New Category, Post metal/ Sludge or Doom

fair enough. i guess just liked the idea  because then i wouldnt have to spend the time reading all those  band biographies ;) 
what three categories would you choose?

i actually like the tag idea, if thats a possibility and if we're thinking of the same thing. keep the genres as they are (or were as in the case of art rock though that'd be too late to change now) and add a "tag" that describes the sound of the band. or related bands. any thoughts?


Edited by keiser willhelm - September 21 2007 at 09:27

debrewguy wrote: The T wrote: I much rather prefer just two genres: "obscure" bands and "unobscure" or "sold-out, commercial, not-so-prog-because-of-success" bands.... In that way, symphonic will have its representatives in both genres... art rock will have representatives in both genres.... Zeuhl and Rio will have representatives only in the "obscure" (read intellectual) genres, while metal, for some strange reason, will be entirely in the second genre, even though some of their artists have to work in fast food restaurants in order to pay the mortgage on their cheap wal-mart guitars.... Seems a good idea. But might I suggest that we change "intellectual" to "elitist snot" genre Or we could divide them into popular & not popular. But then, some around here would argue that more than one fan is too many to qualify a band for inclusion in the "not popular" genre

chamberry wrote: ^^^ Care to elaborate?

"We're thinking about putting in 3 more genres..."

"Next thing you know we'll have avant-potato-mathcorn-metal sections! Every band will be in a different genre!"

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

darqdean wrote: debrewguy wrote: The T wrote: Shakespeare wrote: I still think the site can be run with 3-5 subgenres. We have WAAAAYYY too many subdivisions. Hell, if we were being completely fair, we'd subdivide until every band had their own subgenre.   No! I say we have to go on until we finally uncover the great "romanian-epic-legendary-transylvanian-death-non-growling-post-antro-towering-metal" sub genre that's been hidden from us the last thousand years!  I think that album is still being written as we speak. After all, coming up with that musical mix & its' attendant genre (or description< if you will) would take a lot out of anyone. But I expect the album will come out shortly after Guns n Roses Chines Democracy. As the Sun has only enough fuel for the next 4.5 billion years I expect we'll be playing Chinese Democracy in the dark.

Personally, I'd rather stare at the SUn as it is now, than be forced to listen to any NEW GnR. I bought Appetit for Destruction shortly after its' release as I had read some reviews that mentioned AC/DC & Aerosmith inlfuences (believe it or not, these were rare for a time in the mid 80s). 6 months later, Child of Mine starts playing on the radio & my roommate sees that I have the album. Til then, I thought it was a good hard rockin' album, nothing special. We went on to play the chit out of the album, though mainly 5-6 songs. These days, there's 4 songs that I still really "dig". But I still think the album is overhyped & much success is owed to two facts - 1 ) It had 3 BIG hit singles on the radio AND MTV (when MTV mattered), & 2) They were just about the only new hard rock group that put out anything that matched their idols' classic albums.

This thread is one humongous slippery slope fallacy. 

^ I disagree with that description of post metal, which is badly named IMO. Were as Post rock bands have used rock instrumentation to create music that has gone far beyond rock, post metal is still very much metal, though the two styles are similar in that they both use long meandering instrumental passages to build up the atmosphere of the songs. Its been discused before, cant remember what thread but it was in the polls section, that if the post metal term is to be used correctly then it would aply to bands like Kayo Dot, who have to taken a metal base and moved waaaay beyond that into something very different that still holds some similarities to metal (The Manifold curiosity perfectly illustrates this IMO). However, Kayo Dot are very much an Avant garde band and the post metal term is used to describe bands like Isis and Pelican.  

post metal is related to metal the same as post rock is related to rock. whereas post rock outfits use traditionaly rock intrusments to create something completely different (drums, electric guitar, etc.) same can be said of post metal (heavy distortion , heavy vocals). they both share long, meandering passages of instrumental build ups and a droning, sludgishness (hence sludge metal) quality. Help? and if i may, the sub genres, in my opinion, are a good thing. they help people navigate, help them discover new bands. i for one really do not enjoy half of the music in prog metal, wouldnt listen to most of it and thus, am put off to browsing for new artists within that genre. thats the whole reason why i suggested the new category thing, the whole reason the colabs split up art rock. Over time, with endless experimentation and a broadening of musical horizons, more bands will play more and more different music and more categories WILL be needed. 40 years ago there was no such thing as "metal". meshuggahcertainly did not exist, could not exist. I guess i am rambling now. but i see the categories as a good thing, a helpful thing that serves and important purpose, to help people unfamiliar with certain music, to find it. simple enough.

Edited by keiser willhelm - September 20 2007 at 13:53

Shakespeare wrote: I still think the site can be run with 3-5 subgenres. We have WAAAAYYY too many subdivisions. Hell, if we were being completely fair, we'd subdivide until every band had their own subgenre.

So long as bands are correctly assigned to genres there is no practical argument against having more genres, it only aids people in finding similar bands and music, whilst people may not see a need for them or may have a prejudice against more sub-genres, they are genuinely useful to a lot of people.

Mategra wrote:  Metal isn't  real Prog.

laplace wrote: ^well, the entry "progginess" level is lower just because of how terribly rigid metal is, naturally, but I think the teams *tend* to pick the most inventive bands from what's available...

I'm a prog fan and a metal fan, I'd advise you that it's a bad idea to comment like that on prog metal  and metal in general and stereotype metal in such a way if you want people to respect your opinion. Metal has the potential to be more varied than other genres as it can venture into the heaviest territories of music and the lightest. Take Mr Bungle for example, they're a metal band and they have just about every genre under the sun incorporated into their music.


And in my opinion I think you could justify a new subgenre of metal here, something along the lines of post/avant-garde metal as it is siginificantly different to conventional prog metal to justify the change. I don't think you could justify a prog-power distinction or a jazz-metal distinction or anything like that as the line would be too hard to draw and it simply wouldn't be worth it.