If 90% of everything is crap, then what's the difference between one singing style vs. any other in that respect? You clearly think that there's something exceptional about growling vocals, so why pretend otherwise?
You've made every single stupid old fart complaint about growling vocals that there is to make. "It's boring", "you can't tell what they're saying", "the pitch doesn't change, it's not even singing", "maybe if they only used it a little". You say you want to feel like you've gotten your ass kicked but you post Yankee fucking Rose as an example of quality music.
If you had even a shred of legitimate musical appreciation in your withered old husk, you would understand that making sweeping generalizations about "growling vocals" and referring to them as "cookie monster" instantly outs you as someone who has no fucking idea what they're talking about. There are plenty of musical genres where the singer's voice "doesn't change pitch" and instead relies on a certain sound and the lyrical content to carry the ass kicking to the listener, and plenty of people prefer that style of singing to any other. The question I pose to you is: Why do you give a fuck? I think you want to pretend like you have something interesting or unique to offer the discussion, but you clearly don't. You're not saying anything that hasn't been said before by a million other grandparents-in-waiting, shaking their canes and practicing their comb-overs. If you don't like it, fine, but pretending that it is somehow lesser music is bullshit.
I'll leave the thread with this to chew on:
http://vimeo.com/11736163 Kvelertak - Mjød