Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 03.11.2016 at 02:38

No frigging idea.

Written by M C Vice on 03.11.2016 at 05:32

Contradicion or Pleasure Dome?

Written by [user id=160508] on 03.11.2016 at 10:58

Destroyers of all?

Finally someone got it right.

Written by mz on 03.11.2016 at 15:20

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 03.11.2016 at 02:38

No frigging idea.

Written by M C Vice on 03.11.2016 at 05:32

Contradicion or Pleasure Dome?

Written by [user id=160508] on 03.11.2016 at 10:58

Destroyers of all?

Finally someone got it right.

Wouldn't really call that brutal death metal.

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 03.11.2016 at 15:31

Wouldn't really call that brutal death metal.

what would you call it? I guess we can go for avant death, but also it is not far from BDM.

Marcel, just what I said hahahaha. Nothing brutal dm about it. Post-death or Technical death does enough justice as a genre label for that.

Written by mz on 03.11.2016 at 15:45

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 03.11.2016 at 15:31

Wouldn't really call that brutal death metal.

what would you call it? I guess we can go for avant death, but also it is not far from BDM.

Just looked them up, definitely not brutal death metal, they are way too melodic. I now dig them.

Written by Ganondox on 04.11.2016 at 07:13

Just looked them up, definitely not brutal death metal, they are way too melodic. I now dig them.

One can't disregard a band as not being BDM because of the perceived melody, as there's plenty of bands of that genre that have a lot of melody, Hour of Penance, Nile, Benighted, Kronos etc. Even Suffocation has more "melody" than Ulcerate. It just so happens that it's not a genre that prioritises melody especially generally speaking. Ulcerate tends to be far less melodic than most BDM though. BDM doesn't formulate itself on layers of angular dissonant riffs so Ulcerate inherently is unmelodic for the most part.

Written by [user id=4365] on 06.11.2016 at 12:18

Written by Ganondox on 04.11.2016 at 07:13

Just looked them up, definitely not brutal death metal, they are way too melodic. I now dig them.

One can't disregard a band as not being BDM because of the perceived melody, as there's plenty of bands of that genre that have a lot of melody, Hour of Penance, Nile, Benighted, Kronos etc. Even Suffocation has more "melody" than Ulcerate. It just so happens that it's not a genre that prioritises melody especially generally speaking. Ulcerate tends to be far less melodic than most BDM though. BDM doesn't formulate itself on layers of angular dissonant riffs so Ulcerate inherently is unmelodic for the most part.

Is Nile really brutal death metal? Never can quite tell what qualifies under that label. Anyway, Nile is still more extreme than Destroyer's of All from what I've heard.

Written by Ganondox on 06.11.2016 at 12:42


Is Nile really brutal death metal? Never can quite tell what qualifies under that label. Anyway, Nile is still more extreme than Destroyer's of All from what I've heard.

Technical and brutal in varying degrees I would say. Nile can be heavy and intense but frankly they're far more broadly approachable than Ulcerate. Marketable image and theme, which also features in their music as pretty recognisable and melodic "Egyptian" interludes and sounds, more rhythmic structures, clearer repetition of segments and elements within tracks, and of course way more melody in general, solos etc.

Written by [user id=160508] on 06.11.2016 at 12:45

Yeah, I found the comment about Ulcerate being melodic a bit weird. Suffocation, Benighted, Gorguts, Cryptopsy , Nile, are all way more melodic than Ulcerate. Ulcerate is dissonant for the most part, and just really arent melodic in any sense.

No one said anything about Ulcerate being more melodic, I said they were more POLISHED. And they do have a very polished production. Apparently it's a production that most people find extreme, but it's still very polished in a technical sense.

Written by [user id=4365] on 06.11.2016 at 12:47

Written by Ganondox on 06.11.2016 at 12:42


Is Nile really brutal death metal? Never can quite tell what qualifies under that label. Anyway, Nile is still more extreme than Destroyer's of All from what I've heard.

Technical and brutal in varying degrees I would say. Nile can be heavy and intense but frankly they're far more broadly approachable than Ulcerate. Marketable image and theme, which also features in their music as pretty recognisable and melodic "Egyptian" interludes and sounds, more rhythmic structures, clearer repetition of segments and elements within tracks, and of course way more melody in general, solos etc.

Oh, you were talking about an Ulcerate album? I though he was talking about this band:

Just noticed he said record rather than band, so I you're right. I'm not sure if Ulcerate is brutal death in a technical sense, again because of their polished production and post-metal elements, but they are pretty brutal and much less melodic than any of the other bands mentioned. I still maintain that in terms of aggression Converge is more extreme though.

Written by [user id=4365] on 30.10.2016 at 04:30

Ulcerate, Gorguts and Artificial Brain less extreme than Converge? I think that's a fairly ridiculous notion tbh. Converge are eminently more marketable than the other 3 bands whose sound is far less approachable to the average person who I'm sure when put side by side would favoure Converge as being the more palatable. The dense impenetrable aesthetics, heightened dissonance and atypical structures of the 3 death metal bands would alienate most people. Converge are angular and aggressive but that's far more normalised thing in metal and music. Converge are basically on the edge of the mainstream end of extreme and cater to the more naturalised ideals of "extreme." The bands I posted fall outside of that into the periphery of truly left-field and avant-garde death metal. Big difference.

Dragged Into Sunlight and Muknal black metal? No, you're flat out incorrect there and falling into the common trap of lumping things in with black metal because of its vague qualities. Superficial atmospheric elements that resemble black metal don't make something that when it's clearly so steeped in death metal, it only endears it a "blackened" prefix. The core and structure of them is inherently death metal. You clearly haven't heard Incantation if you think Muknal are black metal because it's fairly obvious where the groundwork for Muknal was laid.

Like it or not tech death is considered death metal so it can be used in this argument. Converge to my ears are heavily removed from punk anyway, similar to how tech death is different from old school death. Still falls under the umbrella of death metal though according to the masses and how it is generally categorised, just like TOOH and Neandertals are primarily associated with death metal on a base level, despite their avant-garde or progressive tendencies (look them up; you'll probably struggle not to find the words death metal or deathgrind associated with them). You can't dissociate them just because it doesn't fit your side of the argument (or because your ability to define death metal is lacking). These days death metal has far more experimental tendencies than it did say, 5 or so years, or thereabouts which is why your comment about death metal's overrated extremity appears out of touch. Broadly basing something on death metal and pushing it toward the avant-garde or splicing it with other genres is precisely what makes death metal the more extreme genre right now at this juncture. Metalcore from what I've heard just tends to be faster or more technical, or mixes with ambient etc. And yeah, connecting Encenethrakh to mathcore is fairly spurious argumentation, and seems like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole just to suit your points.


You are right in that Converge are more extreme that most death metal though. Most death metal is ordinary, like the bulk of any genre.

Somehow I missed this comment, so I'll respond to it now. I think I adequately commented on the three in the first point. I could also argue dissonant textures are more acceptable in the metal scene than sure aggression given the way traditional metal fans react to metalcore in comparison to traditional extreme metal even if that differs from the music scene at large. In the very least I prefer the dissonant textures to aggression, and I can't be the only one. I'll also add that I've listened to more Converge since I started this thread and while I still find them to be much more extreme than most death metal, I somewhat overrated their extremeness just by not hearing their more melodic moments. So maybe they are less extreme than those bands, but there are still other metalcore bands which are more extreme than them.

Regarding Dragged into the Sunlight, every source I can find lists them first as black metal, and secondly as death metal, and I don't take anything people say on this site for granted when it comes to what is death metal because I've noticed here there is a bit of different standard for death metal than music journalists in general use. I definitely hear elements of both in the sound, can't say which is dominant because I haven't listened to the whole album yet as a matter of principle (I try to avoid listening to full albums before I buy them), but the aesthetics are pure black metal (maybe that's why people keep listing them as black metal), and that adds as much to it's extremity as it's sure brutality does. As for Muknal, yes, I have heard Incantation (not much though as in general death metal just doesn't interest me), I just had no idea they were in anyway related to Muknal. Listening to them again I hear the simulairites, though there is still something about Incantation that gives them a much thrashier sound than Muknal which makes them more death metal, even though Incantation has the rawer production. Regardless, I'd still place Converge as being more extreme than Muknal as the same reasons for Ulcerate based primarily on production.

Of course I'd argree there is elements of death metal in T.O.O.H. in Neoandertals sounds and it's not strictly wrong to classify them as such, but it's not how *I* would personally primarily classify them. If you look back at my comment again, it's not that I said T.O.O.H. isn't death metal, but they represent more an extreme in progressive metal. I'll elaborate that by saying they are extreme by being progressive rather than by being aggressive, which is at it roots the primary reason while both death metal and metalcore are considered extreme (as early death metal wasn't any darker than early black metal, it was just more aggressive). With Neoandertals, the base of their sound is death metal, but I've found their avant-garde enough to have transcended the label (in the same manner I'd argue that Botanist transcends black metal).

Quote:

Written by Ganondox on 07.11.2016 at 22:14

Ulcerate, Gorguts and Artificial Brain less extreme than Converge? I think that's a fairly ridiculous notion tbh. Converge are eminently more marketable than the other 3 bands whose sound is far less approachable to the average person who I'm sure when put side by side would favoure Converge as being the more palatable. The dense impenetrable aesthetics, heightened dissonance and atypical structures of the 3 death metal bands would alienate most people. Converge are angular and aggressive but that's far more normalised thing in metal and music. Converge are basically on the edge of the mainstream end of extreme and cater to the more naturalised ideals of "extreme." The bands I posted fall outside of that into the periphery of truly left-field and avant-garde death metal. Big difference.

Dragged Into Sunlight and Muknal black metal? No, you're flat out incorrect there and falling into the common trap of lumping things in with black metal because of its vague qualities. Superficial atmospheric elements that resemble black metal don't make something that when it's clearly so steeped in death metal, it only endears it a "blackened" prefix. The core and structure of them is inherently death metal. You clearly haven't heard Incantation if you think Muknal are black metal because it's fairly obvious where the groundwork for Muknal was laid.

Like it or not tech death is considered death metal so it can be used in this argument. Converge to my ears are heavily removed from punk anyway, similar to how tech death is different from old school death. Still falls under the umbrella of death metal though according to the masses and how it is generally categorised, just like TOOH and Neandertals are primarily associated with death metal on a base level, despite their avant-garde or progressive tendencies (look them up; you'll probably struggle not to find the words death metal or deathgrind associated with them). You can't dissociate them just because it doesn't fit your side of the argument (or because your ability to define death metal is lacking). These days death metal has far more experimental tendencies than it did say, 5 or so years, or thereabouts which is why your comment about death metal's overrated extremity appears out of touch. Broadly basing something on death metal and pushing it toward the avant-garde or splicing it with other genres is precisely what makes death metal the more extreme genre right now at this juncture. Metalcore from what I've heard just tends to be faster or more technical, or mixes with ambient etc. And yeah, connecting Encenethrakh to mathcore is fairly spurious argumentation, and seems like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole just to suit your points.


You are right in that Converge are more extreme that most death metal though. Most death metal is ordinary, like the bulk of any genre.

Somehow I missed this comment, so I'll respond to it now. I think I adequately commented on the three in the first point. I could also argue dissonant textures are more acceptable in the metal scene than sure aggression given the way traditional metal fans react to metalcore in comparison to traditional extreme metal even if that differs from the music scene at large. In the very least I prefer the dissonant textures to aggression, and I can't be the only one. I'll also add that I've listened to more Converge since I started this thread and while I still find them to be much more extreme than most death metal, I somewhat overrated their extremeness just by not hearing their more melodic moments. So maybe they are less extreme than those bands, but there are still other metalcore bands which are more extreme than them.

Regarding Dragged into the Sunlight, every source I can find lists them first as black metal, and secondly as death metal, and I don't take anything people say on this site for granted when it comes to what is death metal because I've noticed here there is a bit of different standard for death metal than music journalists in general use. I definitely hear elements of both in the sound, can't say which is dominant because I haven't listened to the whole album yet as a matter of principle (I try to avoid listening to full albums before I buy them), but the aesthetics are pure black metal (maybe that's why people keep listing them as black metal), and that adds as much to it's extremity as it's sure brutality does. As for Muknal, yes, I have heard Incantation (not much though as in general death metal just doesn't interest me), I just had no idea they were in anyway related to Muknal. Listening to them again I hear the simulairites, though there is still something about Incantation that gives them a much thrashier sound than Muknal which makes them more death metal, even though Incantation has the rawer production. Regardless, I'd still place Converge as being more extreme than Muknal as the same reasons for Ulcerate based primarily on production.

Of course I'd argree there is elements of death metal in T.O.O.H. in Neoandertals sounds and it's not strictly wrong to classify them as such, but it's not how *I* would personally primarily classify them. If you look back at my comment again, it's not that I said T.O.O.H. isn't death metal, but they represent more an extreme in progressive metal. I'll elaborate that by saying they are extreme by being progressive rather than by being aggressive, which is at it roots the primary reason while both death metal and metalcore are considered extreme (as early death metal wasn't any darker than early black metal, it was just more aggressive). With Neoandertals, the base of their sound is death metal, but I've found their avant-garde enough to have transcended the label (in the same manner I'd argue that Botanist transcends black metal).

This has already gone so far off from what this topic is, but I'm curious to know where you're finding Dragged Into Sunlight down as black metal primarily. Everywhere I can see; here, RYM, Metal Archives as well as the reviews on Hatred for Mankind on MA seems to orient the band predominantly around death metal and doom and / or sludge as their base sounds, with mentions of black metal as additional sounds or aesthetic etc. Their sound is abrasive and draws influence from a number of genres but they don't really sound like any black metal I've heard when it comes down to the fundamentals.

Quote:

Written by [user id=4365] on 08.11.2016 at 01:58

Written by Ganondox on 07.11.2016 at 22:14

Ulcerate, Gorguts and Artificial Brain less extreme than Converge? I think that's a fairly ridiculous notion tbh. Converge are eminently more marketable than the other 3 bands whose sound is far less approachable to the average person who I'm sure when put side by side would favoure Converge as being the more palatable. The dense impenetrable aesthetics, heightened dissonance and atypical structures of the 3 death metal bands would alienate most people. Converge are angular and aggressive but that's far more normalised thing in metal and music. Converge are basically on the edge of the mainstream end of extreme and cater to the more naturalised ideals of "extreme." The bands I posted fall outside of that into the periphery of truly left-field and avant-garde death metal. Big difference.

Dragged Into Sunlight and Muknal black metal? No, you're flat out incorrect there and falling into the common trap of lumping things in with black metal because of its vague qualities. Superficial atmospheric elements that resemble black metal don't make something that when it's clearly so steeped in death metal, it only endears it a "blackened" prefix. The core and structure of them is inherently death metal. You clearly haven't heard Incantation if you think Muknal are black metal because it's fairly obvious where the groundwork for Muknal was laid.

Like it or not tech death is considered death metal so it can be used in this argument. Converge to my ears are heavily removed from punk anyway, similar to how tech death is different from old school death. Still falls under the umbrella of death metal though according to the masses and how it is generally categorised, just like TOOH and Neandertals are primarily associated with death metal on a base level, despite their avant-garde or progressive tendencies (look them up; you'll probably struggle not to find the words death metal or deathgrind associated with them). You can't dissociate them just because it doesn't fit your side of the argument (or because your ability to define death metal is lacking). These days death metal has far more experimental tendencies than it did say, 5 or so years, or thereabouts which is why your comment about death metal's overrated extremity appears out of touch. Broadly basing something on death metal and pushing it toward the avant-garde or splicing it with other genres is precisely what makes death metal the more extreme genre right now at this juncture. Metalcore from what I've heard just tends to be faster or more technical, or mixes with ambient etc. And yeah, connecting Encenethrakh to mathcore is fairly spurious argumentation, and seems like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole just to suit your points.


You are right in that Converge are more extreme that most death metal though. Most death metal is ordinary, like the bulk of any genre.

Somehow I missed this comment, so I'll respond to it now. I think I adequately commented on the three in the first point. I could also argue dissonant textures are more acceptable in the metal scene than sure aggression given the way traditional metal fans react to metalcore in comparison to traditional extreme metal even if that differs from the music scene at large. In the very least I prefer the dissonant textures to aggression, and I can't be the only one. I'll also add that I've listened to more Converge since I started this thread and while I still find them to be much more extreme than most death metal, I somewhat overrated their extremeness just by not hearing their more melodic moments. So maybe they are less extreme than those bands, but there are still other metalcore bands which are more extreme than them.

Regarding Dragged into the Sunlight, every source I can find lists them first as black metal, and secondly as death metal, and I don't take anything people say on this site for granted when it comes to what is death metal because I've noticed here there is a bit of different standard for death metal than music journalists in general use. I definitely hear elements of both in the sound, can't say which is dominant because I haven't listened to the whole album yet as a matter of principle (I try to avoid listening to full albums before I buy them), but the aesthetics are pure black metal (maybe that's why people keep listing them as black metal), and that adds as much to it's extremity as it's sure brutality does. As for Muknal, yes, I have heard Incantation (not much though as in general death metal just doesn't interest me), I just had no idea they were in anyway related to Muknal. Listening to them again I hear the simulairites, though there is still something about Incantation that gives them a much thrashier sound than Muknal which makes them more death metal, even though Incantation has the rawer production. Regardless, I'd still place Converge as being more extreme than Muknal as the same reasons for Ulcerate based primarily on production.

Of course I'd argree there is elements of death metal in T.O.O.H. in Neoandertals sounds and it's not strictly wrong to classify them as such, but it's not how *I* would personally primarily classify them. If you look back at my comment again, it's not that I said T.O.O.H. isn't death metal, but they represent more an extreme in progressive metal. I'll elaborate that by saying they are extreme by being progressive rather than by being aggressive, which is at it roots the primary reason while both death metal and metalcore are considered extreme (as early death metal wasn't any darker than early black metal, it was just more aggressive). With Neoandertals, the base of their sound is death metal, but I've found their avant-garde enough to have transcended the label (in the same manner I'd argue that Botanist transcends black metal).

This has already gone so far off from what this topic is, but I'm curious to know where you're finding Dragged Into Sunlight down as black metal primarily. Everywhere I can see; here, RYM, Metal Archives as well as the reviews on Hatred for Mankind on MA seems to orient the band predominantly around death metal and doom and / or sludge as their base sounds, with mentions of black metal as additional sounds or aesthetic etc. Their sound is abrasive and draws influence from a number of genres but they don't really sound like any black metal I've heard when it comes down to the fundamentals.

First the guy who first told me about them had them listed as black metal with a bunch of other bands like Gnaw Their Tongues and Wolvhammer, and that probably set the bias in my mind. I didn't look at the actual reviews on Metal Archives as they tend to be garbage, but the site lists them as black metal before death metal technically speaking. They technically list them as black metal first, as in blackened death metal black metal comes first in the phrase. Except for Belphagor all the blackened death metal bands I'd associate more with black metal than death metal. Maybe that's my mistake. Wikipedia has them listed as black metal before death metal, but the ordering on wikipedia is completely arbitrary as anyone can just rearrange the order. I didn't check them out on Rate Your Music, so there is that. Really at this point I think it's kinda pointless to argue if it's black or death or doom or sludge or core and just say it's extreme metal. Guess you're probably right, as they do sound like they are a bit too percussive for black metal (though they do remind me a bit of Gevurah), though they definitely aren't pure death metal either.

Written by Ganondox on 08.11.2016 at 02:48

First the guy who first told me about them had them listed as black metal with a bunch of other bands like Gnaw Their Tongues and Wolvhammer, and that probably set the bias in my mind. I didn't look at the actual reviews on Metal Archives as they tend to be garbage, but the site lists them as black metal before death metal technically speaking. They technically list them as black metal first, as in blackened death metal black metal comes first in the phrase. Except for Belphagor all the blackened death metal bands I'd associate more with black metal than death metal. Maybe that's my mistake. Wikipedia has them listed as black metal before death metal, but the ordering on wikipedia is completely arbitrary as anyone can just rearrange the order. I didn't check them out on Rate Your Music, so there is that. Really at this point I think it's kinda pointless to argue if it's black or death or doom or sludge or core and just say it's extreme metal. Guess you're probably right, as they do sound like they are a bit too percussive for black metal (though they do remind me a bit of Gevurah), though they definitely aren't pure death metal either.

As a general rule I've found that "blackened" is more of a modifier, rather than a base genre, at least when it comes to discussion on here. When something is "blackened" it tends to be a shading or accent of what follows it, be it death, thrash, doom etc.

There seems to be some confusion with "Destroyers of All" which is both a band and an album by Ulcerate. mz was talking about the Ulcerate album.

Written by [user id=4365] on 08.11.2016 at 03:07

Written by Ganondox on 08.11.2016 at 02:48

First the guy who first told me about them had them listed as black metal with a bunch of other bands like Gnaw Their Tongues and Wolvhammer, and that probably set the bias in my mind. I didn't look at the actual reviews on Metal Archives as they tend to be garbage, but the site lists them as black metal before death metal technically speaking. They technically list them as black metal first, as in blackened death metal black metal comes first in the phrase. Except for Belphagor all the blackened death metal bands I'd associate more with black metal than death metal. Maybe that's my mistake. Wikipedia has them listed as black metal before death metal, but the ordering on wikipedia is completely arbitrary as anyone can just rearrange the order. I didn't check them out on Rate Your Music, so there is that. Really at this point I think it's kinda pointless to argue if it's black or death or doom or sludge or core and just say it's extreme metal. Guess you're probably right, as they do sound like they are a bit too percussive for black metal (though they do remind me a bit of Gevurah), though they definitely aren't pure death metal either.

As a general rule I've found that "blackened" is more of a modifier, rather than a base genre, at least when it comes to discussion on here. When something is "blackened" it tends to be a shading or accent of what follows it, be it death, thrash, doom etc.

"blackened" is indeed a modifier.
Like with blackened doom it beiong doom first and foremost and possessing some black trademarks.
Doom death is first and foremost death and is modfied by doom
Death doom is first and foremost doom and is modified by death.

The righthand head rule applies when it comes to naming genres.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Righthand_head_rule

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 08.11.2016 at 17:20

"blackened" is indeed a modifier.
Like with blackened doom it beiong doom first and foremost and possessing some black trademarks.
Doom death is first and foremost death and is modfied by doom
Death doom is first and foremost doom and is modified by death.

The righthand head rule applies when it comes to naming genres.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Righthand_head_rule

Yep, pretty much accepted generally I would think.

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 08.11.2016 at 17:20

Written by [user id=4365] on 08.11.2016 at 03:07

Written by Ganondox on 08.11.2016 at 02:48

First the guy who first told me about them had them listed as black metal with a bunch of other bands like Gnaw Their Tongues and Wolvhammer, and that probably set the bias in my mind. I didn't look at the actual reviews on Metal Archives as they tend to be garbage, but the site lists them as black metal before death metal technically speaking. They technically list them as black metal first, as in blackened death metal black metal comes first in the phrase. Except for Belphagor all the blackened death metal bands I'd associate more with black metal than death metal. Maybe that's my mistake. Wikipedia has them listed as black metal before death metal, but the ordering on wikipedia is completely arbitrary as anyone can just rearrange the order. I didn't check them out on Rate Your Music, so there is that. Really at this point I think it's kinda pointless to argue if it's black or death or doom or sludge or core and just say it's extreme metal. Guess you're probably right, as they do sound like they are a bit too percussive for black metal (though they do remind me a bit of Gevurah), though they definitely aren't pure death metal either.

As a general rule I've found that "blackened" is more of a modifier, rather than a base genre, at least when it comes to discussion on here. When something is "blackened" it tends to be a shading or accent of what follows it, be it death, thrash, doom etc.

"blackened" is indeed a modifier.
Like with blackened doom it beiong doom first and foremost and possessing some black trademarks.
Doom death is first and foremost death and is modfied by doom
Death doom is first and foremost doom and is modified by death.

The righthand head rule applies when it comes to naming genres.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Righthand_head_rule

The issue is I'm not sure if the righthand head really applies to genres, due to the manner in which they get named and then evolve over time. The name makes it clear it's a fusion, but usually ambiguous what is the "root" in a fusion.

Written by Ganondox on 09.11.2016 at 08:49

The issue is I'm not sure if the righthand head really applies to genres, due to the manner in which they get named and then evolve over time. The name makes it clear it's a fusion, but usually ambiguous what is the "root" in a fusion.

It's fairly obvious though. "Blackened" is an adjective; an expression of an attribute of the thing that follows it. It's like saying "noisy death metal" or "atmospheric death metal." If it was explicitly a specific genre it wouldn't be called "blackened" but "black metal."

"Thrashy death metal" wouldn't be a thrash band, nor would "doomy black metal" be a doom band. It's quite simple.

Written by [user id=4365] on 09.11.2016 at 13:07

Written by Ganondox on 09.11.2016 at 08:49

The issue is I'm not sure if the righthand head really applies to genres, due to the manner in which they get named and then evolve over time. The name makes it clear it's a fusion, but usually ambiguous what is the "root" in a fusion.

It's fairly obvious though. "Blackened" is an adjective; an expression of an attribute of the thing that follows it. It's like saying "noisy death metal" or "atmospheric death metal." If it was explicitly a specific genre it wouldn't be called "blackened" but "black metal."

"Thrashy death metal" wouldn't be a thrash band, nor would "doomy black metal" be a doom band. It's quite simple.

Grammatically, but reality doesn't always follow grammar. Take metalcore. Name implies it ought to the be more hardcore, and initially it was, but the -core suffix has been relentlessly abused, resulting in things like "slowcore", and metalcore has evolved to become much more metal than hardcore. With blackened, that term has also become memetic for fusions with black metal, so grammar can't be taken for granted. Regardless, this is super off topic.

Written by Ganondox on 09.11.2016 at 13:18

Grammatically, but reality doesn't always follow grammar. Take metalcore. Name implies it ought to the be more hardcore, and initially it was, but the -core suffix has been relentlessly abused, resulting in things like "slowcore", and metalcore has evolved to become much more metal than hardcore. With blackened, that term has also become memetic for fusions with black metal, so grammar can't be taken for granted. Regardless, this is super off topic.

That's not the same though as they are established neologisms and self contained so the rule doesn't apply. "Metalcore" doesn't imply that it is primarily metal or hardcore like the examples I gave, and the fact metalcore typically doesn't contain much -core is entirely irrelevant to what we're discussing as a result. It's just a strangely misrepresentative name in most cases, nothing more. One could easily have "blackened metalcore" however as the "blackened" element is more of an individualistic description or modifier of lesser elements of a particular band with an established sound paradigm (in this case metalcore). Totally different. I would say the vast majority of people who concern themselves with genres understand the distinction and apply it accordingly. At the very least whenever people here call something "blackened" they aren't calling it black metal, but rather describing some lighter or superficial elements that lend itself to black metal's sound. However when people use the term "metalcore" they are entering into an understanding of what that term has come to represent, not what the term literally means, which is often different. There are no firmly established genres that contain the term "blackened." It is an ad hoc term used by people in individual cases so it is not the same by any regard as metalcore or slowcore (though slowcore has never had any relation to punk so not sure how it relates as such anyway).

Written by [user id=4365] on 09.11.2016 at 14:05

Written by Ganondox on 09.11.2016 at 13:18

Grammatically, but reality doesn't always follow grammar. Take metalcore. Name implies it ought to the be more hardcore, and initially it was, but the -core suffix has been relentlessly abused, resulting in things like "slowcore", and metalcore has evolved to become much more metal than hardcore. With blackened, that term has also become memetic for fusions with black metal, so grammar can't be taken for granted. Regardless, this is super off topic.

That's not the same though as they are established neologisms and self contained so the rule doesn't apply. "Metalcore" doesn't imply that it is primarily metal or hardcore like the examples I gave, and the fact metalcore typically doesn't contain much -core is entirely irrelevant to what we're discussing as a result. It's just a strangely misrepresentative name in most cases, nothing more. One could easily have "blackened metalcore" however as the "blackened" element is more of an individualistic description or modifier of lesser elements of a particular band with an established sound paradigm (in this case metalcore). Totally different. I would say the vast majority of people who concern themselves with genres understand the distinction and apply it accordingly. At the very least whenever people here call something "blackened" they aren't calling it black metal, but rather describing some lighter or superficial elements that lend itself to black metal's sound. However when people use the term "metalcore" they are entering into an understanding of what that term has come to represent, not what the term literally means, which is often different. There are no firmly established genres that contain the term "blackened." It is an ad hoc term used by people in individual cases so it is not the same by any regard as metalcore or slowcore (though slowcore has never had any relation to punk so not sure how it relates as such anyway).

But blackened death metal isn't just death metal with an adjective on the front, it IS an established genre in its own right. You can try to argue that all you want, but there are published sources shoeing that you're just wrong in that regard. As there is no such thing as "deathened black metal" it can't be assumed it's just being used as an adjective. Just because blackened is used in such on a manner in this forum doesn't mean that is how it is used elsewhere, especially in reference to blackened death metal.

The point is because slowcore has absolutely nothing to do with punk means genre names aren't supposed to be taken literally.

Written by Ganondox on 10.11.2016 at 02:48


But blackened death metal isn't just death metal with an adjective on the front, it IS an established genre in its own right. You can try to argue that all you want, but there are published sources shoeing that you're just wrong in that regard. As there is no such thing as "deathened black metal" it can't be assumed it's just being used as an adjective. Just because blackened is used in such on a manner in this forum doesn't mean that is how it is used elsewhere, especially in reference to blackened death metal.

The point is because slowcore has absolutely nothing to do with punk means genre names aren't supposed to be taken literally.

No, it's just a very commonly used fusion mixture of sounds that is easy to observe and blends well with other genres because of the inherent vague qualities of black metal. It is a subgenre, but it's not such a firmly established one that as a result has spawned its own idiosyncratic nomenclature, genre peculiarities and even subcultures that don't relate to its name, like metalcore. A blackened death metal band will always be a death metal band that has some black metal characteristics regardless of the source (unless the source is wrong) and if you had spend some time in discussion and observation you would eventually learn to see my way of thinking is more of a consensus than you realise. Also until blackened death metal gets its own subculture, idiosyncrosies etc. like more ingrained genres like metalcore they remain very much distinct: one a more pragmatic and on the fly observation of 2 different sounds (albeit it a common one), the other a more entrenched acceptance of an idea that doesn't relate explicitly or literally to what the name refers and that even has its own primary wiki page.

There also is the use of "deathened" on this site if you look via search, and on Google. It's used half jokingly but it also carries with it the connotations that death metal can be the supporting component which reinforces the distinction that "blackened" is not a dominant force. Not everyone will use it in the same way but typically the likes of Metal Archives will classify something as "Black / Death Metal" when the balance is more even which shows even they adhere to it to some degree. "Blackened" typically identifies components like vocals, production and even imagery in some cases, when bands have a much more rigid death metal structure (or doom, thrash etc) and style of playing. Naturally this is why "blackened" is a support sound.

This is becoming circular as well as offtopic now, as well as not very interesting to talk about when it's more a case of understanding the unique vocabularies of smaller groups discussing genres, rather than the more widely accepted paradigms like metalcore. I feel like you're trying to learn the former by some kind of rushed research or extrapolation and comparison so this is as far as I'm going to go in the discussion.

Written by [user id=4365] on 10.11.2016 at 05:10

Written by Ganondox on 10.11.2016 at 02:48


But blackened death metal isn't just death metal with an adjective on the front, it IS an established genre in its own right. You can try to argue that all you want, but there are published sources shoeing that you're just wrong in that regard. As there is no such thing as "deathened black metal" it can't be assumed it's just being used as an adjective. Just because blackened is used in such on a manner in this forum doesn't mean that is how it is used elsewhere, especially in reference to blackened death metal.

The point is because slowcore has absolutely nothing to do with punk means genre names aren't supposed to be taken literally.

No, it's just a very commonly used fusion mixture of sounds that is easy to observe. It is a subgenre, but it's not such a firmly established one that as a result has spawned its own idiosyncratic nomenclature, genre peculiarities and even subcultures that don't relate to its name, like metalcore. A blackened death metal band will always be a death metal band that has some black metal characteristics regardless of the source (unless the source is wrong) and if you had spend some time in discussion and observation you would eventually learn to see my way of thinking is more of a consensus than you realise. Also until blackened death metal gets its own subculture, idiosyncrosies etc. like more ingrained genres like metalcore they remain very much distinct: one a more pragmatic and on the fly observation of 2 different sounds, the other a more entrenched acceptance of an idea that doesn't relate explicitly to what they name refers that even has its own primary wiki page.

There also is the use of "deathened" on this site if you look via, and on Google. It's used half jokingly but it also carries with it the connotations that death metal can be the supporting component which reinforces the distinction that "blackened" is not a dominant force. Not everyone will use it in the same way but typically the likes of Metal Archives will classify something as "Black / Death Metal" when the balance is more even which shows even they adhere to it to some degree.

This is becoming circular as well as offtopic now, as well as not very interesting to talk about when it's more a case of understanding the unique vocabularies of smaller groups discussion genres, rather than the more widely accepted ones like metalcore. I feel like you're trying to learn the latter by some kind of impaired logic and comparison.

There isn't a specific blackened death metal sound, but there is general consensus in the music community that the refers to any fusion of black and death metal, and the genre has historical roots. Metal Archives may be an exception, but they've always been very idiosyncratic with their definitions. Maybe your way of thinking is a consensus in the death metal circlejerks, but definitely not in the musicologist community as a whole.

Many of the most notable blackened death metal were black metal bands which incorporated more elements of death metal over time, so there is big problems with your claim that " blackened death metal band will always be a death metal band that has some black metal characteristics regardless of the source", and beyond there is no guarantee it's meaning will stay the same, just as the meaning of melodic death metal has expanded over time.

Deathened black metal is primarily used to mock the attitude you are expressing here, google makes that very clear.

" I feel like you're trying to learn the latter by some kind of impaired logic and comparison." Your logic is impaired.

Written by Ganondox on 10.11.2016 at 05:45


Many of the most notable blackened death metal were black metal bands which incorporated more elements of death metal over time, so there is big problems with your claim that " blackened death metal band will always be a death metal band that has some black metal characteristics regardless of the source", and beyond there is no guarantee it's meaning will stay the same, just as the meaning of melodic death metal has expanded over time.

How is there an issue with my claim? Those bands would have been described as black metal originally and then went on to alter their base sound with death metal whilst retaining the more superficial black metal sounds. They became primarily death metal whilst remaining culturally related to black metal. Simple to understand (if you put the time into it). Of course there's no guarantee it will stay the same, but at this point the term and use is very clear. And when I said "source" I meant source of information, not source of the music, i.e. the band's early albums, just in case that's from where your confusion arises.

Quote:
Deathened black metal is primarily used to mock the attitude you are expressing here, google makes that very clear.

Good quote from the final link I posted down there:

Quote:
"Deathened" black metal exists, but it's usually labeled as black/death metal or merely black metal. The reason such a descriptor doesn't exist (even with a less ridiculous name) is due to the fact that most bands of such a style were black metal bands that developed from a death metal sound. Blackened death metal, on the other hand, is death metal that has adopted a smattering of black metal.

There's even a mention of that odd term on a wiki forum during the presumed infancy of the genre's "blackened" discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ABlackened_death_metal:

Quote:
If a band plays more than one genre, it is usually reffered to as Black/Death Metal or Thrash/Death Metal or whatever (just to indicate that both genres are applicable) but not as Blackened Death Metal or Trashed Death Metal or whatever. And how do you call a band that plays mainly Black Metal with Death Metal influences instead of vice versa? a Deathened Black Metal band maybe? Come on, only when notable magz and books consitently start using the term "Blackened Death Metal", can this term be used as a Wiki-page. If a band wishes to discribe itself as Progressive Epic Thrash/Death Metal or whatever, cheers to that, but don't make it a seperate Wiki entry. Page should just be deleted...81.88.110.49 (talk) 10:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It's easy to mock because it sounds so absurd but it's as I said a half-jokingly used distinction that doesn't arise very often because of black metal's vague structural qualities. To use the term one would have to be aware of that distinction. That page shows the earlier birth of the discussion of the genre, showing its relative infancy but even now "blackened death metal" still doesn't have its own page in wikipedia, indicating it's still primarily used in discourse of the off-the-cuff enthusiast, rather than having entered the mainstream vernacular (like metalcore). Even RYM don't feature blackened death metal and they have profiles on every conceivable genre and subgenre under the sun. There are certain profiles than summarise it as simply a vague combination of black and death but when discussion arises it tends to do down the route as what I am describing, for example the MA discussion linked below, especially when it comes to usefully employing the term.

The wiki page does however conclude / finish with:

Quote:
well essentially this genre is death metal which employs some black metal playing styles, attitude, appearance, lyrical content etc.

So, yeah. Even back then there appeared to be a distinction made.

Quote:
There isn't a specific blackened death metal sound, but there is general consensus in the music community that the refers to any fusion of black and death metal, and the genre has historical roots. Metal Archives may be an exception, but they've always been very idiosyncratic with their definitions. Maybe your way of thinking is a consensus in the death metal circlejerks, but definitely not in the musicologist community as a whole.

Metal Archives, for all their poor qualities (such as ostracising certain genres, which really doesn't relate to this topic here), tend to be quite correct when it comes to classifying metal bands on their profiles so no idea why you think they are idiosyncratic in that regard. Pertaining to black and death metal perhaps you would like to elaborate on why they are "an exception" and "idiosyncratic" seeing as they're probably the first place the vast majority of metallers turn to for a variety of information. Also cite examples where they are wrong. I've no idea what "musicologist community" means; sounds like imaginary nonsense to me with no supportive evidence given but your "general consensus" doesn't seem to exist as far as I can see it, nor here or metal archives; two pretty good sources, along with that less great but still useful wiki discussion page, i.e people that are actually concerned and in discussion of the meanings of the terms, as opposed to some lazily extrapolated and theoretical "musicologist community."

Incidentally comments like "death metal circlejerks" is dismissive and somewhat insulting of groups of people that are interested in the distinction of sounds when it comes to classifying and recommending bands to people with greater accuracy. Just because you don't understand said distinctions doesn't mean they don't exist or are worthy of your mocking attitude. Rather it's groups like that you should be looking toward to enhance your understanding of the subject at hand instead of disregarding them because they don't fit your current argument. At least they actually exist and can be a source of information, unlike your supposed group of mysterious elder musicologist experts which I'm fairly sure don't exist outside of your head.

Here we go, you can carry on the discussion with Metal Archives, who seem to largely have come to the same conclusion as I have from what I can see: http://www.metal-archives.com/board/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=99131

Maybe they'll be more receptive to your specious reasoning.

Written by 3rdWorld on 31.10.2016 at 06:56

Well I once loved a load of mathcore bands more than any techdeath band as well. The Number Twelve Looks Like You, Car Bomb, Daughters, Psyopus were all my favs once and all are indeed impenetrably technical. But as a "metal" sub-genre the longevity and musical enjoyment of them are far lesser than what other technical metal bands provided for me. So seems to me the genre is quickly fading away with nothing but a few minor players left.

Seems odd that you say that considering recently Orange Mathematics came out, which brought mathcore back to the forefront and shows they are still the kings of brutality.

Written by Ganondox on 12.12.2016 at 00:30

Seems odd that you say that considering recently Orange Mathematics came out, which brought mathcore back to the forefront and shows they are still the kings of brutality.

I think you mistook this thread for [URL=www.metalstorm.net/forum/topic.php?topic_id=36751]this one[/URL]. Anyway instead of quoting me and wasting my time and yours, you can continue posting there where people will be more receptive to you.

Written by 3rdWorld on 12.12.2016 at 07:01

Written by Ganondox on 12.12.2016 at 00:30

Seems odd that you say that considering recently Orange Mathematics came out, which brought mathcore back to the forefront and shows they are still the kings of brutality.

I think you mistook this thread for [URL=www.metalstorm.net/forum/topic.php?topic_id=36751]this one[/URL]. Anyway instead of quoting me and wasting my time and yours, you can continue posting there where people will be more receptive to you.

Haha no.

Nu Metal shouldn't be allowed to exist.

Written by All Metal on 04.11.2019 at 17:41

Nu Metal shouldn't be allowed to exist.

if you think like that maybe you should consider rephrasing your username :3

Written by Karlabos on 09.11.2019 at 14:33

Written by All Metal on 04.11.2019 at 17:41

Nu Metal shouldn't be allowed to exist.

if you think like that maybe you should consider rephrasing your username :3

Haha, to Some Metal?