Ok, this topic may already exist and if it does... Too bad.

I'm a cranky old fart who doesn't give a damn about sub-genres. And I certainly don't have any patience for snobby elitists who get all "in-your-face" about what band belongs in what sub-genre.

Technical-death-grind-aggro-trance-metal-dustrial...... Silliness.

There's now two genre's of music I have. Shit I like, shit I don't like.



What say you?

Categorization is necessary because music evolved in vastly different directions and if you'd like to find bands similiar to what you like, the best way to do that is to assign categories to them.

Most of the time it happens with prefixes and suffixes and if you know what they mean, they generally start to speak to you and you can guess a band's sound by looking at the genre tags. I see nothing wrong with this at all, with them I can find music exactly like what I want and I don't have to sift through 200 different bands until I find what I want.

Imagine there was only "metal" without any subgenres, you are listening to Iron Maiden, your friend comes by and likes it asks what is it you say "metal".

Then your friend looks up "metal" wanting to find more bands like it, then he comes accross Mayhem and he'd be in for a rude awakening. Even though it is also "metal". That's why subgenres are needed.

Understanding of sub-genres and how bands fit into them is just another facet of metal knowledge. I can only surmise people getting uppity about sub-genres because they don't know how to differentiate between them. Whether or not it's an especially useful skill is another matter but I for one find it extremely useful to know and be able to identify what I'm listening to.

As the person above has highlighted you don't have two genres you listen to. You can't search for "good metal" and expect to get bands you like from doing so. You want to know what music they play, not just the quality of said music. You distinguish between death metal and power metal, so why get annoyed when people want to separate between old-school death and tech-death (two very different sounding areas of death metal)?

Ok. Two very intelligent arguments. Which I pose to you another:

Clearly there is no offical standard to these sub-genres. Just because you call something one thing doesn't mean somebody else is going to use the same language. I'm going to use the band Cannibal Corpse as the example here. I've heard CC called "deathmetal," "technical deathmetal," "grindcore," "speed metal," and "thrash metal." Which is it??? And how can you possibly prove your argument either way?

Cannibal Corpse:

Metal Archives - Death Metal
Metal Storm - Death Metal
Wikipedia - Death Metal
RYM - Death Metal, Brutal Death Metal
Last.fm - Death Metal, Brutal Death Metal
BNR Metal Pages - Death Metal

And so on. Clearly there's a consensus going on that CC are death metal, and make no mention of tech-death. That's because the generally accepted conventions of tech-death do not coincide with CC's sound. Sorry but "what I've heard" isn't much of an argument on its own. When you start looking at the evidence from popular sources it becomes clear that there's a general attitude of what CC play. If I said to you CC play power metal you would think that to be a ridiculous notion and you would go on to explain why it isn't power metal. I would do the same to anyone saying that CC are tech-death, primarily by comparing their sound to well known and exemplary tech-death bands. Whether or not that's "proof" is neither here nor there. Gravity is only a theory but anyone who says it doesn't exist would be laughed at because they know better. That's how I feel about CC being called tech-death. I can't prove with science that they're not, but my experience and understanding of common conceptions and views of the band is enough for me to make my argument correct.

Ultimately though, there is indeed a standard to the majority of subgenres. You probably just aren't aware of them.

I am 110% for subgenres.

Written by skrog1 on 10.03.2013 at 23:34

Ok. Two very intelligent arguments. Which I pose to you another:

Clearly there is no offical standard to these sub-genres. Just because you call something one thing doesn't mean somebody else is going to use the same language. I'm going to use the band Cannibal Corpse as the example here. I've heard CC called "deathmetal," "technical deathmetal," "grindcore," "speed metal," and "thrash metal." Which is it??? And how can you possibly prove your argument either way?

I can assure you that no one with even the smallest bit of knowlege about metal would consider Cannibal Corpse any of those genres besides death metal. Because Cannibal Corpse isnt anything besides generic death metal. Now thirty years ago when there was only a couple different kinds of metal there was no need for sub genres because pretty much every band that played "metal" was a NWOBHM band, which then lead to thrash and early black which led to crossover and death, which then lead to tech death, grindcore, etc etc. A sub genre is the combining of two bigger genres. You would not call Municipal Waste a death metal band, they are crossover thrash which is the combination of thrash metal and hardcore punk. Why is crossover thrash a sub genre? Because it is the combination of two bigger genres, in this case: thrash metal and hardcore punk. A technical death metal band would be Dying Fetus. Why? Because they combine death metal with technical elements into their music. Sub genres may be annoying at times, but they are needed to keep bands in line with other similar bands.

You shouldn't expect to find immutable, timeless standards that neatly put everything into one genre or the other. Categorization is a cultural convention. Making a distinction between traditional doom and stoner doom is a human act that is evaluated intersubjectively within the community of people using those labels. There's no ultimate truth of the matter, but as Joe demonstrated, it is often quite possible to find a general consensus. And that consensus, perhaps evaluated with some critical principles like coherence and user competence, is what effectively yields the "correct" answer.

I'm misquoting Wittgenstein when I say this, but the meaning of a word (in this case and most others) really is its use in language.

I love when Joe gets involved in subjects he has strong opinions about with people who are of opposite opinion.

I agree it's almost a need nowadays like everybody says above. But I can probably agree with you in that people shouldn't go mad about it or take it too seriously since it's something coined by the listeners for the listeners and there is no "science" to it like Joe said above I think. If you just want to call CC technical death metal go ahead, you are only disagreeing with... let's say 95% of other metalheads that give a damn about them and decided they aren't technical enough.

Also remember this is not a metal thing only, look at jazz subgenres for instance...

Written by Unhealer on 11.03.2013 at 05:36

I agree it's almost a need nowadays like everybody says above. But I can probably agree with you in that people shouldn't go mad about it or take it too seriously since it's something coined by the listeners for the listeners and there is no "science" to it like Joe said above I think. If you just want to call CC technical death metal go ahead, you are only disagreeing with... let's say 95% of other metalheads that give a damn about them and decided they aren't technical enough.

Also remember this is not a metal thing only, look at jazz subgenres for instance...

Yes, he can call Cannibal Corpse tech death all day long and anybody he talks to that is even remotely familair with the difference between tech death and regular death is either going to look at him funny, give him shit and/or think he's a moron; this is just one of those unfortunate facts of life/metal. People are inherently assholes and naturally try to label anything and everything they can to make it easier to understand and easier to define.

There is a certain amount of "science" involved in labeling metal bands and some genres are incredibly easy, others not so much. For example, Cannibal Corpse (to me and many others) are obviously not a tech death band, especailly when you compare them to bands that are considered "paramounts of the genre" such as Origin or Nile. However other such genres can be more difficult for some to define like many of the doom genres, fuck all if I can tell the difference between funeral doom and extreme doom and drone doom and this doom and that doom, but I also don't give 2 shits about the doom genres.

I find that in most cases a person's difficulty with defining or comprehending the differences in subgenres is not due to any lack of intelligence or anything like that but it's whether or not the listener cares enough to figure them out. Like for example, I love death/tech death/brutal death and I listen to LOTS of bands from those 3 genres and I wanted to know how to tell the differences between them so I took the time to learn what the general consensus is of the differences between them and then learned how to take that info and figure out how to tell the differences in my own head. However I don;t care about doom so I have no interest in learning how to tell the differences in it's genres. Same with Skog1, he doesn't care about subgenres and has no desire to learn the general consensus of the differences between any subgenres of any parent genre so he can't tell the differences.

Written by psykometal on 11.03.2013 at 06:06

There is a certain amount of "science" involved in labeling metal bands and some genres are incredibly easy, others not so much. For example, Cannibal Corpse (to me and many others) are obviously not a tech death band, especailly when you compare them to bands that are considered "paramounts of the genre" such as Origin or Nile. However other such genres can be more difficult for some to define like many of the doom genres, fuck all if I can tell the difference between funeral doom and extreme doom and drone doom and this doom and that doom, but I also don't give 2 shits about the doom genres.

But following the example of CC, how technical it has to be to be considered technical death metal? Does it really have to be on par with the first bands that were labeled like that? Who said those bands would be the example of how complex the riffs/solos/chord progressions/song structures need to be for the band to be labeled technical? Why a guy who sees the video of "Frantic Disembowelment" can't say it's complex enough for him to call the band technical?
So maybe a guy that heard the 10 most technical songs of CC will say it's tech death, another guy who listened to the entire discography may say their later records are tech death... then probably someone will show them a band 10 times more technical and say "THIS is tech death".

That specific difference is kinda vague and I think going elitist about it is nonesense. A guy that wants complex riffing he may be as satisfied with CC as with Obscura, there's the missing "science".

Written by Unhealer on 11.03.2013 at 06:50

That specific difference is kinda vague and I think going elitist about it is nonesense. A guy that wants complex riffing he may be as satisfied with CC as with Obscura, there's the missing "science".

That's part of the problem with elitism, it's in everything. Granted all your points are valid so it does still boil down to opinion in every case which is why I "quoted" science cuz it's a science but not a science depending on how you look at it. If somebody wants to take the time to break it down and say this is why CC is not tech death but Origin is tech death then they can and if a lesser inclined person wants to just agree then they can and if somebody wants to call them tech death then they can but because elitism is everywhere and because there is no escaping elitists (like me and Joe) and because the general consensus among the majority of death metal fans is that CC are not a tech death band then anybody who calls them a tech band better be prepared to get criticized for it. It's just one of those cold hard facts of life that can't be changed and never will change.

Me personally, I'm not afraid to admit I'm a genre elitist and that I do feel that genre classification is necessary and I am not ashamed for feeling this way because it is my opinion. And if I feel the need to express that my opinion is that CC is not a tech death band and indicate that the general consensus states that CC is not a tech death band (which is a fact) then that is my right and I don't feel I'm in the wrong for stating my opinion and following it up with a fact. I also don't expect him to feel in the wrong for disagreeing nor do I expect him to just jump on the bandwagon and never call CC a tech death band ever again because in his mind CC is technical enough for him to consider them a tech death band and there is nothing wrong with that. But that's not going to stop me from stating my counter opinion either so it's all really just a big circle of circular arguments that will always exist between the elitists who care too much and the non-elitists who could really care less.

Although I do find it odd that a guy who proclaims to hate subgenres and hate that people feel the need for subgenres would call any band by a subgenre and not their parent genre and then complain because somebody attempted to correct him on it. Most subgenre haters/anti-elitists would have never any band a tech death band on the principal of "tech death is a subgenre and I hate subgenres so band X is just a death metal band, I don't care if anyone else thinks their tech death or brutal death cuz to me those subgenres are retarded and I refuse to acknowledge the existence of those strings of words".

Written by Guest on 11.03.2013 at 00:18

Cannibal Corpse:

Metal Archives - Death Metal
Metal Storm - Death Metal
Wikipedia - Death Metal
RYM - Death Metal, Brutal Death Metal
Last.fm - Death Metal, Brutal Death Metal
BNR Metal Pages - Death Metal

And so on. Clearly there's a consensus going on that CC are death metal, and make no mention of tech-death. That's because the generally accepted conventions of tech-death do not coincide with CC's sound. Sorry but "what I've heard" isn't much of an argument on its own. When you start looking at the evidence from popular sources it becomes clear that there's a general attitude of what CC play. If I said to you CC play power metal you would think that to be a ridiculous notion and you would go on to explain why it isn't power metal. I would do the same to anyone saying that CC are tech-death, primarily by comparing their sound to well known and exemplary tech-death bands. Whether or not that's "proof" is neither here nor there. Gravity is only a theory but anyone who says it doesn't exist would be laughed at because they know better. That's how I feel about CC being called tech-death. I can't prove with science that they're not, but my experience and understanding of common conceptions and views of the band is enough for me to make my argument correct.

Ultimately though, there is indeed a standard to the majority of subgenres. You probably just aren't aware of them.

I enjoy watching you argue...especially when it's not with me. Seriously, school is in session. I am learning from both the main parties, though.

I also favor sub-gernres, but there is a point when it can get a bit cumbersome. Slamming technical brutal death metal might be an apt description for Katalapsy's 2013 album Autopsychosis. However, who the hell is going to write all that?

Written by Misfit74 on 11.03.2013 at 08:26

Slamming technical brutal death metal might be an apt description for Katalapsy's 2013 album Autopsychosis. However, who the hell is going to write all that?

I just call it brutal death metal, I didn't really find it all that slamming or technical; just brutal mostly (same with new Devourment).

Progressive-Dream-Funk is way better than Avant-Jazzcore... I like sub-genres to an extent

I support sub-genres, that simple.

I am ok with sub-genres, but when it goes too far I just get really annoyed, I classify my metal into 7 sub-genres.

This is a very good point , in fact we overcatagorize, i like listening to oversugared and produced pop as much as i like extreme metal. a main reason we dont admit to the things we enjoy is the contstant fear were going to lose respect from our peers if we do. everybody has stuff theyre guilty of and id rather except it and be humble about it then point out immaturally and scream POSER ,POSER !! to anybody who takes pleasure form listening to lady gaga, in which they can easily counter attack me for being a greasy unsocial outcasted nerd who has no direction in life. so listen to anything and if you like it , add it on , and for the love of christ if youre elitest shut up about it , nobody really cares how advanced your musical tastes are, in the end, its just entertainment. looking and reading back at this comment it probably has very little to do on this subject at hand i hope i havent offended anybody and that people can see my insight clearly and respectfully as much as i respect theirs. rant out

inb4 shitstorm.

Maybe you are against generalization, period. What is metal? With that being stated, I am all for sub-genres. If something is Power Metal, I want to know, because more than likely I don't want to hear it. I understand how that can make someone an "elitist", but metal, as a genre, is quite large in its extension. I don't have the time to listen to 'everything', and I also require time to indulge in what I do like. I have Power metal albums I enjoy, but for the most part I would prefer to 'try out' music in the Death, Doom, and Progressive sub-genres (occasionally, Black).

Sub-genres are for your benefit, and if you decide to use them, you will quickly understand why they are to your benefit. As far as elitism is concerned, I consider someone elite if they have a broad and in-depth knowledge of 'metal', and this often includes a long-standing history with the music as an art form. Having just a broad knowledge, with no esoteric inquiry, is not elitism. In truth, being an elitist is not a bad thing. It merely means you know what you are talking about.

I don't have a problem with sub-genres. What I do have a problem with is when people don't put bands in the right ones.

Written by Guest on 11.03.2013 at 22:07

I don't have a problem with sub-genres. What I do have a problem with is when people don't put bands in the right ones.

Agreed.

Gotta say I'm pro-subgenre as well. I definitely agree that some people can get far too crazy and specific about them, but basically I agree with what JOEE said. They're necessary to help categorize and organize music into it's common features. I especially find it necessary in a genre like metal, that is so stylistically diverse, almost as much so as jazz. In the past year and a half, having discovered so many bands via this site, I've really come to realize how important stylistic labels are not only in figuring out what particular sounds you're drawn to, but also in helping to better understand the overall message a band is trying to convey with their music. Also, being as it is that I'm a reviewer for Metal Storm, I really have to be particular and careful about how I describe a band's subgenre, or even sub-subgenre, since I don't want to advertise the wrong thing to people. I enjoy directing people towards music they'll enjoy, so god forbid, for example, I review a progressive black metal band that are really closer to death doom, have people read my review, listen to the album in question, and then come back to me later like "WTF Apoth?"

Written by skrog1 on 10.03.2013 at 23:34

I've heard CC called "deathmetal," "technical deathmetal," "grindcore," "speed metal," and "thrash metal." Which is it??? And how can you possibly prove your argument either way?

Oh my god . . . anyone who thinks they're speed metal or thrash metal has no idea what they're talking about. True, their early stuff had some thrash mixed in, and grind may find its way into their music, but DM still obviously overrides.

Written by psykometal on 11.03.2013 at 06:06

[F]uck all if I can tell the difference between funeral doom and extreme doom and drone doom and this doom and that doom, but I also don't give 2 shits about the doom genres.

LOL funeral doom and drone doom ARE types of extreme doom but despite doom (both trad and extreme) being one of my favorite styles, I'm not gonna force it down your throat what the differences between styles of doom are

Written by Guest on 11.03.2013 at 22:07

I don't have a problem with sub-genres. What I do have a problem with is when people don't put bands in the right ones.

This. Definitely this. I've heard bands like Slipknot called nu, alt, industrial, death, and even "scream metal" (whatever the fuck that is). Obviously, there are characteristics from all of those in their music (even though scream metal isn't a real style >.>), but in my opinion the overriding style is just extreme nu metal. And they're a way overrated band, even if they're "more metal" than Korn or LP.

Now let me go back to my thrash, death, doom, NWOBHM, trad metal, hell maybe even power metal: whichever I feel like listening to. I've been listening to more '70s-'90s hardcore punk and grind than usual lately (pre-metalcore), so I might go with something non-metal for once.

Written by nasmith on 12.03.2013 at 20:34

Now let me go back to my thrash, death, doom, NWOBHM, trad metal, hell maybe even power metal: whichever I feel like listening to. I've been listening to more '70s-'90s hardcore punk and grind than usual lately (pre-metalcore), so I might go with something non-metal for once.

But when you're saying hardcore punk, do you mean melodic harcore? crust punk? beatdown? crossover thrash?

Sub-genre multiplication in music can be a very funny thing when you realize there really are such things as Industrial Hip Hop, Gothic Country, No Wave and Celtic Punk

Written by nasmith on 12.03.2013 at 20:34

LOL funeral doom and drone doom ARE types of extreme doom but despite doom (both trad and extreme) being one of my favorite styles, I'm not gonna force it down your throat what the differences between styles of doom are

Well, that just goes to show my ignorance regarding Doom. Which is why I don't even bother to try to guess at what doom band is which type of doom. Doom is just doom to me, if someone tells me "band X is this type of doom" then fine but likely I'll still only use the parent genre "doom metal" to refer to any band in that genre.

Written by psykometal on 12.03.2013 at 21:45

Written by nasmith on 12.03.2013 at 20:34

LOL funeral doom and drone doom ARE types of extreme doom but despite doom (both trad and extreme) being one of my favorite styles, I'm not gonna force it down your throat what the differences between styles of doom are

Well, that just goes to show my ignorance regarding Doom. Which is why I don't even bother to try to guess at what doom band is which type of doom. Doom is just doom to me, if someone tells me "band X is this type of doom" then fine but likely I'll still only use the parent genre "doom metal" to refer to any band in that genre.

Yeah, I know. I personally don't care as much about the difference between post-metal and atmospheric metal, because I know that generally either way those styles aren't gonna have as much "metal" in there as I like (although I do listen to a lot of funeral doom that's got atmospheric or melodic elements, assuming it leans toward the heavy side).

One thing that "true" doomsters are likely to get up in arms about, though is "true doom" (old school, like Saint Vitus and Candlemass) vs. "false doom" (extreme and gothic doom), which is the point where I consider it elitist douchebaggery. (That's why I just use the terms "trad/old school doom" and "extreme doom" as umbrella terms when talking to outsiders, so they don't get the wrong idea about whatever band I'm talking about .)

Written by Qube on 12.03.2013 at 21:39

Written by nasmith on 12.03.2013 at 20:34

Now let me go back to my thrash, death, doom, NWOBHM, trad metal, hell maybe even power metal: whichever I feel like listening to. I've been listening to more '70s-'90s hardcore punk and grind than usual lately (pre-metalcore), so I might go with something non-metal for once.

But when you're saying hardcore punk, do you mean melodic harcore? crust punk? beatdown? crossover thrash?

Sub-genre multiplication in music can be a very funny thing when you realize there really are such things as Industrial Hip Hop, Gothic Country, No Wave and Celtic Punk

LOL Yeah, most of the hardcore I've listened to has been straight hardcore (Black Flag), crossover thrash, and grindcore. Recently, I've listened to thrashcore, crust, powerviolence, old-school screamo (when it was actual punk), etc., but don't expect me to be able to tell the difference between half of those. (I mainly just look up "best of" videos to get an idea. Call me a poser wannabe punk XD)

But mainly I'm a metalhead. I just listen to the hardcore that sounds similar enough to metal for my tastes.

I don't think subgenres are important in any way, but I do understand why people like them. It makes music easier to market and people love their categories. Especially here.

I think a lot of the best bands are the ones that kind of defy a genre. They're the bands that you think to yourself 'oh man I want to listen to more stuff like this!' then find yourself really disappointed because there really isn't more stuff, that band is that interesting. I do like bands that have definitely found a niche in a genre, but even those bands distinguish themselves in some way or another.

Worrying about subgenres is limiting. If the music is really awesome, it will transcend the genre.

Written by Guest on 11.03.2013 at 22:07

I don't have a problem with sub-genres. What I do have a problem with is when people don't put bands in the right ones.

I do not like this sentiment, but I find myself uncontrollably having it sometimes. It's probably cause I used to care. I know plenty of obscure subgenres of grind. But I really think it accomplishes nothing.

I also want to clarify that I am not saying that I think your taste in music is bad because you care about subgenres, it probably rocks, I mean come on you like metal right? I just don't understand how an in depth knowledge of subgenre improves your experience of music.

The sub-genres that already exist are ok... (Most) of them have a purpose.
Just stop creating new ones, please!
like
-pirate metal
-white metal

Written by Butters49 on 14.03.2013 at 21:05

-pirate metal
-white metal

Well "pirate metal" (from what I've seen) is only used by Alestorm and their ridiculously avid fans and is not recognized as an actual subgenre. And "white metal" (also called "unblack metal") is also not recognized as an actual subgenre and is only used by extremely ridiculous elitist black metal heads who believe black metal is an ideology and not just a form of music so they refuse to refer to bands like Antestor as black metal just because they have the same musical properties as satanic black metal bands.