Metal Subgenres have gotten out of hand.
I understand the necessity for categorizing metal into subgenres. There are distinct differences between "heavy metal', "thrash metal", "death metal", and "black metal". I'll even give you some additional qualifiers. Namely "progressive", "symphonic" and "folk". But beyond that there is very little the remainder of subgenres, specifically descriptive or otherwise, that carry any real value. Well save for splitting the metal community into sub communities battling it out for supremacy.
I am personally sick of hearing people say "that's not real metal" or "I don't listen to genre X".Especially when it's plainly evident they are basing their conclusion on one experience or worse, they are being elitists.
What about Core?
Core has become a vile word in many corners of the metal community. It makes absolutely zero sense. The origin is hardcore, which is already just a heavier form of punk. Where it became a divisive term was with metalcore. Metalcore is just mixing hardcore and metal into one sound.
Now I understand that some people may not like that sound. That's fine. We all have our own tastes. But to act as if the blending of these two subgenres is somehow it's own thing that needs to be defined is going a bit over the top. Hating it on "principal" is abhorrent. For a casual fan or someone who isn't into metal at all, these bands just sound like metal. Because that's what it is. it's metal with a hardcore influence. There is no need for it's own label.
I can hear you screaming "but it has breakdowns". So fucking what! It's still just metal. I could almost guarantee you if I remove the breakdowns and played it for you. You would just call it metal. You may not like it. But you wouldn't feel it necessary to define it as a different genre.
Where things get really dumb is with deathcore. It's death metal with more blast beats and breakdowns. That's it. I guess more commonly it's melodic death metal with more blast beats and breakdowns. See? It's already getting stupid.
The difference between the genres is so indistinguishable at times that what many people consider to be the kings of death metal, are constantly labeled as all three genres. I'm talking about The Black Dahlia Murder here. Considered in equally strong numbers as a straight death metal band, a melodic death metal band, and a deathcore band. Depending on your personal preference you are going to claim them as a member of your subgenre. Why? Because they are all of those things.
The fact that there is a huge portion of metal heads out there who hate metalcore and deathcore bands based solely on the fact that they are labeled with the "core" tag is laughable. The fact that they will then try to argue until they shit themselves with rage about how a band they like is not a core band. Well that's just hilarious.
The reality of it is "core" is a pointless and useless addition to defining a bands sound. It's not going anywhere, but it should. Lets just be honest and call it what it is. Heavy metal or death metal.
What is extreme metal?
Extreme metal isn't a sub genre, it's where we collect all the bands we either can't quite define or fit into to many other subgenres. Go ahead. Google it. It's just a list of metal bands from all kinds og subgenres. That's how undefined the genre is.
Realistically that's exactly what it's supposed to be. An umbrella category meant to represent the most extreme of metal subgenres. But that hasn't stopped a great deal from trying to define the undefinable genre. For instance Gojira is often considered an extreme metal band. Not in the umbrella sense, but in the sense that they are in fact a defining what extreme metal as it's own unique subgenre is. Gojira is a progressive death metal band. That's what they are. Why do they need a subgenre to further define that. Because they are both progressive and death? Why? why do we do this.
If we are going to insist on using the term extreme metal can we just keep it to it's best use. Which is really just anything other than classic heavy metal and the punk inspired subgenres. If we are going to do that why even have subgenres other than heavy metal and extreme metal?
What is it with Viking/Pirate metal?
Viking and Pirate certainly aren't the only topical subgenres. But they are the most common. Guess what... They aren't actually subgenres at all.
Basically the idea is that these bands all have lyrical content and aesthetics about a certain subject or theme. But defining them as a genre does little to nothing to define them musically.
Listen to Amon Amarth and TYR and tell me they fit in the same subgenre musically. You won't because you can't. Amon Amarth is a melodeath band that sings about Vikings and shit. TYR is a folk metal band that sings about Vikings and shit. Honestly though they aren't even that similar. While both have elements of culture and lore, Amon Amarth focuses more on the historical side of things. Battles and general badassery, while TYR focuses a great deal of their writing on the myths and legends.
If we are going to keep defining bands by lyrical content then I am branding Sabaton "history channel metal".
Female fronted metal isn't a even remotely close to being a subgenre!
I shouldn't be writing this right now. Not only is it 2020 and we should be well beyond defining a job by gender, but it doesn't even begin to be a legitimate qualifier for defining a bands sound.
First of all I don't hear anyone say it's a female fronted fortune 500 company. I don't hear anyone saying it's a female fronted charity. Not in such a general manner anyhow. Certainly not as defining them as in a different category. Certainly not as a determining factor in whether or not that organisation is of superior or lesser value. Not as a general rule. There are outliers of course. But those are exactly that, outliers.
So why then are we as a community, as metal heads, still defining a band by the gender of their vocalist? Why do we still treat it as a novelty despite the innumerable examples it is anything but a novelty? Stop!
To my second point. Listen to Arch Enemy, Jinjer, Delain, and Vixen. Now tell me they are all the same subgenre. They clearly are not. They all fit squarely inside different genres. Right along side their male fronted counterparts.
If I haven't made my simple yet clearly accurate point on this to you. There is likely little hope for you.
There are more examples. But hopefully you get the point by now.
And be more like Bill here!
I am personally sick of hearing people say "that's not real metal" or "I don't listen to genre X".Especially when it's plainly evident they are basing their conclusion on one experience or worse, they are being elitists.
What about Core?
Core has become a vile word in many corners of the metal community. It makes absolutely zero sense. The origin is hardcore, which is already just a heavier form of punk. Where it became a divisive term was with metalcore. Metalcore is just mixing hardcore and metal into one sound.
Now I understand that some people may not like that sound. That's fine. We all have our own tastes. But to act as if the blending of these two subgenres is somehow it's own thing that needs to be defined is going a bit over the top. Hating it on "principal" is abhorrent. For a casual fan or someone who isn't into metal at all, these bands just sound like metal. Because that's what it is. it's metal with a hardcore influence. There is no need for it's own label.
I can hear you screaming "but it has breakdowns". So fucking what! It's still just metal. I could almost guarantee you if I remove the breakdowns and played it for you. You would just call it metal. You may not like it. But you wouldn't feel it necessary to define it as a different genre.
Where things get really dumb is with deathcore. It's death metal with more blast beats and breakdowns. That's it. I guess more commonly it's melodic death metal with more blast beats and breakdowns. See? It's already getting stupid.
The difference between the genres is so indistinguishable at times that what many people consider to be the kings of death metal, are constantly labeled as all three genres. I'm talking about The Black Dahlia Murder here. Considered in equally strong numbers as a straight death metal band, a melodic death metal band, and a deathcore band. Depending on your personal preference you are going to claim them as a member of your subgenre. Why? Because they are all of those things.
The fact that there is a huge portion of metal heads out there who hate metalcore and deathcore bands based solely on the fact that they are labeled with the "core" tag is laughable. The fact that they will then try to argue until they shit themselves with rage about how a band they like is not a core band. Well that's just hilarious.
The reality of it is "core" is a pointless and useless addition to defining a bands sound. It's not going anywhere, but it should. Lets just be honest and call it what it is. Heavy metal or death metal.
What is extreme metal?
Extreme metal isn't a sub genre, it's where we collect all the bands we either can't quite define or fit into to many other subgenres. Go ahead. Google it. It's just a list of metal bands from all kinds og subgenres. That's how undefined the genre is.
Realistically that's exactly what it's supposed to be. An umbrella category meant to represent the most extreme of metal subgenres. But that hasn't stopped a great deal from trying to define the undefinable genre. For instance Gojira is often considered an extreme metal band. Not in the umbrella sense, but in the sense that they are in fact a defining what extreme metal as it's own unique subgenre is. Gojira is a progressive death metal band. That's what they are. Why do they need a subgenre to further define that. Because they are both progressive and death? Why? why do we do this.
If we are going to insist on using the term extreme metal can we just keep it to it's best use. Which is really just anything other than classic heavy metal and the punk inspired subgenres. If we are going to do that why even have subgenres other than heavy metal and extreme metal?
What is it with Viking/Pirate metal?
Viking and Pirate certainly aren't the only topical subgenres. But they are the most common. Guess what... They aren't actually subgenres at all.
Basically the idea is that these bands all have lyrical content and aesthetics about a certain subject or theme. But defining them as a genre does little to nothing to define them musically.
Listen to Amon Amarth and TYR and tell me they fit in the same subgenre musically. You won't because you can't. Amon Amarth is a melodeath band that sings about Vikings and shit. TYR is a folk metal band that sings about Vikings and shit. Honestly though they aren't even that similar. While both have elements of culture and lore, Amon Amarth focuses more on the historical side of things. Battles and general badassery, while TYR focuses a great deal of their writing on the myths and legends.
If we are going to keep defining bands by lyrical content then I am branding Sabaton "history channel metal".
Female fronted metal isn't a even remotely close to being a subgenre!
I shouldn't be writing this right now. Not only is it 2020 and we should be well beyond defining a job by gender, but it doesn't even begin to be a legitimate qualifier for defining a bands sound.
First of all I don't hear anyone say it's a female fronted fortune 500 company. I don't hear anyone saying it's a female fronted charity. Not in such a general manner anyhow. Certainly not as defining them as in a different category. Certainly not as a determining factor in whether or not that organisation is of superior or lesser value. Not as a general rule. There are outliers of course. But those are exactly that, outliers.
So why then are we as a community, as metal heads, still defining a band by the gender of their vocalist? Why do we still treat it as a novelty despite the innumerable examples it is anything but a novelty? Stop!
To my second point. Listen to Arch Enemy, Jinjer, Delain, and Vixen. Now tell me they are all the same subgenre. They clearly are not. They all fit squarely inside different genres. Right along side their male fronted counterparts.
If I haven't made my simple yet clearly accurate point on this to you. There is likely little hope for you.
There are more examples. But hopefully you get the point by now.
And be more like Bill here!
Comments
Post a Comment