So what's the difference between "edgy" cringe-inducing aggressive music versus "serious" aggressive music? It's pretty clear that there is some kind of clear line between them, but what it exactly is is hard to articulate. Is it something about the lyrics, and if so, what is it? Or is it the artist's image? Or a mixture of both?
Example of former, "edgy" cringe music:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gd9OhYroLN0
Example of "serious" aggressive music:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daNTuoKKiEo
These songs are just examples, though, I'm sure you can think of more examples (like Wake Me Up Inside on one hand, and some harsh noise song by Pharmakon, or something, on the other).
But what, exactly, is the difference? Or have we been swindled by Swans and company, of "serious aggressive music", into thinking that they are more important than what they actually are?
>>61410544
>Linkin Park
>edgy
It's angsty you dumbass. At least learn the meaning of buzzwords before you use them.
>>61410544
They are both edgy in a way, the lyrics are not the difference. The song structure is what makes it "serious", like with any other genre.
you have to be more subtle than "fuck you mom and dad"
If it's pitchfork approved then its aggressive. If its le fedora atheist reddit man then it's edgy music.
>>61410781
>the lyrics are not the difference. The song structure is what makes it "serious"
How so?
>>61411073
cant you hear the difference.linkin park: polished production, traditional song stucture etc. swans: gritty, not gonna be played on the radio
>>61411100
So what, if Linkin Park's songs were unpolished and "gritty", like you say, you'd take them seriously?
Seriously? That's a hard position to defend.
>>61411100
what
>>61410544
Cringy aggression is metal.
Good aggression is true gangsta.
Stories from the streets, songs of crime and survival, being toughest and taking no shit while taking all the dollah and hoes.
Shit about fighting the man holding you down.
Shit that has true meaning and message to it.
Linkin Park is being angsty to cater to a demographic. they care more about image than the music itself (just watch the music video). their music is also generic: unimpressive opening melody, hoarse faux-tortured leading male voice, "tender" verse in a normal voice, shite lyrics, guitars that serve to make noise instead of actual melody. they are actual talentless hacks.
>>61410544
nah theres really no clear line, it depends on what the listener can or cant empathize with, in terms of subject matter or musical styling
also intensity, like what >>61411100 seemed to try getting at, though structure and production specifically shouldnt be a detriment
linkin park are very poppy and (thus) reserved in terms of expressiveness, someone with a different listening background might percieve them as some of the heaviest shit, and so not find them "cringe", youve heard metal and punk rock with heavy dissonance and throat-shredding roars, by comparison they wont have the same impact
then again personally i dont have a cringe-kinda-reaction listening to them or similar bands either, even if both those points apply, idk why
>>61410816
early swans are not subtle in any way, are they?
>>61410742
No, they fit the Daria description:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=887WIB1oRAA
>>61410544
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=887WIB1oRAA
>>61413639
>early swans are not subtle in any way, are they?
Well, there was minor bits of satire in their lyrics, so yes. Plus the layered instruments on the SWANS EP, or little stuff like that through their first few albums.
>>61413167
This.
