I think band 2 would be power metal with a strong emphasis in baroque-styled shredding alla cacophony/yngwie malmsteen. Bands such as Stratovarius or Galneyrus have tons of those elements and are sometimes referred to as Neoclassical, whereas traditional power metal bands such as Helloween or Gamma Ray are more focused on the trad heavy metal style of playing.
This band is perhaps the most baroque-sounding power metal I've heard, so perhaps that might be an example of "pure" neoclassical power metal. That said, I consider neoclassical more of a style of composing rather than a genre.

To me viking metal is not a real genre. We have Amon Amarth, and we also have Bathory.

It can still be a genre even if not all bands with Viking lyrics represent it. It's not the most well-defined genre though, I don't disagree.

Amon Amarth is however just melodic death metal (at best). Arguably, downtuned power metal with growled vocals would be more accurate, but that's not very catchy.

I've never been a fan of "theme" based subgenres. We have a system of musical taxonomy - identification of stylistic differences presented in sonic and structural forms. Pirate metal and goblin metal are meaningless terms. In fact, they both likely refer to bands that play the same subgenre - some kind of Power metal. But as the style saturates, those terms completely lose their utility as descriptors. I even think the map of metal has more subgenres than needed and it's pretty condensed already.

You could argue that established terms are equally meaningless, as "black" and "death" metal descriptors don't tell you anything about how the music sounds. But there is a common understanding and acceptance where we have an idea of what those terms are in reference to. A subgenre should only refer to forms of music that are stylistically independent and distinct, with a clear lineage of how it was developed.

Personally, I don't think even descriptors like "folk metal" constitute a true subgenre, as it can manifest in too many different forms i.e. it is not distinct. Ensiferum is clearly rooted in melodeath while Panopticon plays black metal. Without this type of gatekeeping or so called "elitism", we run the risk of having an arbitrary landscape where subgenre tags are no longer useful and it's impossible to categorically organize music in a way that is linked by mutual sound.

So lastly, if Viking metal refers to any style of music, it should go to the original style to which it was used in reference - Bathory's slowed down version of black metal primarily featured on Nordlands, along with any other band following that trajectory.

Swing metal is pretty distinct from other genres/styles, at least in my experience- but I don't know if it's at all big enough to be considered a genre rather than just a term that applies to a few specific bands. What's the opinion here?

On the subject of folk metal as a descriptor, I think it's an acceptable term, for now anyways. You could try to divide it up further, but you'd need to figure out exactly HOW. A lot of the time it shouldn't be used on its own; as in, it should be used as less of a genre and more of descriptor you would use alongside more specific genres to convey the folk influence (however vague "folk influence" is). The problem HERE is when you run into a band for which the "metal" part of "folk metal" is hard to define a specific genre influence for.

This still doesn't change the fact that the folk influence itself is wildly different between bands. That's the root of the issue: folk music is an extremely broad term. And a lot of styles of folk music don't have unique genre names associated with them. So how is it going to be divided into more specific labels? A lot of the time people already specify the geographical area of folk metal bands, at least in my experience. I really can't think of a great way to do it, but maybe I just don't have a wrinkly enough brain.

Swing metal??? Come on man...

I see absolutely nothing wrong with enjoying bands like the Diablo Swing Orchestra, but alright.

the question of diablo swing orchestra has been solved, though-- everyone just calls them 'avant-garde metal', and while it's probably the most effective sonic descriptor it does help classify them in the pack of bands with an uncommon and experimental approach to genre that doesn't particularly fit any other metal subgenre

or, you know, the pack of bands whose approach to defining a style is "THE WORD OF THE DAY IS QUIRKY"

"Biker metal" is a term I've heard bounced around a few times. Not sure if it should be used as an actual genre, or if it just refers to metal bands popular among bikers.

I've seen the term 'dissonant black metal' thrown around a lot lately. What defines this as a subgenre and separates it from being just normal black metal?

One of the most ridiculous to me is Unblack metal. Although I find the release by Horde/Jayson Sherlock to be great, I find the term itself absolutely ridiculous.

These guys look incredibly stupid to me, although I find most BM makeup looks incredibly stupid.



At least in the case of Frost Like Ashes, some of their song titles are pretty cool. A Cruel Verse, Execution by Fire and Pale Shadows.

Just stuff that subjectively sounds dissonant or DsO-y, like I would say Plebeian Grandstand, Light Dweller, Suffering Hour, or Deveneror. Generally some "weird" sounding riffs and sinister arpeggios are not uncommon. The music is also often more technical compared to most other black metal, and the production is almost never too raw.

Two genres recognized by the Metal Archives-speed and gothic-kind of confuses me. I still find these terms a bit ambiguous. For speed metal, it is defined as "less abrasive and more melodic than thrash metal, showing less influence from hardcore punk. However, speed metal is usually faster and more aggressive than traditional heavy metal, also showing more inclination to virtuoso soloing and featuring short instrumental passages between couplets." (yes, I copied that from Wikipedia, which is not a good source, but eh). Now there are plenty of bands with this label, but the two most recognized are Dragonforce and Motorhead (although the former is just power metal, and the latter is just heavy metal/hard rock). I feel like the majority of bands with this label basically just overlap with heavy, thrash, and/or power metal. However, the closest song that I can think of that seems to match "speed metal" is probably Painkiller by Judas Priest. Honestly, speed metal seems to be an outdated term that is more used to describe specific songs.

As for gothic metal, well, there are two types of definitions that I will be using: the Wikipedia one, and the more strict Metal Archives one. For the Wikipedia one, there are several symphonic bands labeled such as Within Temptation, Epica, and Nightwish. Some industrial bands (which are not considered real metal by the Archives) such as Rammstein and Deathstars. Even non-metal bands such as Evanescence, HIM, and Black Veil Brides are given this label. The Metal Archive makes a bit more sense because they only stick with actual metal bands, but the majority of these bands are just some variation of doom metal. What makes these bands any more different and "gothic" compared to other doom bands? Isn't a lot of extreme metal itself "dark atmosphere" by standards? What makes a metal band "true gothic" per se?

I remember that someone trying to create a new genre just from creation by Anaal Nathrakh that was called "necro" but a similar band was never formed, so the idea died.

Anyway, now I trying to spread Power Death subgenre a little bit, but I can't think of a name for it. Maybe... Ultra metal or PGD metal (Power Glory and Death) or something like that

What do you mean by “power death?”

That just power metal with growl or other agressive vocal with fantasy theme.

copied from "power death metal mix 2019" from youtube --------> This is subgenre of melodeath and power metal. Mostly faster than melo and more agressive than power, you can check there bands and songs

I typed "hardcore" into the search bar for the hell of it and noticed that the encyclopedia lists some bands as "Death Metal, Hardcore" and others as "Death Metal/Hardcore".

https://www.metal-archives.com/bands/Crawlspace/10207 (Death Metal, Hardcore)
https://www.metal-archives.com/bands/Ab ... ope/104240 (Death Metal/Hardcore)

What exactly would the difference be that would justify these two separate genre classifications? The amount of each genre, or perhaps if they're fused together or distinct in the bands' overall sounds?

A comma just means that band plays both styles of music separately, not a fusion. Think of it as the band putting out a death metal album, then a hardcore album, or having 4 clearly death metal songs, then 4 hardcore ones.

While I'm here, is there such a thing as raw "x" metal, besides raw black metal? I've only ever seen the 'raw' genre tag in reference to black metal. And what separates 'raw' from 'noise'?

That's dumb. It would just be power metal, and as a fun note - they use death metal vocals. Vocal style alone doesn't define or differentiate genres. By that logic, black metal with 'hissed,' 'groaning,' and 'growling' vocals would be three different genres but they're not.

O rly? Tell that to all death/thrash, death'n'roll and symphonic death metal fans
Moreover, this is obvious there are so many people that hate power metal for gentle vocal but love how guitar and everything else works. Power death metal gives you both... great fast instrumental and deadly vocal

The only genres I’m interested in are the ones that describe a musical style. Thrash/black, death/thrash, and other “mixed” genres work for me because they describe the kind of music I’ll hear and that’s how I find new bands.

Genres that do not describe the music I tend to ignore, and I’ll categorize them my own way. “Viking” metal is not a thing. Neither is “folk”. Those are merely monikers that got attached to a popular bands at one point and now nobody wants to change them.

Before fans of said non-genres flame me, let me point out that I’m not saying bands with those genre tags suck, or that they aren’t metal. I’m just saying that bands with those tags are musically all over the place. Picking up a band described as “folk” or “Viking” tells me absolutely nothing about how they sound. I always end up going “oh, melodeath with a lute” and categorizing them as such.

In the same vein, I’ve also seen “slam” brutal death thrown around, and sometimes “hyperthrash”. My dudes, these are just terms someone made up in order to pretend that the perfectly ordinary brutal death or thrash you play is somehow different and groundbreaking. Stop it.

I used to call early Nu-metal, Rap Metal.

Bruce

Hmmm I can't say I agree with that. Vocal styles are a nuance to their respective genres, much like the rest of the instruments. You take a band with black or death metal riffs and put exclusively clean vocals over it and it would no longer be seen as 100% black or death metal (i.e. Satan's Host on their By the Hands of the Devil album is essentially black metal, but the vocals are very power metal-esque sounding, so it's typically seen as a power/black metal hybrid).

A lot of death/doom metal bands will mix clean and harsh vocals that riff-wise sound more like regular doom metal. For instance, if you were to take the harsh vocals out of most of Mourning Beloveth's music, it would just be regular doom metal.

Isn't groove metal just neo-thrash?

Using my criteria - that the genre tag is supposed to identify what the band sounds like - I'd have to agree. If I heard a band that was labeled power metal, I would not expect harsh death metal vocals. I would conclude that the band was mislabeled, and ain't entirely power. The vocal style would have to be prevalent throughout their music though, and not just a song here and there.

I think the silver bullet here is the notion of tagging versus pinning down what the genre is. A tag is an association as opposed to asserting the genre which can get a little contentious. It'd be nice if the archives embraced this cause it perpetuates in-fighting and senseless debates. Death, black ...as much as I love them don't mean what they used to. But for the sake of argument if we assume some top levels for the taxonomy of metal, I'd start with just three, and tags for everything else:
Metal (Alternative, Goth, Industrial), Heavy Metal (Doom, Speed, Power, Thrash), Extreme Metal (Black, Death)

And in the same continuum,
Rock(Blues, Folk, Country), Hard Rock ('Grunge', Punk, 'Stoner'), Extreme Rock (Hardcore, 'Sludge')

So for a band, instead of trying to defend a "power death" as a metal genre. You might have Genre: Heavy Metal with a Death / Power tag.

I agree, but there are extreme music coming from thrash and doom too(well, I prefer to believe that any type of metal band can can make an extreme album). Also I'm not sure if there's a consensus about like what is extreme or not.

The idea of slapping genres onto bands on the basis of said act's lyrical themes/imagery is stupid. While imagery can solidify a band's place within a genre, the music needs to align with it first. Amon Amarth is melodic death metal despite their Viking imagery and themes. Alestorm is folk metal. Not "pirate metal". While I'm all for a complex system of organization, as it makes the world of metal more fascinating and navigable, there's a certain point where things get to be too much.

Is AA melodic death metal? What the fuck is melodic anything? It asserts another genre is necessarily trying NOT to be melodic which seems in and of itself counter intuitive to music. But hey, whatever, call it core or jazz or industrial, whatever. Tag that shit so I can avoid it, is what I'm saying.

It fits the paradigm I established. Depending on the range of the audience a band is trying to reach (and, sometimes, the tempo of the music (generally speaking]) it's metal > heavy metal > extreme metal or rock > hard rock > extreme rock

Folk metal bugs me so much. Folk music jeered Bob Dylan off the stage for an electric guitar. How the fuck is folk metal a genre? It's not. Neither is pirate metal. Viking. Stoner. Pagan. Celtic. Symphonic. Progressive.
If it's subject matter that may be associated with this act, I don't mind a tag.

hlegend, your system is no less confusing or more helpful.

It is helpful. I've seen endless debates about what band is what genre and what is what. Fuck all that. There's metal and that's music about as heavy as you can get meant for the mainstream. There's heavy metal which is not for the mainstream. And Extreme Metal which is really fucking not for the mainstream.
It sets a precedent of inclusivity and that everything is metal. The style, or implementation, is therefore what characterizes it. Go on and read this wiki page and replace genre with style and tell me you're not at least ambivalent. Hell the way the genres are defined immediately set off by describing the style. The caboose has been driving the train, imo.

This is about accuracy so case study:
On the archives:

Amon Amarth:
Genre:Melodic Death Metal
Lyrical themes:Vikings, Warfare, Mythology, Destruction

Bathory:
Genre:Black/Viking Metal, Thrash Metal
Lyrical themes:Satanism, Evil (early), Norse mythology, Tales, Society, Death (later)


Are we saying that Bathory embodied the viking metal genre, and AA does not? I certainly don't prefer AA, but I'd say they are about as fucking Viking Metal as it gets. It begs the question, what sonic qualities constitute Viking Metal? The answer is more about the ethos (the nerve to do an album on viking content.) I am making the assertion that AA isn't extreme, and their old stuff definitely leaned more on the death. But I believe the "melodic death metal" term is accurate for their style, and therefore inherently precludes it from the extreme genre.

Amon Amarth:
Genre: Heavy Metal
Style: Melodic Death
Lyrical themes:Vikings, Warfare, Mythology, Destruction

Bathory:
Genre: Extreme Metal
Style:Black, Epic, Thrash
Lyrical themes:Satanism, Evil (early), Norse mythology, Tales, Society, Death (later)

This just seems more accurate and Viking as a style seems more appropriate if you want to go down the tag rabbit hole. Therein lies the value. Style is less important. I feel like this weird paradigm that's evolved in metal has all these borders


But a lot of these are just ideas or styles that I've seen applied to metal in its varying types, of which three seem undeniably apparent. Are you really going to argue a heavy metal band playing a death power style as much as you will (and have) argued against power death metal?

Melodic death metal is exactly what it sounds like. It's a blending of the extremity of death metal and the melodic tendencies (and often accentuation of choruses) that are found in power metal among other more "happy" sounding genres. Amon Amarth fits this format perfectly. Most all of their songs (especially including and post TOTTG) could very easily be power metal if the singing wasn't growled and the guitar tones were less down-tuned. Even within the melodeath genre, degrees of melody vary, but there's never the less a marked difference between the likes of Obituary and bands like AA.



And how is "extreme rock" different from metal? What's an example of a band in this genre?



It is too. Folk metal is most often a melding of melodeath, black metal and/or regular old heavy metal with some variety of folk accompaniment. Listen to Ensiferum, Korpiklaani, (early) Equilibrium, Midvinterblot, Moonsorrow or Arkona for an idea of what this sounds like. The sound folk metal has can change depending on which country or region the band hails from.

I do agree with you that Viking metal isn't a genre though.

Well, in that case of industrial metal, it's not that on Metal Alchives not be considered as real metal, I include myself too, the detail is that...Rammstein and Deathstars are clearly more industrial than metal, unlike for example of The Kovenant, Anaal Nathrakh, The Berzerker, An Axis of Perdition, Sidirial, and The Project Hate MCMXCIX, that although their albums have many industrial elements, at the end of day, are more based in extreme metal by far.

All you're saying is I don't like how genres are currently separated so instead you made your own judgement for how they should be categorized, but you haven't argued why it's better. And what's the benefit of inclusivity and "everything is metal" if you ignore things like genre / scene / style evolutions and histories. Would you say that all grindcore is "Extreme Metal" because it's heavy or abrasive, even though some bands are really just playing fast punk music? Or would you say that no grindcore is "Extreme Metal," regardless of the amount of death metal influence and even though it's objectively heavy and abrasive?

Blues metal? Bands like Motörhead, Danzig and Black Sabbath have all dabbled with some bluesy songs.

Having a few songs that take influence from blues doesn't necessitate a genre, though I do see where you might be coming from with that. Especially with Motorhead, as they never really pigeon-holed themselves into the metal genre. You could say Black Sabbath are a doom/heavy metal band with overt blues influence at times, but not a blues metal band.

Okay, once again I've come across a weird as hell genre listing.

https://www.metal-archives.com/bands/Ab ... 3540330911

I've never seen a genre-listing on this site use a semicolon before. I'm going to assume this is just a mistake, but if it isn't, what exactly does a semicolon indicate?

Melodic death is conflicting because I do see the utility. That said, let's be real, it's just a death metal style with a power metal implementation. We've allowed ourselves to conflate "melodious guitar work" with melodic and I just see that as stupid, but I digress.

As for extreme rock, it's tricky, because I think at the extreme spectrum of rock you get punk or metal or hardcore. Depends on the criteria, speed/heaviness. But there's a space that exists where bands aren't hard rock and aren't metal.
I'd say most stoner rock is a good contender. What it lacks in speed it often makes up in heaviness, and it's style isn't palatable enough for radio, so it can never really be rock or hard rock. To me, Motorhead really exemplifies extreme rock. "We are Motorhead and we play rock and roll."



Well there are two sides. Ultimately a band chooses to market themselves and conflate genre with style, and I think the archives should either have a clearly defined taxonomy, or fucking listen to the artists. If the mods don't think something is metal, but that band is out there touring, marketing themselves as metal, then something is wrong.

To be clear, I'm saying that the classifications used to establish the borders for metal's subgenres are becoming prohibitive when it comes to analysis. If a band calls themselves metal and became successful and known for playing it but they are Avenged Sevenfold or Slipknot... well fine, they can be metal.

Furthermore, I'm saying let's just say three tiers of metal to establish the substance, and everything else is style.

Finally, I would say grindcore is extreme hardcore and is not metal at all. Unless the artist identified themselves as metal in some way.

I'm sorry man. I honestly just do not understand the logic for why your system is better.