Controversial opinions on metal

[EchoForever]

The funny thing is that it's only considered black metal because of how unclear the production is.

what would you consider its genre to be then

 

[CiG]

That's not why I would consider it to be black metal.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

what would you consider its genre to be then

Thrash metal, more or less. First-wave black metal, certainly, but no more so than In the Sign of Evil, and less so than INRI.

 

[Satanstoenail]

Hey, what happened to @Internally Deformed? That guy used to be annoying as fuck but also contributed well to the forum.

I quite enjoyed most of his postings and I hope he comes back.

 

[MrTagoMago]

Controversial opinion. People give way too much a fuck about genres.

 

[CiG]

In what way exactly?

 

[EchoForever]

Controversial opinion. People give way too much a fuck about genres.

i dont know where youre going with this but genre tagging is very important

 

[MrTagoMago]

In what way exactly?

In that they think genres matter beyond helping label music based on sound and style.

 

[CiG]

In that they think genres matter beyond helping label music based on sound and style.

Give an example of someone caring about genres beyond that definition?

 

[Oblivious Maximus]

Speaking of genres, has anyone else noticed this on Meshuggah's M-A page:

The band was accepted based solely on their early material, which is considered technical groove/thrash metal.

Sooooo.... the last few albums somehow aren't "metal"?

 

[Serjeant Grumbles]

They decided that djent shouldn't be allowed on M-A, which was not always the case. Animals as Leaders used to be on there, which can be attested from their old 1.0 website.

 

[Baroque]

Djent should be allowed on M-A. There is metal djent, absolutely.

 

[Satanstoenail]

What a load of elitist bollocks.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Speaking of genres, has anyone else noticed this on Meshuggah's M-A page:

Sooooo.... the last few albums somehow aren't "metal"?

Yeah they got too popular. It was fucking hilarious when it was discussed on the forum and people asked for non-metal that Meshuggah took after. The best they could come up with was a song by Stuck Mojo released a year after Destroy Erase Improve.

And of course they allow literal non-metal "dungeon synth" and "neo-folk" on the website.

 

[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.