Poor genre choices for bands/albums

Meshuggah have been discussed and it was agreed that they were best placed in thrash metal. Some acts transcend any genre definition we tag them with. Seen from a metal point of view and not a progressive point of view Meshuggah is essentially a technical modern thrash metal act. Just because they are also progressive don�t mean that people who visit this site will expect to find Meshuggah in progressive metal. I�m sure most people who come here seeking metal will find it confusing to see Meshuggah and Dream Theater in the same sub.

Edited by UMUR - 11 Jul 2010 at 2:07am

We�ve discussed this and opted to keep it simple for now. Maybe when the site is a bit more established, we will have a discussion about additional sub genres again.

Some of those genre labels are really ridiculous... I understand that many people dig them, but I'm not really sure it's a good idea to have a multiplication of subgenre tags now. As UMUR said, however, we may think about it at a later date - when the site has really taken off. 

And I don't think that now is the time for genre w**kery.

true.. I dig what Raff and others are saying...  but can't see what the site is waiting for.. 2012 and all the sinners to congregate here  I have no idea what the hell is 'doomcore' ..sounds like something someone thought up to seperate themselves from 'deathcore' 'gorecore' 'bestialitycore' and all the core core's out there hahah.... but speed metal. That sounds like an obvious one that should be done.. sooner better than later. 

If we�re talking strictly about the thrash metal sub, I would have no problem re-naming the sub thrash metal/ speed metal/ crossover. I don�t think we should create additional subs for speed metal and crossover as they are closely related to thrash metal and sometimes the distinction between them is hard to tell. For instance I don�t think the early Slayer albums should be placed in a speed metal sub.

Edited by UMUR - 03 Aug 2010 at 3:41am

Thank you. My overall approach to genres is to think them as nothing more than a group of adjectives for describing the sound of a band. It's simple, but it leads to long and absurd labelings like "technical/progressive death/doom metal with folk and classical influences and some gothic tendencies". So that'd be impossible as a tagging system.

Unfortunately, I don't know jack about working on websites or anything like that, but I think ... wrapping my head around the task of setting up a genre tagging system, I think they can be split into "pure" genres, as in thrash metal, death metal, doom metal, each with their own specific subgenres. [Thrash< groove metal, crossover thrash,] [Death metal< grindcore,] [Doom metal< funeral doom, gothic doom, stoner doom/stoner rock], then there are universal subgenres like progressive doom/thrash/death/black/power/etc., then there are subgenres created by clearly mixing other, pure genres, like doom/death, black/thrash.

That all got really complicated. ..But I guess an idea is to focus on the pure genres now, and gradually add various subgenres under the header of each pure genre, then filter the bands who don't fit whatever particular genre very well into a better fitting set of subgenres later.

I don't even know if that makes sense. To be honest, there are a zillion more subgenres of metal than there were when I kind of fell out of love with metal in the early 00s, so I don't really know my way around the various "cores" and "post-metals" as well as I could.

Concerning Melodic Death Metal, even with my limited experience of the subgenre I would say there is a need from a distinction between it and plain Death Metal. A site like BNR has implemented such a distinction in their subgenre listing, and rightly so - the differences in sound and overall approach are quite evident.