I've always laughed at names like viking metal, speed metal, and pirate metal for as long as I can remember, but today I was random-banding and noticed a band started as innocent thrash and later decided to play mallcore. Now, of course this was nearly twenty minutes ago and just now I've regained composure. Anyway, after this I decided too look up the bands that slipped through the Metal filter, like All that Remains and White Chapel, but did not see them labeled under the mallcore "genre." I would like to know if this is because those 43 bands linked before were edited by a couple of clowns after some lawls, or if the big name bands of warped tour and hot topic just don't cut it for mallcore.

Mallcore is nu metal. The other bands you mentioned are metalcore and deathcore. I for one don't like the mallcore tag much due its blatent derogatory nature which kind of makes the encyclopedia seem a little petty, but it does helpfully demonstrate that the genre is not metal.

B-b-but



What separates one from another?

Also if it's to demonstrate they're not metal then all -core bands should be rightfully labeled mallcore.

Probably overlooked. But we should stick to some standard so we don't confuse people (such as me when I first made my account).

Those bands are included on the archives because they were, at one point, or now are, metal, regardless of what genre they were at another point in time. Although I would question Straight Line Stitch's inclusion on that list, as according to the categorization, they were always either nu metal or "core."

I think that, in the view of the people who run the Archives, if a band was at one point nu metal, but then switched entirely to legitimate death metal, they would be included. But this site seems to be trying to avoid bands that purely have no metal credentials whatsoever.

Can any style so universally regarded as awful garbage like nu-metal and mallcore even be considered metal at all? If so, how?

When does metal stop being metal?

Metal stops being metal when it's less metal and more some other genre, however, people love love love to call something metal no matter how far from the truth it is.

Personally, I don't regard all nu-metal as awful. I find that I can be a fan of actual metal and quite a few other genres of music as well. That is not to say that I like a LOT of nu-metal, but not all of it is bad. As for the latter part, my personal belief is that nu-metal is a blanket term that should be used on more of a spectrum. There are bands that are blatantly only using slight if any metal qualities at all but there are also a few that are much much closer to metal.

Here we go again with another thread confusing quality with genre, it seems...

Before anyone does anything stupid and gets this locked, you need to judge a genre objectively if you're going to say that it's dogshit stupid and worthless.

I'm not confusing anything. I'm saying the style of nu-metal/mallcore is not metal. It's a style that has no place in the realm of metal. The music made under that style is made outside the boundaries of the genre of metal. Sucking is merely a byproduct of this fact.

My question was very clear - what makes nu-metal or mallcore metal at all? How do we let that belong to the name of metal?

I think one must take into consideration the quality of those styles under metal standards and how un-metal they are when coming to an assertion.

It may not be metal but the name alone produces more confusion about that fact than the music itself.

Wow Henry I never thought I would meet another person on metal archives that knew that.

Well, it looked like you were writing that the quality of nu metal (and it being universally regarded as garbage, which is pretty much right) means that is can't be considered metal, which is a metal fallacy I'm sick of hearing. I mean, are the Suffocation rip-offs that every town has at least one of not metal just because they're shitty death metal? But, even though I can't agree with you either that nu metal's style isn't metal, if that's what you're really trying to argue, I'm fine with that.

I believe what he is trying to say is that crap that tries to be metal and fails will always suck because of it's very nature of trying to be something it's not.

Perhaps I should have phrased my statement more along the lines of 'shitty at adhering to the qualities that help define the metal genre'.

It's like someone calling Slayer a country band. They play the shittiest country music because they fail to adhere to the qualities that help define the genre of country music, much in the same way that mallcore and nu-metal bands are awfully shitty at adhering to the qualities that help define metal as a genre.



Basically. There are many ways to explain it, so it's easy to get muddied in translation.

Are you speaking of the metal universe regarding nu-metal as garbage? Because while that may be so I fail to see how universally its regarded as garbage period. Korn, Slipknot, Mudvayne, etc. are all nu-metal and all very successful making me think that universally they are fairly well liked, just not in the metal realm. No different than any other despised class of music in the world of metal.

That is my exact point...they are more successful elsewhere, so how can it be considered metal?

I can't think of any other style of music that is more beloved outside of its perceived genre than it is within. That never happens, so why call nu-metal metal at all?

It sucks at being metal.

In my opinion deathcore sucks at being metal. So...it isn't? I don't follow.

Deathcore isn't metal no matter what it tries to be. Deathcore is a fusion genre and fusion genres just aren't metal.

I don't waste my time listening to deathcore, so I can't comment on that.

I couldn't agree more. But if were going with that logic, how is it deathcore is accepted as a metal subgenre?

My point is just that I fail to see how a genre like deathcore, just as an example, is not metal simply because I, as one person, think it sucks at being metal. I don't understand how my not liking it is a justifiable reason to not include it as being metal.

Waitwaitwait, now bands have to "try" to be metal? You guys are being stupid, it's not like deathcore is the result of attempting to be metal but failing. I'm sure if all those nu-metal/metalcore/deathcore bands wanted to be metal then they'd play Cannibal Corpse riffs instead of breakdowns, but you make it sound like it's the result of bands literally not having the capabilities to be metal (which is laughably stupid).

Because the majority of the world knows next to nothing about music, let alone genres.

Nobody said anything about subjective opinion. I was speaking of the qualities inherent in defining the sound of metal, and they are not up to any individual. It's just what they are. Thrash is thrash because of the qualities of the sound of the music, not because any one person says so.

Is this really news to you? There are tons of bands that think that all it takes to be metal is going down to your local Guitar Center and getting a heavy distortion pedal and tuning your guitar down to that coveted drop-D.

I would agree for those bands that do not claim to be metal. But when a nu-metal act claims to be a metal band...and they aren't...its a little different.

Yeah, but that's not "trying" to be metal. The band members may play heavy riffs in a dropped tuning and call themselves metal when they're not, but they're not "trying" to be metal. There's a big difference.

In that instance, they believe they are playing metal but are completely wrong, which is even worse, if you ask me.

If they weren't trying to be metal they wouldn't take influences from metal and label the genre 'Metal'core. Now I'd say that about Nu-'metal' too but I don't think I've ever heard an NM band with any metal influences. But adding "Metal" to the genre label and not playing metal to begin with is simply playing music in the disguise of metal.

This is a red herring side-argument if I've ever seen one, but to indulge you, while Korn and Slipknot still sell well (although the latter's most recent record was over 4 years ago, so there's no way to know if a new one would retain the same popularity), the genre as a whole is definitely a lot less high-profile than it was in the late 90's/early 00's, no longer dominating airtime on MTV like it once did, and the like. I mean, the last Limp Bizkit only sold sold 63,000 copies in the U.S., and while you do have your exceptions like Korn, something like Bon Jovi's 2009 release going gold in the U.S. doesn't automatically make the glam metal movement anything besides a now-irrelevant fad. A lot of the kids who loved it once (including me) have grown up taste-wise, and nu metal overall just isn't "respected" as much as it once was, in the metal world, universally, or in any other sense.

I don't disagree with you. There is a big difference in saying something is less respected than it was and saying that it is universally considered garbage, which was the original point I was refuting.

Okay, that's a fair enough observation, I guess. It just sounds retarded to say that nu-metal bands and deathcore bands are all composed of people who were simply too stupid/unenlightened to play "true metal", as if it was beyond their mental capacity to shit out a third-rate Maiden clone in a couple seconds' time.

Also, you should really change your signature.

Ohhhh, so basically you're one of those people who gets upset that there are bands who take influences from metal without being FULLY DEVOTED TO THE RIFF. I.e., a moron.

Fusion genres exist. People are going to like two different genres of music and attempt to mix them together to create new things. Deal with it.

It's more along the lines of the bands trying to make what they do magically belong to the metal genre, but it doesn't work that way. If you want to be a metal band, you have to play metal, and the bands in those genres don't do that. It's really that simple.

Also, no.

Maybe I was unconsciously thinking about it being considered universal garbage just inside the metal world, when I was fooling myself consciously by thinking I was thinking about it in the REAL universal sense, or something. Fucking brain sometimes, right?

Wrong, Nachtreich uses some nice metal influences but they're not metal and also don't suck. Nice ad hominem though, nothing like a good fallacy to help build a defense.

Well, you really honestly are being moronic. Not only are you bringing your personal music tastes into account when evaluating the legitimacy of a genre's name (which, by the way, is usually created by the fans, not the band, so placing the blame on them is rather unfair), you're also throwing an immature hissyfit because bands that mix hardcore and metal label themselves "metalcore". What else would you possibly want them to call it? Are you equally upset over the fact that they use the -core suffix when it was originally used to denote hardcore punk, or is your beef solely with the fact that these bands disgrace metal by using its name when they are influenced by anything other than 100%, purebred metal?

This has nothing to do with taste. A band that get's enough publicity can call a new genre something and it will stick much more than whatever the fans call it (i.e. Bathory and "viking metal"), it's not up to me what to call it so long as the name doesn't give the illusion that is it is metal. My "beef" as you call it is with these bands, whose target audience is teenagers that suffer from angst mind you, giving metal a bad name with their shenanigans. No need for any more ad hominem fallacies though, they just don't work.

You guys are getting way to hung up on genre names.



This is so very true, I'm quite sure that a lot of "metalcore" bands would rather be referred to as simply hard rock which is what they most closely resemble and there is nothing wrong with liking hard rock bands. I personally used to be a little ashamed to like bands that got thrown into the "core" suffix genres then I grew the fuck up and realized there is absolutely no shame in liking what you like no matter what some True Metal fuckhead says.