# What Genre should be Bulb/Periphery/Fellsilent/Tesseract named under?



## AeonSolus (Feb 23, 2009)

Just out of curiosity.I've been trying to call it..something?, my tongue gets really tired when i try to explain what kind of style i'm into, I've called it: Experimental,Avant Garde, Polyrythmic Groove Metal, Math metal..

I'm not saying they sound alike or anything like that, it's just that THEIR kind of music makes you head bang like crazy and dance at the same time, because it *Grooves*, and no kind of music before listening to them could do that to me, so that's enough to categorize them under a genre , but i don't know which one.

Anyone has any idea?


----------



## Dusty201087 (Feb 23, 2009)

Groove metal?


----------



## AeonSolus (Feb 23, 2009)

Pantera and Lamb come to my head when i say groove metal only, is just that the way the kickdrum follows the guitar riff is so characteristic in the bands i mentioned above, that for me you can't call that just groove metal..i think


----------



## Harry (Feb 23, 2009)

Techy Groove Metal?


----------



## jymellis (Feb 23, 2009)

how about they sound like *Bulb/Periphery/Fellsilent/ or Tesseract. and dont bother with the classifications. you have already given a person 3 examples if your talking about 1 of the above. if they cant get an idea yet you either need to play them some, link them some, or tell them to buy it.
*


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Feb 24, 2009)

I always refer to them as math metal or mathcore


----------



## Daemoniac (Feb 24, 2009)

Stealthtastic said:


> I always refer to them as math metal or mathcore



+1


----------



## bulb (Feb 24, 2009)

well its a bit difficult because Bulb is more Rainbow-Flavored-Polkacore and Periphery is more Forgot-My-Reservation-Sugarless-Sockdrawercore, so they are kinda worlds apart, also im too lazy to say them


----------



## Luuk (Feb 24, 2009)

That ^.. or just 'tech metal'


----------



## MF_Kitten (Feb 24, 2009)

i describe this general area of metal as "metal that is technical, yet melodic". not really a genre, but it works well, no?


----------



## Naren (Feb 24, 2009)

Mm. I dunno. They're kinda like "Jump Around" with that Lucky Charms-style beat with the hardcore "melons-in-the-morning" type deal, adding just a taste of Creamed Buttered Corn and Banana Split-rhyme.

Yeah, I think that pretty much covers it.


----------



## wannabguitarist (Feb 24, 2009)

My itunes has 4 categories for metal stuff: metal, metal/hardcore (insert blatantly core stuff here), progressive metal (dream theater, opeth, etc), and nu-metal. Occasionally I toy with the idea of throwing everything into the the same gigantic genre that is METAL


----------



## stuh84 (Feb 24, 2009)

Teh djents?


----------



## toolsound (Feb 24, 2009)

Sub genres are retarded. Metal is fine.


----------



## cataclysm_child (Feb 24, 2009)

Haha, that's what I say. "It's ...metal"


----------



## Daemoniac (Feb 24, 2009)

toolsound said:


> Sub genres are retarded. Metal is fine.



I like sub-genres. Not so much as a way to be all bullshit elitist and whatnot, but as a way to describe the different things i listen to.. i mean, there is a biiiiig fucking difference between, say, Metallica and 16volt... to me, one is pretty much just "metal", and the other is "Industrial Metal."


----------



## stuh84 (Feb 24, 2009)

Yep, I've never got this whole "you cant classify things". Sorry but, if something is red, I'm going to say its red, not just "its just colours man".

I find it much easier to explain to someone that I listen to Prog, Tech Death, Black, Power, Viking, etc metal, and dont like Grindcore and Doom, rather than "I like metal except bits I dont", and then it ends up a 2 hour conversation trying to explain what I like, what I don't and why.


----------



## Naren (Feb 24, 2009)

wannabguitarist said:


> My itunes has 4 categories for metal stuff: metal, metal/hardcore (insert blatantly core stuff here), progressive metal (dream theater, opeth, etc), and nu-metal. Occasionally I toy with the idea of throwing everything into the the same gigantic genre that is METAL



On my iPod, I classify everything metal as just "Metal," regardless of what sub-genre it falls into. Oftentimes the software I use to rip CDs finds the info off the internet and puts "Thrash" or "Death Metal" or "Progressive Metal" or "Classic Metal" or whatever, but I always change it to just "Metal." The genres on my iPod are pretty broad. Such as: Rock, Alternative, Metal, Blues, Electronica, Goth, Industrial (I think nowadays that I probably should have combined Goth and Industrial), Classic Rock, Punk, Guitar (this is instrumental guitar stuff with no vocals such as Petrucci, Satriani, Vai, Malmsteen, etc.), and a few genres that I don't have many songs from.


----------



## Daemoniac (Feb 24, 2009)

Naren said:


> Goth, Industrial (I think nowadays that I probably should have combined Goth and Industrial).



Nah, much as some of them are similar, there are still definite differences in the genres  Good to keep them separate even if there aren't too many bands these days that actually do them seperately.

Especially when you're talking about old goth stuff and old industrial stuff; skinny puppy and Bauhaus or Siouxsie lol... very different things


----------



## Doomcreeper (Feb 24, 2009)

stuh84 said:


> Teh djents?


I think they should do a compilation album together called The League of Extraordinary Djentlemen


----------



## Variant (Feb 24, 2009)

*Post-genre*, the newest, latest, greatest genre where we no longer sub-genre classify the crap out of metal music anymore.


----------



## Daemoniac (Feb 24, 2009)

I really don't mind the genres of metal. It only annoys me when shit starts getting down into sub-sub-sub-sub-genres and you end up with 'genres' like "Deathcorepoptro" or "Disco punkcore"... fucking stupid.

That being said, i still don't mind some of them, like the difference between Black Metal and Alternative Metal, or between Drill'N'Bass and Industrial. It makes it easier to describe.


----------



## 7 Dying Trees (Feb 24, 2009)

Melodic poly metal.

Like a singing parrot. Polly wanna cracker?


----------



## DaveCarter (Feb 24, 2009)

The 4 bands in the title I would all refer to as Tech Metal. It becomes a subjective area to a certain degree, but Id personally favour that term over Groove Metal, as to me thats Brand New Sin territory.


----------



## klutvott (Feb 24, 2009)

Let's just name them under AWESOME.


----------



## AeonSolus (Feb 24, 2009)

Djent Metal?


----------



## HamBungler (Feb 24, 2009)

AeonSolus said:


> Djent Metal?



No, djent is a technique, not a classification. They use lots of other techniques besides djent, such as tapping and a plethora of other stuff. There is occasional djent, yes, but its also not all djent all the time, so that really can't be used. We don't call Zakk Wylde's music pinch harmonic metal do we?


----------



## bulb (Feb 24, 2009)

HamBungler said:


> No, djent is a technique, not a classification. They use lots of other techniques besides djent, such as tapping and a plethora of other stuff. There is occasional djent, yes, but its also not all djent all the time, so that really can't be used. We don't call Zakk Wylde's music pinch harmonic metal do we?



in all honesty i think the most appropriate genre would be "misha's dick is longer than your boyfriend's metal"
yes i mean for all the bands listed, im sure they would agree too!


----------



## synrgy (Feb 24, 2009)

As a guy who's 2 favorite styles of music are rock/metal and electronic, I *REALLY* can't stand genre/sub-genre/sub-sub-sub-sub-genre labeling.

I'm really into drum n bass music, and the sub-sub-genre thing in that genre has gotten completely out of hand.

The same can be said for metal. I have a roommate who's one of those 'metal or stfu' kind of guys, and we carpool to work together, which means that 2-3 days a week, I "get" to listen to his music. 

Every day, he puts in one or two CDs that are essentially some dickhole screaming bloody murder in ONE TONE over a whole album of blast beats and unintelligable guitar noises. (seemingly, metal bands don't have bass players any more, and if they do, EVERY engineer who records them needs to be FIRED IMMEDIATELY.) ANYWAY, my point is the shit all sounds IDENTICAL to me, but he swears that CD 1 = grindcore, and CD 2= metalcore, and CD 3 = doom, etc etc etc. It's all bull shit.

Just because your drummer has a propensity to do half time beats during your breakdown/bridge sections, doesn't mean you get your own exclusive sub-genre title. You're STILL just 'metal', end of story.

*edit* And so long as I'm here ranting and being a dick, I'll go ahead and add that "djent" is the stupidest descriptive term I've ever heard.


----------



## Espaul (Feb 24, 2009)

Djent-pop!


----------



## Marv Attaxx (Feb 24, 2009)

I like the term Polyrythmic Groove Metal 
I think Mnemic's own genre would fit, too.
Future Fusion Metal: It sounds very futuristic like industrial metal, it's got the polymetric stuff of progressive metal, the groove of groove metal and the melodic parts sound often like melodic death metal


----------



## HamBungler (Feb 24, 2009)

bulb said:


> in all honesty i think the most appropriate genre would be "misha's dick is longer than your boyfriend's metal"
> yes i mean for all the bands listed, im sure they would agree too!



^ This


----------



## Rick (Feb 24, 2009)

Technical metal.


----------



## phatfil (Feb 24, 2009)

i call it fuckin' awesome. but if i were forced to label it, i would call it prog metal.


----------



## toolsound (Feb 24, 2009)

stuh84 said:


> Yep, I've never got this whole "you cant classify things". Sorry but, if something is red, I'm going to say its red, not just "its just colours man".
> 
> I find it much easier to explain to someone that I listen to Prog, Tech Death, Black, Power, Viking, etc metal, and dont like Grindcore and Doom, rather than "I like metal except bits I dont", and then it ends up a 2 hour conversation trying to explain what I like, what I don't and why.



That's fine, but here's an example from my side of the story:

I'll tell someone that I like Daylight Dies and they'll give me a 5 minute explanation about why Daylight Dies isn't actually "doom" metal. Frankly, I couldn't care less. I can't stand the sub-genre debates.


----------



## kershyboy (Feb 24, 2009)

theres only 3 genres anybody needs to know.

1. shite metal
2. good metal
3. absolutely fantastic metal

hahaha

I'd just call it metal lol


----------



## John_Strychnine (Feb 24, 2009)

TesseracT - Progressive Groove

Bulb/Periphery/That misha dude - Technical Progressive Metal

Fellsilent - Progressive Metal with too many gay chorus'.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Feb 24, 2009)

> Fellsilent - Progressive Metal with too many gay chorus'.





there are many things you could class it as:

tech, prog, avante-garde, experimental, djent and groove amongst a host of other sub-genres.

everyone knows who invented this style of music = Meshuggah.

but I think it was their intention that they made something different and something that could not be pidgeon-holed into pre-existing genre terms.


----------



## BurialWithin (Feb 24, 2009)

I would say metal.....or awesomecore


----------



## Metal Ken (Feb 24, 2009)

PODfarming?


----------



## Rick (Feb 24, 2009)

^What about PODcore?


----------



## John_Strychnine (Feb 24, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> there are many things you could class it as:
> 
> tech, prog, avante-garde, experimental, djent and groove amongst a host of other sub-genres.
> 
> ...



Meshuggah invented the whole "Groove polyrhtyhms" but they did pretty much what everyone else is doing, just blending multiple genres.

They took metal (Listen to CC, it's pretty much metallica), added Polyrhythms/accents and then put holdsworth on top of it haha. They managed to blend it into the perfect formula though! Their only downside is the lack of noticable melody (from Nothing onwards), which is where i guess FS/TESS/Misha sort of comes in.


----------



## synrgy (Feb 24, 2009)

John_Strychnine said:


> Their only downside is the lack of noticable melody (from Nothing onwards), which is where i guess FS/TESS/Misha sort of comes in.


 
what's funny about that to me is, "nothing" is where they really started to get my attention. 

I usually lean more towards the 'noticable melody' stuff, but Meshuggah was a nice change of pace from that, for me. (though when they DO dabble in those progressions it comes of as being so much more awesome.. like towards the end of "Dancers to a Dischordant System"..)


----------



## caughtinamosh (Feb 24, 2009)

While genres can be somewhat useful when it comes to seeking out music that one may enjoy, that is as far as they as they should be applied, IMO.

Steven Wilson of Porcupine Tree stated that the biggest compliment he felt he could receive from a fan is that they didn't have a clue how to classify the music, yet that they loved it. Chuck Schuldiner also despised categories ("They suck. I hate them."). I'm of the same mind as these two great musicians. Filing and labelling bands past the point of "metal," "folk" or "rock" is pointless IMO, and only limits your musical horizons - a vision which EVERYONE, musicians especially, should endeavor to expand.

My two cents.


----------



## stuh84 (Feb 24, 2009)

I seriously don't get it, what the hell is wrong with classifying something. Cannibal Corpse do not sound the same as Heavenly, so just saying "oh its metal" really doesn't describe anything about it.

Maybe its fine for people who find a few bands every so often, and don't listen to a lot of different artists, but I spend a lot of time researching bands, and a lot of time recommending bands to people. If someone says "what style is that Symbyosis you listen to", or "can you recommend me something thats Thrash Metal", I aint gonna shout at them and say its just metal, and that you cant classify anything as thrash, as its all just metal. If someone asks for thrash metal, I give them thrash metal, if someone wants to know what style Symbyosis is, I tell them its progressive death metal, because thats exactly what it is.

I don't know, but I listen to about, maybe 1000-1500 different artists roughly? It'd be impossible to recommend someone something thats simply metal, as I've got about 5 or 600 bands I could choose from.


----------



## HammerAndSickle (Feb 24, 2009)

caughtinamosh said:


> While genres can be somewhat useful when it comes to seeking out music that one may enjoy, that is as far as they as they should be applied, IMO.
> 
> Steven Wilson of Porcupine Tree stated that the biggest compliment he felt he could receive from a fan is that they didn't have a clue how to classify the music, yet that they loved it. Chuck Schuldiner also despised categories ("They suck. I hate them."). I'm of the same mind as these two great musicians. *Filing and labelling bands past the point of "metal," "folk" or "rock" is pointless IMO, and only limits your musical horizons - a vision which EVERYONE, musicians especially, should endeavor to expand.
> *
> My two cents.



I disagree. The idea of experimentation is trying new things to see what works. Every new piece of music innovates to some extent, _but not everything that is new and innovative is good_. This mindset is in every aspect of life now, from business to video games to design to film to music, the mindset that "new is good" regardless of whether it is _actually good_.

I would state that aphorism as "things that are new *and* good deserve respect". There are bands that do the same thing as someone else, and it's still good. That's also respectable. There are bands that try something new, but fail to make good music (). It's both sides of the coin. There's a strive to do something new for the sake of newness, but oftentimes it's the familiar we appreciate.

For me, I don't like a lot of recent innovation. I don't look at bulb and adore it because it's a polyrhythmic thing, or the technique involved, or whatnot. I'm not saying it's bad music, but I don't enjoy it particularly. A lot of people seem to like things like that _because_ of the newness and technicality and innovation, which I disagree with. I like parts of bulb's music, but I don't respect the greater half of it _for_ it's innovation. Innovation should bring about good music, music should not be good because it is innovative.

Bands that have a, b, and c can be linked together under a genre. But if they differ on x, y, and z then a subgenre is often helpful to distinguish between the two. 

Let's compare, here, Metallica and Trivium. Metallica is the "old" in this scenario, and we're basing our understanding of metal from them. Trivium is the "new". I can look at Trivium and say, I like their riffs. They are different, but similar enough to "old" metal for the purpose of the exercise. I can say I like the rhythms. I can say I like the concept of solos (and the solos that are fairly "standard" for metal). In other words I like the things that are familiar to me.

But I don't like the screaming vocals. And I don't like the endless double bass drumming. And I don't like the meandering song structures. And I don't like the lack of a vocal melody. So, I don't like the things that are "different" from the norm. They're not "new", nor is Trivium really responsible for any innovations, but they are innovations compared to "old" metal, Metallica. 

Basically, if we class them both as metal then that erodes the differences between the two. If I say "I like metal", the connotation is that I enjoy the music of both. But if I say "I don't like metalcore," I'm specifically excluding that style of music. Not just Trivium, but other bands that share the common characteristics that they have. "I like death metal, but not black metal" _in_cludes bands that share common characteristics of death, and _ex_cludes bands that share common characteristics of black.

Sorry, I tend to ramble sometimes. But the idea here is that some innovations I don't respect, and by your logic of ignoring genre classifications to broaden musical horizons, it implies that every subgenre has something to offer. But really, I fail to see how the innovations of say, grindcore, have anything to offer music. I need a genre classification to say that I'm not accepting of pig squeals and toneless music. Again, simply opinion, but genres help us classify what we respect and what we don't.


----------



## caughtinamosh (Feb 24, 2009)

I won't press the "quote" button as this could become enormous...

Simply put, I am of a very extremist view - I like to listen to ALL music, and do not label it in any way. There was a day when, to me, Symphony X were "sympho prog power metal." Now, they are merely "metal," or at a push "sympho metal."

I don't know - the whole "mathcore melodic metal" labelling system got far too anal for my liking, past the point of actually enjoying the music for what it is. Some may enjoy it, but I personally cannot stand it. I like to listen to my music "blind" from all external influences, if you will.

So, to conclude, I cannot argue with anything anyone posts against my beliefs. Genres, as with everything in music, are subjective. And this, gentlemen, is what makes music so fucking special.

PS - Kudos for providing a good argument though. Much more appropriate than simply giving me neg rep, as many fuckers on this site do.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Feb 24, 2009)

> Meshuggah invented the whole "Groove polyrhtyhms" but they did pretty much what everyone else is doing, just blending multiple genres.
> 
> They took metal (Listen to CC, it's pretty much metallica), added Polyrhythms/accents and then put holdsworth on top of it haha. They managed to blend it into the perfect formula though! Their only downside is the lack of noticable melody (from Nothing onwards), which is where i guess FS/TESS/Misha sort of comes in.



obviously Meshuggah didn't invent metal, but I have to disagree that they are 'pretty much' Metallica, they're not even in the same league in terms of songwriting dexterity. I can see where you're coming from though. not dissing Metallica! obviously they have been very influential and I know Meshuggah's early stuff is heavily influenced by them.

younger bands that are influenced by Meshuggah do add melody to the formula though (Born of Osiris, Veil of Maya and After The Burial also), which is cool but Meshuggah get away with not including it I think!


----------



## synrgy (Feb 24, 2009)

HammerAndSickle said:


> Basically, if we class them both as metal then that erodes the differences between the two.


 
That's where you lose me. NOTHING erodes the differences, because the differences ARE WHAT THEY ARE.

Slapping a descriptive word on a band or a genre of music doesn't change what the band does or what the music sounds like. IT ONLY MAKES THE BAND/MUSIC MORE MARKETABLE. That's IT, and that's ALL.

I think too many people write off entire genres of music because they THINK they don't like that "genre" of music. Hell, just speaking for my self personally, for the bulk of my teenage years, I missed out on all the great Johnny Cash music out there because I thought I "hated country music". What I didn't realize at the time was that I don't hate country music at all. What I hate is NASAL TWANG.

Using your own example, should someone who likes Metallica NOT listen to Trivium to gain their OWN opinion about what Trivium sounds like? They should just take YOUR word for it, because you like Metallica but don't like Trivium?

I know you weren't implying that, but that's what you're inadvertently alluding to.

GENRE LABELS = MARKETING TOOLS. It's that simple.


----------



## HammerAndSickle (Feb 24, 2009)

caughtinamosh said:


> I won't press the "quote" button as this could become enormous...
> 
> Simply put, I am of a very extremist view - I like to listen to ALL music, and do not label it in any way. There was a day when, to me, Symphony X were "sympho prog power metal." Now, they are merely "metal," or at a push "sympho metal."
> 
> ...



But unless you're the kindest, most open-minded person in the universe, eventually you'll find things you like and things you don't like. And what then? You can say I don't like these aspects of it, but the odds are overwhelmingly for the chance that some other band will have the same aspects, and so on.

Eventually you'll build up a bank of things with common characteristics as you listen to more and more music. And then you're basically forming genres, but instead of using commonly accepted terms you're making an arbitrary system. "I like Meshuggah, Periphery, and Tesseract because of their off-tempo grooves, distinctive guitar sounds, song structures, etc." is just a more grandiose (and somewhat more elitist) way of saying "I like technical math metal (or whatever).

For a personal example. I love Steve Vai more than I love myself. His music speaks perfectly to me on every level. I could sit and explain every aspect of what I like about it, but it's more efficient to compare it to other groups. I also love Satriani. And Petrucci. And Becker. And Eric Johnson (occasionally). All of these artists have similar qualities, but also differences. Satriani and Vai use the more odd tonalities, Becker is obviously classical versus Johnson blues, Petrucci is more progressive and rhythmic (in some ways)... etc. I could say they're all instrumental, guitar-oriented, melodic, technical, etc. But the commonly accepted term is "shred". I don't like the term, but recognize it's efficiency.


----------



## caughtinamosh (Feb 24, 2009)

Yes, there are definitely "genres" that I do not enjoy... "hardcore" being an example. There are also elements of music that I do not enjoy, whatever way it is used - usage of the sitar being a (somewhat strange) example. Still, I try to distance myself from these terms as much as possible, simply because I, as an artist would find it offensive to the point of being obscene if someone labelled me "techno-match-sympho-core." Fuck you, listener, I'm in a metal band! Call it simplistic, but to me, this is the purest and most honest way of listening to music. Less practical maybe, but I digress...


----------



## HammerAndSickle (Feb 24, 2009)

Yes, I admit the genre labels are dumb sometimes. But they're necessary in terms of usage. Just like subgenres are used to distinguish within a genre, sometimes sub-subgenres are necessary. If we're discussing music and metal comes up, it's necessary to speak of black and death subgenres to differentiate. If we're talking specifically of symphonic metal, then those other sub-sub names are necessary to differentiate. In a grand context you wouldn't use "techno sympho blah blah", you'd just say metal.


----------



## caughtinamosh (Feb 24, 2009)

Aye . 

Yes, Opeth are "metal."

"death metal." 

"progressive death metal." 

"neo-progressive death metal."

"blackened neo-progressive death metal."

My train journey ends around the second station...


----------



## Daemoniac (Feb 24, 2009)

synrgy said:


> As a guy who's 2 favorite styles of music are rock/metal and electronic, I *REALLY* can't stand genre/sub-genre/sub-sub-sub-sub-genre labeling.
> 
> I'm really into drum n bass music, and the sub-sub-genre thing in that genre has gotten completely out of hand.
> 
> ...



Ok, but now this: Necrophagist, compared to 16volt. One, is a band who blastbeats like theres no tomorrow, plays the absolute shit out of their guitars and whose sound (to me) is pretty thin. Compare that to 16volt; a band whose MASSIVE guitar, simple riffs and powerchords, heavy grooves and mass electronics make for a huge sound. They're not the same, and im sure as hell not going to call them both "just metal". One can take the tech-death/black metal label, the other can take the Industrial/Coldwave Industrial label. Why? It helps me pick what i feel like listening to at any given moment as much as anything.



Metal Ken said:


> PODfarming?



 FTFW!



stuh84 said:


> I seriously don't get it, what the hell is wrong with classifying something. Cannibal Corpse do not sound the same as Heavenly, so just saying "oh its metal" really doesn't describe anything about it.
> 
> Maybe its fine for people who find a few bands every so often, and don't listen to a lot of different artists, but I spend a lot of time researching bands, and a lot of time recommending bands to people. If someone says "what style is that Symbyosis you listen to", or "can you recommend me something thats Thrash Metal", I aint gonna shout at them and say its just metal, and that you cant classify anything as thrash, as its all just metal. If someone asks for thrash metal, I give them thrash metal, if someone wants to know what style Symbyosis is, I tell them its progressive death metal, because thats exactly what it is.
> 
> I don't know, but I listen to about, maybe 1000-1500 different artists roughly? It'd be impossible to recommend someone something thats simply metal, as I've got about 5 or 600 bands I could choose from.



+1,000,000


----------



## HamBungler (Feb 24, 2009)

HammerAndSickle said:


> But unless you're the kindest, most open-minded person in the universe, eventually you'll find things you like and things you don't like. And what then? You can say I don't like these aspects of it, but the odds are overwhelmingly for the chance that some other band will have the same aspects, and so on.
> 
> Eventually you'll build up a bank of things with common characteristics as you listen to more and more music. And then you're basically forming genres, but instead of using commonly accepted terms you're making an arbitrary system. "I like Meshuggah, Periphery, and Tesseract because of their off-tempo grooves, distinctive guitar sounds, song structures, etc." is just a more grandiose (and somewhat more elitist) way of saying "I like technical math metal (or whatever).
> 
> For a personal example. I love Steve Vai more than I love myself. His music speaks perfectly to me on every level. I could sit and explain every aspect of what I like about it, but it's more efficient to compare it to other groups. I also love Satriani. And Petrucci. And Becker. And Eric Johnson (occasionally). All of these artists have similar qualities, but also differences. Satriani and Vai use the more odd tonalities, Becker is obviously classical versus Johnson blues, Petrucci is more progressive and rhythmic (in some ways)... etc. I could say they're all instrumental, guitar-oriented, melodic, technical, etc. But the commonly accepted term is "shred". I don't like the term, but recognize it's efficiency.



The problem with this is that you shouldn't restrict yourself to disliking a certain aspect of what a band does, just how they use it. Some bands I can't stand because all they do is constant shredding/tapping nonsense (Dragonforce) but then again I still like this, but when its used tastefully (Sonata Arctica, Symphony X, etc.). Even certain elements of hardcore I like when they aren't overplayed and used in a good context, so really the only classification should be whether you like a certain band or not, or even say you like some of their songs, others not so much.
I'm basically saying I don't listen to music because I like certain aspects of it (I do favor some, but I don't make it a deciding factor if the end product is good), I like it because it sounds GOOD. I'm not saying its not possible for you to dislike/like a band for certain aspects, but should at least consider the possibility that such aspects can be used to good effect if used tastefully by other bands.


----------



## Zepp88 (Feb 24, 2009)

lolwut? metal.


----------



## Kissa3 (Feb 25, 2009)

bulbacore and when bois is in da house -it's boycore.

when casey's involved, it's britneycore.

(just kidding, I loved caseys vox <3)


EDIT: holymoly I can't find the 'Casey Edition" periphery tunes anywhere >: ( i'd love to hear icarus lives and insomnia again ! inertia is to be found at his LAspace.com. If anyone knows a link from where to get em tracks please do PM me  !! or if misha would like to send em, hmmm


----------



## renzoip (Feb 25, 2009)

To me, bands like Meshugah and Perihpery are Progressive Metal. I consider polyrythms just something that is used in different styles of music so I would not use the term "Polyrhythmic Metal" and Djent...well that's not even a technique to me (since the actual technique is called palm-muting, whether is hard/soft/tight/loose). I know their music has many influences but IMO they share more elements with Progressive Metal. Their aproach ro Progressive Metal may be different but they don't have to sound the same in order to be in the same sub-genre.


----------



## Rick (Feb 25, 2009)

Wow.


----------



## Rick (Feb 25, 2009)

I've never heard of or seen that. 

I'm scared.


----------



## stuh84 (Feb 25, 2009)




----------



## caughtinamosh (Feb 25, 2009)

Madness.


----------



## Harry (Feb 25, 2009)

Doomcreeper said:


> I think they should do a compilation album together called The League of Extraordinary Djentlemen


----------



## demolisher (Feb 25, 2009)

stopped by to say the word djent is dumb as hell

thanks


----------



## stuh84 (Feb 25, 2009)

demolisher said:


> stopped by to say the word djent is dumb as hell
> 
> thanks



6 months ago called, it wants its opinion back!


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Feb 25, 2009)

Whats wrong with labelling things? It just makes it easier for me to find music thats similar to what i'm looking for...

Say somebody came up to you asking for some similar bands to say...Gorguts. Just tell them to look under Death metal/Avant Garde death metal on wiki and you dont have to rec them jack shit. They can just use the magic of wiki to find similar bands


----------



## stuh84 (Feb 25, 2009)

Stealthtastic said:


> Whats wrong with labelling things? It just makes it easier for me to find music thats similar to what i'm looking for...
> 
> Say somebody came up to you asking for some similar bands to say...Gorguts. Just tell them to look under Death metal/Avant Garde death metal on wiki and you dont have to rec them jack shit. They can just use the magic of wiki to find similar bands



THANK YOU!


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Feb 25, 2009)

stuh84 said:


> THANK YOU!



No problem 




Im just glad i got to use that smiley for the right purpose once...


----------



## furrevig (Feb 25, 2009)

progressive metal


----------



## Daemoniac (Feb 25, 2009)

Stealthtastic said:


> Im just glad i got to use that smiley for the right purpose once...


----------



## bulb (Feb 27, 2009)

i wish that you guys would just start calling us emopop/punk so that we can start climbing the charts already and be on TRL 24/7!

oh and that motivator made ell oh ell for reals out loud haha!


----------



## Sindwulf (Feb 28, 2009)

I thought your music was emo pop?


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Feb 28, 2009)

If its not emo punk pop its not music.


----------



## zackkynapalm (Mar 26, 2009)

Melodic Techmetal.

jesus, why can't it just be metal? hahah.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Mar 26, 2009)

Probably for the same reason you bumped this.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Mar 26, 2009)

there are just WAY too many noobs joining this site


----------



## Cadavuh (Mar 27, 2009)

Djent metal


----------



## hypermagic (Mar 27, 2009)

nujazzsilencecore


----------



## Choop (Mar 27, 2009)

Stealthtastic said:


> Whats wrong with labelling things? It just makes it easier for me to find music thats similar to what i'm looking for...
> 
> Say somebody came up to you asking for some similar bands to say...Gorguts. Just tell them to look under Death metal/Avant Garde death metal on wiki and you dont have to rec them jack shit. They can just use the magic of wiki to find similar bands




It's just that people don't always agree with what subgenre a band may belong to, even if it is on wiki or whatever. A band could be described as belonging to a number of genres, so who is really to say which a band should belong to EXACTLY, ya know? Massive over categorization mostly bothers me really because of having to deal with the elitists who have to be douchebags about it. It isn't subjective in how a band sounds literally, but people who have different experience with music may categorize it differently, and then egos go wild. Some think it makes them superior or something to have the most complicated or "unique" opinion of what a band should be.

I guess the categories aren't such a big deal, but I wish some people would lighten up about it too.

(this isn't directed at anybody in the forum, just guys irl that ive met. )


----------



## ross25 (Mar 27, 2009)

if your looking for more bands of this style you should check out my band and if you stay in scotland you should come check us out on tour next week with Fell Silent

PARIDIAN [looking for shows!!!!!] on MySpace Music - Free Streaming MP3s, Pictures & Music Downloads


----------



## Imdeathcore (Mar 27, 2009)

Technical/progresive Mathcore


----------



## Wolfster (Mar 27, 2009)

Call them 'meshuggah influenced metal'.

In fact Meshuggah should just have their own sub-genre.


----------



## Cadavuh (Mar 27, 2009)

hell naw


----------



## lucasreis (Mar 27, 2009)

Absolutelyfuckintasticmetal!


----------



## _detox (Mar 27, 2009)

Wolfster said:


> Call them 'meshuggah influenced metal'.
> 
> In fact Meshuggah should just have their own sub-genre.



It's funny because the Ernie Ball Battle of the Bands thing for Warped Tour had "Meshuggah Metal" as a subgenre amongst all the other types.


----------



## eegor (Mar 27, 2009)

Cadavuh said:


> Djent metal



This is usually what I call it.


----------



## Swippity Swappity (Mar 27, 2009)

eegor said:


> This is usually what I call it.



Ditto. Always called it Djent Metal.


----------



## bulb (Mar 28, 2009)

hardcore porn


----------



## Konfyouzd (Mar 31, 2009)

ok i was always curious about the whole djent thing... the threads that i've found about it haven't really given me a good answer so i figured i'd just ask now... is djent an actual genre or is it just onomatopoeia? i thought it was just used to describe the sound made when u chug (for lack of a better word) on the lower strings and could thus potentially be used to describe any band, genre, song, what-have-you that utilized that sound... 

am i way off?


----------



## eegor (Mar 31, 2009)

It was originally used as an onomatopoeia for a palm-muted 4-note power chord iirc, but its meaning is starting to be applied to the whole neo-Meshuggah type playing. It's not a genre, but a playing technique.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Mar 31, 2009)

ahh ok gotcha...


----------



## S-O (Mar 31, 2009)

HammerAndSickle said:


>




Oh. Dear. God.

I like this.

Wow.

on another note, I'd label it as djentcore, or bulbcore,

No wait... For something this awesome, it must be a palindrome: 

Erocore

Which is nice, because it looks like a portmanteau of Erotic and hardcore.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Mar 31, 2009)

niiiiice


----------



## ridealot100 (Mar 31, 2009)

melotech metal


----------



## hypermagic (Mar 31, 2009)

MILOTIC METAL


----------



## Cadavuh (Mar 31, 2009)

COOLEST. POKEMON. EVAR.


----------



## ArtDecade (Mar 31, 2009)

Cadavuh said:


> COOLEST. POKEMON. EVAR.



Well, that is _officially_ the quote that I never expected to see on this board.


----------



## Cadavuh (Mar 31, 2009)

Well its name _IS _Milotic!


----------



## Sang-Drax (Apr 1, 2009)

I've just listened to Tesseract. Awesome band! Very atmospheric and melodic - which is precisely I dig Periphery so much in lieu of Meshuggah and Sikth.


----------



## MF_Kitten (Apr 1, 2009)

i just have to re-state my opinion about using "djent" as a genre-description. many of the bands that are cast under that genre don&#180;t even djent. ever. or maybe don&#180;t even have a djent-ish kind of tone at all. lots of metal would be called "chug-metal" if we all used this logic 

i think it&#180;s just progressive metal (except not the medieval fairytales kind ), or maybe just groove-ish metal with nice melodic content.

i think the only correct genre is "metal", and then you can put some explanatory words in front or behind it so your friends know what you&#180;re on about


----------

