About melodic death metal

Regarding how big melodeath is, do you think it should be considered a major subgenre like thrash metal and progressive metal rather than just a subgenre of death metal?

How does the current situation regarding the genre affect you? I don't even... I can't answer this tbh

When I started hanging out on this board I put a lot of stock on genre's. The more that I am on here and the more that I talk to other people that are not on here, I have discovered this: How I classify my music is how I classify my music. It does not have to make sense to others, just me. Otherwise you will unnecessarily end up butting heads on whether or not the album is melodic/glam/hair/blackened/hillbilly/deathcore or not. So if it make sense to label a band a certain way in your iTunes account, then great, if not, find a label or system that makes sense to you.

IMHO

I FINALLY got the genre war. I've just failed right here to understand how differs subjenre and major subgenre. Label whatever you want, simply don't make it harder to explore new music out there. Call it melodeath like everyone's used to.

Absolutely not.

Ya either dig it or you don't, plain and simple. That makes it just two genres for me. The reason why I don't get into genre labels is that I have never ever liked every band in any particular genre to make it be important to me. I can see the importance of personal classification for the ol Ipod. In the end it doesn't matter. If I was too play along and say something "about melodic death metal" as the thread title suggests.....I'd say that "Dimensions" by Believer is a good example of what I would call "melodic death metal" even though the term wasn't even around when that album came out. Not to mention, most probably wouldn't even consider that a proper definition by todays standards. I hear harsh vocals, fast tempos, alot of melody and symphonic elements similar to bands of today that are labeled such. I don't know ?

Purely from a subjective pov, if I hear a band being classified as death metal I instantly think "old school" traditional sounding death metal in the vein of Morbid Angel, Death, Deicide, Cannibal Corpse, Malevolent Creation and the like. I certainly don't think Dark Tranquillity or Children of Bodom, Soilwork and the like if someone says this band is death metal. In this way I say the term death metal of its own is not always descriptive of a band's sound.

Similarly I also keep a distinction between old school and brutal death metal, though I will agree these are nuances more than substantial stylistic differences.

When it comes to melodic death metal - even objectively dare I say - imo there are rather obvious stylistic differences to the traditional death metal sound. It is impossible to put a band like In Flames next to Morbid Angel and draw any parralels in their sound. What melodic death metal does instead is marries up traditional metal, sprinkling in a bit of prog and goth at times, with the dissonant vocal styles of death metal to create a gloomy and sinister atmosphere. Arguably you could say it is a totally different sub-genre of metal rather than a variant of death metal.

I see lots of descriptions, but no actual "sub-genres". I see melodic, brutal, traditional, progressive & I'll add ambient, raw, mince, avant-garde, true, slamming, crusty, atmospheric, beatdown, gore, math, folk, porno, etc.

To me these are just descriptions of the style of sub-genre being played. The sub-genre would be Thrash, Death, Black, etc....

mc666 wrote:

I see lots of descriptions, but no actual "sub-genres". I see melodic, brutal, traditional, progressive & I'll add ambient, raw, mince, avant-garde, true, slamming, crusty, atmospheric, beatdown, gore, math, folk, porno, etc.

To me these are just descriptions of the style of sub-genre being played. The sub-genre would be Thrash, Death, Black, etc....

So that is why I am always getting it wrong, too confusing

There are more and more bands labelled as melo-death.

I used to find the genre fun at first, but eventually got bored of it.

I barely listen to my COB and Amon Amarth records anymore.

I have 3 genres of music and to me everything I listen to, everything I've ever bought can be summed in very simple terms. It's either pop, rock or metal. That's it.

Of course I understand how and why other people have created a million and one sub genres and if I'm reading a review of something, be it a magazine or a forum member and they use terms such as death metal, melodic death metal, grindcore etc etc it can help to describe the music hand helps me get a good understanding of what the album I'm reading about will sound like. Heck I even describe stuff using sub genre terms at times.

At the end of the day if any of my non music loving friends and family ask me about what I'm listening to its either pop, rock or metal.

Is melo death still a big deal?

I feel like in the mid to late 90s, a new melo death popped up as frequently as a new power metal band did in the early 2000s....I rarely hear about it any more.

ZombieHavoc wrote:

Is melo death still a big deal?

I feel like in the mid to late 90s, a new melo death popped up as frequently as a new power metal band did in the early 2000s....I rarely hear about it any more.

That's because it's not so much "big" now as "established".

I don't know a better way to describe it necessarily but I always thought it was ridiculous that death metal to some is anything with growling.

It's still around and fairly big, it's even changed somewhat. Listen to an Insomnium and you hear some different elements then say a Dark Tranquillity.

Dark Horseman wrote:

It's still around and fairly big, it's even changed somewhat. Listen to an Insomnium and you hear some different elements then say a Dark Tranquillity.

Or Daath. They have a big industrial flavor to their music and sound like nothing else I've heard.