Encyclopaedia Metallum: The Metal Archives

Message board

* FAQ    * Search   * Register   * Login 



This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  
Author Message Previous topic | Next topic
Ganondox
Metal newbie

Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 4:43 am
Posts: 54
PostPosted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 12:52 pm 
 

Detailed Blog-esque Post:
Spoiler: show
As we all know, metal is not the only genre of heavy rock music. I consider there to be three main lines of music based around heavily distorted guitars: metal, punk, and hard rock (the main alternative line came out of punk rock and diverged towards softer music, it only became heavier again when it converged towards heavy metal, and at that point it's not really one single line that can be separated from the other three). Now, the distinction between hard rock and heavy metal is simple enough because they diverged from each other early on. They both came out post-psychedelic blues rock, which split into the darker line that abandoned it's blues roots, and the more traditional rock line. The two lines frequently cross so it's sometimes hard to categorize a single band, but they are still two clearly different lines with a clear point of divergence. Punk, on the other hand, came from a completely different line, from pure rock n' roll/garage rock and art rock (like Velvet Underground, not the prog bands of the day), and latter converged towards heavy metal, leading to a much different situation. This is especially true in regards to hardcore, which has taken far more metal influence than the rest of punk. While older punk was more similar to hard rock as they are both classic rock, modern hardcore is much closer to heavy metal. The influence on metallic hardcore bands like Hatebreed is obvious, but it's not just the metallic hardcore bands which are metal influenced. Even hardcore pioneers Black Flag and Bad Brains were heavily influenced by metal. Meanwhile, metal has been taking influence from punk in general since Motorhead (which were as much of a punk band as a metal band and really could be considered to be a hard rock band that's just really fast and heavy) and the rest of the New Wave of British Heavy Metal, and from hardcore since the raise of thrash, so the convergence is two sided. While there is still a clear hardcore and metal scene, because of this convergence it's now much harder to separate punk from metal.

Nowadays the popular face of both the hardcore and metal scenes is metalcore. Metalcore sounds nothing like traditional punk or even traditional hardcore, and it doesn't really sound like traditional heavy metal either. However, the similarity between metalcore and the rest of the modern post-hardcore scene (which I guess is considered to be hardcore nowadays) is obvious, and it also doesn't really sound that much different from modern metal in general, being particularly close to modern groove metal, melodeath, and thrash metal. If you include deathcore as well, there is also a lot of crossover with general death metal, even technical death metal. While most deathcore is awful, it can't be denied that a lot of major players in the current death metal scene fit the label. This bridge between punk rock and death metal isn't new, it's existed since the birth of grindcore, which is essentially death punk, and it's not death metal was free from punk influence. The difference between modern grindcore and brutal death metal is negligible, there is no way a layman will find the two to sound noticeably different. It would probably be easier to differentiate the genres by looking at their track lengths then by actually listening to the songs. In fact the difference between deathgrind and tradition heavy metal (or punk) is obviously much greater than between most death metal and grindcore, any fool can hear that. This brings to question, is it really still worth while to divide these genres by punk versus metal? One could argue that the scenes are still separate, so there is still need to separate the genres, but many metal bands came from the hardcore scene, like Corrosion of Conformity, and many bands in the metal scene, like Between the Buried and Me, are lumped with hardcore here (though I fail to here any punk, let alone hardcore, whatsoever in Between the Buried in the me, they are a freaking prog band with some metalcore influences, not a punk band). There is clearly a musical difference between punk and metal, but does it still extend to modern hardcore bands?

While the technical difference is unimportant for the listener, listen to what you freaking like, Metal Archives needs to decide which bands are metal or not so they can be included, and has deemed that if bands are more hardcore (and thus punk) than metal they should be excluded. Fair enough, but it's a distinction easier said then done. Here the difference has been defined as being based on the riff, which is a pretty simple and fairly objective distinction. However, what exactly makes a riff metallic is still subjective, and can be considered a somewhat arbitrary distinction. I prefer a more holistic and less binary distinction between the genre, acknowledging that something can be both punk and metal, and both genres have many defining traits that songs may or may not have. A while ago I created this blog post which describes some traits of both genres, and gives song examples. Now, the list isn't 100% accurate, it's just a blog post I made awhile back from my understanding. Many of the song choices are pretty bad, I'd probably substitute "Paranoid" with "Iron Man" (or "War Pigs"), "Freezing Moon" with "De Mysteriis Dom Sathanas" (though Freezing Moon is less punky), "Freak on a Leash" with "Hear to Stay" or something, "One of Us is the Killer" with "Destro's Secret", and probably make a million other substitutions, maybe throw in Post-metal and Post-punk, though they don't use "post" the same way. The Minor Threat link is now broken as well. Oh well. As can be seen, there is a wide range of subgenres on both sides, a pair made for each one. The point is, my distinctions aren't based on "top is punk, bottom is metal", but rather "top is punkier, bottom is more metallic". I think that's the best that can be done with most of these subgenres, I don't think most of these can simply be separated into punk vs metal. Of course people are going to disagree with me, but that's sort of the point, the difference simply isn't that set. There is a difference between punk and metal, but it's not clear cut. I think we can argue all day what is punk and what is metal and what isn't, but in the end I don't think it really matters. It's all heavy music, and in the underground heavy music sticks together.


Discussion Question:
In short, modern heavy metal and punk, especially hardcore, are much more similar than traditional heavy metal and punk. Considering that there is now more diversity within each genre than there is a difference between the two genres, does it even make sense to continue dividing into punk and metal?

Top
 Profile  
RapeTheDead
Metalhead

Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 10:48 pm
Posts: 463
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 1:58 pm 
 

Ganondox wrote:
Discussion Question:
In short, modern heavy metal and punk, especially hardcore, are much more similar than traditional heavy metal and punk. Considering that there is now more diversity within each genre than there is a difference between the two genres, does it even make sense to continue dividing into punk and metal?


Yes. I think there's still an essence to punk and an essence to metal that exist independently of one another and evolved on their own terms, though there's a lot of common ground between the two and they commonly borrow from each other to this day. Both metal and punk represent a counterculture with roots in rock music, but whereas punk strips down the rock formula, metal expands on it. So, punk uses simplicity to get closer to "the source" of the true rock n roll spirit, whereas metal attempts to do the same thing through more intricate and fantastical means. Sure, there's detailed, progressive punk music and raw, primitive metal music, but even in those cases punk seems to display more worldly, genuine emotions while metal is much more wandering and esoteric in its artistic expression.

Punk and metal are the yin and yang of a musical ideal; endlessly connected and interdependent, but still significant in their distinction because they represent the two opposing forces that create that ideal.
_________________
http://www.last.fm/user/A_Silent_Enigma

Top
 Profile  
IanThrash
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 10:56 pm
Posts: 915
Location: Argentina
PostPosted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 2:28 pm 
 

modern heavy metal? be more specific. What is so similar between The Dead Boys and Portrait?
Punk and Heavy Metal are related historically and culturally, but musically, both have really clear differences in terms of composition, lyrics and style. Yes, it makes sense to divide 'em.
_________________
CanĀ“t touch this

Dude: If you tour, will you bring out other musicians? Use tapes? Clone yourselves?

Fenriz: I am up for cloning, but with less tinnitus and more chest hair, please.

Lastfm

Top
 Profile  
narsilianshard
Metalhead

Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:22 pm
Posts: 613
Location: Seattle
PostPosted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 4:15 pm 
 

I'm more interested in the division between punk and hardcore. I've heard people claim they are one and the same, while others differentiate between punk, hardcore punk, and hardcore.
_________________
Haven't written shit about metal recently, so here's some stupid gifs I made years ago.

Top
 Profile  
EternalDrone
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 4:03 pm
Posts: 11
Location: United States
PostPosted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 4:24 pm 
 

These types of divisions are pretty arbitrary, and they definitely have a lot in common. If a band is still playing sort of an older punk sound, that will remain fairly distinct from metal, but a lot of modern hardcore, or any -core, really, has about as much metal as punk influence. In fact, I'd say Nails, for instance, has a sound much closer to Hellhammer than to the Sex Pistols or something. Motorhead is punk as fuck, and even Iron Maiden, with their early stuff, has a very punkish quality. The two aren't exactly interchangeable, but they definitely get along very easily. I'd say the main division between them is am identity, or cultural thing, but those attitudes seem to be in decline. The two have already embraced one another, but now they seem to be merging, to an extent.
narsilianshard wrote:
I'm more interested in the division between punk and hardcore. I've heard people claim they are one and the same, while others differentiate between punk, hardcore punk, and hardcore.

I see hardcore as undeniably punk, but punk with a strong influence from extreme metal.

Top
 Profile  
Tired
Metal newbie

Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 4:12 pm
Posts: 147
Location: Finland
PostPosted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 4:38 pm 
 

Old hardcore is definitely punk, but stuff like Merauder, Integrity, etc could be seen as something completely different.

Top
 Profile  
the_raytownian
Metalhead

Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 1:09 am
Posts: 2192
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 4:55 pm 
 

In response to this talk of how modern HC has nothing in common with "old school punk", and the idea that this "modern style" is indistinguishable from some genre of metal I obviously haven't ever heard: How does the relative popularity of "modern" HC in the form of Metalcore or bands like Hatebro negate the fact that there's still tons of bands today playing a million different variants of punk, hardcore, metal, and combinations of all the above, including "old school" forms?

Unless literally every metal/punk/hc/crossover/whatevercore band that couldn't be strictly defined as "Metalcore" somehow fell off the face of the earth, the distinctions would still be relevant and clearly discernible to anyone who knows anything about them.

Just because genres/cultures intermingle, it doesn't mean that the individual groups somehow lose their essential nature, and the essential nature of punk/HC is rather different from that of metal. Modern variations and stylistic intermingling don't re-define the essential nature of "punk" and "metal" just because they're supposedly hard for your average 12 year old to distinguish between.

Furthermore, descriptors like "Post-Hardcore" exist for a reason.
_________________
Disgrace to the corpse of Metal Archives!
Discogs

Top
 Profile  
Zodijackyl
Lazy Wizard

Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 5:39 pm
Posts: 4840
Location: United States
PostPosted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 9:25 pm 
 

Ganondox wrote:
The difference between modern grindcore and brutal death metal is negligible, there is no way a layman will find the two to sound noticeably different.


That's like saying that melodic death metal and hardcore are the same thing because you only know metalcore. There's overlap, there's a clear and generally understood difference. This is a false analogy. Metal and punk both came out of "post-psychedelic blues rock" - that's like saying that Vietnam and Louisiana are basically the same thing because they were both French colonies at one point.

This is mostly grasping at loose ends and misconceptions regarding poorly written definitions. You're trying to pinhole certain things while having an unwieldy grasp on other categorizations. These things aren't understood by definition and in the abstract, they're understood by experience with the music and history of it. This is just a confusing, aimless rant.

Top
 Profile  
Ganondox
Metal newbie

Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 4:43 am
Posts: 54
PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 12:56 am 
 

Zodijackyl wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
The difference between modern grindcore and brutal death metal is negligible, there is no way a layman will find the two to sound noticeably different.


That's like saying that melodic death metal and hardcore are the same thing because you only know metalcore. There's overlap, there's a clear and generally understood difference. This is a false analogy. Metal and punk both came out of "post-psychedelic blues rock" - that's like saying that Vietnam and Louisiana are basically the same thing because they were both French colonies at one point.

This is mostly grasping at loose ends and misconceptions regarding poorly written definitions. You're trying to pinhole certain things while having an unwieldy grasp on other categorizations. These things aren't understood by definition and in the abstract, they're understood by experience with the music and history of it. This is just a confusing, aimless rant.


Is there a difference between brutal death metal and modern grindcore? Of course, but the fact is it's a small and arbitrary one. The difference between old grindcore and death metal is much greater, so yes, it's the history which makes them distinct, but if you look at them in the moment and ignore the history, there is really no reason to keep them distinct. At least, that's from what my understanding of brutal death metal is, which is a specific, unmelodic form of death metal. It includes slam, but not techdeath, and overlaps with deathgrind while still being considered distinct from it. If you can prove that brutal death is as diverse as hardcore and modern grindcore is as different from it as melodeath is from hardcore, then your point stands, but brutal death metal and grindcore obviously have a lot more in common then hardcore and melodeath do, they even share some history that the other two genres do not. Both grindcore and death metal formed in the mid-80's and crossed over early on, while hardcore formed in the late 70's and melodeath in the early 90's, and they didn't really start crossover until the new millennium. Some comparisons can be made to fuel the analogy, sure there are some metalcore bands which bridge hardcore and melodeath, but it's a much different situation.

Also, I did not say punk came from "post-psychedelic blues rock", I said hard rock did. Punk rock stood out as unlike most 70's rock it did not come from psychedelic rock. You are completely missing the point of the discussion there, the point was punk and metal do NOT share the roots aside from both coming from rock, but have overtime came closer together.

"These things aren't understood by definition and in the abstract, they're understood by experience with the music and history of it. " Yes, I agree, but the thing is the thing is many subgenres the history is intermingled with both paths, and the experience is distinct from both. I guess my point is, while there is still an obvious difference between punk and metal at it's roots, for many modern genres, does it make since to divide them into metal or punk, or place them together in a 3rd category distinct from their roots?

the_raytownian wrote:
In response to this talk of how modern HC has nothing in common with "old school punk", and the idea that this "modern style" is indistinguishable from some genre of metal I obviously haven't ever heard: How does the relative popularity of "modern" HC in the form of Metalcore or bands like Hatebro negate the fact that there's still tons of bands today playing a million different variants of punk, hardcore, metal, and combinations of all the above, including "old school" forms?

Unless literally every metal/punk/hc/crossover/whatevercore band that couldn't be strictly defined as "Metalcore" somehow fell off the face of the earth, the distinctions would still be relevant and clearly discernible to anyone who knows anything about them.

Just because genres/cultures intermingle, it doesn't mean that the individual groups somehow lose their essential nature, and the essential nature of punk/HC is rather different from that of metal. Modern variations and stylistic intermingling don't re-define the essential nature of "punk" and "metal" just because they're supposedly hard for your average 12 year old to distinguish between.

Furthermore, descriptors like "Post-Hardcore" exist for a reason.


For the cross-over versus retro-old-school thing, I'll repeat this: "I guess my point is, while there is still an obvious difference between punk and metal at it's roots, for many modern genres, does it make since to divide them into metal or punk, or place them together in a 3rd category distinct from their roots?
" Anyway, even if you ignore the crossovers, both sides still take significant influence from each other. This is a huge generalization and over-simplification, but I think it can be said that all heavy and dark music takes from Black Sabbath, and all fast and angry music takes from Black Flag. The Rule of Black. :) As has been said, they still hold to a root, at least if your separate the bands where the root is ambiguous which would be the bands subject to discussion.

Yes, it really annoys me when people equate post-hardcore with hardcore. Making that's the true meaning of this thread, it's all a rant about people calling post-hardcore hardcore, haha. Maybe what Tired said would be the most accurate resolution for this "debate".

EternalDrone wrote:
These types of divisions are pretty arbitrary, and they definitely have a lot in common. If a band is still playing sort of an older punk sound, that will remain fairly distinct from metal, but a lot of modern hardcore, or any -core, really, has about as much metal as punk influence. In fact, I'd say Nails, for instance, has a sound much closer to Hellhammer than to the Sex Pistols or something. Motorhead is punk as fuck, and even Iron Maiden, with their early stuff, has a very punkish quality. The two aren't exactly interchangeable, but they definitely get along very easily. I'd say the main division between them is am identity, or cultural thing, but those attitudes seem to be in decline. The two have already embraced one another, but now they seem to be merging, to an extent.
narsilianshard wrote:
I'm more interested in the division between punk and hardcore. I've heard people claim they are one and the same, while others differentiate between punk, hardcore punk, and hardcore.

I see hardcore as undeniably punk, but punk with a strong influence from extreme metal.


Basically my view, though I do agree with RapeTheDead that even though the distinction is blurred with many modern bands that there is still a ying-yang division at their core, which punk being the simple side and metal being the complex side of aggressive music. Anyway, with the explanation of hardcore, I think it's actually the other way around if you look at their history, extreme metal could be explained as being metal which is significantly hardcore influenced, whereas early hardcore was just punk that was really fast and aggressive. It's a bit tricky, as they both emerged at about the same time, the early 80's, and while they were clearly distinct scenes they took from each other. Overkill is sometimes considered to be the first thrash metal band, and they emerged from the hardcore punk scene, though they went solidly into the metal scene by the time they formed their distinctive sound.

Top
 Profile  
hots_towel
Metal newbie

Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 2:19 am
Posts: 128
Location: United States
PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 2:14 am 
 

punk to me is a less heavy thrash. ive heard a lot of punk bands use much more major sounding chord progressions in their songs. punk musicians are hardly ever very musically talented. theres many more subgeneres in metal, while punk has a basic three or something. but a lot of people would call all those subgenre stuff nonsense.

thats not to say a thrash band an a punk band count play on the same stage. however the purists from both sides probably wouldn't have it
_________________
If i see that same f*cking Fenriz meme of him telling Lars to get a better snare one more time I'm gonna loose my sh*t!!!

Top
 Profile  
Hardboiled
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 9:13 pm
Posts: 23
PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 5:26 am 
 

you guys really love music labels, i really never understood why. For me is more like, you like this band, fine no big deal. You see, for me if musicians really cared about music labels music would be a very boring thing. For example for me Brutal Death Metal is a fucking piece of shit, but i fucking love Suffocation, they are "brutal death metal" but also they have a unique sound and they sound like suffocation, they dont follow any musical genre. They mix things with complex jazz, death metal, noise, etc. The only use that i found in labels is to describe the music and thats fine, but if you start to caring more about labels than the real music probably you will have a lame musical taste. Like those guys who liste 200 bands of black metal that sounds exactly the same.

Top
 Profile  
Ilwhyan
Metel fraek

Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 1:41 pm
Posts: 6401
Location: Finland
PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 5:29 am 
 

Hardboiled: Good one. The next time someone asks what kind of music I listen to, instead of answering "metal, especially black and death" I'm going to say, "Immolation, Incantation, Horna, Behexen, Gorgoroth, Anata...".

Ganondox wrote:
Is there a difference between brutal death metal and modern grindcore? Of course, but the fact is it's a small and arbitrary one.
It is neither small nor arbitrary. If you're unable to differentiate the genres properly, it doesn't mean there isn't a vast difference. Sorry, but that's how it is.

Ganondox wrote:
If you can prove that brutal death is as diverse as hardcore and modern grindcore is as different from it as melodeath is from hardcore, then your point stands,
Let's stop the run-on here for a while. What? His point stands only if this genre you pulled out of blue meets an arbitrary standard of diversity? If you don't mind clarifying, because that raises a certain question: in what sense does that make any kind of sense? In any case, brutal death metal is a sub-genre of death metal that evolved from a style of playing death metal where the brutality was considerably emphasized into its own specific thing. You're probably mistaking stylistical overlap for "merely arbitrary differences", again.

Ganondox wrote:
Yes, I agree, but the thing is the thing is many subgenres the history is intermingled with both paths, and the experience is distinct from both. I guess my point is, while there is still an obvious difference between punk and metal at it's roots, for many modern genres, does it make since to divide them into metal or punk, or place them together in a 3rd category distinct from their roots?
Yes, it absolutely does. It would be incredibly confusing if people insisted that because of contemporary overlap the roots of metal and punk be considered the same. And it wouldn't make any kind of sense either. In fact, it's a mystery what you even mean. What kind of steps do you feel that music listeners and media should take in order to rectify the thing that you consider a flaw in terminology? Or is it even an issue with terminology, but instead an "ideological" one?

Is there, by chance, a string of punk-based bands you feel that should be included in the metal-archives?

Ganondox wrote:
Anyway, even if you ignore the crossovers, both sides still take significant influence from each other. This is a huge generalization and over-simplification, but I think it can be said that all heavy and dark music takes from Black Sabbath, and all fast and angry music takes from Black Flag. The Rule of Black. :) As has been said, they still hold to a root, at least if your separate the bands where the root is ambiguous which would be the bands subject to discussion.
Yes, that's a ridiculous generalisation, and it's not true. Metal became fast and aggressive before there was any considerable punk influence. Black Sabbath wasn't the only metal band until thrash metal, you know.

Ganondox wrote:
Anyway, with the explanation of hardcore, I think it's actually the other way around if you look at their history, extreme metal could be explained as being metal which is significantly hardcore influenced, whereas early hardcore was just punk that was really fast and aggressive. It's a bit tricky, as they both emerged at about the same time, the early 80's, and while they were clearly distinct scenes they took from each other. Overkill is sometimes considered to be the first thrash metal band, and they emerged from the hardcore punk scene, though they went solidly into the metal scene by the time they formed their distinctive sound.
Your definition of extreme metal here, again, seems to indicate that your understanding of both metal and punk are based on very vague definitions, like "fast, aggressive rock-based music" or "heavy, dark, riff-driven rock music". Punk had important effects on the development of metal, as it helped thrash metal to find its more savage forms, which in turn influenced extreme metal greatly. Anyway, it's good to remember that Slayer and early German thrash weren't the only things that early extreme metal was based on.
_________________
"Behold, wizard, for the last time how the sun looks, for henceforth you will watch it with empty sockets!"
Illusions Dead - death/black metal

Top
 Profile  
ld50
Metalhead

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2011 2:22 am
Posts: 495
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 6:24 am 
 

I can't even begin to start to respond to this... Ganondox, I think you should go through the many threads in this forum to learn from those who have spent a lot of time thinking about and discussing these subjects and spend some more time with music before attempting to write a long misguided blog post on it.

No offense, I've written a few well meaning, but misguided things in my past

Ilwhyan wrote:
Hardboiled: Good one. The next time someone asks what kind of music I listen to, instead of answering "metal, especially black and death" I'm going to say, "Immolation, Incantation, Horna, Behexen, Gorgoroth, Anata...".

It's so absurd that I continue to hear people suggest that labels shouldn't exist. Perhaps we should just take all adjectives out of human language and make discussion as difficult as possible.

Ganondox wrote:
...does it even make sense to continue dividing into punk and metal?

Of course it does; they're different.

/thread (for me, anyways)

Top
 Profile  
Syntek
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 1:14 pm
Posts: 610
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 8:25 am 
 

If you consider punk and metal as two variables on a Venn diagram, punk on one side and metal on the other, it'd make more sense to just accept that there's overlap instead of demolishing the whole categorisation process itself.

Top
 Profile  
Ganondox
Metal newbie

Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 4:43 am
Posts: 54
PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 8:41 am 
 

Hardboiled wrote:
you guys really love music labels, i really never understood why. For me is more like, you like this band, fine no big deal. You see, for me if musicians really cared about music labels music would be a very boring thing. For example for me Brutal Death Metal is a fucking piece of shit, but i fucking love Suffocation, they are "brutal death metal" but also they have a unique sound and they sound like suffocation, they dont follow any musical genre. They mix things with complex jazz, death metal, noise, etc. The only use that i found in labels is to describe the music and thats fine, but if you start to caring more about labels than the real music probably you will have a lame musical taste. Like those guys who liste 200 bands of black metal that sounds exactly the same.


People like classifying things, it's just human nature. If you don't like classifying things, you don't have to. It's probably for the best you don't, though it makes discussion easier when the differences are more clear cut. Bickering over genre labels like this shouldn't be anything serious, just an intellectual conversion that doesn't really amount to anything at the end except make people think over things.

ld50 wrote:
I can't even begin to start to respond to this... Ganondox, I think you should go through the many threads in this forum to learn from those who have spent a lot of time thinking about and discussing these subjects and spend some more time with music before attempting to write a long misguided blog post on it.

No offense, I've written a few well meaning, but misguided things in my past

Ilwhyan wrote:
Hardboiled: Good one. The next time someone asks what kind of music I listen to, instead of answering "metal, especially black and death" I'm going to say, "Immolation, Incantation, Horna, Behexen, Gorgoroth, Anata...".

It's so absurd that I continue to hear people suggest that labels shouldn't exist. Perhaps we should just take all adjectives out of human language and make discussion as difficult as possible.

Ganondox wrote:
...does it even make sense to continue dividing into punk and metal?

Of course it does; they're different.

/thread (for me, anyways)


Any particular threads in mind? I'd like to seem what what other people have to say, though I like formulating ideas, even if they are completely pointless and stupid.

Ilwhyan wrote:
Hardboiled: Good one. The next time someone asks what kind of music I listen to, instead of answering "metal, especially black and death" I'm going to say, "Immolation, Incantation, Horna, Behexen, Gorgoroth, Anata...".

Ganondox wrote:
Is there a difference between brutal death metal and modern grindcore? Of course, but the fact is it's a small and arbitrary one.
It is neither small nor arbitrary. If you're unable to differentiate the genres properly, it doesn't mean there isn't a vast difference. Sorry, but that's how it is.

Ganondox wrote:
If you can prove that brutal death is as diverse as hardcore and modern grindcore is as different from it as melodeath is from hardcore, then your point stands,
Let's stop the run-on here for a while. What? His point stands only if this genre you pulled out of blue meets an arbitrary standard of diversity? If you don't mind clarifying, because that raises a certain question: in what sense does that make any kind of sense? In any case, brutal death metal is a sub-genre of death metal that evolved from a style of playing death metal where the brutality was considerably emphasized into its own specific thing. You're probably mistaking stylistical overlap for "merely arbitrary differences", again.


By brutal death metal I mean stuff like this:



Maybe not Suffocation, I don't know them well enough. Admittedly I don't listen to enough brutal death or modern grindcore to really make the distinction between the two, because two me they both sound god awful. The same monotonous texture of blast beats and chugging all the way through. I like music with melody, or at least dynamics. If it's gonna be loaded the whole way through then I want it to be pretty and atmospheric, like shoegaze, not a noisy mess. The only overall difference I notice in their overall texture is that the brutal death bands are slightly lower. I'll admit the Putrid Pile song sounds slightly more distinctly metal than I remember it being, but not much. Sure, the brutal death songs are longer and more complex, but their texture are very similar, and I think the distinction of "heavy yet melodic rock" vs "growly noisy grind" is more meaningful than "punk vs metal" in this case. I stand by that point, even if I'm incorrect about the diversity of brutal death or whatever.
Quote:

Ganondox wrote:
Yes, I agree, but the thing is the thing is many subgenres the history is intermingled with both paths, and the experience is distinct from both. I guess my point is, while there is still an obvious difference between punk and metal at it's roots, for many modern genres, does it make since to divide them into metal or punk, or place them together in a 3rd category distinct from their roots?
Yes, it absolutely does. It would be incredibly confusing if people insisted that because of contemporary overlap the roots of metal and punk be considered the same. And it wouldn't make any kind of sense either. In fact, it's a mystery what you even mean. What kind of steps do you feel that music listeners and media should take in order to rectify the thing that you consider a flaw in terminology? Or is it even an issue with terminology, but instead an "ideological" one?


I've never argued that punk and metal are the same, they obviously aren't. The argument is if the distinction matters. Specifically, for many modern metal/hardcore bands, is it better to divide them into metal and punk, or along different lines? With the two/four main examples, let's say they are more or less "metallic hardcore", "groove metal", "death metal", and "grindcore", is it more meaningful to divide them as punk (metallic hardcore and grindcore) vs metal (groove metal and death metal) or metalcore (metallic hardcore and groove metal) vs deathgrind (grindcore and death metal). Now, I'm using the genre terms liberally here, for one I'm not actually referring to groove metal as a whole, just more metallic metalcore bands, but I hope you can still see the point I'm trying to make.

It's an intellectual discussion, I'm not asking for any practical changes or anything. The media already slaps "metal" on everything you call "hardcore". :P
Quote:

Is there, by chance, a string of punk-based bands you feel that should be included in the metal-archives?


Please, there all ready plenty of punk-based bands in the archives. However, there are plenty of metal-based bands I think should be included. :P Anyway, while I'm not a fan of metalcore, I do think more metalcore bands should be included as while they emerged from the post-hardcore scene they are more metal than anything else. There are plenty of other bands from the hardcore scene in the archives, like the aforementioned Corrosion of Conformity. At the end of the day, punk and metal are just labels, and music is music. Punk, however, has a clear ethos associated with it, not just a style of music. The average black metal band is far more punk then your average metalcore band by any means.
Quote:

Ganondox wrote:
Anyway, even if you ignore the crossovers, both sides still take significant influence from each other. This is a huge generalization and over-simplification, but I think it can be said that all heavy and dark music takes from Black Sabbath, and all fast and angry music takes from Black Flag. The Rule of Black. :) As has been said, they still hold to a root, at least if your separate the bands where the root is ambiguous which would be the bands subject to discussion.
Yes, that's a ridiculous generalisation, and it's not true. Metal became fast and aggressive before there was any considerable punk influence. Black Sabbath wasn't the only metal band until thrash metal, you know.


In case you missed it, I specifically mentioned the influence of punk, though not hardcore, on the NWOBHM. Motorhead is considered the pioneers of speed metal, and they were heavily punk influenced, more so than metal. Judas Priest didn't turn towards speed metal until much later, and I don't believe Budgie is really of the same breed. I will give you that Paranoid is fairly fast and aggressive, but that is a Black Sabbath song. :P
Quote:

Ganondox wrote:
Anyway, with the explanation of hardcore, I think it's actually the other way around if you look at their history, extreme metal could be explained as being metal which is significantly hardcore influenced, whereas early hardcore was just punk that was really fast and aggressive. It's a bit tricky, as they both emerged at about the same time, the early 80's, and while they were clearly distinct scenes they took from each other. Overkill is sometimes considered to be the first thrash metal band, and they emerged from the hardcore punk scene, though they went solidly into the metal scene by the time they formed their distinctive sound.
Your definition of extreme metal here, again, seems to indicate that your understanding of both metal and punk are based on very vague definitions, like "fast, aggressive rock-based music" or "heavy, dark, riff-driven rock music". Punk had important effects on the development of metal, as it helped thrash metal to find its more savage forms, which in turn influenced extreme metal greatly. Anyway, it's good to remember that Slayer and early German thrash weren't the only things that early extreme metal was based on.


If you read the blog post that was linked, I made it quite clear that the distinction between punk and metal is much more complicated than any simple phrase, and that while they have some clear traits, there isn't really a definable difference, it's just something that must be felt. However, if you want to oversimplify the genres, that's a pretty good generalization. :P Anyway, punk rock has been influencing extreme metal long before Slayer and the German thrash bands. Most the early speed metal bands where punk influenced as far as I can tell, and the less extreme thrash bands where also hardcore influenced. If you can pull out a specific example of early extreme metal with no punk influence, please do.

Syntek wrote:
If you consider punk and metal as two variables on a Venn diagram, punk on one side and metal on the other, it'd make more sense to just accept that there's overlap instead of demolishing the whole categorisation process itself.

Agreed.

Top
 Profile  
Lagartija
Metalhead

Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 10:27 am
Posts: 474
Location: Spain
PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 8:54 am 
 

Of course the distinction must be made, that is why we have terms like 'crossover' or its moder, shitty variation 'metalcore'.
I love both genres in the same way, in fact all the metal I like was influenced by punk (anything after thrash, basically) and a lot of the punk I listen to was influenced by metal (The Exploited, The Casualties), so there is a definite connection even though they are obviously two very distinct genres.

Top
 Profile  
Lagartija
Metalhead

Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 10:27 am
Posts: 474
Location: Spain
PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 9:04 am 
 

narsilianshard wrote:
I'm more interested in the division between punk and hardcore. I've heard people claim they are one and the same, while others differentiate between punk, hardcore punk, and hardcore.

I suppose 'hardcore' is simply the original US movement of the Dead Kennedys, Bad Brains, Agnostic Front, etc. Punk hardcore would be more like The Casualties, then you have surfer punk, streetpunk... Perhaps the only original 'punk' band is the Sex Pistols...

Top
 Profile  
Ganondox
Metal newbie

Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 4:43 am
Posts: 54
PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 11:03 am 
 

Lagartija wrote:
narsilianshard wrote:
I'm more interested in the division between punk and hardcore. I've heard people claim they are one and the same, while others differentiate between punk, hardcore punk, and hardcore.

I suppose 'hardcore' is simply the original US movement of the Dead Kennedys, Bad Brains, Agnostic Front, etc. Punk hardcore would be more like The Casualties, then you have surfer punk, streetpunk... Perhaps the only original 'punk' band is the Sex Pistols...


There were a few other punk bands aside from the Sex Pistols before hardcore, the most obvious example being the Ramones, though they were sorta poppy without being what is now called pop punk. Anyway, I consider hardcore to be a subgenre of punk so punk hardcore is redundant, but I see other people have other ideas. If it's not punk, I wouldn't consider it hardcore, but rather post-hardcore or something else. Anyway, listened to a song by The Casualties, it sounds very punk.

Top
 Profile  
narsilianshard
Metalhead

Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:22 pm
Posts: 613
Location: Seattle
PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 12:44 pm 
 

Awesome, those answers definitely help. I guess expanding on my question, I really still don't see how punk (mohawks/plaid, three chord songs, lyrically focused on anti-government/social issues) became hardcore (basketball shorts/gauges, breakdowns, lyrically focused on self-empowerment). I see how there's a line that connects them but the latter seems to have completely taken over from the former. Is the punk (in the original sense of the word) essentially dead?
_________________
Haven't written shit about metal recently, so here's some stupid gifs I made years ago.

Top
 Profile  
Ganondox
Metal newbie

Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 4:43 am
Posts: 54
PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 1:27 pm 
 

narsilianshard wrote:
Awesome, those answers definitely help. I guess expanding on my question, I really still don't see how punk (mohawks/plaid, three chord songs, lyrically focused on anti-government/social issues) became hardcore (basketball shorts/gauges, breakdowns, lyrically focused on self-empowerment). I see how there's a line that connects them but the latter seems to have completely taken over from the former. Is the punk (in the original sense of the word) essentially dead?


I fail to see how modern hardcore has anything to do with traditional hardcore punk either, they sound nothing alike. Modern "hardcore" sounds more like punk than metal IMO, which I guess is another way of phrasing my argument. Anyway, punk isn't quite dead. Rise Against is melodic hardcore and they are popular, though they've moved away from hardcore, so they're aren't exactly traditional hardcore either. You can still find punks if look around, they're music is just either old or underground, you can find plenty of underground punk bands if you go looking. Eyehategod might be sludge metal, but their latest single is the punkiest thing I've heard in a while.

Top
 Profile  
Manic Maniac
Grammaritically Challengated

Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2013 1:58 pm
Posts: 180
Location: United States
PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 1:49 pm 
 

Ganondox, I have to ask. Are you saying that there should be a seperate third catagory for all bands that blend both Metal & Punk genres, or, perhaps, just only the newer stuff? Well, either way, it doesn't seem like a nessesary thing to do.
_________________
I'm almost as much as a sucker for Heavy Metal with anime as much as I'm a sucker for speeding Kenworths set on fire.

Top
 Profile  
Ganondox
Metal newbie

Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 4:43 am
Posts: 54
PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 2:11 pm 
 

Manic Maniac wrote:
Ganondox, I have to ask. Are you saying that there should be a seperate third catagory for all bands that blend both Metal & Punk genres, or, perhaps, just only the newer stuff? Well, either way, it doesn't seem like a nessesary thing to do.


I'm not saying their should be a single 3rd category to put all fusions in, that would be ridiculous, but that there should be a 3rd category at least for some of the newer stuff.

Top
 Profile  
Opus
Metalhead

Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 11:06 am
Posts: 1740
Location: Sweden
PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 2:49 pm 
 

Ganondox wrote:
Is there a difference between brutal death metal and modern grindcore? Of course, but the fact is it's a small and arbitrary one.

Why do you say it's arbitrary? It's not.

Hardboiled wrote:
Suffocation, ... mix things with complex jazz, death metal, noise, etc.

No they don't! There's neither jazz nor noise to be found. Anywhere.
_________________
Do the words Heavy Metal mean anything to you other than buttcore, technical progressive assgrind or the like?
Dudemanguy wrote:
Opus is pretty much the latest and greatest

Top
 Profile  
Auch
Metal newbie

Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 10:40 pm
Posts: 65
Location: United States
PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 3:24 pm 
 

Ganondox, it really seems like you are making grand, sweeping gestures about a bunch of bands and subgenres that you just don't know enough about. For example, I'm not an expert on grindcore (although I do like it), but to say that grindcore and brutal death metal are pretty much the same thing except for song length really just shows how little you know about not only death metal, but grindcore, its history, and multiple influences and subgenres. I haven't had a chance to read your original post, just the rest of the thread, but it seems like you are trying to make some novice grand theory to fix an imaginary punk/metal problem.

Top
 Profile  
Zelkiiro
Pounding the world with a fish of steel

Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 5:30 pm
Posts: 4012
Location: United States
PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 3:45 pm 
 

The way I look at it, the difference is simple:

In general, metal is more theatrical and ponderous, with emphasis on atmosphere and virtuosity (e.g. unique riffs and intricate solos).
In general, punk is more stripped-down and energetic, with emphasis on accessibility (for both listener and artist) and raw emotion.

Do they often meet? Yeah. Are there exceptions? Plenty. But from what I've seen, that's the overall trend.
_________________
Anime Reviews every two weeks!
Artwork once or twice a year!
M-A reviews every leap year!
Last.fm all day long!

Top
 Profile  
Hardboiled
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 9:13 pm
Posts: 23
PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 7:03 pm 
 

Opus wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
Is there a difference between brutal death metal and modern grindcore? Of course, but the fact is it's a small and arbitrary one.

Why do you say it's arbitrary? It's not.

Hardboiled wrote:
Suffocation, ... mix things with complex jazz, death metal, noise, etc.

No they don't! There's neither jazz nor noise to be found. Anywhere.


Yes there are! Mike use a lot of jazz technics to write the songs he even say that in some interviews and cmon' Suffo has lots of noise influence

On the other hand, maybe i expressed myselft wrong. I don't think that musical genres shouldn't exist but i think that if you close your mind into listen one or two genres, you will have a very poor musical taste. I knew a lot of people that listened to any band of "X" genre because the band fell into that label although the band sounded like shit.
For me Punk and Metal in the recent era are different but there are lots of bands that mix the two styles, specially the most "metallic" hardcore bands. But if you think so, thrash, death, black, they all have some relationship with hardcore punk, specially in the beginning. So is not an strange thought that punk and metal should englobe a bigger genre.

Top
 Profile  
Wilytank
Not a Flying Toy

Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2009 7:21 am
Posts: 3353
Location: United States
PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 7:43 pm 
 

Ganondox wrote:

Is there a difference between brutal death metal and modern grindcore? Of course, but the fact is it's a small and arbitrary one.



Ganondox wrote:
Admittedly I don't listen to enough brutal death or modern grindcore to really make the distinction between the two...


:roll:
_________________
Oddeye wrote:
bug_man wrote:
a whole planet, made out of satan


That. Is. METAL!

Top
 Profile  
Zodijackyl
Lazy Wizard

Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 5:39 pm
Posts: 4840
Location: United States
PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 9:54 pm 
 

Auch wrote:
Ganondox, it really seems like you are making grand, sweeping gestures about a bunch of bands and subgenres that you just don't know enough about. For example, I'm not an expert on grindcore (although I do like it), but to say that grindcore and brutal death metal are pretty much the same thing except for song length really just shows how little you know about not only death metal, but grindcore, its history, and multiple influences and subgenres. I haven't had a chance to read your original post, just the rest of the thread, but it seems like you are trying to make some novice grand theory to fix an imaginary punk/metal problem.


Perhaps the only thing well said in this thread.

Top
 Profile  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], mike40k, PDS and 19 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

Back to the Encyclopaedia Metallum


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group