What do you think of "sub genres"

[Matt Till]

Or super sub genres I guess I could say. It gets pretty ridiculous sometimes, "Post Metalcore with No Wave influence." etc etc etc. It seems a contest sometime to attach the most garbage to your band name so you sound artsy I guess. But I like subgenres, when they are not used in the name drop context... they help me discover more bands I like actually.

This is more aparent in the metal scene more than anything, so it probably won't matter to a lot. But jazz? Dixieland, Bop, Swing, Big Band, Hard Bop, Cool, Free, Fusion, etc. They all sound different. But it helps me figure out what I do and do not like. But I'll admit, it's getting pretty over the top, "Power Violence?" "War Metal?" "Viking Metal?"

But in reality, I like some bands that fall under different genres more than others. Metalcore rarely sparks my interest, but Viking Metal does.. go figure.

[Rakie]

its all about "New wave progressive grindcore emo classical epic disco pop death jazz"

the newest thing from Sveden

[Against Will]

In all fairness to power violence, the title was meant as a joke. None of those bands really wanted to be called that. People just jumped on the title and ran with it, kind of like grunge.

[Stanley Design]

Most of them nowadays aren't as much a sub-genre as a meld of subgenres to describe the type of band. Such as deathgrindcore would in my mind describe gutterals/pig squeels, sweeps and gravity blasts, and brutal breakdowns that are good for two stepping.

[905]

I think rather than classifying a band as a certain type of music (which is always rather challenging tbh), it's more useful to compare it to similar bands.

I could say, for example, that King Crimson is like Primus with less distortion on the guitar, or that Britney Spears is like Dolly Parton (except not). That's more useful to me than knowing that Alabama 3 is "acid house dance funk disco house trash jazz".

[TeeMartin]

They're helpful if you want to look for bands that you like.

If I liked Melodic Progessive Power Thrashcore Funk, I might not like NuMelodic Progressive Power Thrashcore Funk. Or something.

[slackerdefined]

I think genres are kind of pretentious and can be limiting in certain ways. And when a band classifies itself, either by name or cliches, I think that's when it's time to stop listening.

Notice how almost rarely does music come from an amazing departure from the norm. In my opinion all the subgenres are just attempts at naming "the next bit thing".

Blues turned into rock which turned in to metal and punk which turned into grunge. It's alot easier to be the musical pioneer of the next new genre if you're the first band to use it.

[keb]

It's all a wee bit silly.

[Ripper]

i think it has gotten too carried away... how can a band be "hardcore / post-hardcore / death metal / metalcore / deathcore" etc...

why not just say metal?

i know it makes sense in Jazz... those all sound very different... but all of the genres that i just listed sound exactly the same

[Matt Till]

Originally Posted by Ripper

i think it has gotten too carried away... how can a band be "hardcore / post-hardcore / death metal / metalcore / deathcore" etc...

why not just say metal?

i know it makes sense in Jazz... those all sound very different... but all of the genres that i just listed sound exactly the same

To YOU

That's because you're a jazz fan (must be) and not a metal fan. All the genres you listed (except hardcore/post hardcore and metalcore/deathcore) sound different to me. This is why I find sub-genres useful. I've become very picky about the metal I like. It's useful, for one, because I can go on allmusic.com and search genres and find similar bands by genres.

If a hardcore band called themselves metal, hardcore kids would never check them out. Metal is as broad a term as jazz. I'm sure if a metal kids listened to jazz, he'd probably think "Bop" and "Hard Bop" sound the same.

Some times it is "lets see how many genres we can tack on to our name" but other times, I think it's very useful. I didn't in the past. But even progressive rock! Go to progarchives.com, you can search by sub genre, and I've discovered a lot of new music that way.

Like Pink Floyd? Check out Space/Psych Rock
Like Amon Duul? Check out Krautrock
Like King Crimson? Check out Art Rock
Like Caravan? Check out Canterbury Scene
Like Sigar Ros? Check out Experimental + Post Rock
Like Lamp of the Universe (or sitars in general)? Check out Indo Prog/Raga Rock
Like Goblin? Check out Italian Symphonic Prog
Like Return to Forever? Check out Jazz Rock/Fusion
Like Marillon? Check out Neo Progressive
Like Frank Zappa? Check out RIO (Rock in opposition)/Avant Prog
Like Opeth? Check out Progressive Metal


All those bands sound proggy to me, but way way different. Sub genres help a lot.

[Benjamin Strange]

I am ambiguous with my music. Labels are for sexuality.

P-psh. It's all music. I like what I like and I don't care what it's called.

[the_fonz]

Originally Posted by Matt Till

Like Amon Duul? Check out Krautrock

i love it

[CrazyArcher]

Genres are cool, as long as you have plenty of bands to form each one. Genres are a good way to desribe what a certain band plays to a person not familiar with it.

[syciprider]

Death to False Metal!

[nad]

I dislike the fighting inherent of subgenre naming more than the naming convention itself.

[markjazzbassist]

like you said matt, it's useful in jazz and genres that are too broad, but for the crazy stuff like viking metal and post-hardcore pre-EMO shoegaze, Yes i think it's a bit much.

[Matt Till]

Originally Posted by markjazzbassist

like you said matt, it's useful in jazz and genres that are too broad, but for the crazy stuff like viking metal and post-hardcore pre-EMO shoegaze, Yes i think it's a bit much.

No, I think the term "metal" is too broad a title.

Judas Priest sounds nothing like Deicide who sound nothing like Korn who sound nothing like Anthrax who sound nothing like Fintroll who sound nothing like Ephel Duath.

I think subgenres are always useful, if used in a true sense, not just to sound cool.

A lot of people assume all metal sounds the same, but a lot of people assume jazz all sounds the same, etc.

[Benjamin Strange]

Originally Posted by Matt Till

No, I think the term "metal" is too broad a title.

Judas Priest sounds nothing like Deicide who sound nothing like Korn who sound nothing like Anthrax who sound nothing like Fintroll who sound nothing like Ephel Duath.

I think subgenres are always useful, if used in a true sense, not just to sound cool.

A lot of people assume all metal sounds the same, but a lot of people assume jazz all sounds the same, etc.

What you fail to see, Matt, is that all metal and jazz do sound the same. Metal is nothing but a bunch of no talent ugly dudes with long hair screaming and playing too loud; jazz is four snobby old guys all playing different songs at the same time.

[ric1312]

I think all these sub classfications are three things:

1. Marketing BS
2. Trying to make people think the band reinvented the wheel by putting a new sticker on it.
3. An excuse why your band sounds like horse poop with no hope of ever being anything beyond underground.... very underground.

Seriously, I've been in rock and metal bands for 20 years. None of these NU metal, or viking metal or dark metal, or stoner rock bands are doing anything that hasn't already been done. Also the classification names are stupid. They dont' help me in anyway to figure out what the band sounds like if I'm thinking of checking them out.

[Bryan R. Tyler]

I just started a new band. We're totally burntinfant-core.