Metal - The Six Genres
Printed From: MetalMusicArchives.com
Category: Metal Music Lounges
Forum Name: Metal Music Lounge
Forum Description: General metal music discussions (no polls)
URL: http://www.MetalMusicArchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1128
Printed Date: 22 Dec 2024 at 5:37am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 10.16 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Metal - The Six Genres
Posted By: martindavey87
Subject: Metal - The Six Genres
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2010 at 4:52am
|
Yeah, my first thread here, don't really know what to expect out of this discussion-wise, but just thought I'd throw it out there and let you guys do whatever.
Basically, one thing that always annoys me with pretty much any music genre, but mostly seen in Heavy Metal, is the need to be really articulate and specific about sub-genres. There are so many small genres in Metal that all sound the same to me, but yet each are given their own 'unique' name, such as Black Metal, Death Metal, Doom Metal, True-Norweigen Black Metal... I can't tell any of these apart.
The same could be said for Grindcore, Hardcore, Post-Hardcore, Deathcore, Metalcore... seriously... what are the differences? Hardcore and Post-Hardcore? Come on...
Back in 2003, myself and the keyboard player from our Prog Metal band auditioned for a Nu Metal band as a little something to do, the drummer told us they were 'heavy, alternative, melodic rock', to which my keyboard player buddy replied 'so you're a Nu Metal band?', the drummer then went on to explain the intricate differences between Nu Metal and Heavy-Alternative-Melodic-Rock... two genres which still sound exactly the same to my ears.
Anyways, the point of this is, I've always classed my Metal into six different subgenres. Within each genre can go ANY band. It may not be scientifically 100% accurate, but these six categories than generally sum up any band.
The genres:
(Traditional) Heavy Metal
Thrash Metal
Progressive Metal
Power Metal
Death Metal
Alternative Metal
Any Metal band can fit into any one of these. For example, Rammstein are commonly referred to as Industrial Metal. Whilst 'Industrial' is a good word to describe their music, as a genre I find it slightly stretching, in which case I would simply refer to them as a Heavy Metal band. It may not be 100% right, but if I were to say 'I like Rammstein, they're a Heavy Metal band'... it would make sense.
Alternative Metal is basically Nu Metal, but that term isn't used anymore, though they are still a lot of bands playing that style. As a result, this is a pretty relaxed genre, and could be anything from Linkin Park and Limp Bizkit, to Faith No More or any of Mike Pattons other bands.
So yeah, that's it. Discuss, flame me, suggest bands for me to categorize... whatever. For me personally, these are the only six subgenres that are ever needed to sum up all of Heavy Metal.
 |
Replies:
Posted By: Time Signature
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2010 at 5:06am
|
I agree, the constant emerging of new and more specific genres and the reinterpretation of the features of already established genres really irritates me, too. It's simply impossible to keep up with all those genre labels. But at the same time, I recognize the human need to categorize things and also the human need for some sort of identity, and I think that all the subgenres that people operate with within certain underground and non-mainstream genres simply just reflect human experiential and social cognition. Personally, I think that genre label - also specific ones - are useful if they are descriptive; but the problem is that very often very specific genre labels come of as being arrogant fanboy w*nkery, which it probably is in many cases (and which, again, I think, is a reflection of the need for an identity, and identity that one flags by showing one's mastery of all the obscure terms and categories within the type of music in question). I generally respect other people's genre categorizations because categorization, like anything else, is negotiable and depending on both the individual's and the community's experiences, so I typically stay away from this-band-belongs-to-Xcore-and-not-to-Ycore discussions. I use my own genre tags in my reviews just for the sake of being descriptive (and sometimes to make a friendly parody on general genre w*nkery). ------------- 
|
Posted By: UMUR
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2010 at 5:10am
|
Hmm...I don�t see where you would place the vast amount of black metal acts! I assume it would be under death metal, but there are many differences between those two genres that IMO warrants a seperate black metal genre. I�m sure my Black metal team buddy Vehemency would agree 100% here.
On the general concept of having many sub genres on a site like MMA, I actually agree that there shouldn�t be too many subs and for example I would probably merge the Symphonic and the Power metal subs if it was up to me. The idea to have as many subs as we have now is to help guide people though but I sense you feel we�re misguiding instead?
 . It�s a fine line between guiding and confusing people. I do think most subs included on MMA makes sense though. ------------- http://www.lyngby-boldklub.dk/" rel="nofollow - Forever TRUE - Forever BLUE! https://rateyourmusic.com/~UMUR" rel="nofollow - UMUR on RYM |
Posted By: martindavey87
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2010 at 5:21am
|
To be honest I don't mind there being so many subgenres on the website. If that's where the admin people feel certain bands belong, so I'm cool. And like Time Signature said above, it's perfectly normal for people to want to be more specific with their labeling, and to attempt to differentiate their own niche genre.
I don't feel having too many categories is misleading or confusing, it just kind of makes things feel more 'cluttered'. As you said, Symphonic Metal bands could easily be placed in Power Metal, or possibly Prog Metal, and I sometimes think of these genres in terms of what a non-Metal fan would think. 'Symphonic Prog Metal with Neoclassical elements'... sure, that's a good description of what a band will sound like, but a non-Metal fan will have no idea. A simple 'Prog Metal' will do fine.
Just me trying to keep things simple rather than complicating.
|
Posted By: UMUR
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2010 at 6:31am
|
Oh and BTW it�s good to see you posting in the forum Martin ------------- http://www.lyngby-boldklub.dk/" rel="nofollow - Forever TRUE - Forever BLUE! https://rateyourmusic.com/~UMUR" rel="nofollow - UMUR on RYM |
Posted By: m@x
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2010 at 6:48am
|
Reminder for visitors: the system allows ALBUM GENRE TAGGING, the artist genre is a sum of all his album genres. Being said, with 8000 artists on the site, maybe it's time to re-think and re-org the genre ? To help visitors, we can make more sub-sub-genres (inclusives in the main sub-genres) like NWoBHM is to Trad. Heavy Metal. The first ones that I think need a split or re-org are:
The main sub-genre is the umbrella terms and is a sub-genre in itself. But sometimes album can fit better in the sub-sub-genre, best example are OPETH albums. Let's re discuss it, since the site has take a few steps in content quantity and quality since we last discussed it. |
Posted By: Time Signature
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2010 at 6:59am
|
Like UMUR, I think that a lot of subgenres could be confusing, but maybe a couple of more subgenres would be useful. I think that "technical death metal" would then fit better under th "death metal" genres than the progressive metal genre. But I guess that a problem could be that some death metal is progressive but not necessarily technical (like "Spheres") while other is technical but not necessarily progressive (like "Effigy of the Forgotten). So, I don't know about that. One genre death metal subgenre which I think would be useful would be the "melodic death metal" genre, since it has become firmly established as a recognizable genre as such. And maybe deathcore could be a subgenre of metalcore or death metal (metal purists would probably prefer it under metalcore). -------------
|
Posted By: UMUR
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2010 at 8:20am
|
I can�t say I support the idea of more subs. Not only will it create a massive amount of work for the collabs re-tagging albums, there will probably also be spend lots of time listening to samples to make sure that re-tag suggestions are valid ( unless we blindly trust the re-tag suggestions). IMO both artist bios and reviews usually explain pretty well how the music sounds. Be it old school, melodic, progressive or technical death metal, it�s still death metal IMO. I�m of the opinion that more subs will confuse rather than help. By keeping the amount of sub genres to a minimum and thereby keeping the site simple, I also hope to avoid the sometimes time consuming discussions if this or that act is progressive or technical and which sub sub they would fit into the best. Right now the worst thing is to decide if a death/ thrash act is going to be placed in either death or thrash metal or if blackened death metal acts should be placed in either death or black metal and I must say I like the simplicity. It makes collab work easy and I�d rather spend time replacing bad cover artwork and adding lineup info, than spend me time trying to decide which sub sub this or that act belongs to ( it�s especially a problem if I haven�t listened to the artist, and let�s face it, it�s impossible for team members to have heard every artist present in the sub(s) they are responsible for).
With that said I�ve heard quite a few people suggesting additional sub genres, so there might be a more general consensus among the users of the site that we need them and of course I�ll have to bow tothat .------------- http://www.lyngby-boldklub.dk/" rel="nofollow - Forever TRUE - Forever BLUE! https://rateyourmusic.com/~UMUR" rel="nofollow - UMUR on RYM |
Posted By: martindavey87
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2010 at 8:30am
Thank you. I did register with this site when it was created, but until recently I didn't really have much time for messge boards.
|
UMUR wrote:Posted By: martindavey87
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2010 at 8:34am
This is pretty much the point of my original post.
I hope I haven't caused any problems on this website, as I don't mind things the way they are, and if new subgenres are added/artists shuffled about etc, then obviously I'll leave it to everyone else and I'll go along with it.
The six genres thing is really my own personal way of putting bands in different categaries, and I thought it'd just make for a decent discussion.
|
Posted By: UMUR
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2010 at 8:34am
|
^yes I noticed that you registered as early as in April. I see you�ve already written quite a few reviews here on MMA. You do know that you�re more than welcome to copy/ paste your reviews from PA right? Just edit them to leave out any references to PA. ------------- http://www.lyngby-boldklub.dk/" rel="nofollow - Forever TRUE - Forever BLUE! https://rateyourmusic.com/~UMUR" rel="nofollow - UMUR on RYM |
Posted By: martindavey87
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2010 at 8:36am
That's exactly what I did when I joined. 
|
Posted By: UMUR
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2010 at 8:41am
Discussions are healthy, I�m glad you brought it up. So no you�re not causing problems, just contributing to the site and we always encourage that .------------- http://www.lyngby-boldklub.dk/" rel="nofollow - Forever TRUE - Forever BLUE! https://rateyourmusic.com/~UMUR" rel="nofollow - UMUR on RYM |
Posted By: UMUR
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2010 at 8:42am
Perfect ------------- http://www.lyngby-boldklub.dk/" rel="nofollow - Forever TRUE - Forever BLUE! https://rateyourmusic.com/~UMUR" rel="nofollow - UMUR on RYM |
Posted By: Time Signature
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2010 at 11:54am
I agree, and that's why I think that, if new subgenres are introduced, it should be a very small number, at they should reflect generally acknowledged genres (so, no doomcore or melodic Christian screamo thrash or whatever and the like, but melodic death metal or deathcore would make sense to me). I tend to agree that progressive, technical, old school, brutal etc. death metal are essentially still death metal and I think that symphonic black metal is essentially just black metal, and so on. -------------
|
Posted By: m@x
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2010 at 12:04pm
|
Thanks for your replies. I want to make sure you guys understant that I am not "willing to" add more sub-genres, I just want to give the opportunity to re-think about it since the site has grow since we last discuss it. We need to think about the new visitors and how can we help him discover new metal music through MMA.  |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: 18 Nov 2010 at 3:20am
|
Must admit I get baffled by the huge number of genres and subgenres, but I think there's a definite place for Proto metal, e.g. bands like Blue Cheer et al, who aren't strictly metal, but quite obviously lie at the roots of it. The other "genre" I wholeheartedly support is NWoBHM, which is an important landmark in musical history. As I pointed out in my definition, it's not a "genre" per se, because the various acts produced such a bewilderingly vast array of different musical styles, creating all the roots of the metal genres we now accept today. It's a fascinating "bucket" - the more I explore it, the more I realise what those guys actually did at the time without even realising what they were doing. They were just making the music they wanted to make, without classification (apart from the "heavy" bit) or boundaries, and there's everything from Progressive (Praying Mantis, Bleak House) to glam (Girl) to technical (Raven) to traditional (Holocaust) to punk crossover (Lightning Raiders) to black metal (Venom) and thrash metal (Jaguar) in there. Must admit, I've never been convinced by "Alternative" metal, though... it's either metal or it ain't...  |
Posted By: The Angry Scotsman
Date Posted: 18 Nov 2010 at 3:39am
|
Yeah, I get pretty peeved at the seemingly hundreds of sub genres out there, (some seem to be like one band!) and some so ridiculous. For me personally, this is how my metal is categorized. There is: Heavy Metal Which I guess would be "traditional" including NWoBHM (Which I don't think really exists) Thrash Metal Death Metal Black Metal Prog Metal Alt Metal If I'm not quite sure of which sub genre to put it in I bump it to the next one, or with some bands like Pantera and LoG where I had no real clue, as well as some metalcore bands....they are just labeled "metal" As for folk metal, avant, technical I just group it all as "prog metal" Melodic, tech, brutal etc death metal are all "death metal" Oh, I forgot about Power Metal and Industrial Metal. I have little of each so its not an issue, but for the few I do they have those sub genres as well. Consolidation used to piss me off because I NEEDED to organize and specify, now I love the simplicity of it. Tis all metal  ------------- Megadeth, Metallica, Slayer and Testament. The real Big Four of thrash metal! Listen to doom metal, worship Satan |
Posted By: Time Signature
Date Posted: 18 Nov 2010 at 3:45am
|
I like the genres that we have now, and I hope none of them will be eliminated. It's true that alt. metal and metalcore are a bit bucket-likenand maybe they could do with some internal organization through a couple of subsubgenres at some point in the future. And I also hope to see an additional hard rock genre at some point. -------------
|
Posted By: Vehemency
Date Posted: 18 Nov 2010 at 3:56am
By the way, if/when we are going to add new subsub genres, it would be the best if we add only one or maybe two at max at a time. No big updates at once, so that we can focus on discussing and working on one subject more effeciently, and see how it all goes with a new subsub.
|
Posted By: The Angry Scotsman
Date Posted: 18 Nov 2010 at 3:56am
|
That was all just my personal ranting, I have no intention on changing the current site set up and unless something horrifying is suggested, wont complain in the future. But yeah, I noticed my list of sub genres getting larger, while the genres themselves seemed smaller and less coherent, so I started going with consolidation instead of fractioning it up. Is it avant? Folk? Well its all progressive in nature, so prog metal it goes. Is Pantera or LoG really thrash metal? Meh, bump em to "metal" Never knew what to call Meshuggah (Prog, Technical?) so Alt Metal it is. All IMHO of course  ------------- Megadeth, Metallica, Slayer and Testament. The real Big Four of thrash metal! Listen to doom metal, worship Satan |
Posted By: topofsm
Date Posted: 19 Nov 2010 at 12:26am
|
I would personally categorize like this: Traditional heavy metal: Including NWOBHM Death Metal: Including tech-death and prog death. To be honest I don't think melodic death metal fits in here, it doesn't really share a lot of similarities besides the vocals. I'm not sure where they would go though... Black Metal: Often encompasses folk, viking, and ambient/atmospheric metals. Thrash Metal: Encompasses other genres like post-thrash (which is really groove metal) -core Metals: Including metalcore and deathcore. "Flower" metal : Includes prog, power, and symphonic metal. I like to think Avante-garde acts can usually find a home in one of these, so they aren't left out. They usually have a base sound that can be traced to one of these. If they can't I tend to find that they aren't really a metal band and more of an avant-garde band. Also, only the vanilla prog bands fit explicitly with the prog and symphonic bands. For example, while Edge of Sanity is a prog metal band, they are more death than prog. As for alt-metal, I don't really see it as a metal genre. But to each his own. ------------- Lost respect for these archives when I saw Creed added, among other bands. Not going to be foruming here anymore. You can keep my reviews if you want. |
Posted By: UMUR
Date Posted: 19 Nov 2010 at 12:44am
|
I think you left out Doom, Glam, industrial and sludge/ post. Where would they fit? ...and let�s not discuss if Glam is metal, because the decision to include that genre is taken and will not be altered.
I think my ideal genre definition would look something like this:
Traditional heavy metal:
Including NWOBHM. No problem with this one. Death metal:
including tech, prog, old school and melodic. I think death metal is death metal. I stand by that opinion. I don�t support the inclusion of additional sub subs.
Grindcore:
I�ve been giving this one a lot of thought. I was the one who suggested Grindcore to have it�s own sub here on MMA, but as a lot of the acts in the genre are closely related to death metal, it might be an idea to make Grindcore a sub sub to death metal instead of having it as it�s own sub. I think that would make sense. I know there are lots of Grindcore acts that are closer to hardcore than death metal, but as long as Grindcore acts still are put into a sub sub and not just into the bigger death metal sub, I would be fine with this idea. Anyone disagree with this?
Black metal:
All black metal, also the folk and viking black metal acts and the ambient/ atmospheric ones. We agree on that one. I think I will let Vehemency comment on this one, but my opinion is that there isn�t a need for additional sub subs here.
Thrash metal:
Including thrash, speed and crossover. I don�t see a need for additional sub subs here but a namechange to Thrash/ Speed/ Crossover might be in order.
Metalcore:
Includes metalcore, deathcore and metallic hardcore ( bands like Hatebreed). I don�t see a need for additional sub subs here.
Progressive metal:
Strictly for "vanilla" progressive metal ( ala Dream Theater, Fates Warning, Queensr�che, Sieges Even and their ilk). The genre has diversified throughout the years, but bands in this genre should reflect what "metal" fans usually perceive as progressive metal and not what those of us coming from PA think it is.
Power metal:
Includes power metal and symphonic. Progressive power metal acts should still be placed in power metal if they are at their core more power metal than progressive. For instance I was happy to note that Symphony X was placed in power metal here on MMA and not in progressive metal.
Alternative metal:
I think this one makes sense. We just have to make sure the sub doesn�t become a garbage can, where we put all the difficult to catagorize acts. I think this particular sub needs close monitoring and a united team who shares opinions about what should be added.
Doom metal:
I agree with doom metal having its own sub. If we have to make changes to doom metal I would suggest an additional sub sub called "doom/ death" to seperate the classic melodic ( clean singing) doom metal acts from the doom metal acts with extreme vocals ( doom/ death, Funeral doom).
Glam metal/ heavy rock:
I always called many of the bands in that sub heavy rock rather than glam, but that�s a personal thing. So my only suggestion for change would be a name thing. I fully support the inclusion of the genre on MMA
.Proto-Metal:
I think this one is important, but it�s one of those subs that needs close monitoring and probably a team vote system. There�s bound to be controversy regarding some of the additions in this sub.
Sludge/ Post-metal:
I think there are enough artists with a similar and distinct sound to warrant a seperate sub for those styles. Sludge and post-metal are closely related genres and a lot of acts incorporate elements from both. Therefore I think one sub makes sense.
Industrial metal:
I think this sub makes sense too. But it should be reserved for acts that can�t be catagorized in other genres. For example there are lots of industrial black metal around. I think those acts should be placed in black metal rather than industrial unless the industrial element overshadows the black metal ditto. It�s a case by case thing.
That leaves folk metal, avant garde metal, Goth metal and symphonic metal.
Symphonic metal:
I would either move symphonic metal to the power metal sub or make it a sub sub to power metal. Some of the bands in the genre probably belong in death or black metal and should be moved to those subs.
Avant garde metal:
The problem with avant garde is that you can�t say it�s a sub with acts with a similar sound. They are all experimental, unconventional and very hard to place in other genres, but most could probably be distributed to other genres with some effort. I�m biased here.
Folk metal:
I don�t see Folk metal as a distinct style ( more a sound). Most acts from this sub could easily be distributed to other subs like traditional heavy metal, power metal, death metal and black metal. This would be the first sub I would eliminate.
Goth metal:
Hmm...I�ll let the experts talk about this one. I don�t really have enough knowledge of the genre to make a valid comment. ------------- http://www.lyngby-boldklub.dk/" rel="nofollow - Forever TRUE - Forever BLUE! https://rateyourmusic.com/~UMUR" rel="nofollow - UMUR on RYM |
Posted By: The Angry Scotsman
Date Posted: 19 Nov 2010 at 1:04am
G'ah! How could I forget doom metal?  That has its own sub genre for me as well. I suppose it could be just "metal" but it's distinct enough for me to have its own. I have like no industrial metal but that would probably warrant its own for me as well. I put post metal under prog metal Sludge....I would just list as metal, or whatever I think is the best fit. I don't really think sludge is a distinct one. Again all IMO and I am not asking for any changes to the site. And glam metal.....I'll just let that one go ------------- Megadeth, Metallica, Slayer and Testament. The real Big Four of thrash metal! Listen to doom metal, worship Satan |
Posted By: The Angry Scotsman
Date Posted: 19 Nov 2010 at 1:05am
This is kind of fun actually  I may make an official metal listing sometime soon, just for kicks ------------- Megadeth, Metallica, Slayer and Testament. The real Big Four of thrash metal! Listen to doom metal, worship Satan |
Posted By: Vehemency
Date Posted: 19 Nov 2010 at 2:03am
|
Something that I've been wondering about the MMA genres is sludge/post-metal... is sludge absolutely post-metal? I know it's easier to put them under the same title, but the same time isn't it confusing to see the sludge tag under a band that doesn't really incorporate anything from sludge? This is more of a question, because I have no knowledge of this subject. |
Posted By: The Angry Scotsman
Date Posted: 19 Nov 2010 at 2:35am
|
I really don't like the subgenre "sludge metal" because I really don't see it as distinct. More a style than genre IMHO. Especially since sludge metal bands are listed as doom/prog/post metal anyway. Anyone have any opinions on what IS sludge metal anyway? Is it even really something distinctive? While a lot of post metal does incorporate sludge, again I'm not sure what that means aside from really heavy, churning kinda trippy riffing, sludge is not absolutely post. Oi, too much  ------------- Megadeth, Metallica, Slayer and Testament. The real Big Four of thrash metal! Listen to doom metal, worship Satan |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: 19 Nov 2010 at 2:45am
[/quote]
You're right, it doesn't exist any more, but it definitely existed, as anyone "who was there", and the number of bands who pay tribute to that remarkable movement will testify - and let's remember that this "New Wave of Heavy Metal" was terribly unpopular among those who weren't rabid fans, and rabid fans probably didn't push the 100,000 mark too hard, most of whom were in obscure bands so might not count as fans anyway - but it's not a genre, it wasn't entirely British, and it was founded on the old school of hard/blues rock, so I can understand anyone's confusion. It confuses me and I think it's fantastic...
...pauses for breath
Never a truer word.
Indeed - there's no point discussing this question, as some Glam Rock definitely is Metal. Not only that, but you'll find most of the best defined roots of all modern metal genres that aren't in Black Sabbath are in the music of The Sweet (and that includes Judas Priest). The Black Sabbath influence didn't truly enter metal until the 1980s. Before that, the influence was largely Priest, and since Priest grew out of Glam, it could be said that Glam is the true metal. Sorry about that.
If you dig back further, you'll find that metal's clearest roots lie in Surf music (as opposed to the more fuzzy, but nevertheless obvious root that is rock and roll. Surf is the first "branch" in the development path to metal). I hope we're all Beach Boys and Jan and Dean fans here...
|
Posted By: UMUR
Date Posted: 19 Nov 2010 at 3:12am
|
A buddy and I, used to dig through his mother�s old singles collection ( she was a giant The Sweet fan) and I remember headbanging to The Sweet at the age of 10, so yes The Sweet is certainly an important act in metal IMO. ------------- http://www.lyngby-boldklub.dk/" rel="nofollow - Forever TRUE - Forever BLUE! https://rateyourmusic.com/~UMUR" rel="nofollow - UMUR on RYM |
Posted By: UMUR
Date Posted: 19 Nov 2010 at 3:17am
It�s kind of like the Cantebury sub on PA. ------------- http://www.lyngby-boldklub.dk/" rel="nofollow - Forever TRUE - Forever BLUE! https://rateyourmusic.com/~UMUR" rel="nofollow - UMUR on RYM |
Posted By: Time Signature
Date Posted: 19 Nov 2010 at 4:18am
|
Come to think of it, maybe we should just stick to the genres we have already.. otherwise, we might end up in a real fanboy genre w*nekry warmassacre thing. ;-) -------------
|
Posted By: UMUR
Date Posted: 19 Nov 2010 at 4:24am
|
On the other hand it�s probably easier to discuss and implement changes now, than when we have 30.000 acts in the database. ------------- http://www.lyngby-boldklub.dk/" rel="nofollow - Forever TRUE - Forever BLUE! https://rateyourmusic.com/~UMUR" rel="nofollow - UMUR on RYM |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: 19 Nov 2010 at 8:37am
|
As I add (and listen to) more and more acts that are listed in the NWoBHM encyclopaedia, I'm becoming more and more convinced that it's in no way a subgenre of "Traditional" - after all, most of it isn't traditional. If you click on Traditional, all the NWoBHM bands are listed without NWoBHM qualifiers - I don't think it follows that if you like Trad, you'll like everything in NW - although I guess you might have your ears well and truly opened. With a chainsaw, sledgehammer and pile driver.
Unless we feel that bands like Venom and Raven, etc., can now be considered Traditional, given they crawled out of their holes over 30 years ago. You can bet your life/guitar that yer traditional metal fan wouldn't listen to Venom 30 years ago - it took a special kind of person to see what they were really about.
Just asking really, as I'm not sure how Trad. works.
|
Posted By: UMUR
Date Posted: 19 Nov 2010 at 9:07am
|
Not that I�m an expert in NWoBHM but traditional heavy metal is a pretty broad subgenre, so I�m sure a lot of the acts in NWoBHM fits just fine in traditional as well. Venom! eh I guess we just sometimes have accept that some band�s are difficult to place right. And you are right that genre definitions have changed a lot over the last 30 years. Some definitions still hold true while others are scarcely used anymore. It�s like the discussion we had months ago about AC/ DC. Today they are more or less considered a hard rock act while in the eighties people called them metal. ------------- http://www.lyngby-boldklub.dk/" rel="nofollow - Forever TRUE - Forever BLUE! https://rateyourmusic.com/~UMUR" rel="nofollow - UMUR on RYM |
Posted By: Time Signature
Date Posted: 19 Nov 2010 at 9:18am
I actually think that their 80s stuff is more metal than the post-Razor's Edge releases. -------------
|
Posted By: martindavey87
Date Posted: 19 Nov 2010 at 10:01am
|
Personally, I consider anything with a 'post' before it to be the same as it's meant to be the post of. IE: Post-Hardcore = Hardcore (I have no idea what this means)
Post-Metal = Metal
Oh, another genre name I dislike, anything with 'Math'.
Math Metal = Prog Metal
Math Rock = Indie, possibly Prog Rock
This guy I went to college with fucking LOVED telling everyone he's in a Math Rock band, and everyone's like 'ooooh, they're Math Rock', and then I hear it and I'm like 'they're just a generic rock band wtf?!'.
|
Posted By: m@x
Date Posted: 19 Nov 2010 at 10:05am
|
UMUR , thanks for your detailled reply and we can start from here and go with the first major changes in the sub-genres system. Ok, here's my immediate action recommendations:
More discussions needed:
I can take actions today, but need some approbation by you guys first. |
Posted By: martindavey87
Date Posted: 19 Nov 2010 at 10:08am
|
See, now I feel kinda bad about this. Like it's all my fault.
Now you have to reshuffle all these bands etc coz Valarius just couldn't keep his mouth shut.
|
Posted By: UMUR
Date Posted: 19 Nov 2010 at 10:11am
|
I think it might be an idea to let people discuss these things for maybe a week before making changes mailto:M@X - M@X . Some of these changes will have great effect on the site, so it might be better to be safe than sorry.
I�ll make my own comments to the suggestions a bit later. Right now it�s family time .------------- http://www.lyngby-boldklub.dk/" rel="nofollow - Forever TRUE - Forever BLUE! https://rateyourmusic.com/~UMUR" rel="nofollow - UMUR on RYM |
Posted By: Time Signature
Date Posted: 19 Nov 2010 at 10:13am
I think hat he melodic death metal subsub could be helpful, but I don't know about technical and progressive death metal, because it's just death metal which is technical or progressive, while melodic death metal, as mentioned, has become established as a subgenre proper (like brutal death metal has). I am not sure whether I would support moving grindcore to death metal - I mean Anal Cunt don't strike me as being death metal, and neither do the debut releases by Napalm Death and Carcass. -------------
|
Posted By: m@x
Date Posted: 19 Nov 2010 at 10:15am
| Fair enough. |
Posted By: The Angry Scotsman
Date Posted: 19 Nov 2010 at 12:38pm
You're right, it doesn't exist any more, but it definitely existed, as anyone "who was there", and the number of bands who pay tribute to that remarkable movement will testify - and let's remember that this "New Wave of Heavy Metal" was terribly unpopular among those who weren't rabid fans, and rabid fans probably didn't push the 100,000 mark too hard, most of whom were in obscure bands so might not count as fans anyway - but it's not a genre, it wasn't entirely British, and it was founded on the old school of hard/blues rock, so I can understand anyone's confusion. It confuses me and I think it's fantastic...
...pauses for breath
Never a truer word.
Oh, so you're agreeing with me on NWoBHM? Obviously you knew more than I, and hell I'm only 22 I cant be a traditonal metal expert! But IMO NWoBHM is pretty much just traditional HM. I know there are differences but isn't really distinct to me. But I'm a fan of consolidation, so thats me. And I'm not advocating we remove it from the site. Especially since a lot of higher ups seem involved with it/traditional metal. No need to cause internal strife ------------- Megadeth, Metallica, Slayer and Testament. The real Big Four of thrash metal! Listen to doom metal, worship Satan |
Posted By: Time Signature
Date Posted: 19 Nov 2010 at 2:51pm
|
I think that there's a lot of difference between a lot of the NWoBHM artists. I mean just compare Ace Lane, Salem, Iron Maiden, Def Leppard, Satan, Jameson Raid and Hell- they don't really sound like the same genre. But then again, NWoBHM was not a genre but an artistsi movement - and one of the most important ones in metal history. which is why I think that the NWoBHM sub is important on MMA. But, we have to find a cut off year, because it makes no sense to call, say, Iron Maiden's 90s and 2000s material NWoBHM. -------------
|
Posted By: Stooge
Date Posted: 19 Nov 2010 at 4:53pm
|
Interseting discussion brewing. I'm fine with the current categories for now, but some of the above expanded sub-genres (melo-death, tech/prog death) would be a good idea. I think grindcore might stand as it's own genre apart from death, but haven't given it much thought.
I agree that the sludge/post tag can be a bit tricky. Some bands under this tag have more of a snoner/doomy sound, some more hardcore-ish, and the obvious post metal part. Gothic can also stand on its own. Having worked my way through several of that genre's bands, there is still a distinct tone to that genre, though the arrangement of the music can have several approaches. Some have a slight symphonic sound, some have a death/black metal element, and a large chunk have dark/doomy elements. It would be hard to append the gothic subgenre to either just a branch off death, black, symphonic, or doom metal as it is sort of a band-by-band thing.
|
Posted By: The Angry Scotsman
Date Posted: 19 Nov 2010 at 10:00pm
|
I personally don't see a need for melo and tech death metal. Atheist IMO is death metal. As are In Flames (to name 2 quick ones). A really extreme tech band like Necrophagist are also still death metal. Don't see a need to expand even farther. ------------- Megadeth, Metallica, Slayer and Testament. The real Big Four of thrash metal! Listen to doom metal, worship Satan |
Posted By: Vehemency
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 4:07am
|
Posted By: topofsm
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 3:37pm
|
I am neutral on the melodeath under death discussion. For one thing, melodeath to me doesn't sound very much like death metal aside from the vocals, whereas tech death and prog death clearly are direct progressions of the genre. Grind should not be moved in with death. There are bands that are deathgrind that will be difficult to figure where they go, but the difference between most death bands and grind bands are pretty obvious IMO. And NWOBHM was a movement, not a genre. However I'm pretty sure we established we need the sub to designate the important movement on the site. ------------- Lost respect for these archives when I saw Creed added, among other bands. Not going to be foruming here anymore. You can keep my reviews if you want. |
Posted By: UMUR
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 4:00pm
|
Great to see that Grindcore is supported as a seperate sub. My earlier suggestion was mostly because I felt there was a general consensus that people wanted the grindcore sub to be moved under death metal. I�m fine with having Grindcore as a seperate sub if there�s support for that. Some bands are hard to put in either Grindcore or death metal but we�ll just have to make choices and discuss certain acts if someone raises a flag. I guess I followed what I thought the members of the site would be most comfortable with instead of following my heart on this one. I�ll try not to make that mistake again.------------- http://www.lyngby-boldklub.dk/" rel="nofollow - Forever TRUE - Forever BLUE! https://rateyourmusic.com/~UMUR" rel="nofollow - UMUR on RYM |
Posted By: UMUR
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 4:08pm
|
About the sub subs to death metal, I could as a compromise live with a melodic death metal sub sub, but I wouldn�t be comfortable with seperate sub subs for technical and progressive death metal. I think we�ll end up in too many discussions about what is progressive and what is technical. I saw Kim mentioned a Brutal death metal sub sub, but I wouldn�t support such a sub sub either. I think it�s in the very nature of death metal that it is brutal and even the melodic bands in the genre are brutal to these ears albeit lesser so than the most extreme acts in the genre.
As mentioned earlier I�d rather not see any sub subs to death metal, as I think the best idea is to explain in the bio if a band is either melodic, technical or progressive instead of putting them in seperate sub subs. If people take time to check out the youtube clips and mp3 that will be added in time, that�s also a great help. ------------- http://www.lyngby-boldklub.dk/" rel="nofollow - Forever TRUE - Forever BLUE! https://rateyourmusic.com/~UMUR" rel="nofollow - UMUR on RYM |
Posted By: UMUR
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 4:42pm
|
How about my suggestion to create a sub sub to doom metal called doom/ death ( which would include funeral doom). I think it would make sense to seperate the doom metal acts with clean vocals and the ones with growling vocals. ------------- http://www.lyngby-boldklub.dk/" rel="nofollow - Forever TRUE - Forever BLUE! https://rateyourmusic.com/~UMUR" rel="nofollow - UMUR on RYM |
Posted By: Murphy
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 5:16pm
|
UMUR, I reckon the doom / death sub sub would be a wise idea, as often there is a vase gap between these bands and the more traditional type. I also think with a the doom death sub sub, it would give a more suitable home to say a band like DiSEMBOWLMENT who are currently under the Death Metal banner. Also some of the Sludge/post-metal groups would possible fit this sub sub a little more comfortable, such as a band like Corrupted, who while Sludge orientated, have a large part of their whole in Doom Metal. From a personal perspective, I just lump everything under the 'Metal' banner, but I think for a site aimed at introducing people to news type of music, the segregation of the whole into more specific subs is helpful as long as it doesn't reach the obsessive compulsive stage. ------------- Guai ai gelidi mostri �Everything that is doddering, squint-eyed, infamous, sullying, and grotesque is contained for me in this single word: God� Andr� Breton |
Posted By: UMUR
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 5:20pm
|
Thanks for the input. Regarding specific acts suggestions to moves from one sub to another can always be posted in the Errors and omissions thread: http://www.metalmusicarchives.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=60&title=report-errors-omissions-here - http://www.metalmusicarchives.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=60&title=report-errors-omissions-here ------------- http://www.lyngby-boldklub.dk/" rel="nofollow - Forever TRUE - Forever BLUE! https://rateyourmusic.com/~UMUR" rel="nofollow - UMUR on RYM |
Posted By: J-Man
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 8:42pm
That's basically my opinion as well. Although it's sometimes hard to decide where to place a progressive death metal band, an extra sub-sub may cause some added confusion. However, if there were any sub-subs to death metal, I would support this the most. Technical death metal, brutal death metal (this one especially), and melodic death metal are ones that wouldn't really help us too much. Any true melodeath band will end up in death metal no matter what, so this wouldn't help any borderline cases. This subgenre would just make placing more difficult for bands like Edge of Sanity and Opeth IMO. Progressive death metal may be helpful since it would help bridge the gap between these two genres without a cut-and-dry selection. Either way, I've kinda stopped caring a whole lot about the precision of the genre tags. They are bound to be slightly misleading in most cases, and, after all, that's what reviews and bios are for. ------------- Check out my YouTube channel! http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime" rel="nofollow - http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime |
Posted By: The Angry Scotsman
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 8:51pm
I could live with melo death...but I really don't think we need to divide up death metal, at all. Especially with tech/prog death metal. I would absolutely not support that. It's simply unnecessary. Any "prog-death" band that strays too far would simply just become progressive metal at that point. UMUR's idea that one can explain these differences in the bio is a great one. Would avoid sub genre controversy and would give unique bands their credit, for being unique. "Brutal" death metal is just silly IMO. As he also said, it is by nature... ------------- Megadeth, Metallica, Slayer and Testament. The real Big Four of thrash metal! Listen to doom metal, worship Satan |
Posted By: topofsm
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2010 at 11:35pm
|
^Indeed. Even on PA there are several sub-subs explained in each genre, from the traditional prog metal like Fates Warning to modern prog like DT to Symphony X, which admittedly don't all sound similar but have a succinct explanation. I can see 'alternative metal' becoming the heavy prog of PA, whereas any somewhat hard rock prog band that didn't fit anywhere mostly got lumped in there. ------------- Lost respect for these archives when I saw Creed added, among other bands. Not going to be foruming here anymore. You can keep my reviews if you want. |
Posted By: Time Signature
Date Posted: 21 Nov 2010 at 5:37am
Just for the sake of clarity,I didn't propose brutal death metal as a sub for the MMA - I just pointed out that brutal death metal is more of a proper subgenre within death metal (like melodic death metal is) than progressive or technical death metal. -------------
|
Posted By: topofsm
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2010 at 2:29pm
|
I'd personally say brutal and tech death are musically closer than prog and melodic death. That being said I think we are just fine as we are now putting a progressive death metal album in either prog metal or death metal and a subsub is not needed. As I've said if I could make a subsub it would be for melodic death metal, just to show there is a distinction. However, the only subsub we have now is for NWOBHM, which is often very much the same sounding as other bands in the Traditional heavy metal category. AFAIK the NWOBHM subsub is to designate the bands in the movement, not always bands of a separate musical sound. So I think any subsub should be similar. ------------- Lost respect for these archives when I saw Creed added, among other bands. Not going to be foruming here anymore. You can keep my reviews if you want. |
Posted By: m@x
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2010 at 2:36pm
I agree 
|
Posted By: Pelata
Date Posted: 21 Jan 2011 at 3:12pm
|
If you're talking about early Napalm Death and Carcass, wasn't that called Grindcore?
I agree with adding Melodic Death Metal as a sub of Death Metal, but IMO Progressive and Technical are the same thing.
I knwo we don't want to over-sub all the genres, but we can't under-sub them either and lump too many bands together. For instance, we shouldn't, IMO, lump Evoken and Trouble just under "Doom Metal"....just an example. ------------- http://www.facebook.com/FinalSignOfficial" rel="nofollow - FINAL SIGN - US Power Metal |