Why metal will never again be the dominant genre
 

I was just looking around and realized that there are a whole ****load of metal fans. There seem to be more than the "dominant" genre of pop/hih-hop. Its just to bad that we can't all agree to call it Heavy Metal or agree on one sub-genre. The thing that made me think of this was reading the thread that mentioned traditional doom metal and someone came back and said something about funeral doom. So not only do we have the sub-genre of doom metal, there are sub-sub-genres of traditional and funeral doom. Oh well, I still wouldn't watch MTV anywho, I just get confused about what I'm listening to. Its all metal to me.


Matt

Neither will skiffle let's go cry together.

I have no clue what thread you could be talking about.

Though honestly the branches make sense. While I agree that Black Sabbath and Gordian Knot are both metal I couldn't agree with calling them the same thing. Also, while I could acknowledge that Anal **** and Genghis Tron are both grind, they're just too different to be the same thing. I think the sub-sub-genres are showing just how far music is expanding.

wtf thats making a huge resurgance in, antartica

So how does one determine exactly what genre thay are hearing without asking? I agree with the sub-genres making sense, but the sub-sub-sub.....genres get confusing. Sometimes I think it gets more complicated than it really needs to be.

I typically find that asking + research is not a bad idea. If something is new to your ear you might as well ask or search the net to figure out exactly what it is. Though since you asked without asking, I guess just search and you will find.

I have used Wikipedia to find the answers before but Amon Amarth and Arch Enemy are both listed as being melodic death metal. I think they sound very different. Amon Amarth is sub listed as Viking metal which is a sub genre of death but Arch Enemy is sub listed as Thrash which death takes its roots from. So is this determined by figuring the Genre of Metal, Sub of Death, Sub Sub of Melodic and Influance of Viking and Thrash?

Maybe this will help, but all the subs are not listed.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._Genealogy.jpg

I never have understood this sub-genre metal stuff... If it's hard and you dig it, isn't that all that matters. Metal is metal and we are all brothers and sisters because of it! Right?! Metal Rules! All the other genres know it and that is why they run in fear! MUAHAHAHA!

Viking Metal?

WTF is that , people who actually took Manowar seriously?

A mixture of black and folk metal, generally with lyrical content about vikings.



I love how on that metal sub genre chart, they put Cradle of Filth under Norwegian Black Metal, and yet Cradle of Filth are from the UK.

The idea of Viking metal makes me happy.

Stuff by Boris tends to transcend all those various sub categories of metal. So listen to cds by them if you are confused.

lol manowar in there little costumes

subgenres are confusing lets just forget about those and classify all bands "metal"

Look... It's simple! There's METAL and then there's all that other... stuff!

Yeah I know, and COF aren't even really black metal.

Also I like the subgenres because if someone puts Death Metal and Nu Metal in one genre I am going to kill myself.

Those colors should not be mixed. But each metal sub genre has something to contribute to metal as a whole, but no all metal shouldn't be place under one.

I think the sub-sub-sub genre's are a fun way to describe a particular band's music style.

As far as why metal wont be the dominant genre is because radio has made the general public too closed minded to enjoy the brilliant music that is being made outside of the mainstream.

Viking metal, blah.

Someone should invent SAMURAI METAL!!!!

that would be badass.

Does anybody have any Pirate Metal? Yarrrr!

I hate the genre argument - sub sub genres are very useful and are only redundant to people who don't listen to enough of that type of music. Those people shouldn't complain about that which they are ignorant of. I'm not saying you're arguing against categorisation - I'm just using your case as an example.

People arguing against the use of subgenres or dismissing a genre out of ignorance (i.e. viking metal) is like an average Joe walking up to a PhD scholar whose field of interest is curing ovarian cancer and telling him his research is stupid/useless. A subsubgenre is specific in the sense that it isn't useful to the majority of people; it is useful to a specific group of listeners who listen to that genre. A scholar's research is obviously specialised and specific - PhD theses generally tailor to something specific and untapped. Funeral doom metal is of interest to people who listen to doom metal. Obviously ovarian cancer isn't going to directly affect males - yet you don't see males going up to doctors and telling them they're idiots for researching ovarian cancer. In the same way, people should complain about genres they know little about.

you know why metal will never be popular ever again?


http://www.gaztesarea.net/musikale/i...etal_dimmu.jpg

COS IT'S NERDY

Hardcore

The best way to realize what will bring metal back is to try to understand what went wrong with metal after thrash and grunge. Metal had monsters like Slayer, Pantera, Metallica, Sepultura, Nirvana, Soundgarden, AIC, Pearl Jam etc., one year, then they all seemed to fall one after the other in a very short period of time. One explanation is these bands were too monochromatic, failing to stray far from their sub-genres. Instead of taking creative chances and driving the music industry, the music industry drove them out with constantly changing musical tastes. In comparison to classic bands like the Stones, the Who, Zepplin, Deep Purple, who kept expanding their repertoire and stayed on top for decades, metal bands of the early 90's dried up on the vine after a couple of breakout CDS. Where exceptionally talented groups like Slayer and Pantera drove thrash into a wall, Zepplin and other scaled it by incorporating elements of many genres, including progressive, blues, folk, doom, metal.

Well don't forget to blame the average music listener. After all THEY are the ones who caused it. MTV and VH1 also. They ruined music for all of us. And why wasn't Black Sabbath mentioned on that list and the Stones were. I don't really think the stones did that much.

:eek:

You what?

How about the first band to bring ballsy R&B based rock music to a worldwide audience when the whole music industry was cashing in trying to find nice boys in clean suits to match the Beatles success.

Creating R@B based rock is something, but it is not enough for me to say they did more then Sabbath.

Black Sabbath made Metal. The Stones has nothing on that.

I can handle genres and the broader subgenres, but this "Blackened Death Metal" type of **** is just ridiculous. Metal is metal. No, not every metal band sounds the same, but each band doesn't need their own subgenre for Christ sake. They're all fundamentally metal bands. The only thing many subgenres (or sub-subgenres) are useful for is finding bands that've ripped off the bands you already like, or happen to sound virtually identical to the bands you already like. If you want to listen to Slayer, go listen to Slayer. Why bother searching around for a bunch of bands that're just trying to sound like Slayer, or happen to sound nearly identical to Slayer? Doesn't make sense to me.

People don't always seem to realize that metal's pretty popular in contrast with many other styles of music. I mean, "real metal" has never been the dominant genre in the mainstream, and it probably never will. But a lot of metal songs are written in the standard verse-chorus-verse format, and are correspondingly quite accessible, despite not being outright "pop". And no offense to metal fans (I'm one of them), but to me, it's never really been as "rebellious" as people seem to think it's been. The quiet kid that plays the saxophone and listens to John Coltrane is more of an "outcast" than the loud, long-haired party animal wearing an Iron Maiden t-shirt, in my opinion. I know not all metal fans are like that, and life's certainly not one big tournament of pariahdom, but you know what I mean. Just saying.

Too bad metal sucks.

lolololololz

"Heavy metal" blows.

coming from the kid who gets wet over Conor Oberst.

Devin Townsend would own all your guys' pants off.

Blackened death metal is quite a valid genre - if you listen to enough death metal, the need for that label becomes instantly obvious. A blackened death metal band like Abominator sounds quite different to a melodeath band like Dark Tranquillity.

They only sound virtually identical to the bands you already like (i.e. Slayer) if you're not very familiar with the genre. I have a wide taste in music, but I know I'm a reggae noob, and that's why a good deal of reggae sounds mostly the same to me. If I made an effort to explore the genre and listen to it a bit more, it wouldn't be that way. When I first discovered metal, I probably thought that DM sounded fairly close to BM on the grand scale of things. Since I actively listen to metal, I find that clearly isn't the case.

That's quite a bold/cynical statement to say that all thrash/speed metal bands either try to sound like Slayer or sound nearly identical to them. As far as I'm concerned, there are bands in thrash which are better than Slayer. Bands might go for the thrash/speed metal sounds, but it doesn't mean they're trying to sound like Slayer - that's openly admitting to having no creative force. A progressive thrash band like Mekong Delta sounds quite different to Slayer which sounds quite different to a groove thrash band like Pantera, and that is why subsubgenres are necessary.

10/10 post

if there were no metal there'd be no CTTS.

I don't really dig a lot of metal but that is a good post forreeaallzzzzz.

Jeez metalheads have no sense of humor.

oh snap!