the definitive discussioning of genre definitions discussion

[no country for old wainds]

i found that celtic frost discussion sort of unsatisfactory and chaotic, so LET'S FUCKING DO THIS!

it seems to me that a genre tag tends to become concretely defined once a relatively cohesive movement has come into fruition bearing that tag as their standard. now the problem is that movements don't emerge out of nowhere - they are always rooted to some extent in their influences, usually those bands to whom the tag was tentatively applied before it was adopted by this later movement.

these earlier bands were given this special tag in the first place because they were somehow distinct from the norm of the time. they do however tend to be more rooted in that norm than the movement which followed, and it is common amongst modern metalheads to view the later movement as a pure, no-frills concentration of that which the earlier bands were only roughly striving towards. this seems to be an intrinsically progressive stance, it implicitly suggests that these later standard-bearers bands are better or more *advanced* than the originators, because in a sense they reach the finish line when their influences only got halfway down the track. venom for example only sloppily grasped at what would ultimately become black metal, and so aren't black metal in any meaningful sense.

the opposing attitude tends to come from more seasoned metalheads who note that venom were labelled, and labelled themselves, as black metal, and feel these later bands can't just adopt that tag and completely redefine it to the point of excluding its originators, allowing people to dismiss them as mere seeds from which the real stuff has grown. in fact, many of these people feel that venom/bathory/hellhammer are THE STAPLES of black metal, and that none of what came after can measure up to the sheer *black*ness of those bands, all questions of quality aside.

i know that was broad, and a lot of people sit in the middle. i don't think this applies only to bm either, just using at as an example 'cause it's the most clear cut case. can we reach some kind of agreement on the sensible attitude to take here?

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Can we start with the definition of black metal I wrote and subsequently got almost unanimously approved by RYM and now sits on their pages?

Black metal is a subgenre of metal typified by its usually raw or under-produced sound and Satanic/rebellious aesthetic, as well as simplistic guitar phrases and under-accentuated rhythmic dimensions which allow more power for the atmospheric, detached and wandering riffs. Vocals are often higher pitched than death metal (or, "screams" rather than death metal's "grunts", speaking in slang terms) and can sound detached or unnervingly direct.

The genre began in the early/mid-80s as an offshoot of the popular heavy metal style emerging in Britain during this time, with bands (most notably, Venom with their extremely important Black Metal album in 1982, which most people consider the beginning of the term itself) from this area utilizing powerful occult imagery and a rawer, more stripped-down sound than was usual for typical bands of the times, but other factions of influential bands occurred sporadically in other countries in Europe, including Switzerland, where Hellhammer were concocting their own sinister combination of (what would come to be known as) black/doom/death/thrash metal, possibly one of the world's first "extreme metal" bands (a term for metal that is not overtly/intentionally melodic in a traditional sense). Over time, the influences culminated in Norway and the other Scandinavian countries where "black metal" would come into its own and develop a following greater than when it was in its embryonic stages. It was in Norway and Sweden, with bands the likes of Mayhem, Bathory and Burzum, where black metal originated its "northern", cold, isolated sounds which became a staple sound of the "second wave" which extended until around the mid-90s.

Modern black metal has diverged quite a bit from its original path. Some see this as evolution and others as regression or even a falling-out from black metal totally. The genre is very much a worldwide phenomenon currently, with prominent acts located in Germany, France, Poland, Russia and even the United States (much to the apparent dismay of many fans of the "original" black metal which was decidedly European). Sub-styles of black metal have very recently been designed around expanding the aesthetic of the genre into industrial, psychedelic, ambient or folk sectors of music.

 

[waif]

Good definition of black metal although I actually disagree with your definition of extreme metal, which I think oversimplifies it.

I think that thinking of black metal as coming in waves - first wave being the originators, second wave being the 90s bands who took black metal to what it is today, etc is perhaps the best way, as it gives credit to the originators while distinguishing them from what came later, which perhaps more fully realized what they were doing.
Of course, it has to be understood that first wave was rooted in other styles and that giving them the label "black metal" is somewhat retroactive.

 

[no country for old wainds]

Modern black metal has diverged quite a bit from its original path. Some see this as evolution and others as regression or even a falling-out from black metal totally.

this is really the question isn't it. does it necessarily have to be one of these two? how about reinterpretation, for example?

interesting that you put bathory in the second wave...

 

[no country for old wainds]

I think that thinking of black metal as coming in waves - first wave being the originators, second wave being the 90s bands who took black metal to what it is today, etc is perhaps the best way, as it gives credit to the originators while distinguishing them from what came later, which perhaps more fully realized what they were doing.
Of course, it has to be understood that first wave was rooted in other styles and that giving them the label "black metal" is somewhat retroactive.

but it isn't retroactive because they were given the label at the time, this is part of the problem.

and there's the question of whether these second wave bands did realise more fully what the first wave was doing, or were they in fact doing something quite different?

 

[waif]

Not all of them. For example, Mercyful Fate. I wasn't around back then, but weren't Venom considered just heavy metal? And their influence on thrash is probably nearly as strong as their influence on black metal.

EDIT: But I see I've gotten us bogged down in specifics when this was an attempt at the general. Sorry.
Anyhow, if you ignore the retroactive part then that post should more or less apply to most things.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

I didn't really mean to put Bathory in the second wave, I'm not really sure why I did that.

 

[Vinder]

Why do some people consider 'core' genres to be metal? No one seems to agree with my definition of them being offshoots of the Punk genre.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

They are, obviously, but there is certainly metalcore that is more "METAL" than "PUNK".

 

[AchrisK]

The way I see it, hardcore (90's stuff) is a bastardization of metal and punk. It takes the simplicity of punk and mixes it with the more refined instrumental precision and heavy sound of metal. I believe, generally speaking, it loses what is cool about punk, without gaining what is attractive in metal. Thus it sucks. But it still has some roots in metal.

EDIT: This whole wave of metalcore and NWOAHM seems to me to only do the same, which is water down any metal it touches.

 

[Vinder]

They are, obviously, but there is certainly metalcore that is more "METAL" than "PUNK".

So, it'll be like adding metal elements to hardcore until there is enough metallic elements for the mixture to be considered metal & not hardcore.

Or maybe it's still hardcore because that's the original base to which metal has been added to.

This whole wave of metalcore and NWOAHM seems to me to only do the same, which is water down any metal it touches.

It also creates some ridiculous genres. Keeps me up all night thinking about it.

 

[no country for old wainds]

metal is pretty indebted to hardcore anyway

but you're getting off track

i'm too tired to contribute much to this thread atm

 

[Ultimate_Symphony]

I honestly don't think we'll get anywhere with this discussion. You got the people that only got into metal about two years ago, and you got the people who've been into metal for way longer and been around the block. When you got younglings and veterans in a collision course, there's no way to reach consensus.

The way I see it is bands like Venom, Hellhammer and Bathory brought the seeds of what we know today as black metal and viking metal. Questioning their deserved spot in the genre, would be like questioning Blut Aus Nord's spot in black metal 20 years from now. Music evolves... let's get used to it.

 

[Eeric]

Excuse me, but what is NWOAHM?

 

[Evil?]

New Wave of American Heavy Metal

 

[cookiecutter]

I tend to see things both ways. When I think of Black Metal, I think of bands like Darkthrone and Burzum not Venom. However, I don't think it's fair to dismiss Venom as a Black Metal band just because later bands changed the sound under that name. This is why we use terms like "2nd wave" and "modern". I see no problem with having an expansive term which can further be refined.

 

[Evil?]

What do you guys think about the fact that in that past, during the first and second wave,just about any metal band who sang about Satan was considered Black Metal? Hell, I have seen Deicide called black metal by those in the 2nd wave Norwegian scene. I think this is how bands such as Mercyful Fate, who sound nothing like any other Black Metal band got included in the genre.

 

[challenge_everything]

Well that's obviously incorrect. The structures of the music decide what genre they fall into, not lyrical content.

 

[challenge_everything]

To V5: how is it that your definition of BM doesn't mention "blast beats"?

 

[Vossyrus]

Well that's obviously incorrect. The structures of the music decide what genre they fall into, not lyrical content.

I agree. Lyrical content is irrelevant in determining a genre.