Does metal have three sides?

I tend to notice something there. There are tons of metal genres, but I think there tend to be three major fanbases in the genre. First we have melodic metal, which consist of traditional heavy metal, power metal, progressive metal, doom metal, symphonic metal, gothic metal, ect. We also have extreme metal, which includes thrash metal, death metal, black metal, grindcore, etc. Then, we have alternative metal, which would include industrial metal, sludge metal, stoner metal, modern heavy metal, etc. Does anybody look at it the same way?

Interesting thought. I have not really thought about it in that light, I look at the genre's and personally count Traditional/Power, Prog, thrash/speed, Doom/Stoner, and Death/Black. While the combined genre's are not the same they are close enough to be categorized together. IMHO.

Genesis has an album called Three Sides Live.

Not sure metal has three sides.

Extreme has III sides too I think...

Maybe....but what this really makes me think of is how I think a lot of the fans have messed things up, involving this....

Basically, it's to where you have the fan who likes 'extreme' stuff and nothing else, the fan who likes 'doom/stoner' stuff (and the occasional post rock), and nothing else, the fan who likes certified 'classic' stuff and nothing else, and the fan who likes 'progpower' but won't really go near something that extends to being actually progressive. For whatever reason, each of these fans have a really slim emotional margin and tend to hate 100% of anything that doesn't fall into the specified preferences. You have a keyboard in the classic metal band, that fan will go apes***, you growl in a power metal song and the progpower guy is uncomfortable, you have the extreme guy who thinks everything is 'ga-hey'......................................I just see less and less metal fans crossing over anywhere or giving stuff a proper chance, and it's weird. I'm always told that 'back in the day' it was different, where as long as you weren't a glam rocker or a skinhead, every metal out was good. That sounds pretty rad.

Sorry, it's a little bit detached, but this is what I thought of when you mentioned fanbases...moreso than the music itself.

vgmaster9 wrote:

I tend to notice something there. There are tons of metal genres, but I think there tend to be three major fanbases in the genre. First we have melodic metal, which consist of traditional heavy metal, power metal, progressive metal, doom metal, symphonic metal, gothic metal, ect. We also have extreme metal, which includes thrash metal, death metal, black metal, grindcore, etc. Then, we have alternative metal, which would include industrial metal, sludge metal, stoner metal, modern heavy metal, etc. Does anybody look at it the same way?

That's very similar to how I look at it.

Most of what I like falls into your first category but I like some in the alt metal category too. I like precious little in your extreme metal category.

That's not a bad way to break it down.

I don't worry about genres and sub genres.

When i hear a new band I don't go "Oh cool, a blackened gothic progressive grindcore polka thrash band with a touch of dill for flavor."

I either say "Wow, that's good" or "Wow, that sucks."

Fat Freddy wrote:

I don't worry about genres and sub genres.

When i hear a new band I don't go "Oh cool, a blackened gothic progressive grindcore polka thrash band with a touch of dill for flavor."

I either say "Wow, that's good" or "Wow, that sucks."

Me too; but that's if I actually hear the band.

If I'm trying to scope out a new band and I can't hear any samples, then I'm left with what reviewers think. And if a reviewer says something like "this is a great grindcore band" I know it falls into vgMaster's 2nd category and I don't need to research any further.

tohostudios wrote:

Fat Freddy wrote:

I don't worry about genres and sub genres.

When i hear a new band I don't go "Oh cool, a blackened gothic progressive grindcore polka thrash band with a touch of dill for flavor."

I either say "Wow, that's good" or "Wow, that sucks."

Me too; but that's if I actually hear the band.

If I'm trying to scope out a new band and I can't hear any samples, then I'm left with what reviewers think. And if a reviewer says something like "this is a great grindcore band" I know it falls into vgMaster's 2nd category and I don't need to research any further.

i am mostly the same way. I dont care for genre labels but unless the covers look like something MC666 posts, I find them initially a little helpful.

Fat Freddy wrote:

I don't worry about genres and sub genres.

When i hear a new band I don't go "Oh cool, a blackened gothic progressive grindcore polka thrash band with a touch of dill for flavor."

I either say "Wow, that's good" or "Wow, that sucks."

Still, people use genres to identify bands.

If the cover has artwork by Ed Repka or Dan Seagrave, ... that's a promising start in my book.

Temple of Blood wrote:

That's not a bad way to break it down.

I agree...cool synopsis.

I definitely don't fit into any of these "fan-bases". I like bands from each of the "categories" you devised, plus many that really don't fit any of them. It's an interesting idea to be sure, but probably kind of limiting overall since many of the sub-genres you listed have bands within them with very divergent sounds.

I don't feel the need to categorize and pigeonhole music, I just listen to what I like and try not to catch the "over-analyze disease" that the internet seems to have spawned.

My side is everything between hard rock and black metal with traditional influences, without modern or alternative touches/sounds. Also the looks of the bands needs to be cool because to see a concert with guys that looks like 99% of the people on the streets, no please.

I tend to gravitate predominately towards certain genres such as death or thrash, but I don't attempt to consciously categorise the sound. I just go for whatever bands appeal to me.

I may be one of the few who actually like bureaucratizing music. I think with such a massive umbrella term of metal, people can become quite disillusioned as to what it exactly represents. This is why these terms were invented; I don't see them so much as a label, but as a qualifier.

A band who is stated to be a Thrash Metal band, may not have to release everything Thrash, but we know they are not a Nu-Metal band. Likewise, a Power Metal band may release an aggressive, violent, brutal song, but they aren't a Death Metal band. I view it as what a band is NOT rather than what they are (if that makes any sense).

To the OP, I think those 3 sides are perfect.

It may be simple to say "I just listen to MUSIC and don't worry about categories," but I find that difficult. I want to know what I'll hear on a record, and what I won't hear. If I'm in the mood for something epic, catchy and clean, I'd rather a band not put on their album a song with guttural vocals and blast beats. I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to, or that I don't enjoy some of it, but I go to certain bands for a certain aesthetic and sound, and to mix it up screws that experience up a bit.

The genre labels can be a bit ridiculous, but sometimes a band is so specific that they don't qualify as anything and need a ridiculous title.

I've even researched bands because of the label they were given. Like Folk Metal, or Melodic Black Metal.

It works both ways I presume.

Quote :

Still, people use genres to identify bands.

This is true..however sometimes genres are mis-identified...especially genres within genres..Example: I am really into glam metal (roxx gang, L A Guns, Crashdiet)...Some call Guns N Roses Glam/hair metal..but I see them as sleaze metal which is similar but not glam. Some call whitesnake a hair metal band...I see them more as melodic metal. Some call Accept a thrash band but I see them more as traditional metal...etc.. Record stores and music download sites are real bad about mis-labeling bands. I have even seen Iron Maiden labeled a hair band because they wore spandex back in the 80s. Some call motorhead and Judas Priest NWOBHM bands. It gets exhausting. To me its easier to just mention a few bands you like and people generally get the idea of what you are into.

brokentulsa wrote:

To me its easier to just mention a few bands you like and people generally get the idea of what you are into.

Exactly. I never describe bands in "genres", if someone asks what I think a band sounds like I always list either who influenced them or other bands that are similar. I believe that's far more descriptive than combining a bunch of semi-meaningless descriptors together like "traditional folk thrash grind polka".

S.D. wrote:

brokentulsa wrote:

To me its easier to just mention a few bands you like and people generally get the idea of what you are into.

Exactly. I never describe bands in "genres", if someone asks what I think a band sounds like I always list either who influenced them or other bands that are similar. I believe that's far more descriptive than combining a bunch of semi-meaningless descriptors together like "traditional folk thrash grind polka".

same here. I discover more bands by who people compare them to than labels.

I tend to think of myself as a bigger fan of bands and not necessarily genres or scenes these days. I got kind of burned out on the whole "scene" mentality years ago. I guess I do tend to lean towards the more melodic or "traditional" metal styles, but there are bands in all three of the categories in the original post that I'm a fan of. It just depends on what I'm into at the moment. I really couldn't imagine listening to nothing but traditional metal or extreme metal for the rest of my life or anything. As long as it comes from the heart and it inspires me in some way, I can get behind it.

But there are probably a lot of people who could be summed up with the categories thing. You could probably apply it to other genres as well. Some people just have very specific tastes, or they just never really venture outside of their comfort zones, I guess.

Thats a really good way to put it.
I know a TON of people who limit themselves by these, one way or another.

I have albums from every metal genre and sub-genre:

Metalcore
Hardcore
Thrash
Death
Melodic Death
Progressive Death
Power
Euro-Power
Doom
Death/Doom
Black
Symphonic
Traditional
NWOBHM
Nu-Metal
Grindcore
Gothic
Alternative
Retro
Progressive
Folk
Classic
Industrial
Melodic Hard Rock/AOR
Pop
Hair
Glam
Sleeze
Southern
Neo-Classical
Speed
Stoner
Avante-gard

And everything betwwen.

Fat Freddy wrote:

blackened gothic progressive grindcore polka thrash band with a touch of dill for flavor."

VERY underrated genre, BTW.