Does anybody agree with me when I say the obscene amount of sub-genres in existence are pointless and stupid? For example, these are alll metal:
Black metal
Death metal
Doom metal
Folk metal
Glam metal
Gothic metal
Groove metal
Industrial metal
Metalcore
Neo-classical metal
Nu metal
Post-metal Power metal
Progressive metal
Sludge metal
Speed metal
Stoner metal
Thrash metal
Alternative metal
Avant-garde metal
Christian metal
Classic metal
Dark metal
Extreme metal
NWOBHM
Punk metal
Rapcore
Symphonic metal
Viking metal
2007-11-23 07:25:36 · 13 answers · asked by rocket queen 4 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Music ➔ Rock and Pop
No way, it is super important! I only listen to Post-progressive extreme-viking-core-thrash metal, anything else is for posers!
Kidding! I think it gets a little silly, with all the labels, I just use two categories when it comes to metal, awesome and crap.
2007-11-23 08:59:17 · answer #1 · answered by ♫ՖքØØķ¥♫ 7 · 7⤊ 0⤋
To put it mildly, it gets a little annoying. The ones that contain a "post" or a "core" are the most retarded and usually only used by music critics or indie elitists. Some of the these genres do give meaning to bands that the listener may be unfamiliar with. However, many are redundant and could be done away with. I find Stoner Metal to really lack meaning other than to say "this band will sound like Fu Manchu." Also, I'd like someone to tell me the exact difference between Death Metal and Doom Metal. And if you think about it, Viking Metal, lol. That's what you listen to before gearing up for Vikings football. We haven't had real Vikings since the 11th century.
2007-11-23 07:37:32 · answer #2 · answered by Rckets 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Nope, i don't completely agree.
It does get a bit ridiculous, yes, but they are given sub-genres because they are different in some way [it's only the ones that sound so similar that you cannot tell them apart that i find pointless]. It makes it easier for someone that only likes a specific type of metal to get what they want.
You can't lump death metal and folk metal or progressive metal and rapcore together in the same category - because they sound /different/.
The fact that they are all metal is taken into consideration - which is why they all have "metal" after their names/descriptions.
But that doesn't mean they are they can /all/ be shoved under this one group - that's just not how things work.
x
2007-11-23 07:38:47 · answer #3 · answered by Cinny [1334♀] 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I have to agree somewhat, but to each passing generation or country the sound of metal differs. Take for instance Slayer and Slipknot, both groups fall under the metal genre, but both these bands musical and lyrical style differ. Slayer has more speed to it's way of playin while Slipknot kind of leans towards rap. So I guess putting thrash/speed in front of metal and rap/nu metal will make people understand what they are in for. European/Scandinavian black metal tends to have a darker and heavier sound to it.
For lovnrckets, the term viking metal is refered to bands whose lyrical content revolve around Norse legends or themes. It's got a Nordic folk sound to it, and when listening to it I seriously think I'm drinking a pint of ale surrounded by Vikings, lol.
But the most pathetic thing is when there is fight between fans arguing what constitutes as true black metal and what doesn't. That's just lame, and that's how a new sub-genre emerges. It's mainly the listeners and fans who come up with them. I've seen/read some interviews with bands who really don't label themselves when asked what category of genre they fall into some say theyy are just playing music and it's up to fans to decide what they want to call it. So in the end, maybe it's just us who come up with all this crap.
Edit: LMAO at Spooky's answer.
2007-11-23 08:49:36 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Half-true and half-false. With metal, some genres are ok, but others are redundant. From your list, redundant genres are dark metal and extreme metal. Problem is, if we have genres and no sub-genres, we get into bands that have no similarities with each other being grouped together. Go check what last.fm has as similar artists for Red Hot Chili Peppers. Do people really think Coldplay and White Stripes have anything similar to RHCP?
Subgenres are ok, but it shouldn't be abused.
2007-11-23 08:17:00 · answer #5 · answered by The Ghurag 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
This was exactly the topic of a thread I started several days back. ("Does Metal have TOO many sub-genres?")
Yes. It's the only genre of rock that seems to grow new heads almost daily. & in many cases, the difference in sound is So subtle, it pretty much makes no real difference.
2007-11-23 07:29:34 · answer #6 · answered by Fonzie T 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
It's just for like the different sound each has. It is pretty stupid and un-needed, most sub genres sound the same so you shoud only need like one or two. IF That...
2007-11-23 07:34:40 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I was just ranting about this myself the other day.
YES, sub genres are f'n completely asinine.
2007-11-23 08:01:25 · answer #8 · answered by Chloe 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
its only descriptions, and if people used them correctly (knew what they meant), genres (unfairly known as categories) would not have such a negative connotation. =/
2007-11-23 16:06:00 · answer #9 · answered by ƎIΝΟƆ 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I do find it rather pointless. I think there shouls just be the following:
Classical
Jazz
Urban
Pop
Acoustic
Indie
Rock
Metal
...makes life alot easier and less controversial!
2007-11-23 07:29:49 · answer #10 · answered by Simon 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋