Encyclopaedia Metallum: The Metal Archives :: View topic - People against categorizing music (subgenres and labeling)

Zodijackyl wrote:

So "melodic black/death metal" is doing it wrong and hilarious?

I'd take the "metal" part as a given and "black/death" as one word...

The term "heavy metal" should only be used if one is talking about the original genre, not all of the sub-genres. It should have more meaning than that. The reason why can be best explained in a hypothetical discussion:

Metalhead #1: "Hey what kind of heavy metal is Warbeast?"
Metalhead #2: "They're thrash metal."
Metalhead #1: "What kind is Riot?"
Metalhead #2: "Um, just heavy metal."

There is a band who plays dark, powerful and definitely not sad music which is mostly simplistic and reasonably repetitive with a mix of slow and fast material, with an immense vocal performance.

Am I talking about Incantation or Ataraxie? Or Primordial or Devourment or Drudkh?

Do you mean that you are interpreting it as "melodic black" and "melodic death"? If so, I don't see what you are referring to when you are against genres longer than two words, for you might as well interpret "technical brutal death metal" as "technical death" and "brutal death". It's not like "symphonic black metal/ambient/drone" is one single genre that should have its own Wikipedia page. What are the genres with more than two words that you are so much against? Or do you think that "technical brutal death metal" is hilarious, but "technical/brutal death metal" is fine?

Powerslave93 wrote:

Instead of saying "just heavy metal" you could say "traditional heavy metal", which after all is the most common term. While I think it's a bit weird to refer to for example black metal bands as heavy metal bands, I think it's very weird not being able to refer to Metallica, Iced Earth or Helloween as heavy metal bands, and there is not really any logical reason why you should stop calling them heavy metal bands just because they shift over to extreme metal. I still consider heavy metal as the umbrella term (and having the same meaning as "metal"), just as I consider all heavy metal to be subgenres of rock.

"I'm looking for white-collar USPM"

How did it come to be that Melodic Death Metal basically became its own genre, side by side with the major categories, but using melodic in front of black metal is usually just a descriptor?

Sub-genres are meant to describe the style or the principle (if you get my drift) that the band is getting at.

Well, they describe what the band does in fact get at. Some indie rock band attempting brutal death metal probably may not actually of the latter subgenre despite the players' intentions, if they're completely clueless about what really makes brutal death metal.

Ilwhyan wrote:

This reminds me of H.I.M and their "love metal" moniker.

To call a band Swedish technical brutal death grind would be ridiculous!

Everything must be made as simple as possible. But not simpler.

Isn't that just a marketing gag... ?

Though I really am not sure what else to classify them as, as it's sort of fits them. Actually that raises a good question as to what they would be better classified as, and not "lolemofags".

Peroy wrote:

Isn't that just a marketing gag... ?

Sort of, it was the name of one of their albums and now that's just what they call themselves. Though I really am not sure what else to classify them as, as it's sort of fits them. Actually that raises a good question as to what they would be better classified as, and not "lolemofags".

I agree. However, something i don't understand is the difference between goregrind/pornogrind/regular grindcore. The only difference I've been able to discern so far is the lyrical themes? Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't really listen to a lot of grindcore.

CF_Mono wrote:

When I go to see a (heavy) band, the last thing I think of is what genre they are. If someone tells me a grindcore band is playing followed by a black metal band, that really doesn't tell me much about the set I'm expecting. I've heard grind bands that sounds more like black metal, and black metal bands that sounded more like grind. Now, genre labels sure help out a lot, but I can usually guess much more about the quality of the music if someone just tells me a band is either heavy, slow, light, spacey, repetitive, complex, fast, technical, angry, happy, energetic, or dark etc. I prefer words like that way more than actual genre labels. I don't show genre tags for anything on my computer.

That's because you're an idiot.

Well it's also in the riffing style. Regular grindcore has its roots in hardcore while goregrind has a more obvious death metal influence. Pornogrind is musically similar to goregrind but usually with extra emphasis on the groove parts and with porn themes (and samples) rather than gore ones.

CF_Mono wrote:

When I go to see a (heavy) band, the last thing I think of is what genre they are.
That's because you're an idiot.

I'm sorry, but how? It sounds like you're upset that I can get along without them. I'll listen to anything as long as it's good. Unless it's commercialized pop or something, then I can determine ahead of time to steer clear of it based on the label. But other than that, why should I care about what genre a band is over what the quality of the band is? Sure, if I wanted to talk to my friend and say "I want to hear some new black metal", then in that instance using a tag would help a lot. But even then, I can ask for very fast black metal or slow atmospheric black metal, which would be much more precise than further categorizing black metal. And that's for discovering new stuff. Tags aren't neccesary for organizing my music at all.

iamntbatman wrote:

From my understanding of it, grind is a mix of hardcore and death metal. Powerviolence or just plain raw hardcore music would be the equivalent without the metal influences. Goregrind is really going a step further than grind and adding brutal death metal into the mix. But I could never imagine someone arguing over such a small distinction.

I have no problem with categorizing music to a certain extent, but it has become beyond ridiculous lately. I mean, for example once upon a time, Death metal was death metal. There was no such thing as "brutal death metal," "slam death" or "melodic death metal" etc- Death Metal was Death metal and it was "Brutal" by definition, there was no need to have a separate subgenre called "Brutal death metal." Rather, what are now considered whole separate subgenres were simply a description of the way a band sounded to distinguish themselves from other bands of the same genre. Once, Carcass, Cannibal Corpse, and Deicide were all considered Death Metal and were all the same genre, nowdays, Carcass are "gore grind," Cannibal Corpse "Brutal Death Metal" and Deicide "Blackened Death Metal" and are all considered to belong to totally separate genres.

For someone who doesn't listen to a lot of music, or who is new to the genre, it's fine because all the superficial elements are there, but for someone who has listened to hundreds of bands, songs, albums, etc, calling them melodic black metal helps because you now know what to expect.

CF_Mono wrote:

That's because you're an idiot.

Woolie_Wool wrote:

"I'm looking for white-collar USPM"

...Has this actually ever been a request? Or a band for that matter?

But other than that, why should I care about what genre a band is over what the quality of the band is?

MrMcThrasher II wrote:

(white-collar/blue-collar USPM)...Has this actually ever been a request? Or a band for that matter?

... Failsafeman or Gutterscream could probably explain this better, but it's definitely a veritable request...

[Re white-collar USPM]
Um, yes? It's only one of the most revered subgenres among all metal nerds. White-collar USPM basically refers to stuff like Queensryche and Crimson Glory, while blue-collar USPM refers to dirtier, more riff-based groups such as Savatage and Liege Lord.

I think that's probably because, at least to my knowledge, USPM's already a pretty niche genre and its fans probably hold a solid appreciation for both styles even if they prefer one to the other. They can tell the difference though so the term makes sense.

In folk metal, I think there's a much wider gulf between people who go to folk metal festivals and listen to stuff like Korpiklaani and Finntroll and people who are generally into black metal but like some folk elements. So there, if a band is pure "folk metal" it's usually the former while the latter is sometimes "folk/black" or "pagan/black" or something like that. If the styles were closer together but still had something distinguishing to set them apart and their fanbases overlapped more, you'd probably have more clear-cut genre names for them.

By "folk/black" I figure you mean bands like Primordial? (To me, they sound mostly like a black metal band with some lyrical themes similar to folk metal, and a little folk music influence.) Or like Moonsorrow? Their sound is sooo different from the typical energetic folk/pagan metal band, almost like atmospheric black metal; they don't seem to appeal to the diehard folk metal fans. You shoulda seen how the floor cleared when they came on opening for Korpiklaani

Author:	Acidgobblin [ Mon Apr 22, 2013 1:19 am ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
^A bad example because Deicide were never called blackened death metal; just death metal with satanic lyrcis.

Author:	PvtNinjer [ Mon Apr 22, 2013 1:47 am ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
Over labeling/excessive labeling is really only to be used by enthusiasts. If I'm checking out a band, say Dissection for a really obvious example, telling me they are black metal is completely useless. For someone who doesn't listen to a lot of music, or who is new to the genre, it's fine because all the superficial elements are there, but for someone who has listened to hundreds of bands, songs, albums, etc, calling them melodic black metal helps because you now know what to expect. After listening to metal for a while I passed that stage where everything was new and exciting so now, when I want to listen to new music, I usually have a hankering for something at least somewhat specific. Maybe I'm feeling some doom. But doom in and of itself is very diverse. Do I want to hear something old school in the Sabbathian vein? Do I want to hear something dark and cavernous ala Incantation? Something textured, melodic and melancholy like Warning? People like to say that all these subgenres pigeonhole bands, but it's really there to just describe what a band sounds like so that people who care can find them easily. To "outsiders" (god, that sounds snobby) it seems ridiculous, but to me, it's perfectly practical.

Author:	Megadeth [ Mon Apr 22, 2013 3:05 am ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
Peroy wrote: Zodijackyl wrote: So "melodic black/death metal" is doing it wrong and hilarious? I'd take the "metal" part as a given and "black/death" as one word... Do you mean that you are interpreting it as "melodic black" and "melodic death"? If so, I don't see what you are referring to when you are against genres longer than two words, for you might as well interpret "technical brutal death metal" as "technical death" and "brutal death". It's not like "symphonic black metal/ambient/drone" is one single genre that should have its own Wikipedia page. What are the genres with more than two words that you are so much against? Or do you think that "technical brutal death metal" is hilarious, but "technical/brutal death metal" is fine?

Author:	Powerslave93 [ Mon Apr 22, 2013 12:46 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
The term "heavy metal" should only be used if one is talking about the original genre, not all of the sub-genres. It should have more meaning than that. The reason why can be best explained in a hypothetical discussion: Metalhead #1: "Hey what kind of heavy metal is Warbeast?" Metalhead #2: "They're thrash metal." Metalhead #1: "What kind is Riot?" Metalhead #2: "Um, just heavy metal." I agree labeling gets kind of ridiculous at times, but it's really stupid and pretentious to reject labels. The human mind is wired to label things.

Author:	Megadeth [ Mon Apr 22, 2013 1:06 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
Powerslave93 wrote: The term "heavy metal" should only be used if one is talking about the original genre, not all of the sub-genres. It should have more meaning than that. The reason why can be best explained in a hypothetical discussion: Metalhead #1: "Hey what kind of heavy metal is Warbeast?" Metalhead #2: "They're thrash metal." Metalhead #1: "What kind is Riot?" Metalhead #2: "Um, just heavy metal." Instead of saying "just heavy metal" you could say "traditional heavy metal", which after all is the most common term. While I think it's a bit weird to refer to for example black metal bands as heavy metal bands, I think it's very weird not being able to refer to Metallica, Iced Earth or Helloween as heavy metal bands, and there is not really any logical reason why you should stop calling them heavy metal bands just because they shift over to extreme metal. I still consider heavy metal as the umbrella term (and having the same meaning as "metal"), just as I consider all heavy metal to be subgenres of rock.

Encyclopaedia Metallum: The Metal Archives https://forum.metal-archives.com/

People against categorizing music (subgenres and labeling) https://forum.metal-archives.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=98139	Page 2 of 4

Author:	hakarl [ Mon Apr 22, 2013 1:09 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
lord_ghengis wrote: There is a band who plays dark, powerful and definitely not sad music which is mostly simplistic and reasonably repetitive with a mix of slow and fast material, with an immense vocal performance. Am I talking about Incantation or Ataraxie? Or Primordial or Devourment or Drudkh? Primordial and Drudkh are sad, and there are better was to describe those bands anyway. But I agree with your general point. How would you describe something like Putridity? Extremely fast, brutal music written for two guitars, a drum kit, a bass guitar and vocals, with indecipherable growls for vocals and very chromatic, heavy riffing on downtuned guitars, where the drumming is mostly immensely fast, loud beats, and the bass provides massive tone and augments the rhythms. Saying it's brutal death metal conveys pretty much all of that information in three words. For this reason, being against labelling and genre names is asinine. Nitpicking about them is another thing, but it's the same as with anything. We shouldn't ban guitars because a lot of people don't play them very well. There's no actual harm in nitpicking about genres either, even though it can be annoying when people clearly have no idea what they're talking about (e.g. thinking Slipknot is death metal).

Author:	Peroy [ Mon Apr 22, 2013 2:55 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
Megadeth wrote: Do you mean that you are interpreting it as "melodic black" and "melodic death"? If so, I don't see what you are referring to when you are against genres longer than two words, for you might as well interpret "technical brutal death metal" as "technical death" and "brutal death". It's not like "symphonic black metal/ambient/drone" is one single genre that should have its own Wikipedia page. What are the genres with more than two words that you are so much against? Or do you think that "technical brutal death metal" is hilarious, but "technical/brutal death metal" is fine? Quite obviously I meant, that if it's a mix of black and death metal (which is a quite common occurance), you could go on and call it "black/death". I didn't meant you'd get a pass to cram any odd word in there... that's where hilarity creeps on and it gets ridiculous ("black/death/noise/power/doom"... I got different problems with the tag "brutal", which makes me cringe every time I see it, but that's besode the point...

Author:	TheLiberation [ Mon Apr 22, 2013 5:36 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
I still think genres and labeling are useful, but only for a purely informative purpose - you see a band called, say, Infernal Cactus, you have no clue who they are and what they do; but upon seeing them labeled "death metal/grindcore" you have a general idea what to expect. I'm sorry, but arguing over genres is stupid. And the stupidest of all is hating on a band that apparently belongs to a said genre because they implement elements from outside of the genre. There are lots of bands which are difficult to classify (some to the point that you'd have to use at least five genre tags to give a general idea what they sound like), and I honestly don't see the point of arguing to death what label should be given to them. It's never constructive, there will never be a final conclusion, and there's simply going to be lots of bullshit flying around the topic.

Author:	Powerslave93 [ Tue Apr 23, 2013 7:02 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
Megadeth wrote: Powerslave93 wrote: The term "heavy metal" should only be used if one is talking about the original genre, not all of the sub-genres. It should have more meaning than that. The reason why can be best explained in a hypothetical discussion: Metalhead #1: "Hey what kind of heavy metal is Warbeast?" Metalhead #2: "They're thrash metal." Metalhead #1: "What kind is Riot?" Metalhead #2: "Um, just heavy metal." Instead of saying "just heavy metal" you could say "traditional heavy metal", which after all is the most common term. While I think it's a bit weird to refer to for example black metal bands as heavy metal bands, I think it's very weird not being able to refer to Metallica, Iced Earth or Helloween as heavy metal bands, and there is not really any logical reason why you should stop calling them heavy metal bands just because they shift over to extreme metal. I still consider heavy metal as the umbrella term (and having the same meaning as "metal"), just as I consider all heavy metal to be subgenres of rock. That works as well, it's just that using the term "heavy metal" to refer to the original genre is more convienient to me.

Author:	Nochielo [ Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:28 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
Genre tags are for communication purposes essentially. You can choose not to use them; good luck trying to describe music with tabs.

Author:	MrMcThrasher II [ Tue Apr 23, 2013 10:08 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
Woolie_Wool wrote: "I'm looking for white-collar USPM" ...Has this actually ever been a request? Or a band for that matter? I'm under the impression that labeling is good. If I want a thrash band, I want a thrash band, so I'm gonna look for that label. Good music is good music, but it's still of a certain genre.

Author:	whiteshark761 [ Wed Apr 24, 2013 8:28 am ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
How did it come to be that Melodic Death Metal basically became its own genre, side by side with the major categories, but using melodic in front of black metal is usually just a descriptor?

Author:	hakarl [ Wed Apr 24, 2013 9:03 am ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
whiteshark761 wrote: How did it come to be that Melodic Death Metal basically became its own genre, side by side with the major categories, but using melodic in front of black metal is usually just a descriptor? There's a more radical shift from pure death metal to melodic death metal (when considered a separate genre), than between black metal and melodic black metal. The amount of melody and emotive riffing that would make death metal undoubtedly deserve the prefix melodic is can often be considered merely black metal in that genre. There's some amount of "black metal" that's essentially melodeath performed in a vaguely blackish fashion (Catamenia...) that doesn't quite fit in the same genre with the second wave stuff, for example, but especially bands like Gorgoroth (and at a certain point, Darkthrone) wrote plenty of melodic riffing that, in the realm of death metal, would've given them the label melodic death metal. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fo32nrvszIg

Author:	shouvince [ Wed Apr 24, 2013 9:28 am ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
To add to Ilwhyan's points, the sheer volume of bands branching out and playing that style only warranted a clear demarcation of genres. The melodic elements in black metal have been infused organically I believe and sometimes it's taken for granted that it's melodic. But it does raise the point that it gets a bit puzzling how a band is listed as plain 'black metal' on the archives but bands which sound similar are listed as melodic black. For eg. Ophthalamia. These are the nit picky criticisms that often pop up in my head but I understand they can be subjective to some extent also.

Author:	bladesOFawesomeness [ Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:50 am ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
I think genre descriptors are important; they come in very handy. Of course, sometimes it just gets on my nerves when all these new bands want to sound cool and swag and whatnot and hence they come up with weird-ass names, and the whole idea is driven beyond reason or logic. Sometimes it's not just the band, it's also the fans. Sub-genres are meant to describe the style or the principle (if you get my drift) that the band is getting at. That is all.

Author:	hakarl [ Wed Apr 24, 2013 12:05 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
bladesOFawesomeness wrote: Sub-genres are meant to describe the style or the principle (if you get my drift) that the band is getting at. Well, they describe what the band does in fact get at. Some indie rock band attempting brutal death metal probably may not actually of the latter subgenre despite the players' intentions, if they're completely clueless about what really makes brutal death metal.

Author:	whiteshark761 [ Wed Apr 24, 2013 1:48 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
Ilwhyan wrote: Well, they describe what the band does in fact get at. Some indie rock band attempting brutal death metal probably may not actually of the latter subgenre despite the players' intentions, if they're completely clueless about what really makes brutal death metal. This reminds me of H.I.M and their "love metal" moniker.

Author:	Peroy [ Wed Apr 24, 2013 2:10 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
whiteshark761 wrote: Ilwhyan wrote: Well, they describe what the band does in fact get at. Some indie rock band attempting brutal death metal probably may not actually of the latter subgenre despite the players' intentions, if they're completely clueless about what really makes brutal death metal. This reminds me of H.I.M and their "love metal" moniker. Isn't that just a marketing gag... ?

Author:	ahr888 [ Wed Apr 24, 2013 2:56 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
Genres and subgenres are necessary to get a picture of a band and of the whole music spectrum. But a genre is supposed to be a genus of music. A general category. Once you get to people giving you sentence long "genres" they are in a different territory. That's more descriptive than taxative. A genre/subgenre isn't supposed to be the ultimate description of what a band sounds like but the category where to place the band. The confusion between the two is the first problem. The second problem with the whole genus/label issue is people who think of themselves as the sole arbiters of not only genres but of these long descriptors as well. While the genre, subgenre should be fairly objective, the specific description may not be all that objective. And of course then there's those who like to think that their preferred nomenclature is the only acceptable one.

Author:	slayer85 [ Wed Apr 24, 2013 3:43 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
I don't know.... I think that this "brutal", "technical" etc shouldn't be used when selling or discussing metal. If u have labels I would Only use: Death, thrash, power, speed, doom , etc to describe a genre. To call a band Swedish technical brutal death grind would be ridiculous!

Author:	Megadeth [ Wed Apr 24, 2013 3:49 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
slayer85 wrote: To call a band Swedish technical brutal death grind would be ridiculous! I think you need to elaborate. And please try to avoid arguing in the same way that most others do, by just continuing to call it stupid, ridiculous, obnoxious, etc. I have still not seen any good reasons for why descriptions of bands' playing style should always be extremely short. If they are Swedish and play a combination of brutal death and technical deathgrind, what is ridiculous about it? Should you just try to pretend like they aren't technical just to make it simpler? Then you are discarding important details. Albert Einstein wrote: Everything must be made as simple as possible. But not simpler.

Author:	BlashyrkhMR101 [ Wed Apr 24, 2013 3:55 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
Peroy wrote: Isn't that just a marketing gag... ? Sort of, it was the name of one of their albums and now that's just what they call themselves. Though I really am not sure what else to classify them as, as it's sort of fits them. Actually that raises a good question as to what they would be better classified as, and not "lolemofags".

Author:	Megadeth [ Wed Apr 24, 2013 3:59 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
BlashyrkhMR101 wrote: Though I really am not sure what else to classify them as, as it's sort of fits them. Actually that raises a good question as to what they would be better classified as, and not "lolemofags". Well, love metal doesn't exist, no one else are following suit, and they don't play metal. So "love metal" is a genre outside metal with one single band playing it? Don't think so.

Author:	hakarl [ Wed Apr 24, 2013 4:18 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
BlashyrkhMR101 wrote: Peroy wrote: Isn't that just a marketing gag... ? Sort of, it was the name of one of their albums and now that's just what they call themselves. Though I really am not sure what else to classify them as, as it's sort of fits them. Actually that raises a good question as to what they would be better classified as, and not "lolemofags". Hard rock?

Author:	thrashmaniac87 [ Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:51 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
Celtic Frosted Flakes wrote: I agree. However, something i don't understand is the difference between goregrind/pornogrind/regular grindcore. The only difference I've been able to discern so far is the lyrical themes? Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't really listen to a lot of grindcore. Lyrics are one of the main differences but it can get confusing differentiating between grindcore and goregrind. Just because a grindcore band has gore lyrics doesn't automatically make them goregrind. Carcass is sometimes considered the founders of goregrind with Reek of Putrefaction but that album sounds a lot different than goregrind bands of today like Lymphatic Phlegm. Deep, wet sounding vocals are a big part of goregrind while grindcore bands, like Napalm Death, have higher vocals. And then there's bands like Regurgitate and Dead Infection (1995-present) that are goregrind that are more extreme than Carcass but still sound a lot different than bands like Lymphatic Phlegm. The easiest way to clarify is to just look these bands up on youtube and listen to a few songs.

Author:	iamntbatman [ Thu Apr 25, 2013 2:18 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
Well it's also in the riffing style. Regular grindcore has its roots in hardcore while goregrind has a more obvious death metal influence. Pornogrind is musically similar to goregrind but usually with extra emphasis on the groove parts and with porn themes (and samples) rather than gore ones.

Author:	CF_Mono [ Thu Apr 25, 2013 2:36 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
lord_ghengis wrote: CF_Mono wrote: When I go to see a (heavy) band, the last thing I think of is what genre they are. If someone tells me a grindcore band is playing followed by a black metal band, that really doesn't tell me much about the set I'm expecting. I've heard grind bands that sounds more like black metal, and black metal bands that sounded more like grind. Now, genre labels sure help out a lot, but I can usually guess much more about the quality of the music if someone just tells me a band is either heavy, slow, light, spacey, repetitive, complex, fast, technical, angry, happy, energetic, or dark etc. I prefer words like that way more than actual genre labels. I don't show genre tags for anything on my computer. That's because you're an idiot. I'm sorry, but how? It sounds like you're upset that I can get along without them. I'll listen to anything as long as it's good. Unless it's commercialized pop or something, then I can determine ahead of time to steer clear of it based on the label. But other than that, why should I care about what genre a band is over what the quality of the band is? Sure, if I wanted to talk to my friend and say "I want to hear some new black metal", then in that instance using a tag would help a lot. But even then, I can ask for very fast black metal or slow atmospheric black metal, which would be much more precise than further categorizing black metal. And that's for discovering new stuff. Tags aren't neccesary for organizing my music at all. iamntbatman wrote: Well it's also in the riffing style. Regular grindcore has its roots in hardcore while goregrind has a more obvious death metal influence. Pornogrind is musically similar to goregrind but usually with extra emphasis on the groove parts and with porn themes (and samples) rather than gore ones. From my understanding of it, grind is a mix of hardcore and death metal. Powerviolence or just plain raw hardcore music would be the equivalent without the metal influences. Goregrind is really going a step further than grind and adding brutal death metal into the mix. But I could never imagine someone arguing over such a small distinction.

Author:	thrashmaniac87 [ Thu Apr 25, 2013 2:38 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
iamntbatman wrote: Well it's also in the riffing style. Regular grindcore has its roots in hardcore while goregrind has a more obvious death metal influence. Pornogrind is musically similar to goregrind but usually with extra emphasis on the groove parts and with porn themes (and samples) rather than gore ones. Ahh yes I forgot about that. Also, pornogrind and some goregrind bands use pitch shifters to get their vocals to inhuman levels. And grindcore bands are anti-sexist while pornogrind bands are extremely misogynistic.

Author:	iamntbatman [ Thu Apr 25, 2013 3:10 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
Regular grindcore doesn't necessarily have much direct death metal influence as it came about around the same time death metal did, and was definitely more a part of the punk scene than the metal scene even if some of the extremity was influenced by metal. Brutal death metal + regular grindcore = deathgrind, which sounds pretty different from goregrind.

Author:	talvikki77 [ Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:00 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
Oxenkiller wrote: I have no problem with categorizing music to a certain extent, but it has become beyond ridiculous lately. I mean, for example once upon a time, Death metal was death metal. There was no such thing as "brutal death metal," "slam death" or "melodic death metal" etc- Death Metal was Death metal and it was "Brutal" by definition, there was no need to have a separate subgenre called "Brutal death metal." Rather, what are now considered whole separate subgenres were simply a description of the way a band sounded to distinguish themselves from other bands of the same genre. Once, Carcass, Cannibal Corpse, and Deicide were all considered Death Metal and were all the same genre, nowdays, Carcass are "gore grind," Cannibal Corpse "Brutal Death Metal" and Deicide "Blackened Death Metal" and are all considered to belong to totally separate genres. I have to jump on this cause melodic death metal is my favorite genre Understand I'm not flaming you, just making a case for why subgenres like that are helpful. Yeah, in the beginning there was just death metal..heck, in the beginning, there was just Death, or whatever you believe the first death metal band was (let's not hijack the thread with that argument, all right? ) Then like you said, bands started to distinguish themselves with different sounds. Now there are a ton of bands that use rather similar sounds, and sound pretty different from one another. You can't tell me Cannibal Corpse and Omnium Gatherum sound a lot alike, or even appeal to the same people. So suppose I found Omnium Gatherum, liked what I heard and wanted to find similar bands - searching for "death metal" wouldn't help me a lot, cause that genre is now so huge that I'd probably end up with stuff that sounds nothing like Omnium Gatherum. But if I search for "melodic death metal", I'm much more likely to find what I want. Yes, some of these sub-sub-sub-genres are pretty ridiculous. But death metal is such a huge genre now that dividing it up into very clear and distinct subgenres like "brutal", "melodic" and "blackened" is actually quite necessary, otherwise fans would have a hard time finding the music they want. I am sorry you got flamed, though. Yes, genre labels should be accurate so that they help people find music, but abusing other people over it is not helpful and frankly, un-metal. I hope you don't feel I was flaming you. PvtNinjer wrote: For someone who doesn't listen to a lot of music, or who is new to the genre, it's fine because all the superficial elements are there, but for someone who has listened to hundreds of bands, songs, albums, etc, calling them melodic black metal helps because you now know what to expect. Yeah, good point. Labels are really only useful to someone who knows what they mean. Also, I apparently have to learn more about the various grind genres, cause I had no idea there were so many. Although, it does sound like I won't like many of them

Author:	lord_ghengis [ Thu Apr 25, 2013 7:24 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
lord_ghengis wrote: CF_Mono wrote: When I go to see a (heavy) band, the last thing I think of is what genre they are. If someone tells me a grindcore band is playing followed by a black metal band, that really doesn't tell me much about the set I'm expecting. I've heard grind bands that sounds more like black metal, and black metal bands that sounded more like grind. Now, genre labels sure help out a lot, but I can usually guess much more about the quality of the music if someone just tells me a band is either heavy, slow, light, spacey, repetitive, complex, fast, technical, angry, happy, energetic, or dark etc. I prefer words like that way more than actual genre labels. I don't show genre tags for anything on my computer. That's because you're an idiot. CF_Mono wrote: I'm sorry, but how? It sounds like you're upset that I can get along without them. I'll listen to anything as long as it's good. Unless it's commercialized pop or something, then I can determine ahead of time to steer clear of it based on the label. But other than that, why should I care about what genre a band is over what the quality of the band is? Sure, if I wanted to talk to my friend and say "I want to hear some new black metal", then in that instance using a tag would help a lot. But even then, I can ask for very fast black metal or slow atmospheric black metal, which would be much more precise than further categorizing black metal. And that's for discovering new stuff. Tags aren't neccesary for organizing my music at all. You are aware fast black metal and slow black metal still use the black metal genre tag to help define what you're going to get, right? You are actually using genre tags for that, your first post implied you defined music using absolutely nothing but descriptors and techniques, which is what I was calling idiotic. Of course genre doesn't make a band a quality one, but it helps direct you towards things that you'll enjoy, even better when combined with said descriptors for extra detail.

Author:	Metal_Detector [ Thu Apr 25, 2013 7:32 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
MrMcThrasher II wrote: Woolie_Wool wrote: "I'm looking for white-collar USPM" ...Has this actually ever been a request? Or a band for that matter? Um, yes? It's only one of the most revered subgenres among all metal nerds. White-collar USPM basically refers to stuff like Queensryche and Crimson Glory, while blue-collar USPM refers to dirtier, more riff-based groups such as Savatage and Liege Lord. It's the most consistently amazing label of metal imo. Failsafeman or Gutterscream could probably explain this better, but it's definitely a veritable request...

Author:	xThe__Wizard [ Thu Apr 25, 2013 7:51 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
CF_Mono wrote: But other than that, why should I care about what genre a band is over what the quality of the band is? Well last time I checked genre and quality are completely different. If something is black metal it is black metal, but whether you like it or not is based on your opinion.

Author:	Grave_Wyrm [ Thu Apr 25, 2013 8:05 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
Metal_Detector wrote: MrMcThrasher II wrote: (white-collar/blue-collar USPM)...Has this actually ever been a request? Or a band for that matter? ... Failsafeman or Gutterscream could probably explain this better, but it's definitely a veritable request... Not that I'm speaking for him, obviously, it's just that these were my introductions to the concept: two quality reviews from failsafeman that include the basic ground work. http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/O ... ailsafeman http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/C ... ailsafeman Haven't read any of Gutterscream's yet, unfortunately. I'll rectify that eventually.