Encyclopaedia Metallum: The Metal Archives

Message board

* FAQ    * Register   * Login 



Reply to topic
Author Message Previous topic | Next topic
Cirrus uncinus
Metal newbie

Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2022 2:56 pm
Posts: 50
Location: United States
PostPosted: Wed Dec 21, 2022 2:39 pm 
 

This thread inspired my shower thoughts yesterday, and I think the question is stupid enough: is it possible for new core metal subgenres to emerge in the future? I was thinking about how core subgenres like thrash, death, power metal were gradually codified throughout the 80s, and became more refined as they branched into definite styles, scenes, microgenres in the 90s. Is it possible for metal to see this kind of development again in the future with actually new subgenres? I just hope that if enough people are doing a certain fresh thing, it might be canonized as one of the primary pillars of metal and encourage genre growth instead of being relegated to the "experimental" and "avant-garde" tags.

Top
 Profile  
yungstirjoey666
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2019 8:47 am
Posts: 639
Location: United States
PostPosted: Wed Dec 21, 2022 5:00 pm 
 

Sounds kinda unlikely. We're living in a digital age where we're mostly sticking with what was already been established. People don't often create new sounds just for the sake of it, otherwise it would just be considered avant-garde. There also needs to be more bands playing of that style so that it actually feels like a subgenre rather than a gimmick from a particular band.

Furthermore, it's likely that it will be slapped as a "not metal enough" label if the influences deviate far enough from metal. Either that, or it will be widely debated in this thread concerning whether or not it should be a genre to begin with.

That said, I do think electronic metal would probably be normalized as a general descriptor in the near future like how symphonic or folk are, especially what we've been seeing in metalcore, power metal, and prog more recently. But predicting the future is not very easy.

Top
 Profile  
tomcat_ha
Minister of Boiling Water

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:05 am
Posts: 5570
Location: Netherlands
PostPosted: Thu Dec 22, 2022 4:47 pm 
 

USPM is definitely power metal in my opinion. The riffing style is quite different from what came before it. Just compare Omen and Helstar with Diamond Head and Judas Priest. The musical gap between those bands is just as big as the one that exists between Blind Guardian and Running Wild and the aforementioned older English bands. The song structures are different, the guitar riffs are less based on prior hard rock progressions etc. Sure there is a grey area because it emerged right after NWOBHM but so is there between other genres that came up in the 80's and NWOBHM. I think because of 80's production styles it also is less noticeable.


Cirrus uncinus wrote:
This thread inspired my shower thoughts yesterday, and I think the question is stupid enough: is it possible for new core metal subgenres to emerge in the future? I was thinking about how core subgenres like thrash, death, power metal were gradually codified throughout the 80s, and became more refined as they branched into definite styles, scenes, microgenres in the 90s. Is it possible for metal to see this kind of development again in the future with actually new subgenres? I just hope that if enough people are doing a certain fresh thing, it might be canonized as one of the primary pillars of metal and encourage genre growth instead of being relegated to the "experimental" and "avant-garde" tags.


I think there is space in theory. Metal is an amalgamation and then further developments of prior genres. These prior genres are blues, hard rock, western classical music(even if its vastly overstated it's influence is inescapable) and folk music.
One of the biggest and least acknowledged prime influences on metal is the folk part. I mean the whole twin guitar style essentially comes from the British isles folk tradition. This entered the metal world through bands such as Thin Lizzy, Wishbone Ash and then later on Iron Maiden. Those evil harmonies as done by Morbid Angel are an example of how metal kept on pushing what already has been done before.

Now I bring folk music up specifically because what would happen if somebody from very different folk music tradition would approach metal on such a fundamental level? Easiest example would be middle eastern music. Metal is already known for using middle eastern scales a lot. Further more a lot of folk music from the middle east just like a lot of folk music from the British Isles got this sort of metal feel to the music to begin with. Turkish folk music as a specific example can be super riffy. For example this album:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... EJ52Xj1MTE

Okay you might wonder what would be the difference between something like this fusing with metal and other fusions that happened in metals history. Well I think this has the potential to alter the fundamental basics of how a metal riff is played without it getting less metal. Essentially a more extreme case of how a lot of currently existing metal can sound folky without getting less metal for it like Iron Maiden or how pretty much every Swedish metal band somehow always ends up sounding Swedish. Maybe this potential middle eastern form of metal will be called Makam metal who knows.
_________________
Arise all ye faithful to the sword
Last.fm

Top
 Profile  
yungstirjoey666
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2019 8:47 am
Posts: 639
Location: United States
PostPosted: Fri Dec 23, 2022 12:39 am 
 

I'd like to revive a few more questions that I've posted before:

1. The first thread I've ever posted in the MA discussion board is regarding "emo metal," where I looked for "true metal" (ie. not metalcore or nu metal) stuff that could be qualified as "emo." I brought up Sonata Arctica for the sole reason that they sang about emotions, but one recommendation I often got was Katatonia. Clearly, "emo" is not much of its own sound, but traditionally was rather post hardcore music with lyrical themes regarding expressing emotions, which I recall, was not represented enough in the punk rock scene. Of course, this is the most puritanical definition on what constitute as "emo," which excludes pop-punk, metalcore, and even Midwest emo, but assuming that we're going for the more broad and mainstream-defined approach, how would you feel about "emo metal" in this case?

2. Another whole post that I've made before is regarding metal being a subgenre of rock music. I understand that it's kind of its own thing since the emergence of extreme metal, but I've seen some pretty poor takes regarding this. For example, I've heard people saying stuff like "do the Beatles and Metallica belong in the same group?" Like, do the Beatles and Nirvana belong in the same group? What about Sonata Arctica and Cannibal Corpse? I could think of more similarities between AC/DC and Judas Priest in this case. Even if you take metal out of the question, rock music is still way too varied. I think punk is just as much of its own thing as metal.
I think the best way to answer this is saying that classic/mainstream bands like Iron Maiden, Metallica, and Trivium are still rock, but Cannibal Corpse isnt really. Maybe in this case, we can think of heavy metal as a subgenre of hard rock, or can that not be the case because they had different historical roots? I mean, in the 70s, hard rock and heavy metal often went hand-to-hand with each other.

3. I wanna renew the discussion regarding death or black metal instrumentals with clean vocals still being death/black metal, because last time I asked this question, I got two answers that are opposite of each other. But assuming that clean vocals deter from extreme metal, it could show that vocals are just as important as instrumentals in genre defining.

Also back with the USPM thing, it does seem that it went hand-to-hand with EUPM in the late 80s when the speed metal influence was more prominent, but since then they took separate paths. My main struggle is not trying to see what Jag Panzer had different from Iron Maiden, but more like trying to connect what Sonata Arctica has more in common with something like Jag Panzer than Iron Maiden's Seventh Son. But I guess there is no shame in labeling some of Iron Maiden's songs as straight-up power metal, even if their general discography is more trad heavy.

Top
 Profile  
Kalimata
Metalhead

Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2017 9:29 am
Posts: 525
Location: France
PostPosted: Mon Dec 26, 2022 11:49 am 
 

Genre classification is a difficult exercise because people use the same terminologies but don't put the same thing behind them and don't classify according to the same logics. That's why the discussions in this thread don't make any sense most of the time. Let's answer for nothing a last time to this dialogue of the deaf.

1- I'm not sure emo is a thing, more a commercial label. Some would surely say it's a thing, but are they able to bring musical proofs? Not sure... The term is applied to a lot of bands that have nothing in common. But calling Sonata Arctica emo is even more absurd than the term emo itself. At this point, why not calling Sonata Arctica grunge, funk or bluegrass, just for the sake of it?

2- Your perception of genre classification is too linear, what leads to confusions. There's a question of scales to be taken in account. On a large scale, metal can be seen as a subgenre of rock, just like rock can be seen as a subgenre of blues. But it shouldn't be seen as a closed separation if you change your scale of observation. On a more narrow scale, hard rock and traditional heavy metal are closer than traditional heavy metal and death metal are, because the first two are liminal subgenres, which were even perceived the same thing in the context of the early 70's.
This question of classification and scales of observation is something that has been theorized for a long time in the field of science.

3- In my opinion, Butchered at Birth or Wolf's Lair Abyss with Rob Halford re-recording the vocals on them are still death and black metal. If Bob Marley sang of them would you call them reggae-death metal or reggae-black metal? Sure, vocals contribute to genres definition, but they're just one element...

4- I won't come back on the USPM vs. EUPM debate. We've already talked about it hundreds of times. Power metal wasn't even used for those "power metal" bands in the 80's,
and even not in the early 90's, for the simple reason none perceived them as something different. So by what nonsense would one call Seventh Son of a Seventh Son "straight-up power metal"? Why not Queen? Or The Doors? Or Chuck Berry?

I hope someone will answer the way you want your questions to be answered!


Last edited by Kalimata on Mon Dec 26, 2022 12:03 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Top
 Profile  
Red_Death
Metalhead

Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2014 12:51 pm
Posts: 1035
Location: Croatia
PostPosted: Mon Dec 26, 2022 11:58 am 
 

yungstirjoey666 wrote:
3. I wanna renew the discussion regarding death or black metal instrumentals with clean vocals still being death/black metal, because last time I asked this question, I got two answers that are opposite of each other. But assuming that clean vocals deter from extreme metal, it could show that vocals are just as important as instrumentals in genre defining.

If vocals are just as important as instrumental aspects, then we'd have an irresolvable contradiction on our hand; one set of elements pushing in the direction of extremity, the other pulling away from it, with equal force. We're stuck then in the exact same spot where we started off. We make no (sub)genre classification whatsoever.
_________________
And Darkness and Decay and the Red Death held illimitable dominion over all.

Top
 Profile  
yungstirjoey666
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2019 8:47 am
Posts: 639
Location: United States
PostPosted: Mon Dec 26, 2022 7:52 pm 
 

Yeah, I think treating hierarchies as merely linear isn't helping with the whole grouping thing. There's a reason why people use the term "hard rock and heavy metal" as a general consensus to heavy rock music; they are different yet similar at the same time. Maybe in the future, we'll see Eurobeat and power metal more often in the same group. And it's not just music, but many things in the real world. For example, Hindi and Irish share more similar roots as Indo-European languages than Hindi and Tamil, even though Hindi and Tamil are both associated with more similar cultures.

That said, I really believe the whole "metal is not rock" is more just metalheads thinking almighty about their music. Like, we first gotta define what even is rock music to begin with. If it just includes anything that emphasizes mainly on electric guitar, then as a matter of semantics, all metal is rock, even the extreme metal stuff. But if rock is a form of pop, then that leaves out many established rock subgenres such as prog and hardcore punk.

But I guess the blues -> rock -> metal can also be more like an evolutionary factor than direct linear hierarcy, like how birds came from dinosaurs, but aren't really dinosaurs (though this is a bit more subject to debate by biologists). Ultimately, I guess in a sense it can be both a genre of its own and a subgenre of another, like how disco is often separated from dance music as its own genre, even though disco is essentially just dance pop.

Tbh I don't know exactly my point; I'm just bringing up as many options as possible.

Top
 Profile  
Kalimata
Metalhead

Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2017 9:29 am
Posts: 525
Location: France
PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2022 5:41 am 
 

Quote:
For example, Hindi and Irish share more similar roots as Indo-European languages than Hindi and Tamil, even though Hindi and Tamil are both associated with more similar cultures.


This statement is symptomatic of how linearly you sometimes perceive genre classification. And you're addressing an issue I know particularly well.

Sure, there are strong and indisputable linguistic elements that made linguists built the Indo-European languages category. And as you rightly said, Hindi, in its structure, shares common elements with German, Irish, Baltic languages...

But at the same time, Hindi shares linguistic elements with Tamil and most Indian languages that it doesn't share at all with Indo-European languages (sanskrit words, aboriginal roots, retroflex sounds...) due to the fact that the Indian subcontinent formed a civilisation. Which leads some linguists to claim there could be an Indian languages category as well including Indo-European, Dravidian and tribal languages. In the end, Indo-European category, though being scientifically right, leads to linear observation if you focus too much on it, because there are other elements you could focus on which would make you classify another way.

It's just the same with music classification. On one side, you would be right classifying traditional heavy metal in the same big metal family with death, black, gothic metal, industrial metal, grindcore... Because eventhough traditional heavy metal is closer to hard rock, it's the beginning of a new sound that had created a musical rupture at some point of the history, but has been in constant evolution from that point until now.
But at the same time, you wouldn't be wrong saying Iron Maiden shares more musical elements with The Rolling Stones than with Ministry and Genital Grinder, and they belong more into the rock 'n' roll category.

Top
 Profile  
yungstirjoey666
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2019 8:47 am
Posts: 639
Location: United States
PostPosted: Thu Dec 29, 2022 1:47 am 
 

Yeah, that is a good way to see it. I know this whole "USPM vs EUPM" debate has gotten tiring at this point, but I think it's good enough to settle the fact that both scenes have similar combined trad heavy/speed roots, and just call it a day (I won't bother debating whether or not power metal should be its own thing, but let's just assume that it is here). At the same time though, there is no shame in placing Kamelot and Epica in the same playlists (despite the latter not being labeled as "power metal"), and the same between Virgin Steele and Anthrax. It's like the Hindi vs Tamil scenario: different roots, but similar cultures.

Top
 Profile  
yung_souichi
Metal newbie

Joined: Sat May 22, 2021 10:49 pm
Posts: 77
Location: inner periphery
PostPosted: Fri Dec 30, 2022 2:23 pm 
 

I'd argue stuff like Harm's Way is essentially just a death metal band with a different style of vocals, a lot of newer hardcore really blurs the metal/distinction (even moreso than in the late 80s/early 90s)
_________________
[deep voice] 'Do you have any fucking cocaine?'

Miss Amerikkka? Only parasites will

Top
 Profile  
Red_Death
Metalhead

Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2014 12:51 pm
Posts: 1035
Location: Croatia
PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2022 8:21 am 
 

yungstirjoey666 wrote:
That said, I really believe the whole "metal is not rock" is more just metalheads thinking almighty about their music.

Imagine this scenario.

Someone asks "what are some great rock albums released in 2022?", and another person proceeds to list Artificial Brain, Acts of God, and Spirit of Ecstasy. How do you think the person asking for great rock albums would react?

That's meant as a rhetorical question, as I'm almost certain that they would respond with "dafuq man, I asked for rock albums".
_________________
And Darkness and Decay and the Red Death held illimitable dominion over all.

Top
 Profile  
yungstirjoey666
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2019 8:47 am
Posts: 639
Location: United States
PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2022 12:27 pm 
 

I said it before, but I don’t deny that extreme metal is pretty much something different. It’s really when fans treat classic or mainstream bands like Iron Maiden or even Motley Crue as “not rock.”

Anyways, rock itself is a pretty vast genre, even without the metal. Pretty sure people have different preferences on what they consider “rock,” especially between classic and modern rock. I think punk is just as much of its own thing as metal is, and alt rock and classic rock are also two different things at this point.

Top
 Profile  
yungstirjoey666
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2019 8:47 am
Posts: 639
Location: United States
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2023 12:26 am 
 

I wanna ask another question regarding a song's genre: do you guys consider Stone Cold Crazy by Queen to be thrash metal by any means (it's often credited as such)? I guess you could argue that it has a similar structure to KEA, but to me it kind of feels like a bit of a stretch to call it that. At best I'd call it trad heavy metal.

Top
 Profile  
Kalimata
Metalhead

Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2017 9:29 am
Posts: 525
Location: France
PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2023 11:03 am 
 

I think there are some reasons to this nonsense:
- some cunt wrote it on Wikipedia so a lot of us take it as an absolute truth (like "look at this Wikipedia link, it's the proof it's true").
- Metallica covered this song in a metallized version, so of course it's a proof it's the first thrash song.
- Just like for every subgenre, some always need to find a proto-song back in the middle-age. You know, those claims like Louis Armstrong is the first doom metal artist, Elvis invented thrash metal, the cavemen created martial industrial music, power metal originated with Vivaldi...

Calling "Stone Cold Crazy" metal is already almost nonsensical. But calling it thrash metal is utterly stupid. It's sounds nothing like Slayer, Sepultura or even Metallica (before Load of course).
"Stone Cold Crazy" has a bluesy riff with a swinging rock 'n' roll rhythm: sure it's relativity and aggressive for 1974, but it's just a fast rock song, hard rock at best.

Top
 Profile  
yungstirjoey666
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2019 8:47 am
Posts: 639
Location: United States
PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2023 7:00 pm 
 

I think calling Stone Cold Crazy a trad heavy metal song is understandable, but the whole point of thrash metal is to be heavier and more aggressive than heavy metal, and SCC isn't necessarily heavier than Van Halen's Hot for Teacher. Kill Em All isn't too far off from trad heavy roots to begin with, so that connection I made before is more of a moot point. As for the Metallica covering the song justifying the thrash label, that's kind of like saying the Beach Boys started power metal because Blind Guardian covered that song. And yeah, Wikipedia mostly relies on what mainstream articles like the Rolling Stones say, but as said before in this thread, long-time metalheads like us use intuition and listening experience to determine category. Heck, I'm pretty sure that those mainstream outlets just say that to emphasize its heaviness at its time, not that they actually believe is thrash metal. I think this whole idea of Queen inventing thrash metal and everything else is just Queen fans thinking almighty about their favorite. Kind of like how Beatles fans think they invented heavy metal via Helter Skelter.

That said, I wonder what is the first thrash album. I've read from online sources that Kill Em All is considered the first, but I think there are records made earlier that decade can be considered thrash. Some would cite Venom's Black Metal as the first, but they are more credited for black metal.

Top
 Profile  
Kalimata
Metalhead

Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2017 9:29 am
Posts: 525
Location: France
PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2023 2:26 am 
 

I don't think The Beatles or Queen fans themselves believe that their favourite band invented metal. Some of them even ignore what heavy metal is. They just repeat what they read on internet. And this all the more so it gives more value to their band.

Anyway, I wouldn't call "Stone Cold Crazy" traditional heavy metal. The guitar riff is distorted but not as much as Sabbath, and it sounds too rock 'n' roll.

Otherwise, Kill 'Em All can be considered the first thrash metal album, although I consider a good part of it still is speed metal and a riff sometimes sound as much hard rock as metal. Black Metal is more proto-thrash speed metal to me, but it contains the very first thrash songs.

Top
 Profile  
yungstirjoey666
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2019 8:47 am
Posts: 639
Location: United States
PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2023 5:50 pm 
 

I just feel that crediting Kill Em All as the first full thrash album feels incomplete, because that album was released in 1983, and the first credited death metal album Seven Churches is released only two years later in 1985. Then again, Seven Churches is often labeled as thrash as much as they are death, and perhaps using something like Scream Bloody Gore as the first "pure" death metal record would be more analgous with Kill Em All also being cited as "pure" thrash.

Anyways, I wonder if there are any other well-accepted genres that you guys would generally remove from your metal vocabulary? For me I tend to leave out speed metal as its own label, though I'm hardly alone on that. I mean, I still use it for its historical relevance, but not so much as its own well-established thing as it being a shakey crossroad between trad heavy, thrash, andd power metal, especially since its sound is so narrow and its scene is so broad. Maybe part of the problem is that many thrash albums could've also been labeled as speed metal but aren't, such as Killing is my Business.

Likewise, are there any categorizing genre labels you personally made up for yourself that barely anyone else use?

Top
 Profile  
Kalimata
Metalhead

Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2017 9:29 am
Posts: 525
Location: France
PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2023 6:22 pm 
 

I tend to agree with your analogy between Kill 'Em All and Seven Churches: though being considered by most of the metal community the first thrash metal and the first death metal albums, the former has still a lot of speed metal and the latter a lot of thrash metal.
I do think Welcome To Hell and Black Metal contain the first "pure" thrash songs, but there's no way they can be called the first thrash albums because those tracks are isolated. Show No Mercy could be called the first (almost) pure thrash album, but in my opinion it makes more sense to give the credits Kill 'Em All cause while it's not pure thrash, the amount of thrash songs and the sonic rupture with previous speed metal acts is sufficient to deserve it.
I'm not sure I could say the same for Seven Churches which is undeniably a huge step towards death metal but is still too much rooted in thrash to be the first. I know it's not a popular opinion at all, but I'd even say Scream Bloody Gore isn't the first pure death metal, but just like Kill 'Em All for thrash metal, it still could be considered the first (although I think Bestial Devastation and Morbid Vision could deserve it).

I know I've already claimed it many times but I'm not fond about considering power metal and groove metal as legitimate genres for many reasons: the terms appeared lately, they're a bit misleading and they name subgenres that struggle to stand apart from the genre from which they originated. There are a lot a post-2000 subgenres I don't like to use because I think their definition and their use is still unaccurate and confused like post-metal, metalcore, deathcore... Strangely enough, I'd be more likely to accept djent as being something real and accurate.
Speed metal is still a relevant term for me because although it's often misused, it distinguish itself from heavy, thrash, and to a lesser extent, power metal.

In the 90's, I'm sure my friends and me made up genre names for ourselves, but I'm not remembering them right now... We sometimes still use "power metal" for "groove metal": this could be irritating for many but the latter didn't exist back then and the former was commonly used to name this subgenre.

Top
 Profile  
yungstirjoey666
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2019 8:47 am
Posts: 639
Location: United States
PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2023 7:02 pm 
 

I was mostly referring to KEA as a "pure" thrash metal album. But point still stands either way.

I understand your point on groove metal. To me it's kind of like the speed metal problem, albeit in a lesser extent: too broad as a scene and too narrow as a sound. I try to solve it by grouping other albums with the "groove" label, such as the Black Album. I think some nu metal albums and even some alt rock can also be considered "groove metal" in a way.

Power metal is a bit different case. Whether power metal is its own thing or a direct extension of trad heavy is one thing (I posted this on Reddit, and many would just say "both"), and the lines on whether a band should be considered can be confusing, but European power metal at least has most certainly become its own identity; I highly doubt that Kamelot or Rhapsody will be considered just "heavy metal" anytime. However, would you instead consider power metal something else like "melodic speed metal?" Of course, this kind of has its own problems similar to that with death metal vs melodeath, especially with bands like Venom and Avantasia.

Anyways I kind of was able to solve the whole USPM vs EUPM squabble by redefining USPM as raw and more riff-centric, with more roots in traditional heavy metal, whereas EUPM is more rooted in German speed metal and focuses more on vocals, theatrics, and other non-metal elements, often accompanied with a keyboard. I tied them both together by defining power metal as something that combines trad heavy and speed metal elements to create something that is more bombastic but not necessarily heavier.
But there really isn't a strict line between the two styles. For once, many bands often blur between the two. You'd probably find more similarities with Savatage and Blind Guardian than Savatage and Jag Panzer, or Blind Guardian and Sonata Arctica. And some bands nowadays even combine elements of both; Sabaton for example has that theatrical keyboard effect from EUPM, but the riff structure isn't too far off from Manowar. While the regional binary does serve its purpose, and in a sense it's not completely wrong to say that USPM is usually harder and EUPM is usually softer, it's not the only way to group power metal subgenres. There's tons of diversity among both USPM and EUPM, and I don't see anything wrong with creating more subgenres to make categorization much easier. Still, I'm good enough with this definition as it is.

But if there's one thing that I've learned from heated online metal subgenre discussions, it's that in a sense the main problem is not of whether a subgenre should exist or not, but more on how subgenres are defined in the first place, and what bands are placed in it. I don't completely mind that much on pirate metal being a thing; it can still be a useful microgenre terminology. However, it would be controversial if pirate metal actually means a specific blend between folk and power metal, and Alestorm is not included for whatever reason.
Of course, that is an extreme example, but this practically the issue with how post metal, Viking metal, and maybe gothic metal are defined. You'd think that post metal is just post-rock with metal riffs, or metal outside of convential features, right? But apparently, post-metal has to have sludge in it, and the name doesn't really reflect that well.
I think that's also kind of reminiscent to my overall issue with the whole USPM vs EUPM debate. European power metal is often defined as "light and melodic," but why is Blind Guardian, a rather aggressive band, included? I solved this issue by choosing a different definition that truly ties everything together rather than treating them as exceptional edge cases. I also solve my groove metal issue by putting the Black Album with it. I think this is partly what ends up with terminology revisionism, kind of like how the official definition of "literally" used to actually mean "literally," but another definition was added because people have been more than often using it as ironic hyperbole.

Top
 Profile  
RainyTheBusinessPerson
Metal newbie

Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2016 10:50 pm
Posts: 184
Location: Southern Hemisphere
PostPosted: Sat Jan 28, 2023 5:27 pm 
 

When it comes to genres, progressive is the one I find the most confusing. How do you define progressive? Yes, you personally, since that seems to be the case for everyone, there isn't much of a consensus on what the hell progressive even means. Sometimes it's used for complex music, which can also be described as technical and leave zero confusion. Sometimes it's used for music that is unusual and tries something different and unorthodox, in which case, you can just use avant-garde or experimental and once again have no one confused by that. I've also seen a considerable amount of people referring to long music as progressive, although epic is also used for those. In this case though, there seems to be a more clear difference, since epic is usually more atmospheric and while long isn't necessarily super varied, while progressive has more variety to the compositions.

Now you may say "hey, you just defined progressive right there!", but yeah, it still isn't super consistent with the way many other people use it. I've seen people refer to stuff that sounds nothing like each other. Stuff that could be easily called technical, experimental and/or epic. You could argue progressive is all of those elements combined, but so many use the term interchangeably with stuff that have just one of those elements. It often feels so vague due to that. If your song just has unorthodox time signatures is it really progressive? If it's complex to play, is it really prog? If it's just long is it prog? Does it being weird make it progressive? I really don't know what's the universal qualifier that makes a band fall in the prog category and not in any of the others.
_________________
~Guest 361478 wrote:
Ignoring the OP for a second, and going by the thread title - David Lee Roth intimidates the hell out of me - any man that can do jumping splits in spandex ? Yikes.
GreatWhiteSnake wrote:
The pit. You know me. I'll be down front tossin' vagina boys like midgets.

Top
 Profile  
Kalimata
Metalhead

Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2017 9:29 am
Posts: 525
Location: France
PostPosted: Sat Jan 28, 2023 7:10 pm 
 

yungstirjoey666 wrote:
I was mostly referring to KEA as a "pure" thrash metal album. But point still stands either way.


Yet weren't you saying that KEA alone feels incomplete as the first thrash metal album? One could easily construe it as "not completely pure".

Quote:
I solved this issue by choosing a different definition that truly ties everything together rather than treating them as exceptional edge cases. I also solve my groove metal issue by putting the Black Album with it. I think this is partly what ends up with terminology revisionism, kind of like how the official definition of "literally" used to actually mean "literally," but another definition was added because people have been more than often using it as ironic hyperbole.


Why not, but this is a very subjective way of classifying music in my opinion. Following your example, I could claim that I want to broaden the definition of black metal just because I feel like Motörhead should be included. I tend to prefer more objective traits like musical similarities and differences on order to facilitate collective understanding over personal preferences.
Classifying Black Album as groove metal makes sense to me (apart from the fact that I think the term is awful and does not fit the genre definition), but I'd rather say it's proto-groove metal because while there's the heaviness and the groove applied to something that isn't thrash metal anymore but still has a hint of it, there are some stylistic differences with Pantera, Machine Head and the likes... For the same reason, I wouldn't broaden the definition to include alternative rock acts as you've suggested, because a genre has to be something distinguishable and identifiable by the largest public.
But this is just my perception.

Top
 Profile  
yungstirjoey666
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2019 8:47 am
Posts: 639
Location: United States
PostPosted: Sat Jan 28, 2023 7:29 pm 
 

When I was referring to KEA, I was mostly pointing out what the general consensus accepts as the first thrash record. I mean, I don't mind that if we are talking about it purely being a thrash record, but back then I was talking about how there could've been an earlier album to also have credit in thrash metal.

And no, that is not what I mean by "changing definitions." I have two approaches: one is modifying definitions a bit so that it could match all the bands that are already pre-labeled as such, which I did for power metal, since I just want to tie the similarities between USPM and EUPM. Either that, or I'd group or exclude albums that could or could not fit in, which I did with groove metal since I thought that there are a couple albums that could fit the definition.. The Motorhead to black metal example is doing both at the same time (changing a definition and adding a new band), and I don't necessarily want that.

Top
 Profile  
Kalimata
Metalhead

Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2017 9:29 am
Posts: 525
Location: France
PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2023 2:57 am 
 

Then if there was one band that has credit in thrash before KEA is Venom. But only a couple of songs are concerned in WTH and BM.

As for "modifying definition", it's a bit the same. I took Motörhead and black metal to make an extreme stretch and an absurd example. But the approach is the same for me: for a personal or "ideological" reason, you want USPM and EUPM to be in the same genre and try to modify the definition to achieve your wish. Why not, it's interesting, but I don't see things this way. I maintain that is US/EU PM isn't a relevant divide for me: some power metal bands are just heavy/speed metal while some cross the Rubicon and can be called power metal, be they American, German, Japanese or aliens...

Top
 Profile  
yungstirjoey666
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2019 8:47 am
Posts: 639
Location: United States
PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2023 4:39 pm 
 

I think the problem with the USPM/EUPM division is that back in the late 90s/2000s the two have been so separate with little crossover between each other. EUPM was hitting near-mainstream levels, such as Dragonforce being in Guitar Hero, but USPM was practically just Manowar and Iced Earth getting recognition.

However, in the past decade or so, especially with the rise of NWOTHM, we're experiencing more recognition to USPM in general. Bands are more than often combining both elements. Some examples I can think of are Unleash the Archers from Canada, Sabaton from Sweden (they were since the 2000s, but are probably the most popular power metal band right now), and Lovebites from Japan. All three bands seem to combine the elements of raw riff patterns prevalent in USPM, and the vocal/theatrics from EUPM.

Once again, I won't blame you for disregarding USPM as anything more than heavy/speed metal; I used to do that too. However, it's important to understand that in a historical perspective, both scene origins had similar motives on the direction they want their music.

Top
 Profile  
Kalimata
Metalhead

Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2017 9:29 am
Posts: 525
Location: France
PostPosted: Mon Jan 30, 2023 3:11 pm 
 

Quote:
However, it's important to understand that in a historical perspective, both scene origins had similar motives on the direction they want their music.


Then, as you said you sometimes broaden definition of genres "so that it could match all the bands", why do you bother dividing (when it is not necessary) an don't you call all of them just power metal?

Top
 Profile  
yungstirjoey666
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2019 8:47 am
Posts: 639
Location: United States
PostPosted: Mon Jan 30, 2023 3:27 pm 
 

Because the motives are similar, but the executions are different. It's why we have subgenres/subscenes.

Top
 Profile  
Kalimata
Metalhead

Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2017 9:29 am
Posts: 525
Location: France
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2023 3:38 pm 
 

Judas Priest and Iron Maiden have different motives and execution, yet they're still heavy metal. Or would you call them Birmingham heavy metal and East London heavy metal?
Sure, musical differences make genres and subgenres. But there's a limit, otherwise each band would be its own subgenre and it wouldn't make sense anymore.

Top
 Profile  
Kalimata
Metalhead

Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2017 9:29 am
Posts: 525
Location: France
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2023 4:17 pm 
 

RainyTheBusinessPerson wrote:
When it comes to genres, progressive is the one I find the most confusing. How do you define progressive? Yes, you personally, since that seems to be the case for everyone, there isn't much of a consensus on what the hell progressive even means. Sometimes it's used for complex music, which can also be described as technical and leave zero confusion. Sometimes it's used for music that is unusual and tries something different and unorthodox, in which case, you can just use avant-garde or experimental and once again have no one confused by that. I've also seen a considerable amount of people referring to long music as progressive, although epic is also used for those. In this case though, there seems to be a more clear difference, since epic is usually more atmospheric and while long isn't necessarily super varied, while progressive has more variety to the compositions.


I personnally think that progressive can include those three elements, but not necessarily at the same time. And I'd even say they don't necessarily define progressive music.

Going back to the roots of progressive rock, one can hear despite the diversity between the bands, that they still have a common sound. Because in my opinion, before being about complexity, avant-garde and length, progressive rock is rooted in psychedelia, and this is the common element you will find in every progressive rock bands. In this perspective, I would define it as a kind of psychedelic rock with more complexity and jazz avant-gardism.

The problem with us, metalheads, is that we tend to appropriate terms of other genres without regards to them. Our industrial metal isn't really industrial, our gothic metal can have a free interpretation of what is actually gothic, our groove metal isn't particularly groovy, and we've borrowed the term "progressive" to make it synonymous of technical and complexe, which is very limitative. Some metalheads even don't know there was such a thing as progressive rock in the 60's and 70's and believe it's exclusively a metal subgenre.

As far as metal is concerned, I think the only bands that would deserve to be called prog metal are the ones who stick to the original sense of progressive rock (just like it should be the case for post-metal with post-rock).

Top
 Profile  
yungstirjoey666
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2019 8:47 am
Posts: 639
Location: United States
PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2023 4:41 pm 
 

Kalimata wrote:
Judas Priest and Iron Maiden have different motives and execution, yet they're still heavy metal. Or would you call them Birmingham heavy metal and East London heavy metal?
Sure, musical differences make genres and subgenres. But there's a limit, otherwise each band would be its own subgenre and it wouldn't make sense anymore.


Yeah, you have a good point. But while JP and IM had rather different directions on what their music is going, I'd say the main underlying factor they're just trying to take 70s rock music, and sprinkle even more drama and stuff to it. I probably already said it before, but I should have added here that bands don't have to always be strictly labeled as "USPM" or "EUPM;" I see it more as a general spectrum on whether a band has more elements of either of the two, and some bands can stagnate around that blurred line (Unleash the Archers is one example). Running Wild, for example, is often labeled as EUPM, but it's not wrong to group them with USPM either.

And I do agree with your point regarding the gothic and industrial problem. Honestly, a lot of those bands from both labels feel more like post-punk with heavy riffs, which I think would make a more appropriate genre.

And yeah, "prog metal" has been unnecessarily too broad at this rate that it doesn't have much meaning anymore. I don't mind it when it includes complex songwriting or unorthodox elements, but it's really more of an issue when anything long or epic is included, because any band can do that, and it's not much "progressive," is it? As with the whole experimental/avant-garde metal, I don't see them as their own genres, but more like hierarchal subsets on how "unorthodox" prog metal can get. Putting aside whether it should or not have prog rock roots, maybe it would help to just define prog metal today as "complex songwriting," with the unorthodox element bands be placed in the "experimental/avant-garde" section, and just disregard anything "long" as a separate genre to begin with?

But maybe prog metal doesn't necessarily need to be a heavy metal + prog rock fusion; it could just mean metal with more progressive elements? Likewise, "gothic metal" could mean metal with elements from goth rock or its related genres, and folk metal is metal with folk elements.
I guess the bigger problem with the "x rock/x metal" thing is not how much x the x metal has to have, but it's more due to the overall consistency of how fusions are defined. Like, it is true that there's a very clear distinction between what is labeled as "prog rock" and what is labeled as "prog metal," but how different is alt metal from alt rock? There are very few alt metal bands that isn't interchangeable with alt rock. It's a similar problem with rap metal; are there any rap metal bands that can't be considered rap rock? Bands like RATM and Limp Bizkit are often labeled as "rap metal," which isn't wrong, but they can also be considered "rap rock" in a way.
The opposite extreme is what is labeled as "glam rock" and what is labeled as "glam metal." These genre labels refer to two completely different things with very little relation whatsoever. I know that glam metal is often considered "hair metal," which is somewhat a more useful distinction, but there's also the problem that a lot of what is considered "hair metal" has practically zero resemblance to metal. Maybe it should've been called "hair rock" instead?

Top
 Profile  
Muhammadabbadabba
Metalhead

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Posts: 1306
Location: R'lyeh
PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2023 1:12 pm 
 

tomcat_ha wrote:
LongHairIsSoFuckingCool wrote:
So, did groove metal vocalists take their "tough guy" attitude from beatdown hardcore?


beatdown didn't develop till after groove metal came into being if anything groove metal influenced beatdown in that regard.

That said groove metal does combine various things. It combines the machismo of metal with the machismo of east coast hardcore (both are different) with a less politically charged and more "normal" glamorized sort of American male attitude.

I don't know, man. All these different bands sound quite distinct from what Pantera, White Zombie, Helmut, Prong and later Sepultura were doing around that same time period. To me, both genres seemed to have contemporaneously developed as influenced by the New York Hardcore scene. Still a little confused of the difference between Beatdown Hardcore and early '90s Metalcore. Bands like Outburst, 25 ta Life and Bulldoze sound distinct (very few, if any, Metal influences), but others like Madball, Hatebreed or Without a Cause could easily pass as Groove Metal or even slowed down Crossover Thrash.
_________________
My Wanted List

Top
 Profile  
Opus
Metal freak

Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 11:06 am
Posts: 4266
Location: Sweden
PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2023 10:13 pm 
 

RainyTheBusinessPerson wrote:
How do you define progressive?

By defining it. It's an umbrella term, just like "metal". You can define metal, but there are still a hundred different sounds.
_________________
Do the words Heavy Metal mean anything to you other than buttcore, technical progressive assgrind or the like?
true_death wrote:
You could be listening to Edge of Sanity right now, but you're not!

Top
 Profile  
Kalimata
Metalhead

Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2017 9:29 am
Posts: 525
Location: France
PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2023 3:49 pm 
 

Opus wrote:
RainyTheBusinessPerson wrote:
How do you define progressive?

By defining it. It's an umbrella term, just like "metal". You can define metal, but there are still a hundred different sounds.


It's like music: it's an umbrella term and there are thousands of different sounds.

Top
 Profile  
yungstirjoey666
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2019 8:47 am
Posts: 639
Location: United States
PostPosted: Sun Mar 12, 2023 6:23 pm 
 

Speaking of prog, what makes Kamelot "prog" metal (they are often labeled as a prog/power band)? They do have some prog elements, but no more than Blind Guardian or Megadeth.

Top
 Profile  
Thexhumed
Metalhead

Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 2:26 pm
Posts: 1919
Location: Chile
PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:10 pm 
 

What genre is this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-oB5pk5L1g
_________________
I watch LotR on a monthly basis
__________
My wantlist / Last.fm

Top
 Profile  
BalvirHere
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 10:39 pm
Posts: 2
PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:43 pm 
 

Is tohou an actual subgenre of MDM?

Top
 Profile  
yungstirjoey666
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2019 8:47 am
Posts: 639
Location: United States
PostPosted: Wed Mar 15, 2023 12:14 am 
 

Thexhumed wrote:


It does sound kind of thrashy, but also a bit more on the hardcore punky side. Is it crossover or something? Can someone verify?

Top
 Profile  
yungstirjoey666
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2019 8:47 am
Posts: 639
Location: United States
PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2023 6:26 am 
 

More (stubborn) genre questions:

1. Are folk/heavy metal and folk metal the same thing, as with symphonic/heavy and symphonic metal? Why or why not? Those genres are treated as supplemental sounds as much as they are treated as codified genres.

2. I listened to a good amount of Bathory’s Hammerheart, and I see it more as a form of epic doom with black metal influences. Do we really need a Viking metal label for such? In a marketing sense it seems more logical if Viking metal was still treated as anything with Viking-themed lyrics.

3. To say that it can be called viking metal, say we take Hammerheart, keep the epic sound and black influences, but instead of adding Nordic folk elements, we add Japanese folk elements. Would that qualify as "samurai metal" instead?

Top
 Profile  
Tulcakelume
Metal newbie

Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 4:09 pm
Posts: 112
PostPosted: Sat Apr 01, 2023 9:15 am 
 

yungstirjoey666 wrote:
More (stubborn) genre questions:

1. Are folk/heavy metal and folk metal the same thing, as with symphonic/heavy and symphonic metal? Why or why not? Those genres are treated as supplemental sounds as much as they are treated as codified genres.

2. I listened to a good amount of Bathory’s Hammerheart, and I see it more as a form of epic doom with black metal influences. Do we really need a Viking metal label for such? In a marketing sense it seems more logical if Viking metal was still treated as anything with Viking-themed lyrics.

3. To say that it can be called viking metal, say we take Hammerheart, keep the epic sound and black influences, but instead of adding Nordic folk elements, we add Japanese folk elements. Would that qualify as "samurai metal" instead?


My two cents:

1. Your last sentence describes the problem exactly. They started as descriptors (of main metal genres in this case), but somewhere down the line they also became codified as main genres, which I don't quite agree with. "Folk metal" is very diverse and not just strict heavy metal with substantial folk elements (can also be black or death metal as base genres, for example), just like "Symphonic metal" encompasses more than just strict heavy metal with substantial symphonic/orchestral elements (different "symphonic metal" bands generally have quite distinct base genres). So for me, they're more correctly used as descriptors than main genres.

2. That is what the term "Viking metal" started as, more of a marketing/short denominator than a real defined genre. When Hammerheart came out it had a sound unlike anything prior, and it does sound to me like a "blackened epic heavy/doom metal with folk elements", but instead of categorizing it as such (which would be quite a mouthful), the music industry latched onto the viking-themed lyrics and the "viking metal" genre was born. Which is kind of funny when most of the "viking metal" bands are more influenced by early Enslaved, which is significantly more black metal than Hammerheart-era Bathory.

3. I would love to hear something like that, but it would probably not be called "samurai metal" nowadays.


I can come back to the viking/pagan/folk genre debate later, I saw an older post of yours in this thread and I have some opinions on that.

Top
 Profile  
Kalimata
Metalhead

Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2017 9:29 am
Posts: 525
Location: France
PostPosted: Sat Apr 01, 2023 4:28 pm 
 

1- As none has ever established a truth about that, you have to be logical. "Folk heavy metal" just has to be heavy metal + folk while "folk metal" would be wether an umbrella term for any mix of folk and metal or would describe a mix of folk with an indistinct form of metal (for example, folk with heavy guitars that can't be linked to a particular subgenre). I'd say the same for symphonic metal.

2- I think you're right about seeing Hammerheart as "a form of epic doom with black metal influences". Viking metal, be it the relevance of its name or the presumed viking folk character of the music, doesn't really make sense. The "viking" in viking metal is more about how collective unconscious fantasizes what viking music should be than actual viking folk. In this sense, some think that this reconstructed vision is legitimate. Why not...

3- Your "samurai metal" suggestion is indeed a clever way of showing that "viking metal" is a strange way to name and classify music!

Top
 Profile  
Kalimata
Metalhead

Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2017 9:29 am
Posts: 525
Location: France
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2023 5:08 am 
 

Thexhumed wrote:


It sounds to me like simple anarcho punk with more metallic guitars. Not an expert, but according to this, that would be something like crust-punk.

Top
 Profile  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic Go to page Previous  1 ... 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: colin040, hallowed78 and 67 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

  Print view
Jump to:  

Back to the Encyclopaedia Metallum


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group