subdivisions
Printed From: MetalMusicArchives.com
Category: Site News, Newbies, Help and Improvements
Forum Name: Help us improve the site
Forum Description: Help us improve the forums, and the site as a whole
URL: http://www.MetalMusicArchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=226
Printed Date: 21 May 2024 at 8:57pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 10.16 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: subdivisions
Posted By: lucas
Subject: subdivisions
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 11:08am
|
Genres
|
Replies:
Posted By: The T 666
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 11:44am
|
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) |
Posted By: Metalbaswee
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 11:50am
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. -------------   |
The T 666 wrote:Posted By: Raff
Date 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. |
Posted By: thellama73
Date 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. |
Posted By: The T 666
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 11:58am
Sorry. I just joined yesterday and you people have some early hours...   I'll stand by whatever we decide is better for the MMA.
|
Posted By: Metalbaswee
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 12:06pm
Depends in which time zone you live ;P ------------- |
Posted By: topofsm
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 12:07pm
|
My 2 cents
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.
|
Posted By: lucas
Date Posted: 01 Apr 2010 at 11:03am
What's that ?
The Beatles ? Cream ? or maybe earlier stuff like Little Richard, Elvis Presley and Bill Haley ?
|
Posted By: The T 666
Date Posted: 01 Apr 2010 at 12:11pm
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. ------------- 
|
Posted By: topofsm
Date 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. |
Posted By: The T 666
Date Posted: 01 Apr 2010 at 12:18pm
|
^exactly. It should be evident, again, the intention behind such a ganre. -------------
|
Posted By: lucas
Date Posted: 01 Apr 2010 at 3:18pm
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...
|
Posted By: Raff
Date 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. |
Posted By: lucas
Date 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 ?
|
Posted By: topofsm
Date 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. |
Posted By: Raff
Date 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. |
Posted By: topofsm
Date 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. |
Posted By: The T 666
Date Posted: 01 Apr 2010 at 7:56pm
 -------------
|
Posted By: Reed Lover
Date Posted: 02 Apr 2010 at 4:00pm
The mistake is in the perception not the conception. 
|
Posted By: Ulfednar
Date 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. ------------- 
|
Posted By: UMUR
Date 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 it .
------------- http://www.lyngby-boldklub.dk/" rel="nofollow - Forever TRUE - Forever BLUE! https://rateyourmusic.com/~UMUR" rel="nofollow - UMUR on RYM |
Posted By: Ulfednar
Date 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. -------------
|