Tohou is more an administrative division depending of the city of Lalo in Benin, West Africa. But is MDM an actual subgenre of death metal?

I have a question about depressive black metal. Many years ago the genre often was refered to as DSBM, which included suicidal. Nowadays when I see the genre talked about it's refered to simply as "depressive black metal". Is this the same genre that got renamed or is it about subgenres?

The same thing: Depressive suicidal black metal == Depressive black metal
...or: Black metal > Depressive black metal > Depressive suicidal black metal

I'm trying to tag my files correctly.

And once you'll be told the supposed difference between depressive suicidal black metal and plain depressive black metal, how will you know which band goes in the appropriate files?

Depressive black metal and DSBM are basically the same thing in terms of sound. I think MA prefers to use the former in the genre tags since there are a handful of depressive black metal bands that don't necessarily dwell into the topic of suicide.

Hm... That makes sense! I'll go with Depressive black metal then, thanks.

1. I know there's a bit of a distinction between "thrashcore" and "crossover thrash" since the former is a bit more on the punky side than the latter, but is it really that necessary to have two different terms for a relatively small spectrum?

2. How much does production matter when it comes to a band's genre. For example, does lofi atmosphere define black metal, and can the same be said with death metal and gnarly guitar tones, or doom metal with a crispy guitar tone? If so, then that could cause some problems, especially since bands of many genres nowadays are aiming for that "perfect" and "clean" production.

3. I'd like to follow-up with the viking metal discussion, because in an earlier post here I brought up how a music genre should be defined by its scene as much as its sound. Is the viking metal scene distinct enough that bands tie together, which justifies it being a genre of its own? I guess that's why "samurai metal" isn't a thing as of now.

Also with the whole "epic blackened doom metal with Nordic folk influences," I think there's a similar case to be said regarding sludge metal since it's practically a doom/hardcore fusion. But why give a new and original name instead of something like "doomcore?" I'm not a huge expert on sludge metal or anything so I cannot make my own statement right now, but I think something similar could be said about power metal (not including the USPM variety), which I know has already been talked about here, but some people would say that it's essentially just heavy/speed metal or "melodic speed metal." But there does seem to be something going on that makes it more than that, which includes a level of intensity or drama, as well as less of the "rock n roll" vibe from trad heavy and more outside influences such as prog and pop.

4. Speaking of speed metal, aside from that particular playing style, is there something else that ties Exciter, Venom, and Blind Guardian together scene-wise?

5. How do you guys feel about more describing terms akin to "blackened" for other metal subgenres, and what could be potential terminologies for each? I know somebody here brought up "dying metal" for death metal.

1- Wrong. "Thrashcore" comes from the 80's punk scene and is not a metal subgenre. It's just speedier hardcore punk. "Speedcore" is synonymous. On the contrary, "crossover thrash" is a mix of thrash metal and hardcore punk.

2- This is a very interesting question indeed. I do think that production sometimes is main element that makes a band X subgenre. A lot of bands classified black metal would be doom or death with another production. A couple of days ago I was listening to 80's post-punk and thought that it could be "third wave black metal" with a heavier production, and vice versa. There must be tons of examples.

3- We have to keep in mind that genre naming and classification, though being a musicological matter, is firstly done by the music industry (medias and labels mostly). And their aim is not to be scientifically logical while bringing forth a new genre name but to create new marketing niches for the consumers we are. Then, some new genres make sense and are (almost) unanimously accepted from a musicological perspective while some others don't and are still debated.

4- Another good question. I think there's nothing else that ties Venom with the others. I would define speed metal as "speedier traditional heavy metal" and the problem with Venom being classified as such is that they have more punk influences, that leads them being proto-thrash, proto-black and proto-whatever...

5- "Dying metal" was just a joke of mine to show that "blackened X metal" is not a relevant terminology. The fact that "dying metal" sounds silly makes the misuse of "blackened" increase. As for myself, I prefer to say black/death metal and so on... Why create useless and accurate terms when you can make it simple?

1. Thrashcore seems to be used more to describe punk bands (I still see it in flyers to this day) while crossover thrash is used to describe metal bands. They're not really the same thing, but are similar and there's overlap, similar to powerviolence and grindcore.

2. Usually not much, but there are some genres where the production is part of the musical style of the final product, such as atmospheric ___ metal or raw black metal.

3. Viking metal is pretty much used to describe a style born out of Bathory's viking era (BFH/HH/TOTG) which was further expanded in the 90s by bands like Falkenbach and Windir who blended folk and second wave black metal into it, as well as Enslaved, whose stylistic evolution is complex, and too many other bands to mention. I've heard some folks call Bathory's style epic thrash metal with Manowar beats and gruff vocals, which is an oversimplification, but not entirely off-point.

I've heard the term "doomcore" used, but sludge metal is the term that caught on. As with every genre, the term becomes useful when enough people use/recognize it.

4. Motorhead influence, probably. There are often bands that nominally play the same style who aren't easy 1-to-1 comparisons. I know Exciter and Venom toured together in the mid 80s (Brazil in '86) - you'll find more similarity with Venom's Possessed than their earliest and most influential albums. I don't know BG's history too well.

Canadian label Banzai Records also helped popularize the term "speed metal" as well as the corresponding logo. They did a lot of regional releases of international bands, and released both Exciter and Venom albums in 1985. There's more to the connection, but I can't recite it off the top of my head.
https://www.metal-archives.com/labels/B ... abs_albums

5. Blackened death metal, blackened speed metal - they roll off the tongue better than black-death-metal and black-speed-metal. It's useful since people know what you mean.



...what?

I mean that some black metal riffs that don't use the Snorre/Euronymous technique (there are plenty of them) and without the lo-fi production could be death or doom metal. As for my second example, the dissonant riffs from the 80's post-punk scene could be modern/post-black metal riff with a different production. You pretend that you don't get what I say but it's quite clear to me.



It's a fact. Thrashcore is a term that comes from the punk scene and was used for faster and more aggressive hardcore bands, maybe using the analogy with thrash metal which was its big competitor. And since then, thrashcore is a subgenre of hardcore punk.



Right, but some terms are still debated because they're far from being unanimously considered useful/recognized. And in some cases, people just repeat what they read in the metal medias, because they think the music industry is an unquestionable authority, without regard for what is relevant or not.



It's just a matter of opinion, otherwise the question wouldn't be asked. It sounds good doesn't mean it's right.

In the beginning MDM had more in common to black and power metal than it did to death metal. But right now it has so many influences that I wonder if it's a genre of its own.

Agreed.

He's not wrong. Listen to this cover of "Day of the Lords" that has a little more distortion than the original song (especially check out the 4:00 mark and onwards!). Vocals aside, turn the volume up just a bit more and you essentially have Burzum. "Wijsgeer & Narreman" by Laster sounds very similar to "Day of the Lords" despite not having any overt post-punk influence. Black metal is very malleable and accepts influences from other guitar genres very, very easily.

People used to call violent / fast hardcore thrash because people would thrash around at gigs. Then thrash metal came into being and it had some of that same violent energy and people started calling it thrash metal because it reminded them of thrash hardcore. Eventually thrash metal completely eclipsed thrash and people started calling the early fast hardcore style (which also kept evolving in its own ways) thrashcore to differentiate it from thrash metal.

black metal influence in the core scene isnt exactly rare today and yet when these bands lean into the black metal influence they never actually truly sound like black metal. They come over more as a simulacrum than anything else. Kind of like with deathcore and death metal.

Thanks for the clarification about thrashcore. I knew there was a link between thrash core and metal but wasn't sure about which one came first.

Yeah, I kind of understand the thrashcore thing and how it doesn't have much to do with thrash metal.

As with the speed metal thing, is it possible to view it in the same lenses as how we view djent? More of a playing style than a fully-fleshed out genre?

And yeah, I can see how viking metal is considered its own separate style here, or a mix of so many styles (heavy metal, folk metal, black metal, epic doom metal) that it all just meshes into something else, though I still eventually see it in the same bubble as folk metal. Or maybe folk metal is more than just metal with folk instrumentation (eg. metal with heavy folk riff elements).
Pagan metal on the other hand...I've read a few posts here on it, and they just say that it's just blackened folk or something. But why call it "pagan" and not "blackened folk?" Is there more to it, or is it just the same counterpart to viking metal for other styles not associated with the viking sound? I've asked this question beforea few pages back, and apparently viking metal can be considered a form of pagan metal. Or is it just the same case as sludge metal: a fusion that has its own special name.

But one question I have, why is shred considered a genre in the Archives? At least djent is so particular, but shred is something that like most hard rock and heavy metal bands of every subgenre do at some point.

That's another nebulous term. According to their page's description, "In the Woods... were one of the first bands to use the name "Pagan Metal" as a description for their style, although they didn't use the elements typified by the sub-genre until later on (like traditional instruments)". The thing is not all pagan metal bands are "blackened folk metal", and there are still many bands in the genre which don't use traditional folk instruments at all.

I would consider pagan metal proper as "blackened folk metal without the traditional folk instruments", as in the guitars (and sometimes vocals) play the folk melodies or folk-inspired riffs without resorting to traditional instruments. Usually the lyrics are about some sort of paganism (hence the "pagan" part of the genre name), but not always (ironically...), as it's more about the sound than the lyrics. It gets hard to strictly define the genre when there are many crossovers with folk metal, and it can be confusing to see "pagan black metal" and "pagan metal" used interchangeably, when that is not always the case. It definitely derives from black metal (as does viking metal), but evolved into its own thing.

Hmm, I see. Do you have any examples of pagan metal bands that don't sound explicitly like black or folk metal? I think viking and pagan metal can both be considered "folkened" metal.

I can give you an album example, I've been revisiting Forefather and their album Steadfast is probably a good example of what you are asking. Not overtly black metal nor overtly folk metal, it even has some melodic death metal influences.


Sure, you can categorize them as such, that's a valid opinion.

I don't know if it's just me being ignorant or something, but that album feels more like straight-up melodeath than some other unique genre (it's not uncommon for melodeath nowadays to have clean vocals or black metal influences). Maybe "pagan" is more of a descriptor than a fully fleshed-out genre itself, kind of like "epic" or "atmospheric?"

Yes, you can use it as a descriptor.

Seriously, does black/death/doom/thrash describe a genre brought up by when death metal bands infuse elements of black metal, thrash metal, and doom metal all together?

Strange question... It just means all those elements are mixed together, be it a fusion or separately. I don't get why you want death metal to be the main element here, nothing shows it in this case... Some claim that the first element should be the most prominent (I do), but not everybody think it should be so accurate.

If a band has clear X influences, but Y genre is the main element, it could instead be called "Y metal with X metal influences"

I know I already brought up the "melodic metal" thing from before, but I've also noticed that there are legit ten bands in the MA labeled as such:
https://www.metal-archives.com/search/a ... ame=#bands

However, I can't exactly find audio tracks for any of the bands listed. Does the MA consider melodic metal as an actual thing, or just a placeholder for bands w/o soundtracks? If the latter, then how would they know if a band is melodic?

I guess there are no audio tracks for these bands and MA would have more accurately labeled them if they had really listened to them. We can suppose theses bands describe themselves as such. I mean, it's kind of weird that bands labeled a genre name that is not legitimate and is only used ten times out of thousands and thousands of bands on MA have no audio tracks to check them out...
I know you wish "melodic metal" was a thing, but it wouldn't make sense as "melodic" is just a descriptor. Just like "epic", "technical", "brutal"...

To me, viking metal, pagan metal, and blackened folk are different things.

Viking metal, to me is more "epic" in sound but overall is more on subject matter and feel than the musical aspects of subgenre. Generally, it seems more of a subject matter an attitude. Specifically Norse, generally with themes of *organized* war, and has more of a "swaggering macho" feel, and subject matter often goes more deeply into self sufficiency and the like (Think Ayn Rand in a horned helmet. ) It's deviance tends to be more pro-normative (than they would like to admit)

Pagan metal is more general in its paganism. (ANd to some, anything non-Norse) It also has a more varied sound and a more varied outlook. It tends to more combat and less organized war when that is the subject matter, and has a wider variety of emotions. It tends more folk elements, but they are still presented in a more metal manner. Sometimes more nature themed (Though not always, and not always indicative or required of the genre). More varied in philosophical outlook.

Blackened Folk to me is more folk than metal, and generally is folk with black metal elements or just folk done by black metal artists or with the same outllook/philosophy as . . . certain forms of black metal.

This is more a very subjective view on theses subgenres than an attempt at bringing objective elements...

I mean, I don't really want melodic metal to be an actual thing; it's somewhat redundant with other already melodic genres like trad heavy and power, and only has its relevance with death metal (and arguably grindcore).

Still, I think there should be a distinctive label between the trad heavy style and the "modern" heavy metal sound that doesn't fit any other subgenre. A7X for example, which is not in the Archives, but is still considered to be widely a heavy metal/hard rock band.

what's wrong with demeaning metalcore? there's a reason metalcore bands aren't wholesale accepted into the archives

The problem is that the term "metalcore" is a misnomer. Most metalheads don't want to recognize it as a metal subgenre and I've got the feeling hardcore fans don't want it too. I hate metalcore but objectively it sounds much more metal than hardcore. I don't even understand where is the hardcore in most metalcore I've heard. To me , it sounds more like a fusion subgenre, kind of alternative groove/nu metal to me.

That's because the concept that it's a fusion of metal and hardcore is a misconception. It's post-hardcore, which is not the same thing. It's closer to emo than shit like Black Flag. Also the misnomer aspect doesn't particularly matter bc it's not like that sort of misnomer isn't common. I don't think pop punk is punk, or that nu metal is metal but they both have it in the name (leading annoying people to point it out when advocating for them).

I guess part of the problem is that the forefront of the genre are the 2000s bands playing melodeath infused with pop-punk or radio rock and having a fanbase of mainly mainstream emos, leaving out the original metallic hardcore bands like Hatebreed and Earth Crisis out of the picture. Those bands seemed to be more influenced by crossover thrash and New York hardcore. I couldn’t find anything concrete about post-hardcore’s influence on metalcore, but it does seem that metal was more influential to most bands than hardcore was.

I talked about this in another thread, I don't think "Gothic Metal" is a real genre. Maybe it would be if it was more consistently defined, but as it is right now it just isn't. Unless you make a "branches" argument, there really isn't anything keeping the genre together. It's not lyrical themes, it's not influence from Gothic Rock (because frankly that's surprisingly rare for Goth Metal, at least in my experience), it's not an offshoot of death-doom or doom, it's not doom metal with keyboards, it's not "female vocals", it's not use of symphonic elements, so what is it?

I entirely agree. It's even difficult to hear where's the hardcore in post-hardcore sometimes...



From the gothic scene's perspective, gothic metal (whose name suggests it should be a fusion genre between gothic rock and metal) is often hardly legitimitate as there's rarely gothic rock, cold wave, batcave or post-punk elements to be heard in most gothic metal. In my opinion, it comes from a misconception among the metal community about what is really gothic music. Hence it has become an umbrella term for everything that has heavy guitars with femal vocals, low male vocals, dark synths, symphonic elements, or victorian/vampiric/depressive lyrical themes and clothes... Clichés that metalheads quite mistakenly assimilate as defining elements of gothic music cause it's not exactly the case.
Some argue that "gothic" in gothic metal refers to the gothic litterature and imagery, which makes sense, but still creates confusion with real gothic music that is its own thing since the end of the 1970's and has few connexions with metal.
The same parallel could be drawn for industrial metal and industrial music.

I think "gothic metal" sounds pretty natural of a genre (and the genre seems to be more like a crossroad or descriptor like symphonic or neoclassical), but I would not say it has to be a connection with real gothic rock, kind of like how folk metal is pretty different from folk rock. Or maybe we can instead renew the term "dark metal" for this scene to prevent controversy with goth rock? Then again, historical revisionism isn't very easy to follow along, and there's already issues when there are tons of other bands being called "goth" like Evanescence, Marilyn Manson, and Misfits.

Honestly, a good amount of "industrial" and "gothic" metal could easily instead be called a post-punk/metal fusion. Could there be a good terminology for this? Are there any potential examples that have nothing to do with industrial or goth?

Also unrelated, but is epic sludge a thing (epic doom + punk/hardcore)?

I agree that "gothic metal" sounds pretty natural but nevertheless, it includes a too broad variety of bands, from authentic mix of goth rock and metal to pop metal with female vocals and cheesy synths. Your claim that gothic metal doesn't have to be related to gothic rock could be valid, but I think it doesn't make sense that the metal community borrows other genre's names and use them wrongly. What would you say if the hip-hop community created subgenre like "drill metal" and it sounded like a mix of rap and alternative rock? No doubt the metal community in its largest majority would complain it's not legitimate.
Just like you have to know that most gothic and industrial fans disapprove the use of gothic/industrial metal, as they consider a lot of these bands have almost no connection with their music.

Dark metal could be interesting in this case, but it has been used for so many different things before...
Anyway, I'm not saying that "gothic metal" shouldn't be used. There are a good amount of bands that deserve this label because the gothic elements in their music are actual gothic elements. But I mean that maybe half of the bands labeled like this don't have a single gothic element and should be called something else.

Post-punk is confusing is a broad umbrella term and using it, even more when associated with another genre, can be confusing. Firstly, a lot of early post-punk bands don't sound gothic or industrial at all. Then the classic gothic rock bands tend to move away from pure post-punk. Even the gothic community makes the difference between the earliest gothic post-punk bands, including cold wave, batcave, death rock... and the "newer" gothic rock bands like Fields of the Nephilim or Sisters of Mercy which are the most devoid of post-punk elements and are the most influential among the metal scene.



Don't forget that the name of your favorite subgenre, power metal, is total historical revisionism



If a sludge band sounds epic, then why wouldn't you use this descriptor?

What about brutal black metal? There’s “technical black metal” bands in the Metal Archives, so why not brutal black metal? The kind of black metal that emphasizes speed, heaviness, complex rhythms over melody and timbre? Just like how brutal death metal emphasizes speed, complex rhythms, and heaviness over melody and timbre.

Would probably just be called black/death

I've always thought that "brutal black metal" is more of a subjective description (i.e. not like brutal death metal - which has distinct musical characteristics).
(this MA review was the first one I saw this "term"/description - https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... Sjel/60052 )

Weeping Birth is “Brutal Black/Death Metal” but I definitely just think of them as brutal black metal where the death metal aspects are fairly minor in the big scheme of things. Their second album is a good example of the genre in my opinion (the third album is good but has more metalcore/death core influences): https://www.metal-archives.com/albums/W ... e_I/189912

(Unrelated but man, I miss Mirrorthrone.)

For post-punk, I thought that was one of those genre names where “post-“ isn’t describing a style like post-rock or post-metal, but more a time period of this umbrella trend that evolved into and included goth rock, cold wave, etc.?