[Selbi]

Meshuggah is on there despite them being a Djent band, which they specifically banned in that description you've sent.

I find the concept of disallowing any specific metal subgenre stupid anyway. What, are your databases not large enough to support these extra bands? Maybe they have their reasons, but to me the website does have a pretty elitist touch to it. Which is a shame, because they are miles better than Discogs in terms of website design.

 

[shuto77]

Meshuggah is on there despite them being a Djent band, which they specifically banned in that description you've sent.

I find the concept of disallowing any specific metal subgenre stupid anyway. What, are your databases not large enough to support these extra bands? Maybe they have their reasons, but to me the website does have a pretty elitist touch to it. Which is a shame, because they are miles better than Discogs in terms of website design.

+1

Preach it, brother.

 

[shuto77]

Maybe our group can put together a metal wiki thread. Mods: Would this be permissible on HeadFi?

 

[Music Alchemist]

Btbam, aside from being one of my favorite bands, metal or not, represents - to me, at least - many of the things that make metal my favorite style of music. I'm not saying you have to like your jazz in your deathcore or you have to like metalcore in your area prog metal (I happen to enjoy their creative genre-bending), but I'm not sure why their use of metalcore somehow makes them less extreme, or less worthy.

Btbam is a band that helped me get past Killswitch Engage and later Underoath, and into a whole new world of heavy music.

I could go on about this, but I am a bit defensive about Btbam because they are always trying to do creative things with metal. Even if you don't love the final product, I think it's important to appreciate what they're trying to do.

Also, I love Ne Obliviscaras for similar reasons.

Not trying to start an argument by any means.

 
Oh yeah, I feel ya. I'm a higher-ranking member of Metal Archives (I can edit most of the site, but things are not submitted to me for approval) and am more bothered about their arbitrary way of going about things than most are. I bought Killswitch Engage and Underoath CDs too. Apparently the powers that be consider their history to be more metal than BTBAM for whatever reason.
 

Meshuggah is on there despite them being a Djent band, which they specifically banned in that description you've sent.

I find the concept of disallowing any specific metal subgenre stupid anyway. What, are your databases not large enough to support these extra bands? Maybe they have their reasons, but to me the website does have a pretty elitist touch to it. Which is a shame, because they are miles better than Discogs in terms of website design.

 
To be more specific, they are currently listed as: technical groove/thrash metal (early), djent (later)
 
They used to be listed as technical post-thrash metal. At one point technical nu-metal (lol...first time I've even seen that phrase) was in there too.
Anyway, it's not entirely disallowed. They have a whopping grand total of 19 djent bands listed!

 
http://www.metal-archives.com/search?searchString=djent&type=band_genre
 
It seems to me that if they're "metal" enough, they can still be there even when it djents.
 
About specific metal subgenres...some of those are more or less not considered by them to be metal subgenres, so what can ya do...
 

Maybe our group can put together a metal wiki thread. Mods: Would this be permissible on HeadFi?

 
You mean an article? (The type that shows up at the bottom right corner of the site.)
 
What type of content are you suggesting specifically?

 

[moonchild96]

@Music Alchemist No actually it's my fault, as the first part of my post was about the first page of the thread and the second part was pointing out something related to your previous post... I assume after 1726 pages the discussion might have evolved a bit xD
 
What I (poorly) expressed was just a perplexity about the traditional view of metal genres, more specifically the fact that most of the time (like in the first thread's post) it does not take in account the possible combinations and influences of other (quite) distant genres. 
 
The reference to metal archives made me ask myself why do we need to set such rigid criteria for considering a certain metal subgenre "metal" or not... because most of the time it's about metal subgenres. MA needs to have rigid criteria. We don't: metal is an umbrella term nowadays and I think that we should let bands and listeners self-determinate, considering their different influences.

 

[shuto77]

   
Oh yeah, I feel ya. I'm a higher-ranking member of Metal Archives (I can edit most of the site, but things are not submitted to me for approval) and am more bothered about their arbitrary way of going about things than most are. I bought Killswitch Engage and Underoath CDs too. Apparently the powers that be consider their history to be more metal than BTBAM for whatever reason.
 
 
To be more specific, they are currently listed as: technical groove/thrash metal (early), djent (later)
 
They used to be listed as technical post-thrash metal. At one point technical nu-metal (lol...first time I've even seen that phrase) was in there too.
Anyway, it's not entirely disallowed. They have a whopping grand total of 19 djent bands listed!

 
http://www.metal-archives.com/search?searchString=djent&type=band_genre
 
It seems to me that if they're "metal" enough, they can still be there even when it djents.
 
About specific metal subgenres...some of those are more or less not considered by them to be metal subgenres, so what can ya do...
 
 
You mean an article? (The type that shows up at the bottom right corner of the site.)
 
What type of content are you suggesting specifically?

 
My thoughts are all over the place as I'm trying to multi-task, with a very limited degree of success atm. 
 
I'm not sure what I mean, but I think a collaborative article/wiki/blog/thread/thingie/jawn could be really cool. Fundamentally, I have a problem with the hyper-granular and arbitrary taxonomy they use to put all of metal's permutations into neatly defined boxes. I know it sounds cliche, but some art can't be - nor should it be - so easily categorized. This is more true when you believe (as I do) that all art and all knowledge, is conversation with the art/music/thoughts/etc. that came before it. 
 
Maybe I'm reading too much into this. Short answer: I agree with you completely, and I'm sorry this thread is being fragmented between extreme and non-extreme metal. 
 
Now, unlike most here, I don't particularly love black metal and death metal unless Deafheaven counts, so I'm curious what bands/albums might help me bridge the gap. 

 

[shuto77]

  @Music Alchemist No actually it's my fault, as the first part of my post was about the first page of the thread and the second part was pointing out something related to your previous post... I assume after 1726 pages the discussion might have evolved a bit xD
 
What I (poorly) expressed was just a perplexity about the traditional view of metal genres, more specifically the fact that most of the time (like in the first thread's post) it does not take in account the possible combinations and influences of other (quite) distant genres. 
 
The reference to metal archives made me ask myself why do we need to set such rigid criteria for considering a certain metal subgenre "metal" or not... because most of the time it's about metal subgenres. MA needs to have rigid criteria. We don't: metal is an umbrella term nowadays and I think that we should let bands and listeners self-determinate, considering their different influences.

 
Get out of my brain, sir. We were crafting very similar responses at the same time. Your response was just more on-topic, though. So extra points to you. 

 

[Music Alchemist]

  @Music Alchemist No actually it's my fault, as the first part of my post was about the first page of the thread and the second part was pointing out something related to your previous post... I assume after 1726 pages the discussion might have evolved a bit xD
 
What I (poorly) expressed was just a perplexity about the traditional view of metal genres, more specifically the fact that most of the time (like in the first thread's post) it does not take in account the possible combinations and influences of other (quite) distant genres. 
 
The reference to metal archives made me ask myself why do we need to set such rigid criteria for considering a certain metal subgenre "metal" or not... because most of the time it's about metal subgenres. MA needs to have rigid criteria. We don't: metal is an umbrella term nowadays and I think that we should let bands and listeners self-determinate, considering their different influences.

 
Ah, I had no idea you were referring to the first post of this thread. That was made back in 2009.
 
For a more complete description of metal genres, check here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_metal_genres
 
And yeah, my definition of metal is broader than Metal Archives'. I'm sure most people feel the same way.
 

  My thoughts are all over the place as I'm trying to multi-task, with a very limited degree of success atm. 
 
I'm not sure what I mean, but I think a collaborative article/wiki/blog/thread/thingie/jawn could be really cool. Fundamentally, I have a problem with the hyper-granular and arbitrary taxonomy they use to put all of metal's permutations into neatly defined boxes. I know it sounds cliche, but some art can't be - nor should it be - so easily categorized. This is more true when you believe (as I do) that all art and all knowledge, is conversation with the art/music/thoughts/etc. that came before it. 
 
Maybe I'm reading too much into this. Short answer: I agree with you completely, and I'm sorry this thread is being fragmented between extreme and non-extreme metal. 
 
Now, unlike most here, I don't particularly love black metal and death metal unless Deafheaven counts, so I'm curious what bands/albums might help me bridge the gap. 

 
What would the article be about? The history and genres of metal?
 
To get an overview of the diversity of black metal, check out my playlist:
 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/397407/lets-talk-metal/23325#post_12644193
 
To get into death metal, I would suggest starting with melodic death metal bands. (Some of them went on to mix in or switch to other styles, such as metalcore, groove metal, alternative metal, etc.)
 
If you like, I could put together a melodeath playlist just for you. This would give you better highlights of the genre instead of having to listen through so many discographies.

 

[Selbi]

  To get into death metal, I would suggest starting with melodic death metal bands. (Some of them went on to mix in or switch to other styles, such as metalcore, groove metal, alternative metal, etc.)

 
Yeah, that's true. Especially In Flames or Sonic Syndicate have been known to do some... questionable things as of recently. SS' latest album doesn't have a single growl. It's more pop than even Bring Me The Horizon's most recent one. Only difference that they even failed at doing that properly.
 
I think, of that list a that can be consistently described as solid entry band for anyone who wants to get the slightest touch of Death Metal, Amon Amarth is pretty much there. They don't exactly push a ton of "deathness" forward, but they're still pretty in-the-face'y, more so than an average MDM band.

 

[Rockin_Zombie]

I have successfully made my wife admit "there's some potential in growling" through the latest Amorphis album. There's a nice mix of growling with clean vocals. She loves all kinds of metal except when they growl. May be try that album ?



[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ql4Xe6MxQ4[/VIDEO]

 

[wrathzombie]

Anyone?

 

[Music Alchemist]

  Yeah, that's true. Especially In Flames or Sonic Syndicate have been known to do some... questionable things as of recently. SS' latest album doesn't have a single growl. It's more pop than even Bring Me The Horizon's most recent one. Only difference that they even failed at doing that properly.
 
I think, of that list a that can be consistently described as solid entry band for anyone who wants to get the slightest touch of Death Metal, Amon Amarth is pretty much there. They don't exactly push a ton of "deathness" forward, but they're still pretty in-the-face'y, more so than an average MDM band.

 
Don't remember if you already knew this, but In Flames is my favorite band...so I'm more bummed out than most that they practically turned into an emo rock band. (Click here to see my reaction to their latest.)
 
Can't believe I never even heard of Sonic Syndicate until now. (Unless I did and forgot.)
 
Dark Tranquillity and Arch Enemy are also consistent choices since they never strayed from melodeath.
 

I have successfully made my wife admit "there's some potential in growling" through the latest Amorphis album. There's a nice mix of growling with clean vocals. She loves all kinds of metal except when they growl. May be try that album ?

 
I want a wife! ...A hot Japanese one who likes metal and video games and anime and...thaaaat may take awhile.

 

[emptymt]

I have successfully made my wife admit "there's some potential in growling" through the latest Amorphis album. There's a nice mix of growling with clean vocals. She loves all kinds of metal except when they growl. May be try that album ?

lol, that is a huge achievement! Congratz! ^_^

 

[emptymt]

 
I want a wife! ...A hot Japanese one who likes metal and video games and anime and...thaaaat may take awhile.

Go and work in Japan for a couple of years to find one, hehe.

 

[Music Alchemist]

Two tracks from the new Nightrage album The Venomous out March 31st.
 


 

  Go and work in Japan for a couple of years to find one, hehe.

 
Work? I scoff at the notion. Perhaps I shall send one of my servant's servants (get the Aladdin reference? lol) to fetch a suitable mate.