Written by Dane Train on 25.04.2008 at 16:07

Written by Vinnie R. on 25.04.2008 at 08:45

It's good to listen everything as music, but sometimes there must be a definition of what you listen.

I agree as well. I mean it is important to know if you are listening to a band that is Blackened-Progressive-Gothic-Pepsi-Death-Doom-Ben Hur-Gore-Avent Garde-Thrash-Speed-Last of the Mohicans-Psychedelic-Trip Hop-Experimental-Dance Dance Revolution-Techno-Industrial-Post Rock-Salamander-Sludge-Drone-Ambient Metal or is Blackened-Progressive-Gothic-Pepsi-Death-Doom-Ben Hur-Gore-Avent Garde-Thrash-Speed-Last of the Mohicans-Psychedelic-Trip Hop-Experimental-Dance Dance Revolution-Techno-Industrial-Post Rock-Salamander-Sludge-Drone-Ambient Metalcore. It is usually the breakdowns that give it away.

LOL! Yes, damn those breakdowns...

Written by Dane Train on 25.04.2008 at 16:07

Written by Vinnie R. on 25.04.2008 at 08:45

It's good to listen everything as music, but sometimes there must be a definition of what you listen.

I agree as well. I mean it is important to know if you are listening to a band that is Blackened-Progressive-Gothic-Pepsi-Death-Doom-Ben Hur-Gore-Avent Garde-Thrash-Speed-Last of the Mohicans-Psychedelic-Trip Hop-Experimental-Dance Dance Revolution-Techno-Industrial-Post Rock-Salamander-Sludge-Drone-Ambient Metal or is Blackened-Progressive-Gothic-Pepsi-Death-Doom-Ben Hur-Gore-Avent Garde-Thrash-Speed-Last of the Mohicans-Psychedelic-Trip Hop-Experimental-Dance Dance Revolution-Techno-Industrial-Post Rock-Salamander-Sludge-Drone-Ambient Metalcore. It is usually the breakdowns that give it away.

Shit I had the same problem the other day hahaha. The point is that it is helpful to know what are you listening to. For example I exchange music with a friend at schoo, and when he asks, "And what do they play?" well I need an answer, even if I have to say something like "Oh yeah, they play something like Blackened-Progressive-Gothic-Pepsi-Death-Doom-Ben Hur-Gore-Avent Garde-Thrash-Speed-Last of the Mohicans-Psychedelic-Trip Hop-Experimental-Dance Dance Revolution-Techno-Industrial-Post Rock-Salamander-Sludge-Drone-Ambient Metal... same as Testament"

Even if you like a lot to listen to metal there are some kind of bands you don't like, for example, many people despise Children Of Bodom (the genre doesn't matter), so they won't like to listen to similar bands (ex. Norther, Imperanon, etc), so they need a guide to check what bands they would like to listen; so if you like Bay Area Thrash metal, you can enter to the Thrash metal section of MS and check the bands that play Thrash from Bay Area, so that way, you won't end checking Stratovarius or Sonata Arctica. IMO, we as humans always try to categorize everything, even the most strange and unusual ones.

I don't like the idea of an organization specifically categorizing bands - this would be more stifling than helpful, I think. It would pigeonhole bands into specific sub-genres, and it would ultimately limit even eduacated fans' exposure to new acts. For example, I am not a big fan of Black Metal, but over the past several months have grown to truly love the music of Moonsorrow. It would have been easy for me to disregard them becasue of the BM tag, but based on descriptions of their music that went beyond genre heading, and becasue of a project that I am working on, I have looked into them, and have really liked what I have found. (I even got to meet them recently during the Pagan Fest tour, but that's another story.)

What I can wholheartedly support, however, is some consortium that helps arrive at common characteristics for some of the genres, without going so far as to classify the bands themselves. This would be helpful as Metal fans, musicians, and students continue to take a more academic look at the music that we love. Books by Deena Weinstein and Keith Kahn-Harris, as well as the Metal: A Headbanger's Journey, try to take a more structured look at metal and its culture, and having some guidelines would help that type of thoughtful discussion.

I am currently collaborating on a book about Heavy Metal, and it would help to have some sort of characteristic description that is commonly accepted, rather than relying on the "I know it when I see it" approach.

I know of at least one annual conference that regularly examines Metal from an academic perspective, Heavy Fundametalisms: Music, Metal and Politics. You can find its website at http://www.inter-disciplinary.net/critical-issues/ethos/music-metal-politics/.

Perhaps this is all a bit long winded, but typically in Metal music and on these boards, I see a lot of discussion about literature, religion, politics, history, etc. Metalheads can be a very intellectual group of people. It would be nice for there to be a commonly accepted forum for the community to debate and adopt commonly accepted parameters to describe, not define, the music that we love.

I hate too rigid categorizations. Both because I find hard to describe what genre a band/an album/whatever is and since think I'm extremely openminded (I won't grant you I'll like everything, but I will try at least. There are good artsits and shit artists in EVERY genre). There's essentually two different main groups into which music can be divided. Good music and bad music. Or if you prefer, music that you like and music that you don't like, even though it's not the same thing.

Written by Elio on 27.05.2009 at 20:04

I hate too rigid categorizations. Both because I find hard to describe what genre a band/an album/whatever is and since think I'm extremely openminded (I won't grant you I'll like everything, but I will try at least. There are good artsits and shit artists in EVERY genre).

This is why I am very much against anyone "officially" categorizing the bands, but can support descriptions of genre characteristics. For example, bands like Novembers Doom obviously employ many of the sounds and devices that characterize Doom, but their latest albums have also contained a lot of Death Metal as well. I don't want some organization to label them as Death/Doom, but rather to have an openly debated, commonly accepted description of Death and Doom that allows me to understand when I am listening to the band, which characteristics the band is using and how they relate within the Metal spectrum.

What bothers me are the people that take these genres and tags all too serious. When I dub something "volcanic cataclysmic Drone Doom" that's not a 'real' genre. It's supposed to describe the sound in a catchy and cool way.

It's not something you can regulate. The media, artists and consumers shape genre definitions in a constant interaction. That's how it should be, too. Having immobile criteria set in stone is not only impossible, but useless. Categorization is useful for discussing music, putting labels to and understanding stereotypical listeners and groups, and forming a musical identity. When someone identifies himself as an indie rocker in Finland today, I have a pretty good idea of his preferences. Or if someone says he's a power metal fan, I can safely expect him to know modern European power metal bands. And that's the point. The definitions, as they were in the seventies or eighties, aren't useful to me today.

Genres evolves because music evolves. It is not a bad thing that a genre can come to include something new when a popular band gains publicity and identifies itself as part of that genre. It's just natural, even if the old central figures of the genre suddenly end up in the margin. Of course it's frustrating to an old school death metaller to see new fans speak of the Gothenburg scene as "good old death", but that's just life. Even if you don't agree with their idea of death metal, you still know what they're talking about, and that's what's important. The only purpose of genre categorization is to make communication easier, and therefore it must evolve according to communication's needs. An objective, rigid, official definition wouldn't be very useful.

Quick question: Are the terms "epic" and "atmospheric" interchangeable when defining a band's genre?

Written by Introspekrieg on 15.01.2010 at 01:28

Quick question: Are the terms "epic" and "atmospheric" interchangeable when defining a band's genre?

i would say no.

Epic, to me, applies to something that is grandiose. or long. generally, if i use the word "epic" in a review, it's usually describing song length - somewhere around 10 minutes or so.

Atmospheric is all about, well, for lack of a readily available better word, the atmosphere of any particular recording, and it can be applied to a lot of stuff - although the tag itself i find odd.

Negura Bunget's OM has tons of atmospheric pieces, fairly short in length, that somehow manage to sound like the majestic peaks of the mountains or the romantic feel of the forests of their native countryside. they sonically capture the atmosphere.

Darkthrone's Transylvanian Hunger captures that whole grim cold atmosphere with absurdly thin production and fairly minimalist playing.

i wouldn't use "Atmospheric Black metal" to describe either - partially as atmosphere is one of the aesthetics of the genre. atmospheric, if anything, to me, is more interchangeable with the term "mood".

using atmospheric to describe something to me is odd, as in theory shouldn't virtually all metal capture some form or other of an atmosphere or attitude to it?

Written by BitterCOld on 16.01.2010 at 00:03

using atmospheric to describe something to me is odd, as in theory shouldn't virtually all metal capture some form or other of an atmosphere or attitude to it?

Yes, very strange... kind of like what's the difference between Death Metal and Brutal Death Metal, it's Brootall!!!

Written by Introspekrieg on 16.01.2010 at 02:00

Written by BitterCOld on 16.01.2010 at 00:03

using atmospheric to describe something to me is odd, as in theory shouldn't virtually all metal capture some form or other of an atmosphere or attitude to it?

Yes, very strange... kind of like what's the difference between Death Metal and Brutal Death Metal, it's Brootall!!!

of course, as opposed to wuss-pacifist death metal!

Of course something can also be epic and atmospheric too (all Summoning fans know this, right guys?), the words are neither interchangeable nor mutually exclusive. Bittercold summed it up nicely.

In fact I agree with BitterCold's last two sentences there, as well. "Atmospheric black metal" was trouble from the very get-go. As he said, "atmosphere" is often interchanged with mood, or it's even a simple buzzword for the emotions of the artist being successfully portrayed as similarly emotive passages of the music. As the latter is THE goal of art, including music, that's not necessarily a bad thing. But it is if you're trying to create a genre around what is essentially a rather abstract term!

Ah, the confusion that is genre-labelling. Aside from obvious musical differences which make a lot of genre-labelling objective to anyone who actually has eardrums, there are certainly pesky grey areas. Magazines and even bands themselves either unashamedly or ignorantly mislabelling the music doesn't help either. And don't even get me started on bands who try an invent the silliest most indistinct genres ever. Yes, Turisas. You.