Controversial opinions on metal

[Elric of Melniboné]

They do that all the time. I think it just comes down to whatever the staff like or don't like. I don't listen to that type of thing so it has no impact on me but it seems weird to exclude certain bands. I think Meshuggah is crap but they're obviously metal.

 

[CiG]

@HamburgerBoy don't you assert that many black metal bands aren't actually metal?

 

[Phylactery]

I think what HamburgerBoy is talking about with that (and I might be wrong), is that some black metal doesn't have much in common with the original ideas behind metal in the 70s and 80s. Like if you listen to something like Transilvanian Hunger or Hvis Lyset Tar Oss, they're all about using repetition of simple riffs or melodies to evoke an ambient like atmosphere. This is something generally associated with other genres of music and not metal at the time. These records inspired thousands of bands, some which took it to further extremes which are the types of bands I think HBB refers to as "prefixed black metal".

Things obviously evolve and change over time so I don't think this invalidates them from being called metal, just because they had a different goal to the pioneers.

 

[Elric of Melniboné]

There have always been metal bands with different musical goals than those before them. Even Judas Priest was already very different than Black Sabbath if you compare the first few albums by both bands. Other later metal bands from the 1980s were even more unlike the metal of the preceding years.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

@HamburgerBoy don't you assert that many black metal bands aren't actually metal?

That too, but in the context of Meshuggah not being metal enough it isn't even necessary to go that far.

I think what HamburgerBoy is talking about with that (and I might be wrong), is that some black metal doesn't have much in common with the original ideas behind metal in the 70s and 80s. Like if you listen to something like Transilvanian Hunger or Hvis Lyset Tar Oss, they're all about using repetition of simple riffs or melodies to evoke an ambient like atmosphere. This is something generally associated with other genres of music and not metal at the time. These records inspired thousands of bands, some which took it to further extremes which are the types of bands I think HBB refers to as "prefixed black metal".

Things obviously evolve and change over time so I don't think this invalidates them from being called metal, just because they had a different goal to the pioneers.

My main argument is that there needs to be consistency in how things are applied. Darkthrone and Burzum are undoubtedly metal, but why is it when you have a band that is half Burzum and half folk music, it's still metal, but when you have metalcore bands that are 80% thrash/groove but 20% hardcore breakdowns, it's not metal? Early Converge, Merauder, etc have far more in common with metal than do prefixed black metal bands. It's totally arbitrary and defined according to a few website admins' shitty preferences in music. If people want to call depressive folk ambient black metal a kind of metal just because it's partially derived from metal, then fine, I don't care. Show the slightest impartiality and include metalcore and nu metal bands with the same amount of metal influence.

 

[Oblivious Maximus]

They do that all the time. I think it just comes down to whatever the staff like or don't like. I don't listen to that type of thing so it has no impact on me but it seems weird to exclude certain bands. I think Meshuggah is crap but they're obviously metal.

I'm genially curious though, when, according to M-A's "standards" did Meshuggah stop being "metal". On which album? And "Djent" is possibly the stupidest name for a musical genre ever coined. I hate myself for even typing it.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I think they consider Chaosphere to be the first non-metal Meshuggah album. I had an argument with them about it here:

http://www.metal-archives.com/board/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=104150

 

[Elric of Melniboné]

That thread makes me glad that I never bothered using the forums on that site.

 

[EchoForever]

yeah i just go there for the discography information

 

[Elric of Melniboné]

yeah i just go there for the discography information

Yeah, that's the main reason why I go too. They are missing some obvious reissues of certain albums so maybe I'll figure out how to add them.

 

[EspaDa]

Meshuggah are definitely metal. New album is going to be awesome.

 

[Krow]

Yeah, that's the main reason why I go too. They are missing some obvious reissues of certain albums so maybe I'll figure out how to add them.

Discogs destroys them when it comes to listing reissues.

 

[EchoForever]

yeah ill normally go to discogs but sometimes M-A is better for certain things, like genre tagging

 

[HamburgerBoy]

In fairness M-A only introduced the issues feature a few months ago. It's still the most comprehensive style-specific musical database.

 

[Elric of Melniboné]

I like that it has the lyrics avilable because of the themed mixtape game.

 

[CiG]

M-A also clearly has the best search options for metal music. Searching by themes, specific genres, country, state, city.

 

[Vilden]

There are also lots of demos and other obscure stuff that have been on M-A for ages but aren't on Discogs.

I use both sites.

 

[CiG]

Not really sure why the two are being compared to begin with really, discogs is only good for buying things, there is a ton of stuff not listed on there. Rateyourmusic is even worse for archiving.

 

[The Ozzman]

I use RYM exclusively but also as a way to catalog if I have to make an insurance claim

 

[EspaDa]

Do you guys know that band called Dawn of Disease? They are going to be a support for Amon Amarth gig in December along with Grand Magus and I'm pretty stoked. What do you think about them?