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

My girlfriend's favorite band is Machetazo and when I told her I thought they were a very good deathgrind band she was quick to point out that I didn't know shit because they were "grind death". No joke.

marktheviktor wrote:

I don't know anything about grindcore, but are you sure you remember correctly? Maybe it was "goregrind" and "deathgrind", or that you were the one calling it "grind death" (and she corrected you as if you corrected someone saying "metal thrash" or "trash metal" [without the h]).

There are times where it just gets ridiculous though. Such as Wintersun being "epic technical melodic majestic metal" or whatever Jari called it. That's just being obnoxious.

Is it? I think all those words adds to the description and much more accurately communicate how music actually sounds, and not just which genre it is in. They don't need a section on Amazon for "epic technical melodic majestic metal", and what damage did it do as a plain description of the sound? All words are acknowledged labels for music (as opposed to troll metal, pirate metal or love metal), and as long as the words accurately adds to the description, what harm does it do when simply communicating it (not categorizing it in a database)?

Megadeth wrote:

Because that's when the labeling and categorisation starts getting insane, when it can only be used to describe one or two bands. If every band came up with a long-arse name like that for their music, we'd get nowhere. It isn't really needed since a more easy and common term would suffice nicely (maybe epic symphonic metal, or something to that affect), and sound far less obnoxious.

I would never tag a band on last.fm with all of that (because then all bands would have their own tag), but I could tag it with "epic metal", "technical metal", "melodic metal", "technical melodic metal" and "majestic metal". I haven't really used the "majestic" term much, but I still see a purpose for it.

I tend to agree. I find labeling is helpful.

BloodSacrificeShaman wrote:

There are times where it just gets ridiculous though. Such as Wintersun being "epic technical melodic majestic metal" or whatever Jari called it. That's just being obnoxious.

Is it? I think all those words adds to the description and much more accurately communicate how music actually sounds, and not just which genre it is in. They don't need a section on Amazon for "epic technical melodic majestic metal", and what damage did it do as a plain description of the sound? All words are acknowledged labels for music (as opposed to troll metal, pirate metal or love metal). As long as the words accurately adds to the description, what harm does it do when simply "communicating" it (and not categorizing it in a database)?

The use of these adjectives doesn't remotely describe the actual sound of the music. I think that subjective descriptions, such as the Wintersun one, are superfluous and pointless- musically speaking, one persons majestic may be anothers 'fluffy nonsense'.

To my father the distinction between metal and metalcore is also "fluffy nonsense", and there is no reason why a certain form of punk should be called "hardcore". What makes it hardcore? And then you mate it with metal and call it "metalcore"? That's just stupid.

Being principally against labels just because you don't know/understand them, or don't care for the distinction between music that is or isn't "majestic", is just stupid. I don't see why you would believe a term like majestic would be defined completely subjectively. Just because it has a dictionary meaning? .

Then you have to be against epic metal, speed metal, brutal death metal, big band music, classic rock, traditional heavy metal, etc. Those could be interpreted subjectively as well. Not to mention depressive black metal, which essentially is named the same way as majestic black metal

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.

Once you're using more than two words to categorize a musical genre, you're doing it wrong and it becomes unintentionally (?) hilarious... that's pretty much my stance on the topic.

Peroy wrote:

Once you're using more than two words to categorize a musical genre, you're doing it wrong and it becomes unintentionally (?) hilarious... that's pretty much my stance on the topic.

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

Author:	Megadeth [ Sat Apr 20, 2013 11:51 pm ]
Post subject:	People against categorizing music (subgenres and labeling)
There has recently been two topics discussing what could be called "subgenres". Someone asked what the difference was between psychedelic stoner metal and regular stoner metal, and someone else asked what the difference was between raw black metal and regular black metal. Both times someone jumped in and called the distinction stupid or meaningless. While I don't see this much here, I see it often on Last.fm (and various other places) where people constantly argue of whether or not something is or isn't x. Then some hippie comes in and says it doesn't matter what label someone puts on music as long as you like it, and at the same times tries to discredit the need for a discussion and says "let's just call it metal" or something. I am sick of reading such arguments, but I still don't personally think distinctions are superfluous. I do on the contrary find them very good and I don't like that people are "lobbying" to stop people from trying to define the style of a band. Categorizing bands is very helpful to point out very specific band sounds, and helps to communicate clearly, which also means finding similar bands. It's as if these "lobbyists" that don't want such discussions only think it's about elitism and posing; while some of it obviously is, it is not the purpose of it. I also often see people whining about or parodying what they consider overly specific categorization, like "technical brutal death metal". I find just as much use of distinguishing between raw black metal and black metal, thrash metal and thrashcore or technical brutal death metal and brutal death metal as I get from distinguishing between death metal and traditional heavy metal. The same goes for other labels that are not acknowledged as "subgenres", but could be called "styles" or "scenes", etc. Why is it so bad for someone that others are trying to distinguish between or sort bands according to such labels?

Author:	Woolie_Wool [ Sat Apr 20, 2013 11:54 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
The thing about a lot of these fine distinctions is that their primary purpose is to find bands with a particular sound, not start never-ending arguments. "I'm looking for metal" is not going to get you nearly as far in finding precisely what you're looking for than "I'm looking for brutal technical death metal" or "I'm looking for white-collar USPM" or "I'm looking for crossover thrash metal".

Author:	ShaolinLambKiller [ Sat Apr 20, 2013 11:58 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
I tend to agree. I find labeling is helpful. Say I'm browsing some reviews or whatever of a bunch of unknown bands I'll zone on a few keywords in the blurb that will further make me interested in actually finding out more or looking for something to listen to on youtube. If we didn't have labels it would be very difficult to convey the basic ideas of what you are listening to another person. It's just good sense to break something down so you get the proper picture in mind when picking up an album or telling someone else what they could be interested in.

Author:	marktheviktor [ Sun Apr 21, 2013 12:00 am ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
It's helpful for looking for bands but it also gets ridiculous sometimes and always reminds me of that part in Spinal Tap where they were talking about once playing in a Blues/Jazz festival and the bassist corrected the guitarist "I think it was a Jazz/Blues festival actually." My girlfriend's favorite band is Machetazo and when I told her I thought they were a very good deathgrind band she was quick to point out that I didn't know shit because they were "grind death". No joke.

Author:	Megadeth [ Sun Apr 21, 2013 12:04 am ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
marktheviktor wrote: My girlfriend's favorite band is Machetazo and when I told her I thought they were a very good deathgrind band she was quick to point out that I didn't know shit because they were "grind death". No joke. I don't know anything about grindcore, but are you sure you remember correctly? Maybe it was "goregrind" and "deathgrind", or that you were the one calling it "grind death" (and she corrected you as if you corrected someone saying "metal thrash" or "trash metal" [without the h]).

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 1 of 4

Author:	BloodSacrificeShaman [ Sun Apr 21, 2013 12:06 am ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
Well, labels are useful for finding new or similar bands. For example, looking up "Roman death metal" is going to get you stuff like Ex Deo and Ade pretty fast, and other bands of their vein. It can just be easy to keep genres separate for logical reasons. Judas Priest and Suffocation sound nothing alike, and while both are metal, they do need a distinction. Now, Suffocation and Kronos may or may not need a distinction. Both are brutal/technical death metal, which could be samey enough to warrant not needing to separate them, but they play a different kind of brutal/technical death metal. So that again narrows it down a little more. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing, is up to personal speculation. I find it a good thing. There are times where it just gets ridiculous though. Such as Wintersun being "epic technical melodic majestic metal" or whatever Jari called it. That's just being obnoxious.

Author:	Woolie_Wool [ Sun Apr 21, 2013 12:10 am ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
BloodSacrificeShaman wrote: There are times where it just gets ridiculous though. Such as Wintersun being "epic technical melodic majestic metal" or whatever Jari called it. That's just being obnoxious. That's just marketing, not an honest categorization. Every band wants to be barbarian epic special snowflake unicorn metal, much like every car is all-new and best-in-class and every restaurant provides world-class mouth-watering experiences.

Author:	Megadeth [ Sun Apr 21, 2013 12:12 am ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
BloodSacrificeShaman wrote: There are times where it just gets ridiculous though. Such as Wintersun being "epic technical melodic majestic metal" or whatever Jari called it. That's just being obnoxious. Is it? I think all those words adds to the description and much more accurately communicate how music actually sounds, and not just which genre it is in. They don't need a section on Amazon for "epic technical melodic majestic metal", and what damage did it do as a plain description of the sound? All words are acknowledged labels for music (as opposed to troll metal, pirate metal or love metal). As long as the words accurately adds to the description, what harm does it do when simply "communicating" it (and not categorizing it in a database)? I would never tag a band on last.fm with all of that (because then all bands would have their own tag), but I could tag it with "epic metal", "technical metal", "melodic metal", "technical melodic metal" and "majestic metal". I haven't really used the "majestic" term much, but I still see a purpose for it.

Author:	ShaolinLambKiller [ Sun Apr 21, 2013 12:21 am ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
marktheviktor wrote: My girlfriend's favorite band is Machetazo and when I told her I thought they were a very good deathgrind band she was quick to point out that I didn't know shit because they were "grind death". No joke. She has good taste. but that's just nitpicky to me.

Author:	Megadeth [ Sun Apr 21, 2013 12:22 am ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
BloodSacrificeShaman wrote: Megadeth wrote: Is it? I think all those words adds to the description and much more accurately communicate how music actually sounds, and not just which genre it is in. They don't need a section on Amazon for "epic technical melodic majestic metal", and what damage did it do as a plain description of the sound? All words are acknowledged labels for music (as opposed to troll metal, pirate metal or love metal), and as long as the words accurately adds to the description, what harm does it do when simply communicating it (not categorizing it in a database)? Because that's when the labeling and categorisation starts getting insane, when it can only be used to describe one or two bands. If every band came up with a long-arse name like that for their music, we'd get nowhere. It isn't really needed since a more easy and common term would suffice nicely (maybe epic symphonic metal, or something to that affect), and sound far less obnoxious. I added this while you were writing: Megadeth wrote: I would never tag a band on last.fm with all of that (because then all bands would have their own tag), but I could tag it with "epic metal", "technical metal", "melodic metal", "technical melodic metal" and "majestic metal". I haven't really used the "majestic" term much, but I still see a purpose for it. My point when it comes to these very long and specific descriptions is that they have a purpose while communicating. If I ask you what it sounds like and you reply "epic technical melodic majestic metal" I would feel like it gave a much better description of their sound than simply "technical melodic metal". You are after all just describing the band, not categorizing it in a database. Categorization in stores or databases should of course not be that specific, because the whole point is to group bands with a similar sound. But you could still divide the term like I did in my quote (if it is supported with multiple labels/tags), and create multiple labels from the description. I still don't see what harm it does when describing a band, as he obviously did.

Author:	volutetheswarth [ Sun Apr 21, 2013 12:46 am ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
ShaolinLambKiller wrote: I tend to agree. I find labeling is helpful. To a point, then it becomes constant nit-pickery and whining. I find there is way too much attention devoted to labelling, so much so that I see 2 to 3 new threads questioning certain label or certain non-label emerging in the metal discussion almost every week, like a broken record that completely disregards previous discussions. Unless it's a big error or something grossly overlooked, it's unimportant and tiresome.

Author:	Big_Grand [ Sun Apr 21, 2013 1:01 am ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
I dont mind using these to describe a bands sound, but they should necessarily be something that limits a bands creativity. For example, if you bought a band by ,say boris, at fye, and they had a sticker on it that said " Heavy pop-drone-sludge-experimental-doom metal", as ridicules as it is, that gives a pretty clear idea of what the album would be for those interested in it, but boris itself is really just an experimental doom band that plays several genres. And I mean if someone asked me for a black metal band I could say satanic warmaster and dimmu borgir, but if someone asked for a raw black metal band, I could still say satanic warmaster, but I wouldnt say dimmu borgir.

Author:	absurder21 [ Sun Apr 21, 2013 3:13 am ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
Yeah it's pretty dumb. Genre's and sub-genres are generally pretty simple once you understand them and you find out what terms are somewhat redundant and what not.

Author:	Cthulhu_Fhtagn [ Sun Apr 21, 2013 4:24 am ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
I think genre catagorization is extremely helpful. It helps you find a specific sound when you are craving that specific metal band that stands out from everything else. Once you find it, you'll be glad it had a genre like "Technical Power Metal/Folk/Ambient" or "Progressive Death/Stoner Metal with Thrash influences".

Author:	Celtic Frosted Flakes [ Sun Apr 21, 2013 6:20 am ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
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.

Author:	lord_ghengis [ Sun Apr 21, 2013 6:48 am ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
I think I've read that Pornogrind is also more thuggish and midpaced, don't know goregrind though.

Author:	Acidgobblin [ Sun Apr 21, 2013 7:39 am ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
Megadeth wrote: BloodSacrificeShaman wrote: There are times where it just gets ridiculous though. Such as Wintersun being "epic technical melodic majestic metal" or whatever Jari called it. That's just being obnoxious. Is it? I think all those words adds to the description and much more accurately communicate how music actually sounds, and not just which genre it is in. They don't need a section on Amazon for "epic technical melodic majestic metal", and what damage did it do as a plain description of the sound? All words are acknowledged labels for music (as opposed to troll metal, pirate metal or love metal). As long as the words accurately adds to the description, what harm does it do when simply "communicating" it (and not categorizing it in a database)? Yes, it pretty much is obnoxious. The use of these adjectives doesn't remotely describe the actual sound of the music. I think that subjective descriptions, such as the Wintersun one, are superfluous and pointless- musically speaking, one persons majestic may be anothers 'fluffy nonsense'. Terms like black thrash, black death, death doom are very useful as they use essentially objective categories to describe a style. We know what black metal is, we know what death metal is, therefore we can more easily guess that blackened death is a combination of these two styles. Majestic is meaningless. You could describe way too many bands from too many different styles in the same way. You could say that Sonata Arctica are majestic, you could say that Wolves In The Throneroom are majestic, but these bands are extremely different. In that sense, whilst I wouldn't go so far as to say it causes harm as such, hyperbolic description does very little in the way of illuminating and could potentially do the opposite of what it is being used for; it could confuse and mislead as opposed to clarifying and guiding. I certainly think genre labels help, but only if they are using basically objective terminology, terminology that we can all essentially agree on.

Author:	SleightOfVickonomy [ Sun Apr 21, 2013 8:11 am ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
Of course we need it because we are discerning music fans who have specific and particular interests and if we are looking out for what we like how else are we then going to get it?

Author:	Megadeth [ Sun Apr 21, 2013 8:17 am ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
Acidgobblin wrote: The use of these adjectives doesn't remotely describe the actual sound of the music. I think that subjective descriptions, such as the Wintersun one, are superfluous and pointless- musically speaking, one persons majestic may be anothers 'fluffy nonsense'. They were not merely subjective descriptions. I have seen them used several times, including majestic. It is simply an adjective describing the atmosphere, and not a genre. To my father the distinction between metal and metalcore is also "fluffy nonsense", and there is no reason why a certain form of punk should be called "hardcore". What makes it hardcore? And then you mate it with metal and call it "metalcore"? That's just stupid. The label "majestic" might not have a definition carved in stone, but then again it's not a genre. Seeing as people seem to communicate well with the term I assume it has some usage. It is potentially a usable term that describes the actual music, as opposed to terms like troll metal, which is made up "fluffy nonsense" and essentially just a marketing label. Being principally against labels just because you don't know/understand them, or don't care for the distinction between music that is or isn't "majestic", is just stupid. I don't see why you would believe a term like majestic would be defined completely subjectively. Just because it has a dictionary meaning? Then you have to be against epic metal, speed metal, brutal death metal, big band music, classic rock, traditional heavy metal, etc. Those could be interpreted subjectively as well. Not to mention depressive black metal, which essentially is named the same way as majestic black metal. And the term "majestic" or less known "fluffy nonsense" is not really the kind of terms that are being disputed.

Author:	shouvince [ Sun Apr 21, 2013 8:25 am ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
I usually concern myself with only the major anchoring label for the metal genre and the next level of sub-classification. Beyond that it gets really subjective and it's a waste of time trying to place a finger on an exact style. Yeah sure there are bands like Abyssal who meld close to 3 or 4 different styles but why stress too much on that is what I'd say. There have been times where I've scratched my head about classifying bands into stoner doom and psychedelic doom especially when the said bands have both elements. I just go with whatever impromptu feeling I get and stick with it. With that being said, I think genre-classification is essential and people saying shit like "oh man, let's just call it metal" are well...idiots who probably don't want to make the minimal effort of thinking about the music.

Author:	inhumanist [ Sun Apr 21, 2013 8:52 am ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
Genres make just as much sense as dividing history into epochs like ancient, medieval, modern or renaissance, baroque, classicism, romanticism etc.. They are simplifications in the sense that without them we would only have random events on a timeline. We therefore make up a context for those events by interpreting them, but one that does have a certain reality in that it creates an identity and a sense for something belonging to something greater than itself. But it also misleadingly suggests that the subject matter is more uniform and definable than it actually is.

Author:	Acidgobblin [ Sun Apr 21, 2013 9:17 am ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
These terms can be used as an attempt to over-complicate and create a form of originalty by bands that may not be original. By inventing and saying that you are "majestic epic power metal" means that you are a pioneer of that style, even if its really just Blind Guardian with a different name... I'm all for describing music, just not the creation of a new genre anytime someone rehashes a tired formula and adds an oboe. Quote: To my father the distinction between metal and metalcore is also "fluffy nonsense", and there is no reason why a certain form of punk should be called "hardcore". What makes it hardcore? And then you mate it with metal and call it "metalcore"? That's just stupid. All these genre distinctions are meaningless to people who don't already have a priori, basic knowledge of the specific music. Hardcore punk is relatively self-explanatory, but you do need to know a) what punk music actually is, and b) what the term hardcore means. From there, you can extroplate that hardcore punk is a more intense, more vicious and aggressive form of punk. Quote: Being principally against labels just because you don't know/understand them, or don't care for the distinction between music that is or isn't "majestic", is just stupid. I don't see why you would believe a term like majestic would be defined completely subjectively. Just because it has a dictionary meaning? . Speaking for myself, I'm not against specific labels and genre tags, but I don't see the point in nebulous terms like 'majestic' being used in an attempt to objectively delineate between differing bands. Because this sort of term is defined very much 'in the eye of the beholder' I think it can add confusion instead of clarity. Its got nothing to do with it having a dictionary definition; amazingly, all words do.... In truth, if I was using a term based on its dictionary definition, that would be using it objectively. In which case almost all metal genres are just similes. Quote: Then you have to be against epic metal, speed metal, brutal death metal, big band music, classic rock, traditional heavy metal, etc. Those could be interpreted subjectively as well. Not to mention depressive black metal, which essentially is named the same way as majestic black metal To the contrary, I think most of these terms are actually useful. Epic metal often refers to metal on a grand scale, bombastic, over the top with fantastic and melodramatic (epic) lyrical themes, speed metal did refer to semi-traditional metal played at a certain high velocity, brutal death metal suggests that the more intense and violent aspects of death metal are being emphasised, trad metal refers to the more 'original' metal style of the 70's and early 80's, classic...I think there is a huge difference between these terms and some of the more ridiculous ones that get bandied about these days. Those terms have definite objective reality. So in this sense, I agree with your premise, but when this over-descriptive technique is used to make garbage seem like treasure, I think it does more harm then good and can create a certain cynicism. With that said, there may come a time when majestic metal is a recognised sub-genre, and the only way this would occur would be with widespread use and with a clear enough concept, shared by several artists. Depressive black metal (a genre I don't really like) is akin to that; the term has been accepted and understood by many metal fans to refer to a now stylistically distinct genre.

Author:	HamburgerBoy [ Sun Apr 21, 2013 11:23 am ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
I use subgenres and labels entirely for my own benefit in conveying what I am looking for and for others to do the same. If someone wants to defy convention I don't care at all so long as he defines the terms as he uses them so that conversation may still be worthwhile. Knowing the history behind the terms can be interesting, but I couldn't give less of a shit about the opinions of armchair historians or journalists pedantic with labeling.

Author:	Peroy [ Sun Apr 21, 2013 11:30 am ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
Once you're using more than two words to categorize a musical genre, you're doing it wrong and it becomes unintentionally (?) hilarious... that's pretty much my stance on the topic.

Author:	Maniac Matis [ Sun Apr 21, 2013 12:16 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
While I think that some genres are blatantly dumb and fucking pointless (take "beer metal" for instance), I think labels are not only important, but necessary. Calling all heavy music 'metal' is like calling all lyrics that ryhme 'rap'. Labeling all metal sub-genres as simply 'metal', while not incorrect, is just naive. If everyone kept things simple, there would be no discovery in the world! If scientists said "the brain is just a brain" and didn't dissect/label it by the different sections, we would not have come as far. Labels are necessary. Music is science!

Author:	DarkWolfXV [ Sun Apr 21, 2013 12:37 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
Im a fan of labeling bands with genres. Its like in library, stuff gets certain stamp on it for claritys sake. A lot of people dont have basic understanding of genres and genres confuse them, so they are all like "no, its all just metal" which in my opinion is fucking pathetic. If you dont know the difference between Megadeth and Cephalotripsy, then i feel sorry for you. The "its all just metal" argument is most often used by metalcore and deathcore scenekids so they can try to trick people into accepting them as legit metalheads, "suicide silence is not deathcore bro, they never said they were deathcore bro, its all just metal bro, just listen to the music bro". Well, im now feeling like it so im going to show you how to recognize genres, so you all can keep your creditbility and be trve kvlt. "Progressive" "Technical" "Brutal" "Melodic" "Blackened" are prefixes which can be attached to genres, which usually tell us what can we expect, "Progressive" means that we can expect more progressive (duh) song structures, "Technical" means more complex riffing, drum parts etc. "Brutal" means we can expect more chromatic riffing, more guttural vocals, and lyrics usually about gore, overall more emphasis on heavy than complex, "Melodic" tells us that there is more emphasis on melody than usual, and most of the time it also tells us that there is a melodic death metal influence and "Blackened" signifies black metal influence, so black metal riffing, vocals etc. woven into the music. There are also suffixes, which are "-core" and "-grind". -core means that there is either hardcore, metalcore, or deathcore influence. Djentcore would be djent + deathcore, metalcore would be hardcore + metal, deathcore would be either hardcore + death metal or metalcore + death metal. Grindcore is simply hardcore punk taken to another level (Anal Cunt, etc. those bands who are more grindcore than metal), sometimes with extreme metal influence like Napalm Death, Insect Warfare etc. which use more metal-oriented riffing than hardcore punk one. The -grind prefix means grindcore influence, so deathgrind would be death metal + grindcore etc. In genre names, sky is the limit, but description should be accurate. Genres can have multiple prefixes but usually only one suffix (No deathgrindcore), so genres like Progressive Brutal Deathgrind are totally legit if they accurately describe the band. I probably forgot some prefixes but fuck it.

Author:	Knucklehead [ Sun Apr 21, 2013 1:36 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
Obviously, labeling is essential to a point. How else one would otherwise describe the difference bedween Master of Reality and Scream Bloody Gore and Panzerdivision Marduk? However, it can easily be taken too far. My resistance to anything beyond two words is simple: music is not science. The urge to give taxonomic definitions to musical bands fundamentally miscomprehends the artistic impulse: these are people expressing themselves and not bone fossils recovered from Olduvai Gorge.

Author:	CF_Mono [ Sun Apr 21, 2013 1:43 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
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.

Author:	Ancient_Sorrow [ Sun Apr 21, 2013 1:49 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
I'll go with genre-descriptors up to a certain depth of description; after that point, I'll usually describe a band as being, for instance, progressive black-metal in the vein of x, or appeal to other qualities of it's music; "dissonant, keyboard driven progressive black metal in the vein of x" convays a lot more information than gradually making sub-genres themselves more and more anal. With regards to arguments about what sub-genre something is, I find that for the vast majority of the time it's in the Youtube comments section, which should encourage disregarding it in the first place, and second, the dissent is almost always, in my experience, instigated by people who don't know what they're talking about, or are failing to acknowledge something being more than one genre at once.

Author:	Ceald Hraew [ Sun Apr 21, 2013 3:30 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
Sometimes even artists complain about their bands’ label. My guess is that they want to pretend they are unique even when there is a shitload of bands that sound the same.

Author:	lord_ghengis [ Sun Apr 21, 2013 7:36 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
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.

Author:	Jacobus [ Sun Apr 21, 2013 7:55 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
Hahahaha BM like grindcore? I think your just talking shit

Author:	lord_ghengis [ Sun Apr 21, 2013 8:11 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
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?

Author:	Zodijackyl [ Sun Apr 21, 2013 8:44 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: People against categorizing music (subgenres and labelin
Peroy wrote: Once you're using more than two words to categorize a musical genre, you're doing it wrong and it becomes unintentionally (?) hilarious... that's pretty much my stance on the topic. So "melodic black/death metal" is doing it wrong and hilarious?