I understand the reason behind putting labels. But I also understand the law of diminishing returns is in full effect when you need to micro-define extremely narrow categories. Putting labels is supposed to make things easier, not harder.

I just find it very amusing that this thread is basically running to 12 pages and mainly consists of people bitching about other people who don't share the same definitions as they do, yet insist it's so incredibly vital that we insist on putting very precise labels. Of course, everyone who is not on the same exact page as you on this ridiculous elitist bullshit is accused of being "new to music".

Very typical.

Ok, so you're saying it's useful and everyone can do it to recommend stuff... but then you're saying Dunn, of course, is doing it wrong. So it's not very useful, is it?

I understand that narrowing things a little is useful. But too much leads to bickering.



That doesn't make any sense. Like, at all. Of course everybody listens to music. A whole lot of people don't give two shits what subgenre labels an elitist will put on what they enjoy.

That's a fact, not a lie.

You don't have to be an elitist to understand what type of music it is you're listening to. Some people are just more perceptive than others. If you honestly don't know what style of music you're listening to, you really need to do your homework, seriously.

Tell me, if you're doing a metal documentary that aim to explain the roots and main actors of every metal subgenre, why in the bloody hell you can't say what style of music you like? I've never, never heard from a barely informed metalhead that likes 'extreme metal' and not thrash, death, black, etc.

I would go as far as saying that the 100% of the MA users refers to subgenres when it comes to discuss metal. I mean, it's impossible to talk about metal not having a clue about what you're listening and without giving a loose description about what you like and dislike.



I don't now any metalhead (with more than, say, 6 months of constant metal listening) that can't answer these 2 simple questions:

1-What's your fav metal style? I mean, I honestly believe there's no such of a metalhead that likes each and every metal subgenre with the same intensity.

2-What does your fav bands play? If you can't say what your fav band plays, you're simply clueless, delusional and utterly ignorant about metal.

Really, can you keep a conversation about metal without mentioning metal subgenres? I would like to see that.

The only ones I've known saying that likes metal in general are the 'borderline metal' fans: people into metalcore, nu metal, grunge, hard rock and nothing else, therefore, people without the slightest clue about what metal is about, how metal sounds, what kind of metal exists, etc.

It's pretty hard to keep out regional scenes in the same context. I've met a few people who are nuts over Norwegian Black Metal and refuse to believe that it exists in other parts of the world.

I guess that people who believes in what Dunn says (Norwegian black metal and not 'just' black metal) might be disguided and ignorant enough to say that. Another reason to loathe Dunn's poor work.

When it comes to locations there are some stylistic differences, like black metal from Norway and Greece or Swedish death metal compared to the US one. It's also useful information to describe scenes and styles, of course.

Genres are useful for quick dissemination of general descriptions but anything more in depth renders them useless. For example, Burzum and Absu (early) both play Black Metal. It's useful as an overall tag to separate their style from say, Power Metal like Blind Guardian or Helloween but once you start getting more in depth the overall usage of genre tags becomes quite useless unless you plan on describing 100 styles of black metal with it's own genre tag or 100 styles of Death Metal with it's own genre tag... often times bands aren't easily pigeon-holed.

Genres serve a purpose but should never be outright indicators of whether someone will like a band or not unless someone can honestly say that they don't like any Black Metal or any Death Metal or whatever. They are useful, serve a purpose but are also ineffective and irrelevant past a certain level of in depth discussion.

If you've been into metal for a long enough time you begin to learn what genres you like and which ones you don't like. For me personally I listen to bands based on their genre, because certain sounds are appealing to me and other sounds aren't. I listen to 100's of different bands, all falling within the same type of metal. This can't be coincidence. There's just a certain appeal for me when it comes to certain styles of music.

Of course, there are exceptions to this, but they are very, very rare. For example I love power metal and thrash metal, and when combined they produce a sub-genre that I absolutely love. However, I do NOT liked Iced Earth. That is an EXCEPTION. The hundreds of times that genre determines what I like completely outweighs and counteracts those rare exceptions.

Would it be wrong for me to say I love power metal if there's a few power metal bands I don't love? No. It also shouldn't be wrong for me to say I don't like black metal even if there's 1 or 2 that I actually like.

You're still ignoring my point, while reinforcing it. There comes a point where micro-defining subgenres becomes useless if everyone is an expert and disagrees with other buffoons who also labels themselves experts.

The more people rip on Dunn, the more they illustrate this.




LOL, sure you can! We just had several last night when our band auditioned bassists. Lots of people do it all the time, really. But I don't know what this has to do with the conversation.

You seem to be convinced everybody approaches metal exactly like you do and those who aren't following a certain guide are not really worthy of some "metalhead" cred. I'm not sure what the point is.

I agree with the first part and disagree with the latter. Of course people make judgment calls on what they listening and some of them are more into it than others. But that kind of "understanding" based on perception can vary from one individual to the next. Just because two individuals are equally passionate and perceptive doesn't mean they will reach the same conclusions when it comes to the music they listen.



My homework, but according to whom? Cause that's what we're discussing. The fact there is not a single source that classifies metal in a way that has reached consensus.

I'm not adverse to a few general genres. But I think things have gone overboard for a long time and become too fragmented and sub-categorized. Not to mention there have always been fringe cases and this will only get worse over time.

My opinion (which apparently is not very popular) is that there is too much of a fuss over subgenres and where to stick bands.

Which general genres would you like to use? black, power, death, sludge, doom, heavy?

Seems alright. Only I don't really care for the super brutal side of death metal, so wouldn't it be handy to have an immediate indicator so I can dismiss all technical brutal death metal just by reading the tag? In my opinion, if you are talking about actual differences in the music, one can't have enough subgenres.

Edit. You know why different subgenres keep popping up? Because music is always evolving.

What about this site? it's at least the closest. The vast majority of bands do play a easily recognizable style where you can apply the general tags like black, death, doom, heavy or thrash and the vast majority of metalheads can also recognize them; the discussions usually comes about a) bands that mixes too many different influences or b) borderline metal bands; being these 2 categories the obvious minority.



Remember that the discussion started with the 'extreme metal' tag (useless and misguiding) used by Dunn, which an umbrella term that says nothing. Also, how can be so narrow (in your words) use tags like thrash, death, doom and black? No one here is discussing if X band plays 'death/doom with influences from folklore, classical and 80's pop + some reminiscence of reggae and dubstep', it's just death, black, doom, etc; what's the harm on it?

I haven't been there for long but it is indeed an amazing site with a really interesting community. However, when you put a bunch of passionate people together they tend to discuss in a vacuum. Each community develops its belief system and bickers about it. But to the average Joe who just likes to headbang, this makes no difference. Note that for the little exposure I have here, I have already seen a number of debates about where certain bands fit. This is far from an exact science.

If I do my homework based on this site as you suggest, I am going to come to the conclusion that I should pair Megadeth to one of those weepy depressive black metal bands for a concert rather than to Rammstein. Because some dweeb making weepy noises in his parents' basement is "metal" and Rammstein is not. Theoretical musings are fine and interesting but in practice, things can be quite different.



FWIW, I am still scratching my head at a lot of bands who are called "doom" but sound exactly like the heavy metal bands I grew up listening.

You mentioned bands that mix different styles and the borderline cases: those are a lot more numerous than people here seem to acknowledged. Metal is renowned for pushing the boundaries and breaking the rules. Everybody borrows from everybody and the more bands creating out there, the more you can mix.

But I hear what you are saying and I've got nothing against basic categories as a reference tool (rather than a religiously followed guide).

For some odd reason, this only makes the possibility of the in-utero Extreme Metal episode all that more grating in thought.

There's no way this is happening, unless they get $100,000 in two days. The Indiegogo thing was just way too optimistic. I think doing multiple episodes would've garnered more good faith in the project. I mean, if he's going to travel to all of these locations and talk to all of these people I'd imagine he'd have enough filmed to edit the footage into a couple one hour chunks for nearly the same production cost.

(http://morsomnibus.blogspot.com/ has a slightly longer rant on the subject from me)