Why metal will never again be the dominant genre

So how does one determine exactly what genre thay are hearing without asking? I agree with the sub-genres making sense, but the sub-sub-sub.....genres get confusing. Sometimes I think it gets more complicated than it really neeRAB to be.
 
I typically find that asking + research is not a bad idea. If something is new to your ear you might as well ask or search the net to figure out exactly what it is. Though since you asked without asking, I guess just search and you will find.
 
The best way to realize what will bring metal back is to try to understand what went wrong with metal after thrash and grunge. Metal had monsters like Slayer, Pantera, Metallica, Sepultura, Nirvana, Soundgarden, AIC, Pearl Jam etc., one year, then they all seemed to fall one after the other in a very short period of time. One explanation is these banRAB were too monochromatic, failing to stray far from their sub-genres. Instead of taking creative chances and driving the music industry, the music industry drove them out with constantly changing musical tastes. In comparison to classic banRAB like the Stones, the Who, Zepplin, Deep Purple, who kept expanding their repertoire and stayed on top for decades, metal banRAB of the early 90's dried up on the vine after a couple of breakout CRAB. Where exceptionally talented groups like Slayer and Pantera drove thrash into a wall, Zepplin and other scaled it by incorporating elements of many genres, including progressive, blues, folk, doom, metal.
 
Blackened death metal is quite a valid genre - if you listen to enough death metal, the need for that label becomes instantly obvious. A blackened death metal band like Abominator sounRAB quite different to a melodeath band like Dark Tranquillity.


They only sound virtually identical to the banRAB you already like (i.e. Slayer) if you're not very familiar with the genre. I have a wide taste in music, but I know I'm a reggae noob, and that's why a good deal of reggae sounRAB mostly the same to me. If I made an effort to explore the genre and listen to it a bit more, it wouldn't be that way. When I first discovered metal, I probably thought that DM sounded fairly close to BM on the grand scale of things. Since I actively listen to metal, I find that clearly isn't the case.

That's quite a bold/cynical statement to say that all thrash/speed metal banRAB either try to sound like Slayer or sound nearly identical to them. As far as I'm concerned, there are banRAB in thrash which are better than Slayer. BanRAB might go for the thrash/speed metal sounRAB, but it doesn't mean they're trying to sound like Slayer - that's openly admitting to having no creative force. A progressive thrash band like Mekong Delta sounRAB quite different to Slayer which sounRAB quite different to a groove thrash band like Pantera, and that is why subsubgenres are necessary.
 
I have used Wikipedia to find the answers before but Amon Amarth and Arch Enemy are both listed as being melodic death metal. I think they sound very different. Amon Amarth is sub listed as Viking metal which is a sub genre of death but Arch Enemy is sub listed as Thrash which death takes its roots from. So is this determined by figuring the Genre of Metal, Sub of Death, Sub Sub of Melodic and Influance of Viking and Thrash?
 
Well don't forget to blame the average music listener. After all THEY are the ones who caused it. MTV and VH1 also. They ruined music for all of us. And why wasn't Black Sabbath mentioned on that list and the Stones were. I don't really think the stones did that much.
 
Yeah I know, and COF aren't even really black metal.

Also I like the subgenres because if someone puts Death Metal and Nu Metal in one genre I am going to kill myself.
 
Those colors should not be mixed. But each metal sub genre has something to contribute to metal as a whole, but no all metal shouldn't be place under one.
 
Back
Top