too many bullshit sub-genres

[Div]

Originally Posted by JRA

The thing is, your previous post seemed to be made in argument of why I shouldn't be complaining. Then to see you posting about it was like being slapped across the face with the John Holmes penis of irony.

oh. you see sometimes i use this place (and i think everyone else does at some point) to vent about things because we dont have much immediate real life connections here.

that was more of a general rant post because some of my friends were being dumbasses "oh mike you like metal right? well we got this other friend whos also metal, hes got spikes in his hair and everything, and he says iron maiden are sellouts so i guess ure wrong about them hurr durr durr"

but i think there is a need for subgenres, but more similar to the list maiden33 posted, and less like every band making up their own category. of course, there are going to be posers who want to use metal for the "tough guy" image no matter what you do.

[JRA]

Yea. Every time someone comes up with a new sound of metal does not require to be given it's on sub-genre. If anything it should be put in a pre-existing sub-genre, so that new sound can be seen as an expansion/forward movement.

[TonyD]

Originally Posted by Fires Of Sedition

Samesies. I've gotten death metal songs labeled "Pop/Rock" before

Even though it sounds ridiculous, if you divide music into a few huge genres that's how it works out.

Metal has a ton of genres and sub genres in part because the fans tend to be elitists and outcasts who need the feeling of ownership of what they listen to. Also playing is accessible to almost any fan, so there are thousands of bands trying to find a niche.

[ChildrenofSodom]

I don't think the subgenres hurt anything or anyone, and bitching about it is just an exhibition of metal purism for purism's sake. (I'm drunk.) We have all been in the situation where some stranger finds out that you listen to metal, and (no offense to the noobs here) they ask "Oh, you like metal huh? Like Slipknot and Korn?" By subdividing the diverse field of metal, it is easier to a) find bands you may like, b) clarify a band's sound to other metalheads, and c) differentiate ourselves from the other bullshit that flies under the 'metal' flag.

I personally divide my ipod along mostly bullshit lines, mostly grouping bands that sound similar to me. All That Remains, In Flames, and Amon Amarth are all in the genre "Melodic Death Metal." Do they sound very similar? Not really, but they are close enough in my opinion, and it helps me organize my music.

Bands that invent their own genres (pirate metal, for example) are obnoxious, but most sub genres are not a problem in my opinion and bitching about it isn't really a worth while investment of my time. Not when people think all death metal=screamo.

[TonyD]

Originally Posted by ChildrenofSodom

c) differentiate ourselves from the other bullshit that flies under the 'metal' flag.

This is what kinda bugs me.

Yeah it's good for organizing and differentiating but by doing so I think it limits the creativity of many bands. It's hard to develop a unique sound, but easy (and way too common) to say, "what do we sounds like? ___ metal. How do we write songs? Like ___ metal songs." It might sound over simplified and completely lame, but it's true.

[Maiden33]

Originally Posted by ChildrenofSodom

(I'm drunk.)

What does that have to do with anything? Nothing you said was remotely incoherent or terribly irrelevant.

[ravenheart]

I'm sticking with my point JRA quoted. Sub-genres to the nth degree have outlasted their usefulness.

And I'm mostly on board with Maiden33 with the basics, but I wouldn't have melodic metal in my list (and I don't consider it anything to do with death metal at all, whoever said that), and doom is clearly missing. For me it's:

Traditional
Progressive
Doom
Death
Thrash
Black
Folk (or whatever you want to call the medieval stuff)
Rap/Crossover
Stoner/Southern

And to be perfectly honest, in my music library, everything with extreme vocals simply has the tag "extreme metal" because for me that's all the same mood, so I want to listen all of that, or none of it.

I suppose what this leaves is, where do you put all the "alternative" kids-metal bands. Seether, Mudvayne, Shinedown etc.

[ravenheart]

Originally Posted by Maiden33

See, you're stuck in thinking that "melodic" is only a modifier - which to me it is not.
There are many, many things I listen to that I don't consider anything else but "Melodic Metal" - best defined by bands with a very 80s, Hard Rock, AOR-inspired vibe. See: Pink Cream 69, Jaded Heart, I could expand the list but honestly you've probably never heard ANY of the bands so I don't expect you to really "Get" it through experience. The "Allen/lande" albums fall into this category too. They are NOT power metal, and I refuse to hear them categrized as such - they are their own genre, bridging a gap between AOR/Hard Rock and Traditional/Power metal - "Melodic Metal".

Meh. Jaded Heart and Pink Cream 69 are just hard rock bands. Allen/Lande is just a metal album. There's not a lot about it to require its own genre.

I'm with the others. I'm not having melodic metal as a genre. There aren't sufficient differences there to warrant it.

[ravenheart]

Originally Posted by ChildrenofSodom

Not when people think all death metal=screamo.

Outside of metal fans, most people think all metal = death metal.

[Wizzbang11]

Hey Manky Black N Roll is totally a sub genre.
Not many bands play it, but the ones that do are clearly not black metal, but way to black metal to be heavy metal/hard rock etc.