MetalMusicArchives.com Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home >Site News, Newbies, Help and Improvements >Help us improve the site
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - subdivisions
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

subdivisions
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Ulfednar View Drop Down
Forum Groupie
Forum Groupie
Avatar

Joined: 18 Aug 2010
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 76 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ulfednar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: subdivisions
    Posted: 27 Aug 2010 at 8:19am
To clarify a point: I'm all for keeping it simple. And if the site would operate on black/death/doom/gothic/heavy/power/thrash genres and folk/melodic/symphonic/progressive/epic/industrial/traditional styles, I'd be all for that.

I wouldn't suggest adding a new genre just for the love of it. But, given the way the genres are structured now, it doesn't fit with the "keeping it simple" concept.
Back to Top
UMUR View Drop Down
MMA Special Collaborator
MMA Special Collaborator
Avatar
Errors & Omissions Team / Retired Admin

Joined: 25 Mar 2010
Location: Denmark
Status: Online
Points: 18113 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote UMUR Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Aug 2010 at 8:08am
Personally I disagree. I think all of the bands you mention above fit well in the death metal sub except for a couple of albums that should be tagged differently. However I know a lot of other people feel the same as you about the melodeath genre having it�s own sub ( maybe sub sub to death metal), so while I won�t support the idea ( I like things simple and don�t see the need for more subs), it�s not doomed just because I don�t like itSmile.
 
Forever TRUE - Forever BLUE!
UMUR on RYM
Back to Top
Ulfednar View Drop Down
Forum Groupie
Forum Groupie
Avatar

Joined: 18 Aug 2010
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 76 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ulfednar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Aug 2010 at 7:42am
I'm unearthing this topic so as to not create a brand new thread with a similar content, but I find it somewhat odd that the site would have such categories as symphonic, glam metal, metalcore AND alternative metal (?) et al. but lack any reference to melodic death metal/gothenburg. There's been this wave of bands recently whose sound might sooner fit under doom than under death, and I don't think the Gothenburg genre can still be considered as just death metal melodic. While In Flames have gone all the way to metalcore , and Dark Tranquillity still remain somewhat connected to death metal, bands like In Mourning, Insomnium and other In something bands are really difficult to simply pass off as death metal.
Back to Top
Reed Lover View Drop Down
Forum Groupie
Forum Groupie

MP3 Addition Team

Joined: 26 Mar 2010
Location: Babylon
Status: Offline
Points: 45 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Reed Lover Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Apr 2010 at 4:00pm
The mistake is in the perception not the conception. Wink
Back to Top
The T 666 View Drop Down
MMA Special Collaborator
MMA Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: 30 Mar 2010
Location: Hell
Status: Offline
Points: 476 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The T 666 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Apr 2010 at 7:56pm
Originally posted by Raff Raff wrote:


As to the bands mentioned by Lucas, they do have some merit, but I also believe we should tread carefully here. While no one will have to object to have the 'big three' (LZ, DP and BS) here, other, more controversial additions may set off a chain reaction whose results could be detrimental for the site. We don't want to repeat the mistakes made on ProgArchives with the whole Prog-Related subgenre.

Clap
Back to Top
topofsm View Drop Down
MMA Metal Reviewer
MMA Metal Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2010
Location: Hate state, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 689 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote topofsm Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Apr 2010 at 7:50pm
^Agreed. We should tread carefully in the proto metal area. The way I see it happening is if we end up adding the Beatles, we'd end up with more psychedelic and further along the way more prog bands in proto metal that really have no reason to be there. I think there's a level of heaviness that we consider. Hendrix's music was pretty heavy for the 70s for example, and he undoubtedly influenced metal. Meanwhile, Jefferson Airplane being a contemporary and just as psychedelic, wouldn't fit the bill.
Lost respect for these archives when I saw Creed added, among other bands. Not going to be foruming here anymore. You can keep my reviews if you want.
Back to Top
Raff View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1006 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Raff Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Apr 2010 at 6:42pm
Well, you could argue that "Helter Skelter" was a proto-metal song (after all, it was covered by a number of heavy metal artists, including Motley Crue), as was Pink Floyd's "The Nile Song". However, I think the Beatles influence is much more evident in prog than in metal.

As to the bands mentioned by Lucas, they do have some merit, but I also believe we should tread carefully here. While no one will have to object to have the 'big three' (LZ, DP and BS) here, other, more controversial additions may set off a chain reaction whose results could be detrimental for the site. We don't want to repeat the mistakes made on ProgArchives with the whole Prog-Related subgenre.
Back to Top
topofsm View Drop Down
MMA Metal Reviewer
MMA Metal Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2010
Location: Hate state, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 689 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote topofsm Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Apr 2010 at 6:08pm
^Nobody's going to have a consensus on any site as to certain bands in certain genres. You think Hard rock and Heavy metal are interchangeable and Zeppelin fits in each. I feel that they're clearly hard rock and not the latter, while there are many others who feel that they are definitely metal and not just rock. Do you see how there's a problem?

I'm sure there are people who think Megadeth aren't metal.

Also. The Beatles? Now, from my perspective they influenced pretty much any popular (and even non popular) music from the seventies onwards. But were they proto metal? Methinks no. Most of the Beatles influence I see in metal is stuff metal picked up from rock anyways. That being said, Black Sabbath took plenty of influence from the Beatles, and since Sabbath influenced pretty much everything metal from the beginning, you kind of get that anyways.
Lost respect for these archives when I saw Creed added, among other bands. Not going to be foruming here anymore. You can keep my reviews if you want.
Back to Top
lucas View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2010
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 220 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lucas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Apr 2010 at 5:54pm
^
well, it seems that we don't have the same perception of "proto" : for me that means bands of the sixties that paved the way to seventies heavy metal acts. In my view of proto, I would include Jimi Hendrix, Cream, High Tide, Blue Cheer, maybe The Who.
 
All the seventies classic heavy metal bands, Deep Purple, Led Zeppelin or Black Sabbath would be in "heavy metal" for me. Just like the followers in the next decades, who are here considered "traditional" metal.
 
What about Alice Cooper : according to your classification, he could be proto-metal but evolved towards "traditional" metal and even made some glam metal ?
 
 
Back to Top
Raff View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1006 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Raff Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Apr 2010 at 4:57pm
Thin Lizzy are in Proto-Metal, and, unless we decide to move them, this is where they will stay. Actually, I think their only real Heavy Metal album was their last, but I am not the only one to decide.

Anyway, as I said before, sniping or putting down people's work will not be tolerated here. People here have been working non-stop for days to make some order into the database, as well as adding bands, and do not need to have people from outside tell them that they're doing it all wrong.

As to adding The Beatles, Bill Haley or Cream, I don't believe anyone has expressed such an intention so far. However, if we decide to add them, we will, since we are the ones who are doing the work here.
Back to Top
lucas View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2010
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 220 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lucas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Apr 2010 at 3:18pm
Originally posted by topofsm topofsm wrote:

^Led Zeppelin, Thin Lizzy, and Hendrix are acts I would consider proto-metal. Clearly important for the development, but mainly just hard rock that doesn't quite come close enough to be considered metal.
Led Zeppelin = heavy metal or hard-rock (both terms are interchangeable)
Thin Lizzy = heavy metal
Jimi Hendrix = psychedlic rock
 
For me if proto-metal exists it would be something pre-DP, LZ, or BS : blue cheer or cream or high tide.
 
proto means "first" so I don't really see the point having Thin Lizzy in such genre while heavy metal was already settled with bands like Deep Purple, Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin and Uriah Heep...
Back to Top
The T 666 View Drop Down
MMA Special Collaborator
MMA Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: 30 Mar 2010
Location: Hell
Status: Offline
Points: 476 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The T 666 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Apr 2010 at 12:18pm
^exactly. It should be evident, again, the intention behind such a ganre.
Back to Top
topofsm View Drop Down
MMA Metal Reviewer
MMA Metal Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2010
Location: Hate state, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 689 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote topofsm Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Apr 2010 at 12:12pm
^Led Zeppelin, Thin Lizzy, and Hendrix are acts I would consider proto-metal. Clearly important for the development, but mainly just hard rock that doesn't quite come close enough to be considered metal.
Lost respect for these archives when I saw Creed added, among other bands. Not going to be foruming here anymore. You can keep my reviews if you want.
Back to Top
The T 666 View Drop Down
MMA Special Collaborator
MMA Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: 30 Mar 2010
Location: Hell
Status: Offline
Points: 476 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The T 666 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Apr 2010 at 12:11pm
Originally posted by lucas lucas wrote:

Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

For the record, I too think NWOBHM should be included in traditional metal, especially sine you have now added a proto-metal genre.
 
What's that ?
The Beatles ? Cream ? or maybe earlier stuff like Little Richard, Elvis Presley and Bill Haley ?
 
The point is to have a complete database with artists whose sound was extremely influential and related to the birth of metal. The artists you mention were essential for the development of rock n' roll in general, but for METAL, unless one really stretches things, they played only a very very distant role.
 
It should be evident.
Back to Top
lucas View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2010
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 220 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lucas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Apr 2010 at 11:03am
Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

For the record, I too think NWOBHM should be included in traditional metal, especially sine you have now added a proto-metal genre.
 
What's that ?
The Beatles ? Cream ? or maybe earlier stuff like Little Richard, Elvis Presley and Bill Haley ?
Back to Top
topofsm View Drop Down
MMA Metal Reviewer
MMA Metal Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2010
Location: Hate state, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 689 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote topofsm Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 12:07pm
My 2 cents
 
Originally posted by lucas lucas wrote:

Genres

  • Avant-garde Metal
  • Black Metal
  • Death Metal
  • Doom Metal (including stoner metal + drone metal ?) I think so, there's also a lot of crossover of this into sludge and post, so maybe a merge is necessary with that
  • Folk Metal
  • Glam Metal Is it metal?
  • Gothic Metal It's a good genre, but it also often has crossover into doom. The whole doom/sludge/stoner/gothic etc area is pretty confusing
  • Grindcore There's lot's of grindcore that's basically noise and has no metal, for example the Locust. Grindcore isn't inherently metal
  • Industrial Metal
  • Metalcore Hardcore (which includes emocore, old school, post-hardcore, sludge, screamo, metalcore, mathcore) I think a metalcore genre would be a better umbrella term for a category. Deathcore should fall under this genre too, since it's closer in spirit to it than it is to Death Metal
  • Nu Metal I already ranted about this in the suggest new bands area. Also, if we do end up adding it and alt metal, these two should go together
  • Power Metal
  • Progressive Metal No problems with this or power metal, just wondering. Where does Symphony X go?
  • Sludge/Post-metal (don�t really see the link between sludge (cross between doom metal and hardcore) and post-metal)
  • Symphonic Metal
  • Thrash Metal
  • Traditional Heavy Metal  (including NWOBHM ?) Yes
  • Atmospheric Metal No, pretty much any band in this genre can fit well in post/sludge/doom/gothic etc
  • Funk metal (RHCP, fishbone, Living Colour, extreme...) NONONONONO!
  • Neo-classical Metal (the shrapnel stable) Power metal works for most cases, we don't need a separate category for it.
 
For the rest of my opinions, I have a rant in the suggest new bands category. I appear to be in the minority here but I'd appreciate if some people took a look at that discussion.
Back to Top
Metalbaswee View Drop Down
MMA Special Collaborator
MMA Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator/Retired Admin

Joined: 26 Mar 2010
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Points: 396 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Metalbaswee Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 12:06pm
Originally posted by The T 666 The T 666 wrote:

Originally posted by Metalbaswee Metalbaswee wrote:

Originally posted by The T 666 The T 666 wrote:

Hardcore is not a metal genre IMO. Metalcore is designed for artists who have strong hardcore elements. 

Alternative metal will include nu metal. I agree with this 100%

The link between sludge and post metal is evident in my eyes. I don't think they need two separate genres. 

Symphonic metal IMO is just another type of power metal. But it can be argued that two genres are needed. 

I agree that traditional metal should INCLUDE NWOBHM..... There's no need for two genres there... 

I don't think we need an atmospheric or neo-classical metal (there are genres already listed that can contain artists like that). 

Funk metal would go in alternative metal (no RHCP, please... they're not metal)



And we just split these up today.

 We are still working with all the Admins & Collaborators to get a good way of dividing bands into genres.

Bas.

Sorry. I just joined yesterday and you people have some early hours... TongueLOL

I'll stand by whatever we decide is better for the MMA. 


Depends in which time zone you live ;P


Back to Top
The T 666 View Drop Down
MMA Special Collaborator
MMA Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: 30 Mar 2010
Location: Hell
Status: Offline
Points: 476 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The T 666 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 11:58am
Originally posted by Metalbaswee Metalbaswee wrote:

Originally posted by The T 666 The T 666 wrote:

Hardcore is not a metal genre IMO. Metalcore is designed for artists who have strong hardcore elements. 

Alternative metal will include nu metal. I agree with this 100%

The link between sludge and post metal is evident in my eyes. I don't think they need two separate genres. 

Symphonic metal IMO is just another type of power metal. But it can be argued that two genres are needed. 

I agree that traditional metal should INCLUDE NWOBHM..... There's no need for two genres there... 

I don't think we need an atmospheric or neo-classical metal (there are genres already listed that can contain artists like that). 

Funk metal would go in alternative metal (no RHCP, please... they're not metal)



And we just split these up today.

 We are still working with all the Admins & Collaborators to get a good way of dividing bands into genres.

Bas.

Sorry. I just joined yesterday and you people have some early hours... TongueLOL

I'll stand by whatever we decide is better for the MMA. 
Back to Top
thellama73 View Drop Down
Forum Groupie
Forum Groupie
Avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2010
Location: Atlanta, GA
Status: Offline
Points: 59 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote thellama73 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 11:57am
For the record, I too think NWOBHM should be included in traditional metal, especially sine you have now added a proto-metal genre.
Back to Top
Raff View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1006 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Raff Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 11:53am
The database will be in a state of flux for some time, so things may well change in the future. However, let's please bear something in mind: we will NEVER get everyone to agree on genre labels/classifications, so a bit of tolerance is needed, even if the current situation doesn't correspond 100% to our wishes. I'd really like to avoid the endless (and often pointless) bickering that occurred on PA as regards subgenres, and that ended up turning a lot of people off the site. 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.16
Copyright ©2001-2013 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.172 seconds.