sometimes just comes across as a little hokey. Y'know... the intro is all acoustic plodding then goes into death metal rage, or one song is soft, the next is hard. I enjoy MOTA more for their slow builds and softer passages, but even then it's pretty much all amplified and dissonant and reverb heavy.
I dunno... sometimes I feel like bands of both these genres are not really pushing the boundaries that well. Why isn't Sufjan, with all his apparent amazing arrangement skills, adding more loud aspects? I would think bands on both sides of the divide have heard a live orchestra before, playing some piece by any famed composer from Bach and Mozart to Wagner and Strauss. Don't they both see how the soft and the heavy can work so well together?
In heavy music I hear the force and volume, in softer music I hear the complexity and arrangement. In both I can hear a symphony. In a lot of the metal I listen to I sometimes fool myself into thinking it all sounds bigger than it is. And not because of any cheesy synths being played like strings or horns, but because the way things are layered or how the sheer volume or speed change the sound of the instruments into something completely different. Ha... but then yet, when heavy bands play with orchestras they usually takes jabs from critics and fans alike for doing something out of their league or something to that affect.
I see more often than not that a lot of softer indie bands try to incorporate a lot of different instrumentation... from different stringed instruments to woodwinds to custom percussion... whatever really can add some value I suppose. Not as many heavy bands do that. A few do, but usually it's European or Scandinavian bands who want to honour some sort of national tradition in their music, and then it's again, just like Opeth, an intro or segue way for the most part.
Are peoples ears just not ready for a band that can do both? Why can't Mercury Rev and Mayhem combine sounds? Why can't a song start with total peaceful bliss and end up in total devastation and bleakness? Or vice versa? And does all heaviness have to be bleak? Does all softness have to be blissful?
Funny to note... I feel like classical music lovers, people who would have an appreciation of the musics subtleties and nuances, highs and lows, would probably not be able to appreciate either indie music or heavy music probably finding both to be immature or not accomplished enough or something. I'm sure there are fans out there, but it's just a general feeling I have. And that's unfortunate since modern composers like Glass, Reich and Branca, and classic composers such as Wagner, Strauss and Bartok, definitely have an influence on a good handful of artists in both of these categories.
If anyone is a true music fan... is it really hard to aspire to be as great or better than your influences? As an artist, isn't it more liberating to not be classified? I read that Peter Gabriel hates when people tell him he can do whatever he wants. He doesn't find that to be artistically stimulating. He says he can't find his focus point... doesn't know where to begin with everything at his disposal. This coming from someone who has been a member of a genre-defining prog-rock band (Genesis), helped define the video generation (Sledgehammer), and most recently released a covers album that has no traditional rock instrumentation. He finds it more stimulating to be told what his limits are. Like for the covers record, to be told (or to choose that) he can't use guitar, bass and drums. It makes him think harder. Thinking outside the box helps him to defy categorization. That must be pretty liberating I'd think. He'd be given the freedom to pretty much always surprise and confound.
So why can't Grizzly Bear be told they can't use keyboards and must play everything amplified, downtuned and slathered in reverb? Why can't Mastodon release an album with no electric guitar? What could come from this? Could they create masterpieces or just pure rubbish? I dunno, but I'd like to see what that challenge could bring. Hell, Renee Fleming (opera singer) just recently covered Mars Volta and Death Cab For Cutie! The Mars Volta cover is really quite good too. I know that's another cover, not an original, but she was presented with the song, she wasn't familiar with it at first. She doubted the lyrics, feeling they were demeaning towards women and wanted to change them. She didn't feel responsible singing them knowing she had two young daughters who would hear her sing them. Cedric was okay with her changing the lyrics but gave her an explanation of what they meant to him, so she wasn't misunderstanding what he was writing about. In the end, no lyrics were changed and her interpretation was personal and liberating from the work she's most known for. Her daughters even participated.
So what am I really writing about here... crossover appeal? Maybe. I know the term crossover usually irritates people or gets them worried. By nature we're all sort of purists. We like what we're most familiar with and enjoy sticking with that. I get that, I'm guilty of that. But sometimes I want something else, and it sucks when I can't find it... because maybe it doesn't exist yet. I'm glad I have friends with varying music tastes, but I am regrettably too dismissive of their musical opinions. I am too often quick and forceful with my opinion, but dismissive of theirs. I don't know where that comes from. I'm trying to work on that because I'll never experience that "new" sound if I'm not open to a new sound. I enjoy when people just put on what they want to hear and I have to listen to it. Sometimes... even a lot of times I really enjoy what I hear, but I can't convince myself to own it. I wonder at times if my friends in turn feel the same with my musical suggestions. "That's really cool, but I don't think I'd own that." Sounds really sincere, huh? Ha... considering I say that same thing to them a lot, I should know it is sincere, but it never feels like it when you're on the receiving end of that comment.
Anyway... this has been a long and rambling tirade. As I'm good at. I don't even know that my point has been made. I don't even know what my point is other than I think there needs to be more cross-pollination between the soft and heavy music worlds. I think it could lead to something hugely dramatic. Something massively affective.
Here's some music to enjoy:
Dillinger Escape Plan - Widower
Mouth of the Architect - Generation of Ghosts
Mercury Rev - Endlessly
Mayhem - Illuminate Eliminate
Negura Bunget - Tesarul de Lumini
Envy - A Warm Room
Thrice - For Miles
Constantines - Our Age
Album Leaf - There is a Wind
Bill Withers - Hope She'll Be Happier (live)
Future Islands - Vireo's Eye
