Rules of death metal

Goober

Noob
Dec 20, 2004
457
0
16
35
Ok people, lately I've been arguing with my friend about death metal. heres a little background of him, He basically grew up around all kinds of metal, he knows a lot about death metal, more than I. We have been arguing about what bands are death metal or not, and a lot of the time i am quite skeptical about what he tells me, but it sooner or later turns out to be true, but this time i question him more than ever. He says that using clean vocals will cancel out the death metal part in music, even just some here and there (Morbid angel, Opeth, etc.) will no longer make it death metal, but just metal.

Anyone agree or diagree? or does someone want to elaborate on this also?
 
I don't think anything can be "just metal." I thought every band was [something] metal. So what are you going to call a band that sounds death metal, but has some clean vocals? You would probably have to create a new genre. I say just call it death metal and don't worry about it.
 
I dont think there are any rules on what a bands genre is or isnt. Id usually take the bands word of mouth though since they write and play the shit, they should know.

Tell your friend hes not the all knowing of metal genres..............and then push him over so he scrapes his knee......and gets that burning sensation on his palms....ok?
 
BRI said:
Morbid Angel aren't death metal? lololol

Yeah i know, they were one of the bands that made death metal big, yet he says they arent death metal, thats one thing i disagree with my friend about majorly.
 
Well I argree with your freind to a certain degree. Who are more death metal Opeth or Bloodbath? The answer is simple so he has a point. The reason I don´t completely agree is that I call Opeth melodic DM. with an emphasis on melodic. It would be naive to dismiss their death metal influences which are also clearly heard in their music, but they at the same time they are a lot more melodic than typical DM, thus the phrase melodic DM.
 
How many threads like this are there going to be?

I agree with the guy that said listen to what the band call themselves, if they don't know what they are playing how the hell is anyone else supposed to know?
 
Korlich said:
Well I argree with your freind to a certain degree. Who are more death metal Opeth or Bloodbath? The answer is simple so he has a point. The reason I don´t completely agree is that I call Opeth melodic DM. with an emphasis on melodic. It would be naive to dismiss their death metal influences which are also clearly heard in their music, but they at the same time they are a lot more melodic than typical DM, thus the phrase melodic DM.

problem is there is a big difference between Opeth and melodic DM such as Dismember, Eucharist, (non-SotS) At the Gates, etc. I don't really see Opeth as having that much in common with death metal at all, though it's obviously an influence. The "Gothenburg style" pioneered by ATG on Slaughter of the Soul (i.e. the other group of bands commonly called melodic DM) doesn't really have that much in common with what was previously termed "death metal" either.
 
Cannibal Corpse doesn't sound much like Morbid Angel to me, but they are both DM bands. They aren't just variations on DM, they ARE DM. Thats the point of generalising things and putting them in the same box, you say that band that band and that band call themselves Death Metal, therefore they go in that box, whereas blah blah blah and blah call themselves punk, hence we put them in the punk box.

Genres give you a general idea, not define the band down to every note they play. If you start making sub-genres, and sub-sub-genres everyone just argues over it trying to make the band a sub-sub-sub-genre anyway.
 
vampyrouss said:
Cannibal Corpse doesn't sound much like Morbid Angel to me, but they are both DM bands. They aren't just variations on DM, they ARE DM. Thats the point of generalising things and putting them in the same box, you say that band that band and that band call themselves Death Metal, therefore they go in that box, whereas blah blah blah and blah call themselves punk, hence we put them in the punk box.

Genres give you a general idea, not define the band down to every note they play. If you start making sub-genres, and sub-sub-genres everyone just argues over it trying to make the band a sub-sub-sub-genre anyway.
i think someone finally understands.

if we make 10,000 genres to accommodate every single band, then when every band is perfectly described with a genre in which they are the only member, the entire process of creating genres has become pointless since the band's name is synonymous with the genre title.
 
Metal_Rocker said:
Just call it DGM, damn good music

You mean this?
DGM-Misplaced.jpg
 
FRUGiHOYi said:
I don't think anything can be "just metal." I thought every band was [something] metal. So what are you going to call a band that sounds death metal, but has some clean vocals? You would probably have to create a new genre. I say just call it death metal and don't worry about it.
To me everything is 'just metal.' I don't bother all this verbal wankery about infinitely complex and specific subgenres anyway.

Definitely agreed with Moonlapse's post.
 
Metal_Rocker said:
Just call it DGM, damn good music

agreed...why bother with genres. Ona the marks of really rocking music is that its difficult to pigeonhole. If you need to describe a band, do just that - eg. It's heavy music with a lot of harmonies, some accoustics, mixed clean/growled vocals, and long building song structures