Of course it is, but if there's no composition, there's no music, so there's no point in talking about it. =p

Hmm... it seems nice and calm now. Let's keep it that way

---

Last.fm: Mercenarion

Sssh, if you mention it, you'll jinx it!

EVERYBODY SUCKS
...see, you jinxed it.

@Creatio: so you're essentially saying composition is the more important one, then?

---

If you are a false, don't entry, or you'll be burned and died!

Not really sure if composition is more important. Good bands should be able to make a balance between those two elements.
 
I might not have a soul, but I do like some of Malmsteen's songs - simply because I can imagine his songs to have a message - I can attribute some emotions to a music that may not have come from any emotion. Though anybody who is a virtuous in a instrument and spent a lot of time perfecting his skills, probably has just a bit of passion left when playing it.
 
However, by 'delivery' do you only mean just how well a song was executed? To me delivery also includes the atmosphere a song can create, what emotions a song can transmit to the listener. This type of 'delivery' can sometimes (not always) be more important than the composition of the song.
 
(Maybe you should have named the thread composition vs execution. Though it would be nice to take it into my idea of 'delivery' type of direction)
 
Just take a band like AC/DC or Manowar ...or Korpiklaani. Their songs are rather simple, quite similar to each other, the lyrics aren't quite the Epitome of poetry and Genius, so the composition isn't complicated. But I think the way they deliver the song makes these bands what they are. People just love hearing these bands.
 

---

When in Danger or in doubt,
Run in circles, Scream and shout.

No. I'm considering composition as a scale from fundamental composition to virtuosity. For instance, the punk movement was built around simple songs with a lot of emotion and powerful deliveries - in that case, delivery was largely seen to be of greater importance.

That's all well and good, but punk isn't metal. This thread is geared towards the use of the two elements in metal, I started this topic to focus on metal specifically.

---

If you are a false, don't entry, or you'll be burned and died!

I was using it as an example; if you'll re-read what I wrote, you'll see that written there quite plainly. I also wrote the sentence,
"I'm considering composition as a scale from fundamental composition to virtuosity."

I answered your question in a very clear and concise manner, if you'll care to re-read what I wrote.

Also, you ignored Raina's extensive post.

I agree with both Raina and Creatio.
To me, athmosphere is the most important thing in music. Even as guitarist, I dont really care too much about how extremely technical a song is. i can enjoy a simple song like transsilvanian hunger by Darkthrone (thats one riff on eternal replay) or even easier gothic riffs like those of Poisonblack or Sentenced, while I also enjoy technical Death Metal like Atheist or decapitated.

To demonstrate the inportance of atmosphere, Ill show this a an example: we all know Freezing Moon by Mayhem. I draws its strenght from the athmosphere that instruments and vocals create. The recording quality is poor and technical it isnt that hard to play, only the vocals are tricky. But this song (and the whole album that is in the same style) has become an Icon of a genre: Black Metal. I can show more of these examples if you want. So its clear for me: athmosphere wins of technicality.

Yep, I agree. Atmosphere has more importance for me. A song can be good, even if it is simple. I will take the album Sehnsucht by Rammstein, it's full of extremely simple riffs, but it produces a great atmosphere. Rostau is a good example too.
But technicality isn't bad either, I mean good played solos and riffs are very important in metal.

---