Battle Metal, genre or not?

Rhys · **Posted:** Wed Feb 28, 2007 1:32 pm

Misha wrote:

The problem is that metal is a scene with a few bands doing pioneering work, and a lot of teenagers / retards copying this. Metal is a genre in which copying another band with only a few changes in timbre is not seen as condescending. So when one band thinks it would be cool to mix Doom Metal with viking-ish chanting and some more stuff, the oversaturated scene will not think "hey, this is already done, so it's no use doing the same", but the general concensus will be "hey, this sounds awesome, lets play something similar". And then two or three bands become twenty or thirty, and critics feel obliged to tag it Viking Metal, because it should be movement now (whereas most metal "movements" excist in complete stasis). If there weren't so many copycat retards, critics would leave it to make up a genre because of one band (although I've still noticed some retards doing this). It's also a big problem that some bands want to leave their mark on the scene, by defining themselves a new style, and later declare themselves the inventors. So I think it's better to keep calling nature oriented Black Metal just so, instead of making a Nature Oriented Black Metal genre out of it. Like Varg once said "why need there be a thousand Burzums? Isn't one enough?".

Rhys · **Posted:** Wed Feb 28, 2007 1:37 pm

Misha wrote:

following the reaper wrote:

I like the title dark metal.......mostly because to my understanding it only includes Agalloch, Rotting Christ and Woods Of Ypres :huh:

It lies between Black and Doom, so I don't think it's relevant to name it a new genre if it can be described this easily. I made the mistake a few times though.

I also include death metal too. Something that just crosses all three or at least two is in this category. And as you say, it is a pointless genre, as it only melds other genres.

JÃ¼rgen · **Posted:** Wed Feb 28, 2007 5:08 pm

Misha wrote:

following the reaper wrote:

I like the title dark metal.......mostly because to my understanding it only includes Agalloch, Rotting Christ and Woods Of Ypres :huh:

It lies between Black and Doom, so I don't think it's relevant to name it a new genre if it can be described this easily. I made the mistake a few times though.

I thought dark metal was originally a moniker for BM-soundalikes that weren't satanic. Aeternus, Bethlehem, etc.

As for battle metal... Okay as a description or slogan, but a genre it is not.

Anonymous · **Posted:** Wed Feb 28, 2007 7:31 pm

Misha wrote:

following the reaper wrote:

I like the title dark metal.......mostly because to my understanding it only includes Agalloch, Rotting Christ and Woods Of Ypres :huh:

It lies between Black and Doom, so I don't think it's relevant to name it a new genre if it can be described this easily. I made the mistake a few times though.

I assume you're talking about "death/doom" here and not "traditional doom" because I can see absolutely no connection to the latter...

And no, I don't think "battle metal" is a genre, and I generally concur that there are far too many supposed genres, particularly in metal. Nor do I really think lyrics are sufficient in identifying, let alone defining, a particular genre.

-Tyrion

stuartn15ted · **Posted:** Wed Feb 28, 2007 7:39 pm

Zad wrote:

following the reaper wrote:

Stop reading Metal Hammer Stu. :wink:

You will feel better just ignoring that rag and all things it influences.

+100000

I agree, though. "Battle Metal" is Power Metal for homophobes.

My house mate buys it the spaztard. If its lying around i'll have a flick through just to see what shit they spout, its quite fun to get angry with words, but alas, futile.

EisenFaust · **Posted:** Wed Feb 28, 2007 7:52 pm

Jürgen wrote:

Misha wrote:

following the reaper wrote:

I like the title dark metal.......mostly because to my understanding it only includes Agalloch, Rotting Christ and Woods Of Ypres :huh:

It lies between Black and Doom, so I don't think it's relevant to name it a new genre if it can be described this easily. I made the mistake a few times though.

I thought dark metal was originally a moniker for BM-soundalikes that weren't satanic. Aeternus, Bethlehem, etc.

Agreed with Jürgen.

Battle Metal isn't a genre. I don't really care what label people want to put on their music, but all these absurd sub-genres are futile and serve no other purpose than obscure what kind of music we are talking about. Unlike Black Metal, Power Metal, Thrash etc. the moniker 'Battle Metal' does not hold any information about what the music in question sounds like or what it represents. Hence it is just an empty tag for some slightly different aesthetic within an already existing genre (or perhaps between some genres) but provides no information about the music as such.

Can anyone tell me what the difference between 'Battle Metal' and 'War Metal' is?

Azrael · **Posted:** Wed Feb 28, 2007 8:00 pm

i always had the idea that war metal was death/black/thrash rolled up into one, but i'm not sure; on the other hand "battle metal" is even less defined, at least in terms of sound.

btw the same question occured to me in the subway today :ph34r:

EisenFaust · **Posted:** Wed Feb 28, 2007 8:03 pm

Great minds think alike :wink:

I don't know what the 'real' answear is. That is the whole problem with these loosely defined genres.

Kathaarian · **Posted:** Wed Feb 28, 2007 8:11 pm

Well someone pulls a genre out of his ass and spreads it daily. %90 of the genres are unnecessary. Long live heavy metal and all that.

rio · **Posted:** Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:12 pm

Misha wrote:

The problem is that metal is a scene with a few bands doing pioneering work, and a lot of teenagers / retards copying this. Metal is a genre in which copying another band with only a few changes in timbre is not seen as condescending. So when one band thinks it would be cool to mix Doom Metal with viking-ish chanting and some more stuff, the oversaturated scene will not think "hey, this is already done, so it's no use doing the same", but the general concensus will be "hey, this sounds awesome, lets play something similar".

I agree but it's not fair to imply that metal is especially notable for that. I mean shit, the number of jazz musicians I've heard that are just slavishly copying past masters is crazy. But in jazz that isn't seen as a bad thing: It's seen as new people keeping old traditions alive and thriving, and "spreading the word" as it were. I don't see why we shouldn't have the same attitude towards metal.

noodles · **Posted:** Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:23 pm

rio wrote:

Misha wrote:

The problem is that metal is a scene with a few bands doing pioneering work, and a lot of teenagers / retards copying this. Metal is a genre in which copying another band with only a few changes in timbre is not seen as condescending. So when one band thinks it would be cool to mix Doom Metal with viking-ish chanting and some more stuff, the oversaturated scene will not think "hey, this is already done, so it's no use doing the same", but the general concensus will be "hey, this sounds awesome, lets play something similar".

I agree but it's not fair to imply that metal is especially notable for that. I mean shit, the number of jazz musicians I've heard that are just slavishly copying past masters is crazy. But in jazz that isn't seen as a bad thing: It's seen as new people keeping old traditions alive and thriving, and "spreading the word" as it were. I don't see why we shouldn't have the same attitude towards metal.

Yeah, I think the imitation thing happens in just about any genre.

ps. hi rio!!!

rio · **Posted:** Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:53 pm

noodles wrote:

rio wrote:

Misha wrote:

The problem is that metal is a scene with a few bands doing pioneering work, and a lot of teenagers / retards copying this. Metal is a genre in which copying another band with only a few changes in timbre is not seen as condescending. So when one band thinks it would be cool to mix Doom Metal with viking-ish chanting and some more stuff, the oversaturated scene will not think "hey, this is already done, so it's no use doing the same", but the general concensus will be "hey, this sounds awesome, lets play something similar".

I agree but it's not fair to imply that metal is especially notable for that. I mean shit, the number of jazz musicians I've heard that are just slavishly copying past masters is crazy. But in jazz that isn't seen as a bad thing: It's seen as new people keeping old traditions alive and thriving, and "spreading the word" as it were. I don't see why we shouldn't have the same attitude towards metal.

Yeah, I think the imitation thing happens in just about any genre.

ps. hi rio!!!

Hi noodles whaddup :blink:

noodles · **Posted:** Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:54 pm

rio wrote:

noodles wrote:

rio wrote:

Misha wrote:

The problem is that metal is a scene with a few bands doing pioneering work, and a lot of teenagers / retards copying this. Metal is a genre in which copying another band with only a few changes in timbre is not seen as condescending. So when one band thinks it would be cool to mix Doom Metal with viking-ish chanting and some more stuff, the oversaturated scene will not think "hey, this is already done, so it's no use doing the same", but the general concensus will be "hey, this sounds awesome, lets play something similar".

I agree but it's not fair to imply that metal is especially notable for that. I mean shit, the number of jazz musicians I've heard that are just slavishly copying past masters is crazy. But in jazz that isn't seen as a bad thing: It's seen as new people keeping old traditions alive and thriving, and "spreading the word" as it were. I don't see why we shouldn't have the same attitude towards metal.

Yeah, I think the imitation thing happens in just about any genre.

ps. hi rio!!!

Hi noodles whaddup :blink:

i haven't seen you post in like a million billion years

Misha · **Posted:** Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:57 pm

noodles wrote:

rio wrote:

Misha wrote:

The problem is that metal is a scene with a few bands doing pioneering work, and a lot of teenagers / retards copying this. Metal is a genre in which copying another band with only a few changes in timbre is not seen as condescending. So when one band thinks it would be cool to mix Doom Metal with viking-ish chanting and some more stuff, the oversaturated scene will not think "hey, this is already done, so it's no use doing the same", but the general concensus will be "hey, this sounds awesome, lets play something similar".

I agree but it's not fair to imply that metal is especially notable for that. I mean shit, the number of jazz musicians I've heard that are just slavishly copying past masters is crazy. But in jazz that isn't seen as a bad thing: It's seen as new people keeping old traditions alive and thriving, and "spreading the word" as it were. I don't see why we shouldn't have the same attitude towards metal.

Yeah, I think the imitation thing happens in just about any genre.

ps. hi rio!!!

Yes, it may happen in any genre, but not equally in any genre. I was not implying that Metal is the only genre in which this happens, I already had jazz in the back of my head. It happens a lot on Metal, and it happens even more in Jazz, for as far as I can judge. I don't think it's a bad attitude, but I just don't care about copied music, however relevant it might be for "spreading the message". Almost all post-rock sounds the same, derived from a few bands, like Talk Talk and Slint. Now there have been some original acts like GY!BE and Mogwai, but those were infinitely copied thereafter. It's not really spreading the message anyways, since people get to know the big names first.

Goat · **Posted:** Thu Mar 01, 2007 3:18 am

Battle Metal = Power Metal with fighting themes. See Turisas.

War Metal = Death/Black Metal (usually with heavy drumming) and war themes. See Bolt Thrower, and all the DM and BM bands-with-DM-drummers that sound like them.

Ness · **Posted:** Thu Mar 01, 2007 4:06 am

Zad wrote:

Battle Metal = Power Metal with fighting themes. See Turisas.

minus guiar solos

EisenFaust · **Posted:** Thu Mar 01, 2007 8:51 am

Ah, I see. I still don't understand why these can't fit in their respective genres. Genres that are just 'an already defined genre' +/- some lyrical theme or slight difference in delivery, seem to be superfluous at best and confusing at worst.

JÃ¼rgen · **Posted:** Thu Mar 01, 2007 11:51 am

EisenFaust wrote:

Can anyone tell me what the difference between 'Battle Metal' and 'War Metal' is?

Hehe, war metal is an interesting term. Invented by Warfare in the 80's and later used by bands ranging stylistically from Barathrum to Bestial Warlust (more as a slogan than a genre, though.) Good luck trying to figure that one out.

mentalmark · **Posted:** Thu Mar 01, 2007 1:25 pm

I still continue to buy Metal Hammer, but I think that after 17 years, it might well be time to ween myself off it. This month they had MCR as the cover stars and I'm finding that I'm reading less and less of it each month.

Damn you Turisas for calling your album Battle Metal and giving the idea to MH to make it up more as they go along.

Radagast · **Posted:** Thu Mar 01, 2007 9:23 pm

Zad wrote:

Battle Metal = Power Metal with fighting themes. See Turisas.

Battle Metal = any power or folk metal band Metal Hammer consider "worthy"

Its a fucking stupid tag for fucking stupid people.

Metal Reviews

Battle Metal, genre or not?

Who is online