Best Metal ever...

[QUOTE="elite_destroyer"][QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"]

[QUOTE="elite_destroyer"]okay I could see where your coming from with the whole metalcore isnt metal, there are really only a few that are real metal like black metal, thrash, power, etc. but I guess its just a personal opinion on whats metal and whats not.. Blood-Scribe

Actually, there's tons upon tons of sub-genres of metal that aren't limited to what you just listed. That's why I've been saying before that metal is far too broad and diverse of a genre to have a "best" (though that can be said for just about any genre). And when it comes to classification, there's room for opinion, but it's still based on the consensus of the community, the fans, the bands, and musical break-throughs.

yeah thats why i had the ect.

I never said that there was a best cause there never is a best of anything except by personal opinion.

I dont get where your saying metalcore isnt metal tho because its a sub-genre of metal.

and saying that deciding wether music is concidered metal or not by the consensus of the community is not accurate at all. Just cause a bunch of people disagree that a band isnt metal doesnt mean it isnt. Ive never herd bands like killswitch engage, demon hunter, and bullet for my valentine be called anything but metal.

Metalcore is not classified as a sub-genre of metal. Like I've been saying, it's a fusion genre, so it doens't belong to metal or hardcore. It is its own thing.

And if the classifications of bands are not based upon the community of metal, which encompasses the bands, the individual musicians, and the fans, then how did we end up with the genre and its sub-genres in the first place? Metal is driven by its community, and the way that bands are disambiguated are based upon the general consensus of the community. But if that is not the case, then what is it that decides how to classify a band? If you have a better answer, I'd like to see it.

Gladly, saying that a band is metal or not by what the community thinks is down right obserd. Its the playing style of the musicians. having a metal band being influenced by some hardcore punk doesnt make them not metal if they have metal riffs and such in their songs like Norg said.

If the so called metal community your talking about cant except the fact that if you dont add individuality to your metal music then your freakin dumb. Metal is Metal even if you add your own touch to it. wether it be hardcore punk or rap like Korn did.

[QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"][QUOTE="elite_destroyer"][QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"]

[QUOTE="elite_destroyer"]okay I could see where your coming from with the whole metalcore isnt metal, there are really only a few that are real metal like black metal, thrash, power, etc. but I guess its just a personal opinion on whats metal and whats not.. elite_destroyer

Actually, there's tons upon tons of sub-genres of metal that aren't limited to what you just listed. That's why I've been saying before that metal is far too broad and diverse of a genre to have a "best" (though that can be said for just about any genre). And when it comes to classification, there's room for opinion, but it's still based on the consensus of the community, the fans, the bands, and musical break-throughs.

yeah thats why i had the ect.

I never said that there was a best cause there never is a best of anything except by personal opinion.

I dont get where your saying metalcore isnt metal tho because its a sub-genre of metal.

and saying that deciding wether music is concidered metal or not by the consensus of the community is not accurate at all. Just cause a bunch of people disagree that a band isnt metal doesnt mean it isnt. Ive never herd bands like killswitch engage, demon hunter, and bullet for my valentine be called anything but metal.

Metalcore is not classified as a sub-genre of metal. Like I've been saying, it's a fusion genre, so it doens't belong to metal or hardcore. It is its own thing.

And if the classifications of bands are not based upon the community of metal, which encompasses the bands, the individual musicians, and the fans, then how did we end up with the genre and its sub-genres in the first place? Metal is driven by its community, and the way that bands are disambiguated are based upon the general consensus of the community. But if that is not the case, then what is it that decides how to classify a band? If you have a better answer, I'd like to see it.

Gladly, saying that a band is metal or not by what the community thinks is down right obserd. Its the playing style of the musicians. having a metal band being influenced by some hardcore punk doesnt make them not metal if they have metal riffs and such in their songs like Norg said.

If the so called metal community your talking about cant except the fact that if you dont add individuality to your metal music then your freakin dumb. Metal is Metal even if you add your own touch to it. wether it be hardcore punk or rap like Korn did.

That's completely irrelevant and still doesn't answer my question; if it's not up to the metal community to ultimately decide how a band is classified, then who's decision is it?

Metalcore bands almost always have hardcore-style vocals, and breakdowns. Their riffs are usually inferior, hardcore breakdowns take no talent to play, they are filler and most of the time are added in so their hardcore fans don't cry.

Some of the replies in this thread make me want to vomit. Lamb of God? Trivium? SLIPKNOT? I'd rather manually rip out my teeth while being anally raped by the incredible hulk than listen to them.

As for the good stuff, Esoteric is completely unbeatable right now.

who said one person does? if you go onto itunes the music you told me was concidered rock to the retards on itunes. when its clearly death metal. and you think slipknot and such arent metal when metal magazines do.. I guess I dont have an exact idea on WHO classifies music. Record companies? Maybey the same people or a group like it who classify games, movies, novels, etc.

You dont concider a movie like Star wars to be a drama just cause a bunch of people who saw the movie says it was, do you?

Some of the replies in this thread make me want to vomit. Lamb of God? Trivium? SLIPKNOT? I'd rather manually rip out my teeth while being anally raped by the incredible hulk than listen to them.

As for the good stuff, Esoteric is completely unbeatable right now.

Episode_666

yeah this is all just personal opinion bro, you dont have to bring your sexuality into this.

Queensrÿche, and It's mostly the album Operation: Mindcrime.

Erasorn

God, I love that album, but Empire was good, too.

...and as an addition, I've really enjoyed some of the new prog. that Porcupine Tree has been putting out. Deadwing, In Absentia, Stupid Dream, etc. are all some of my favorite albums.

[QUOTE="Episode_666"]

Some of the replies in this thread make me want to vomit. Lamb of God? Trivium? SLIPKNOT? I'd rather manually rip out my teeth while being anally raped by the incredible hulk than listen to them.

As for the good stuff, Esoteric is completely unbeatable right now.

elite_destroyer

yeah this is all just personal opinion bro, you dont have to bring your sexuality into this.

No, it's not just personal opinion when the title of the thread is "Best Metal ever" rather than "Your favourite metal."

I'm sorry, but absolutely worthless garbage like that doesn't belong anywhere close to the phrase "Best Metal ever."

who said one person does? if you go onto itunes the music you told me was concidered rock to the retards on itunes. when its clearly death metal. and you think slipknot and such arent metal when metal magazines do.. I guess I dont have an exact idea on WHO classifies music. Record companies? Maybey the same people or a group like it who classify games, movies, novels, etc.

You dont concider a movie like Star wars to be a drama just cause a bunch of people who saw the movie says it was, do you?

elite_destroyer

I never said one person does, I said it was the general consensus formed by the community. If it were under the authority of one person, and one person alone, then there would be absolutely no debates within the community. Luckily, it isn't up to one guy that nobody here knows, it's up to the people. That's how metal branches out, advances, and evolves, due to an effort made by the community as a whole. It's like I've been saying before, the fact that we're debating about this now, and that others all over the place are debating about the same issue on metalcore being considered metal, gives rise to the fact that it's not completely in line with the standards of other metal, otherwise there'd be nothing to argue about.

And I never said Slipknot was not metal, they are nu-metal, I completely acknowledge that, but I still don't like them. I don't know how you got the idea that I called Slipknot metalcore, or how you thought that I didn't consider them metal just because I don't really like them. You seem to have a habit of assuming such things without actually paying attention to my posts.

And record companies would contribute to classification, if rather to a small extent. Like I've been saying, it's pretty much driven by the community, which employees of the record companies, the magazine companies, the internet forums, and the bands, would all essentially be a part of.

And as for an exclusive group that somehow manages to have the authority to classify all sorts of different types of mediums of expression an art, well, that's probably the most far-fetched idea I've heard yet, so I'm not going to try and touch that one.

And no, I don't consider star wars a drama just because a bunch of people say it is, but rather because of what the entire movie community says it is. I don't know where you were trying to go with that, but whatever.

Metalcore bands almost always have hardcore-style vocals, and breakdowns. Their riffs are usually inferior, hardcore breakdowns take no talent to play, they are filler and most of the time are added in so their hardcore fans don't cry.

skullkrusher13

True, but its still a sub genre of metal whether people like it or not. Thrash took influences from NWOBHM, Hardcore and Punk, The First Wave of Black Metal (FWOBM) took came some similar roots, Death Metal takes from FWOBM and Metalcore took influences from Hardcore and other previous genres. Just because its a fusion doesnt mean its not metal. However it will always be the genre thats picked on by the bigger ones

BEST METAL EVER is just screaming opinions dude. That esoteric bull **** is well, bull but that doesnt mean its not the best metal ever.. It could be, Slipknot could be, Iron Maiden Could be, Metallica could be, Black sabbath could be. Your gonna get a crap load of opinions here. elite_destroyer

I seriously doubt you've ever heard Esoteric. If you had, you wouldn't be wallowing in the filth of that abysmal mallcore and Hot Topic crap.

[QUOTE="skullkrusher13"]

Metalcore bands almost always have hardcore-style vocals, and breakdowns. Their riffs are usually inferior, hardcore breakdowns take no talent to play, they are filler and most of the time are added in so their hardcore fans don't cry.

freek666

True, but its still a sub genre of metal whether people like it or not. Thrash took influences from NWOBHM, Hardcore and Punk, The First Wave of Black Metal (FWOBM) took came some similar roots, Death Metal takes from FWOBM and Metalcore took influences from Hardcore and other previous genres. Just because its a fusion doesnt mean its not metal. However it will always be the genre thats picked on by the bigger ones

I still haven't seen any real reason to consider metalcore an actual sub-genre of metal. Could you please explain how it is?

[QUOTE="freek666"][QUOTE="skullkrusher13"]

Metalcore bands almost always have hardcore-style vocals, and breakdowns. Their riffs are usually inferior, hardcore breakdowns take no talent to play, they are filler and most of the time are added in so their hardcore fans don't cry.

Blood-Scribe

True, but its still a sub genre of metal whether people like it or not. Thrash took influences from NWOBHM, Hardcore and Punk, The First Wave of Black Metal (FWOBM) took came some similar roots, Death Metal takes from FWOBM and Metalcore took influences from Hardcore and other previous genres. Just because its a fusion doesnt mean its not metal. However it will always be the genre thats picked on by the bigger ones

I still haven't seen any real reason to consider metalcore an actual sub-genre of metal. Could you please explain how it is?

Dude, no matter how much metalcore blows, it is a sub-genre of metal. Metalcore bands often use (usually amateur) thrash metal riffs, occasionally attempt blastbeats, often employ Iron Maiden-esque melodic (sometimes dueling) solos, and sometimes trade hardcore vocals for death metal vocals. Really, the only things hardcore about most metalcore bands are the vocals and the breakdowns.

There are only 4 bands I need for my Metal Fix:

Metallica, MegaDeth, Pantera and Slayer.

Yes I know, I am one in a million, a Metallica/MegaDeth fan that also likes MegaDeth/Metallica, they are both kick ass, get over who is better

[QUOTE="elite_destroyer"]

who said one person does? if you go onto itunes the music you told me was concidered rock to the retards on itunes. when its clearly death metal. and you think slipknot and such arent metal when metal magazines do.. I guess I dont have an exact idea on WHO classifies music. Record companies? Maybey the same people or a group like it who classify games, movies, novels, etc.

You dont concider a movie like Star wars to be a drama just cause a bunch of people who saw the movie says it was, do you?

Blood-Scribe

I never said one person does, I said it was the general consensus formed by the community. If it were under the authority of one person, and one person alone, then there would be absolutely no debates within the community. Luckily, it isn't up to one guy that nobody here knows, it's up to the people. That's how metal branches out, advances, and evolves, due to an effort made by the community as a whole. It's like I've been saying before, the fact that we're debating about this now, and that others all over the place are debating about the same issue on metalcore being considered metal, gives rise to the fact that it's not completely in line with the standards of other metal, otherwise there'd be nothing to argue about.

And I never said Slipknot was not metal, they are nu-metal, I completely acknowledge that, but I still don't like them. I don't know how you got the idea that I called Slipknot metalcore, or how you thought that I didn't consider them metal just because I don't really like them. You seem to have a habit of assuming such things without actually paying attention to my posts.

And record companies would contribute to classification, if rather to a small extent. Like I've been saying, it's pretty much driven by the community, which employees of the record companies, the magazine companies, the internet forums, and the bands, would all essentially be a part of.

And as for an exclusive group that somehow manages to have the authority to classify all sorts of different types of mediums of expression an art, well, that's probably the most far-fetched idea I've heard yet, so I'm not going to try and touch that one.

And no, I don't consider star wars a drama just because a bunch of people say it is, but rather because of what the entire movie community says it is. I don't know where you were trying to go with that, but whatever.

1. I never ment just one person even tho i said that i didnt mean it in that way i ment like you know the ERSB for games rate the rating of the game.

2. Im using slipknot as an example

3. If the community does call metalcore bands metal then which community are you refering to? the fans? cause magazines call metalcore metal and even some metal bands call metalcore bands metal. And why the hell would internet forums have anything to do with that? You can have your own website saying Three doors down is the best metal band ever!! and some would agree with you and three doors down isnt musically metal at all.

4. Where do you think movies get classified as certin movies? Internet forums too? LMAO..

5. It was an example of something outside of classifying metal music too compare to. Think outside the box.

[QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"][QUOTE="freek666"][QUOTE="skullkrusher13"]

Metalcore bands almost always have hardcore-style vocals, and breakdowns. Their riffs are usually inferior, hardcore breakdowns take no talent to play, they are filler and most of the time are added in so their hardcore fans don't cry.

Episode_666

True, but its still a sub genre of metal whether people like it or not. Thrash took influences from NWOBHM, Hardcore and Punk, The First Wave of Black Metal (FWOBM) took came some similar roots, Death Metal takes from FWOBM and Metalcore took influences from Hardcore and other previous genres. Just because its a fusion doesnt mean its not metal. However it will always be the genre thats picked on by the bigger ones

I still haven't seen any real reason to consider metalcore an actual sub-genre of metal. Could you please explain how it is?

Dude, no matter how much metalcore blows, it is a sub-genre of metal. Metalcore bands often use (usually amateur) thrash metal riffs, occasionally attempt blastbeats, often employ Iron Maiden-esque melodic (sometimes dueling) solos, and sometimes trade hardcore vocals for death metal vocals. Really, the only things hardcore about most metalcore bands are the vocals and the breakdowns.

Looks like someone also agrees that metalcore is a sub-genre of metal in a way..

Looks like someone also agrees that metalcore is a sub-genre of metal in a way..

elite_destroyer

Of course it is. It's called METALcore for a reason, even though it's pretty much a disgrace to metal.

[QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"][QUOTE="freek666"][QUOTE="skullkrusher13"]

Metalcore bands almost always have hardcore-style vocals, and breakdowns. Their riffs are usually inferior, hardcore breakdowns take no talent to play, they are filler and most of the time are added in so their hardcore fans don't cry.

Episode_666

True, but its still a sub genre of metal whether people like it or not. Thrash took influences from NWOBHM, Hardcore and Punk, The First Wave of Black Metal (FWOBM) took came some similar roots, Death Metal takes from FWOBM and Metalcore took influences from Hardcore and other previous genres. Just because its a fusion doesnt mean its not metal. However it will always be the genre thats picked on by the bigger ones

I still haven't seen any real reason to consider metalcore an actual sub-genre of metal. Could you please explain how it is?

Dude, no matter how much metalcore blows, it is a sub-genre of metal. Metalcore bands often use (usually amateur) thrash metal riffs, occasionally attempt blastbeats, often employ Iron Maiden-esque melodic (sometimes dueling) solos, and sometimes trade hardcore vocals for death metal vocals. Really, the only things hardcore about most metalcore bands are the vocals and the breakdowns.

That sounded more like a description of a typical grind/deathcore setup, rather than a straight metalcore setup. In fact, metalcore has started to get even its own branches and sub-genres due to the increasing amount of bands that are falling under its classification. Older Avenged Sevenfold definitely seemed to be the straightest example of flat-out metalcore I could find (though admittedly, I haven't listened to them in a couple years). You could really tell from their first album that it had some really strong hardcore influences, though later, they did start moving more towards metal. But what I don't get is how you can just lump everything that falls under metalcore into metal as well, since a good deal of them actually do have stronger hardcore influences, since what you described doesn't sound like straight metalcore. So this begs the question as to how it's possible for a straight metalcore band to be considered metal, while still having very strong hardcore influences to the point where it could also be considered hardcore. Going by that, you'd be able to say that it's both Hardcore and Metal, though that would obviously be a contradiction. That's basically what makes it a fusion genre, it's the fact that it's heavily influenced by both, but it still isn't one or the other. And like I said before, not all metalcore bands tend to go in the same direction. Grindcore and deathcore try to go for more of a metal approach, but straight metalcore still exhibits strong hardcore influences. So because of that, it's hard for me to see how all of those bands can still be considered metal.

[QUOTE="freek666"][QUOTE="skullkrusher13"]

Metalcore bands almost always have hardcore-style vocals, and breakdowns. Their riffs are usually inferior, hardcore breakdowns take no talent to play, they are filler and most of the time are added in so their hardcore fans don't cry.

Blood-Scribe

True, but its still a sub genre of metal whether people like it or not. Thrash took influences from NWOBHM, Hardcore and Punk, The First Wave of Black Metal (FWOBM) took came some similar roots, Death Metal takes from FWOBM and Metalcore took influences from Hardcore and other previous genres. Just because its a fusion doesnt mean its not metal. However it will always be the genre thats picked on by the bigger ones

I still haven't seen any real reason to consider metalcore an actual sub-genre of metal. Could you please explain how it is?

Because of the traits it has taken from previous genres such as Hardcore and just general Heavy Metal. It might be an inferior form of metal, but its metal none the less. It's like saying that when Death metal started occuring that it wasnt really a sub genre because the purists back then wouldve heard the vocals and the such and said "wait, that aint metal!", but now it is. That probably never happened, but you get the idea. Eventually new genres will branch off from metalcore, and some already have such as deathcore. At the end of the day, whether you choose to accept it or not, thats entirely up to you, metalcore is a sub genre. It shares characteristics with other genres of metal so it is metal. To be a genre by itself is absurd. Classical music is a whole other genre altogether, same with rap and pop and everything else because they share nothing in common with metal. Metalcore does, so therefore it is metal.

1. I never ment just one person even tho i said that i didnt mean it in that way i ment like you know the ERSB for games rate the rating of the game.

2. Im using slipknot as an example

3. If the community does call metalcore bands metal then which community are you refering to? the fans? cause magazines call metalcore metal and even some metal bands call metalcore bands metal. And why the hell would internet forums have anything to do with that? You can have your own website saying Three doors down is the best metal band ever!! and some would agree with you and three doors down isnt musically metal at all.

4. Where do you think movies get classified as certin movies? Internet forums too? LMAO..

5. It was an example of something outside of classifying metal music too compare to. Think outside the box.

elite_destroyer

1. Then what were you trying to get at in the first place?

2. Then how did you get the idea that I didn't consider them metal if you accused me of such?

3. That's what I've been getting at, it's been debated amongst the community for awhile now. It varies from location to location and person to person, so there is no definite answer, but that's the whole point of arguing over it. We're supposed to come to a general conclusion. And I'd like to see which magazines you're talking about.

4. Did I ever say that it's just from internet forums? No, I didn't.

5. Kind of hard to think outside of a box that wasn't there to begin with, but nice try.

[QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"][QUOTE="freek666"][QUOTE="skullkrusher13"]

Metalcore bands almost always have hardcore-style vocals, and breakdowns. Their riffs are usually inferior, hardcore breakdowns take no talent to play, they are filler and most of the time are added in so their hardcore fans don't cry.

freek666

True, but its still a sub genre of metal whether people like it or not. Thrash took influences from NWOBHM, Hardcore and Punk, The First Wave of Black Metal (FWOBM) took came some similar roots, Death Metal takes from FWOBM and Metalcore took influences from Hardcore and other previous genres. Just because its a fusion doesnt mean its not metal. However it will always be the genre thats picked on by the bigger ones

I still haven't seen any real reason to consider metalcore an actual sub-genre of metal. Could you please explain how it is?

Because of the traits it has taken from previous genres such as Hardcore and just general Heavy Metal. It might be an inferior form of metal, but its metal none the less. It's like saying that when Death metal started occuring that it wasnt really a sub genre because the purists back then wouldve heard the vocals and the such and said "wait, that aint metal!", but now it is. That probably never happened, but you get the idea. Eventually new genres will branch off from metalcore, and some already have such as deathcore. At the end of the day, whether you choose to accept it or not, thats entirely up to you, metalcore is a sub genre. It shares characteristics with other genres of metal so it is metal. To be a genre by itself is absurd. Classical music is a whole other genre altogether, same with rap and pop and everything else because they share nothing in common with metal. Metalcore does, so therefore it is metal.

You could say the same thing about how metal first came about as its own genre. Hell, there's plenty of people that still say it's considered rock, and it is not its own genre. I don't see how metalcore can't be considered a genre by itself, as it has started to grow a lot, get it's own sub-genres, and get a lot of varying sounds that can be infulenced heavily by either metal or hardcore. But then going by the fact that it's heavily infulenced by metal and hardcore, and it is considered metal by some, and I've heard it considered hardcore, why is it only considered as metal to you, and not also/or hardcore? The influences in it don't seem to heavily favor metal in particular, so you could just as easily say that it's a sub-genre of hardcore. That's where the whole debate over it comes in, to reach a general conclusion. That's how metal got to where it was today, as it is not considered to be a sub-genre of rock as it once was. The same may or may not apply to metalcore, but I don't see how it can be considered metal so far, but that may change.

[QUOTE="aaronmullan"]Metallica suck.Aoki__

You are a bad man

VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY BAD MAN!!!!

i all ready told you ive picked up magazines such as hit parader. they called Killswitch Engaged, which is infact what you called a Metalcore band, a underground metal band. this was the January 2004 Copy i believe.

EDIT*

And how can you not classify Metalcore as metal? METALcore.. sure its not PURE metal but its metal in its own right. it has metal influences its metal. it might have a hole lot of hardcore influence more but its still metal. I dont see how clearer i can be. Even if its like the other people on her say its crap metal. ITS METAL.

"That sounded more like a description of a typical grind/deathcore setup"
Uh...I've never heard a grind or deathcore band that used thrash metal riffs or Maiden-esque solos.

"Older Avenged Sevenfold definitely seemed to be the straightest example of flat-out metalcore I could find"
Not really. I've always thought of bands like Killswitch Engage and As I Lay Dying as THE definitive bands. Early A7X has lot in common with emo though lol.

"But what I don't get is how you can just lump everything that falls under metalcore into metal as well, since a good deal of them actually do have stronger hardcore influences, since what you described doesn't sound like straight metalcore."

By that logic, any band that doesn't follow a pure strain of a certain genre can't be pinpointed generally as such. You might as well not call Opeth metal. It's stupid, and extremely limited. Really, using those guidelines, the only bands we could call metal would be stuff like Iron Maiden and Judas Priest. Genres collide everywhere, and the best bands in a certain genre are going to bring a lot of influences from other genres.

"So this begs the question as to how it's possible for a straight metalcore band to be considered metal, while still having very strong hardcore influences to the point where it could also be considered hardcore"

I think this is where you're supposed to realize that arguing over genres is stupid and completely based on semantics and subjective interpretations.

"Going by that, you'd be able to say that it's both Hardcore and Metal, though that would obviously be a contradiction. That's basically what makes it a fusion genre, it's the fact that it's heavily influenced by both, but it still isn't one or the other. And like I said before, not all metalcore bands tend to go in the same direction. Grindcore and deathcore try to go for more of a metal approach, but straight metalcore still exhibits strong hardcore influences. So because of that, it's hard for me to see how all of those bands can still be considered metal"

Again, you're going to find that there are a lot of such "contradictions" with nearly every band in existence. These attempts to so narrowly define the music of bands is futile and probably offensive to them.

i all ready told you ive picked up magazines such as hit parader. they called Killswitch Engaged, which is infact what you called a Metalcore band, a underground metal band. this was the January 2004 Copy i believe. elite_destroyer

Okay, and? Just because it's a magazine doesn't mean it's infallible and not open to debate. A magazine is not the final word here, in fact, there is no final word. It's completely open to debate, which is why I have bothered to stay up this late just so I can argue over it. For all you know, the magazine could be published by a bunch of media hacks who aren't even really fans of metal. The magazine isn't even pre-dominantly dedicated to only metal, so I don't really see how it counts for anything. Now if the writer of the article was shown to have a lot of experience in the genre and showed good reasons to say that they aren't metalcore or metalcore is metal, that would be a different story. But all you're showing me here is that a magazine considered a metalcore band to be an underground metal band, which doesn't prove much, because there's no ground to cover here since there's no reasons stated as to how or why they're considered as such. It merely says they are an underground metal band, but that's no final word.

[QUOTE="freek666"][QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"][QUOTE="freek666"][QUOTE="skullkrusher13"]

Metalcore bands almost always have hardcore-style vocals, and breakdowns. Their riffs are usually inferior, hardcore breakdowns take no talent to play, they are filler and most of the time are added in so their hardcore fans don't cry.

Blood-Scribe

True, but its still a sub genre of metal whether people like it or not. Thrash took influences from NWOBHM, Hardcore and Punk, The First Wave of Black Metal (FWOBM) took came some similar roots, Death Metal takes from FWOBM and Metalcore took influences from Hardcore and other previous genres. Just because its a fusion doesnt mean its not metal. However it will always be the genre thats picked on by the bigger ones

I still haven't seen any real reason to consider metalcore an actual sub-genre of metal. Could you please explain how it is?

Because of the traits it has taken from previous genres such as Hardcore and just general Heavy Metal. It might be an inferior form of metal, but its metal none the less. It's like saying that when Death metal started occuring that it wasnt really a sub genre because the purists back then wouldve heard the vocals and the such and said "wait, that aint metal!", but now it is. That probably never happened, but you get the idea. Eventually new genres will branch off from metalcore, and some already have such as deathcore. At the end of the day, whether you choose to accept it or not, thats entirely up to you, metalcore is a sub genre. It shares characteristics with other genres of metal so it is metal. To be a genre by itself is absurd. Classical music is a whole other genre altogether, same with rap and pop and everything else because they share nothing in common with metal. Metalcore does, so therefore it is metal.

You could say the same thing about how metal first came about as its own genre. Hell, there's plenty of people that still say it's considered rock, and it is not its own genre. I don't see how metalcore can't be considered a genre by itself, as it has started to grow a lot, get it's own sub-genres, and get a lot of varying sounds that can be infulenced heavily by either metal or hardcore (1). But then going by the fact that it's heavily infulenced by metal and hardcore, and it is considered metal by some, and I've heard it considered hardcore, why is it only considered as metal to you, and not also/or hardcore? (2) The influences in it don't seem to heavily favor metal in particular, so you could just as easily say that it's a sub-genre of hardcore. That's where the whole debate over it comes in, to reach a general conclusion. That's how metal got to where it was today, as it is not considered to be a sub-genre of rock as it once was. The same may or may not apply to metalcore, but I don't see how it can be considered metal so far, but that may change.

1. Then while were at it, lets say that NWOBHM isnt a sub genre since so many genres branched off from it. :roll:

2. Because Hardcore falls under the Metal umbrella as far as I know. Also I didnt say it was JUST metal, its just that that's the topic we were on.

I guess you can say that it is a genre on its own, but you still cant go past the idea that it is still from Metal roots. Basically anything can be a genre unto itself as long as it has some differences, but its just a lot easier to keep them under one roof and if you need to, dissect it to show the differences. To many people at the time and still today, Rock and Metal are the same thing. But there are those who can pick apart the differences, and you can also do that with metal and its sub genres. We might as well just say everything is a sub genre of Classical Music since thats where most of it came from.

And how can you not classify Metalcore as metal? METALcore.. sure its not PURE metal but its metal in its own right. it has metal influences its metal. it might have a hole lot of hardcore influence more but its still metal. I dont see how clearer i can be. Even if its like the other people on her say its crap metal. ITS METAL.

elite_destroyer

MetalCORE. It has heavy hardcore and punk influences, and by the same logic you're employing here, it can also be considered hardcore, and I've seen metalcore bands considered hardcore before. Don't bother trying to reason this by using the name of the genre. Do it by showing how a band is closer to metal than hardcore, and how the whole genre can be considered closer to metal than hardcore.

i all ready told you ive picked up magazines such as hit parader. they called Killswitch Engaged, which is infact what you called a Metalcore band, a underground metal band. this was the January 2004 Copy i believe. elite_destroyer

not only are you using a magazine as an example (which are innaccurate most of the time because they are naive and only look at bands on major record labels) but you are using a magazine FROM 2004. Wow.

The bottom line is if a band is on the metal archives, its metal.

Episode_666, you completely took the words out of my mouth and rephrased them so it sounds better.. lol

I think this is where you're supposed to realize that arguing over genres is stupid and completely based on semantics and subjective interpretations.

Episode_666

That's the whole point of this discussion. The reason why we're bothering to argue over semantics and interpretations is to come to some sort of conclusion. I want to see what it is that makes metalcore able to be considered metal, and not its own genre.

It has heavy hardcore and punk influences

Blood-Scribe

So does Thrash Metal.

[QUOTE="DFan17902"]N I L EBerzz

Pelican > Nile

Russian Circles > Pelican > Nile

Best metal band is Iron Maiden easily imo

[QUOTE="Episode_666"]

I think this is where you're supposed to realize that arguing over genres is stupid and completely based on semantics and subjective interpretations.

Blood-Scribe

That's the whole point of this discussion. The reason why we're bothering to argue over semantics and interpretations is to come to some sort of conclusion. I want to see what it is that makes metalcore able to be considered metal, and not its own genre.

There's no way to possibly come to a conclusion, especially when you're being so close-minded about it. The fact is that bands today are often so eclectic and innovative that it's entirely impossible to ascribe one genre to any given band.

[QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"][QUOTE="Episode_666"]

I think this is where you're supposed to realize that arguing over genres is stupid and completely based on semantics and subjective interpretations.

Episode_666

That's the whole point of this discussion. The reason why we're bothering to argue over semantics and interpretations is to come to some sort of conclusion. I want to see what it is that makes metalcore able to be considered metal, and not its own genre.

There's no way to possibly come to a conclusion, especially when you're being so close-minded about it. The fact is that bands today are often so eclectic and innovative that it's entirely impossible to ascribe one genre to any given band.

So how am I being close-minded for having a different view on the subject and finding reason to have a different take on the information you're presenting? Would I not be close-minded if I just went ahead and agreed with everything you said? I keep on seeing people use "close-mindedness" as an excuse for when they can't seem to find a good reason to make me see otherwise. But then again, I guess I am close-minded.

But that aside, yes I know we won't really come to an actual conclusion. But the whole reason I bothered to stay up for this was to see what it is that makes you see how metalcore can be considered metal. I still don't see how it can be, but that's just me, I'll admit that. But still, I haven't seen any reason to think that it isn't its own genre.

[QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"]

It has heavy hardcore and punk influences

freek666

So does Thrash Metal.

But thrash metal does not exhibit these influences as much as I have seen from what metalcore has to offer.

[QUOTE="elite_destroyer"]i all ready told you ive picked up magazines such as hit parader. they called Killswitch Engaged, which is infact what you called a Metalcore band, a underground metal band. this was the January 2004 Copy i believe. Blood-Scribe

Okay, and? Just because it's a magazine doesn't mean it's infallible and not open to debate. A magazine is not the final word here, in fact, there is no final word. It's completely open to debate, which is why I have bothered to stay up this late just so I can argue over it. For all you know, the magazine could be published by a bunch of media hacks who aren't even really fans of metal. The magazine isn't even pre-dominantly dedicated to only metal, so I don't really see how it counts for anything. Now if the writer of the article was shown to have a lot of experience in the genre and showed good reasons to say that they aren't metalcore or metalcore is metal, that would be a different story. But all you're showing me here is that a magazine considered a metalcore band to be an underground metal band, which doesn't prove much, because there's no ground to cover here since there's no reasons stated as to how or why they're considered as such. It merely says they are an underground metal band, but that's no final word.

And your opinion is a final word? NO!!! Metalcore is not a sub-genre of metal! thats all youve been saying. Show me a magaizne where it talks about a metalcore band not being considered metal.

I have Hit Paraders Jan/Feb 08 copy right here by me top 100 live bands Who is heavy metals #1 on-stage master? lets see her oo! would you look at that stone sour, a band you said wasnt metal placed 79th not good but they concidered it heavy metal..

and im sure if i look in a few other mags i have metal edge, revolver im sure to find another band that you dont consider metal and its gonna be in there saying it is.

Face it your opinion isnt what everyone else thinks. a few other sources and people seem to agree with my opinion. I have yet to see a published source or any source for that matter where it says a metal core band isnt metal..

[QUOTE="freek666"][QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"]

It has heavy hardcore and punk influences

Blood-Scribe

So does Thrash Metal.

But thrash metal does not exhibit these influences as much as I have seen from what metalcore has to offer.

So? Does the punk and hardcore influences in Thrash make it any less of a genre of metal? Just because its stronger in one or the other doesnt make it any more different (not musically) and they are still essentially a metal genre.

[QUOTE="freek666"][QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"]

It has heavy hardcore and punk influences

Blood-Scribe

So does Thrash Metal.

But thrash metal does not exhibit these influences as much as I have seen from what metalcore has to offer.

so? just cause itll be 49% metal and 51% hardcore its automatically not metal? *slaps hand against forehead.*

oh god, the magazines again. Internet > Magazines

www.metalarchives.com > Revolver and whatever published crap.

I just said why magazines fail. They have no clue about real death metal or black metal, etc. They write about bands people care about. Mostly mallcore drivel like Bullet for my Valentine, and whatever you've mentioned so far.

So how am I being close-minded for having a different view on the subject and finding reason to have a different take on the information you're presenting? Would I not be close-minded if I just went ahead and agreed with everything you said? I keep on seeing people use "close-mindedness" as an excuse for when they can't seem to find a good reason to make me see otherwise. But then again, I guess I am close-minded.

But that aside, yes I know we won't really come to an actual conclusion. But the whole reason I bothered to stay up for this was to see what it is that makes you see how metalcore can be considered metal. I still don't see how it can be, but that's just me, I'll admit that. But still, I haven't seen any reason to think that it isn't its own genre.Blood-Scribe

No, you're not close-minded for disagreeing with me. You're close-minded for having such a black and white approach to genre definitions. You're saying a band can't be hardcore AND metal at the same time? That's crap. Most Opeth albums are metal, progressive rock, and folk at the same time. Jimi Hendrix's "Electric Ladyland" is funk, blues, jazz, soul, and psychedelic rock all at the same time. The fact is that many bands transcend simple genre definitions, and it's very close-minded of you to insist that a band be either one genre or the other

And I gave a laundry list of reasons why metalcore is metal that I can easily point out in ANY song by a metalcore band.

[QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"]

[QUOTE="elite_destroyer"]i all ready told you ive picked up magazines such as hit parader. they called Killswitch Engaged, which is infact what you called a Metalcore band, a underground metal band. this was the January 2004 Copy i believe. elite_destroyer

Okay, and? Just because it's a magazine doesn't mean it's infallible and not open to debate. A magazine is not the final word here, in fact, there is no final word. It's completely open to debate, which is why I have bothered to stay up this late just so I can argue over it. For all you know, the magazine could be published by a bunch of media hacks who aren't even really fans of metal. The magazine isn't even pre-dominantly dedicated to only metal, so I don't really see how it counts for anything. Now if the writer of the article was shown to have a lot of experience in the genre and showed good reasons to say that they aren't metalcore or metalcore is metal, that would be a different story. But all you're showing me here is that a magazine considered a metalcore band to be an underground metal band, which doesn't prove much, because there's no ground to cover here since there's no reasons stated as to how or why they're considered as such. It merely says they are an underground metal band, but that's no final word.

And your opinion is a final word? NO!!! Metalcore is not a sub-genre of metal! thats all youve been saying. Show me a magaizne where it talks about a metalcore band not being considered metal.

I have Hit Paraders Jan/Feb 08 copy right here by me top 100 live bands Who is heavy metals #1 on-stage master? lets see her oo! would you look at that stone sour, a band you said wasnt metal placed 79th not good but they concidered it heavy metal..

and im sure if i look in a few other mags i have metal edge, revolver im sure to find another band that you dont consider metal and its gonna be in there saying it is.

Face it your opinion isnt what everyone else thinks. a few other sources and people seem to agree with my opinion. I have yet to see a published source or any source for that matter where it says a metal core band isnt metal..

Where did I say my opinion is the final word? Nowhere.

Let's assume for a second that just about every publication dealing with metalcore bands did in fact say that they consider them to be metal. What difference does it make? Unless you can fund a publication that outlines specific reasons to say that metalcore is close enough to metal to the point where it can be considered metal, I don't see how it would make a difference. Like I said before, it's not like the article would give specific reasons, and for all you know, the guy who wrote it may not be an actual fan of metal, he or she could just be doing what they're told to do by their producer.

me's agree's

metalcore is very much a sub-genre but it's reallllly distinct from bands, a lot more than just scream verses and sing chourus.

a sub-genre can have sub-genres

[QUOTE="elite_destroyer"]

i all ready told you ive picked up magazines such as hit parader. they called Killswitch Engaged, which is infact what you called a Metalcore band, a underground metal band. this was the January 2004 Copy i believe. skullkrusher13

not only are you using a magazine as an example (which are innaccurate most of the time because they are naive and only look at bands on major record labels) but you are using a magazine FROM 2004. Wow.

The bottom line is if a band is on the metal archives, its metal.

haha your joking right? a published magazine isnt as offical as a dumb website that doesnt even look official?

I only have 4 magazines from hit parader so sue me! so what if its from 04? what difference does that make? thats the first magazine i bought form them.. and how is it naive? that would be like saying Game Informer is naive. just cause its a magazine. and whats bad about using a band thats on major record lables? again.. I dont get the fact because there popular it makes them bad. sure publicity culd make them turn mainstream.. but true metal stays metal. they aint in it for the money.. thats the only think Blood said that makes some since.

[QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"]

So how am I being close-minded for having a different view on the subject and finding reason to have a different take on the information you're presenting? Would I not be close-minded if I just went ahead and agreed with everything you said? I keep on seeing people use "close-mindedness" as an excuse for when they can't seem to find a good reason to make me see otherwise. But then again, I guess I am close-minded.

But that aside, yes I know we won't really come to an actual conclusion. But the whole reason I bothered to stay up for this was to see what it is that makes you see how metalcore can be considered metal. I still don't see how it can be, but that's just me, I'll admit that. But still, I haven't seen any reason to think that it isn't its own genre.Episode_666

No, you're not close-minded for disagreeing with me. You're close-minded for having such a black and white approach to genre definitions. You're saying a band can't be hardcore AND metal at the same time? That's crap. Most Opeth albums are metal, progressive rock, and folk at the same time. Jimi Hendrix's "Electric Ladyland" is funk, blues, jazz, soul, and psychedelic rock all at the same time. The fact is that many bands transcend simple genre definitions, and it's very close-minded of you to insist that a band be either one genre or the other

And I gave a laundry list of reasons why metalcore is metal that I can easily point out in ANY song by a metalcore band.

If it's considered hardcore and metal at the same time, that would mean that it does not pre-dominantly fall under either genre, so while it's basically both, it would end up as a fusion genre. That's pretty much what metalcore is, so it's basically its own genre. I don't see how this is something that's completely unacceptable and considered to be a black and white view. What I'm trying to get at is how it's possible for all metalcore to be lumped together as a sub-genre of metal if there's so many different variants and disambiguations of metalcore that draw strong influences from both genres of metal and hardcore. I don't get how a band like Opeth should even be in this discussion, as it's much more clear that they have a heavier influence in metal, rather than its folk and progressive roots. Though I found that it was more progressive metal than rock, but Opeth is the sort of band that's easy to see as metal, due to its strong influence and sound. Metalcore on the other hand simply doesn't meet the same criteria for me. It's all opinion, I know, but then again, so is pretty much everything else in life. What I want to see is how every band in metalcore can be a part of it, and still be considered a sub-genre of metal, if there's a good deal of metalcore bands that sound more hardcore than metal, and are even sometimes classified as hardcore.

[QUOTE="skullkrusher13"][QUOTE="elite_destroyer"]

i all ready told you ive picked up magazines such as hit parader. they called Killswitch Engaged, which is infact what you called a Metalcore band, a underground metal band. this was the January 2004 Copy i believe. elite_destroyer

not only are you using a magazine as an example (which are innaccurate most of the time because they are naive and only look at bands on major record labels) but you are using a magazine FROM 2004. Wow.

The bottom line is if a band is on the metal archives, its metal.

haha your joking right? a published magazine isnt as offical as a dumb website that doesnt even look official?

What difference does it make if it's official? If anything, an official publication isn't as open to the opinions of the community, and it all comes down to the writer, rather than the fans, so I don't see how you can get a much more accurate classification of a band from an official publication, rather than an un-official community.

This metalcore and numetal discussion will go on forever. Can we just conclude that it's not metal and move on with it? Why do you guys care?GodLovesDead

Well, I don't think they'd want that. I honestly don't see how it's metal, and I want to see why it should be considered metal.