korn

Yeah, genres are, but what you just named are sub-genres, or sub-sub genres. That's anorexic. Just calling PT prog is incorrect, they have elements of psychadelic, metal and indie rock (for want of a better word), Dredg aren't prog at all IMO, more experimental/art rock, which isn't even a genre, Opeth lyrically do not fit in to death metal at all, and they obviously are just as much acoustic rock as they are metal or prog. Tool are far too removed from both prog and most metal to be called either on their own. Deftones have elements of nu metal, and from album to album have shown elements of hardcore, emo, shoegaze, prog and even trip-hop. It just gets smaller.

Putting them in with the genre they are ''closest to'' is grossly unfair.

Originally posted by RagnaViper
That's what I assumed. Genres are in no way "anorexic little spaces of vague definition". They're broad forms of categorization. Nothing more. It's not an insult or a cage, it's just a tab to be noted under. It's not confining at all.

Well it is. Unless it's a very specific and wide genre such as "Rock". It gets into labelling. People who label are generally people who feel it makes them more knowledgeable. As ElectricBoogaloo pointed out when someone labelled The Mars Volta as Prog/Salsa/Metal/Rock.

Originally posted by RagnaViper
Tool is progressive rock with metal influences. Opeth is death/prog metal. Porcupine Tree is a prog band. Dredg is a prog band. Sure, they all have their own unique characteristics but they also posess several specific qualities that are shared by other artists. Same goes for Deftones. They carry several characteristics that associate them heavily as nu metal, and it's the closest genre to them.

Tool aren't prog rock with "metal" influences. There's arguably more metal in their music than there is prog influences so if anything, they're hard rock. Just hard rock, which is how they classify themselves if they choose to. Opeth class themselves as death metal but I personally think they are way more than that and there's not a genre I'd use to put them in, because there isn't ONE that adheres to what they play. So sticking them in the closest genre to them, as you did with Deftones, is quite ignorant. Because they're not "death metal".

Dredg are most certainly not prog over all. Porcupine Tree have alot of prog influences and make alot of music I guess you could consider prog rock, but they too have influences and sounds all over the place. Especially considering they have so many albums and dip into techno, hard rock, metal, prog and such over all of them.

Sticking bands into the closest genre to them just because they don't have one of their own is ignorant. It's people like you who complain no music is breaking boundaries, why? Because you're too quick to lump bands doing ANYTHING new in with anything that exists now.

-AC

Originally posted by Deathblow
Yeah, genres are, but what you just named are sub-genres, or sub-sub genres. That's anorexic. Just calling PT prog is incorrect, they have elements of psychadelic, metal and indie rock (for want of a better word), Dredg aren't prog at all IMO, more experimental/art rock, which isn't even a genre, Opeth lyrically do not fit in to death metal at all, and they obviously are just as much acoustic rock as they are metal or prog. Tool are far too removed from both prog and most metal to be called either on their own. Deftones have elements of nu metal, and from album to album have shown elements of hardcore, emo, shoegaze, prog and even trip-hop. It just gets smaller.

Putting them in with the genre they are ''closest to'' is grossly unfair.

Sub genres are just closer and more specific shared characteristics. There's still nothing anorexic about it. Sure, the artists you mentioned have several of those elements, but they can still be placed into a genre. Any band can be placed into a genre if they have enough shared characteristics.

Elements are just toppings. Toppings don't change the fact that the cake is chocolate or strawberry though.

When I'm angry I tend to be not that nice to people, it's one of my characteristics.

Does that mean I'm able to be put into the catagory of someone who has anger management problems because we share the characteristic of short fuses?

-AC

Why does everything have to be labelled as being part of a genre?

Can't you just accept that many bands (including Tool, Porcupine Tree, Opeth, Dredg, and Deftones, all of which are favorites of mine), have music that is so different or so varied that it can NOT be placed in one single genre?

Quite frankly each of those bands listed I think make up their OWN genre, as they are ones you won't find any other bands that really sound like them.

Originally posted by Lana
Opeth, Dredg, and Deftones, all of which are favorites of mine), have music that is so different or so varied that it can NOT be placed in one single genre?

Originally posted by SlipknoT
Opeth to me just seems like Straight up Death metal.

How much of their music have you listened to? Because they also have some really mellow melodic songs, which are absolutely beautiful.

Yeah, and I don't hear Cannibal Corpse making 20 minute long epics.

Originally posted by Lana
How much of their music have you listened to? Because they also have some really mellow melodic songs, which are absolutely beautiful.

You tell him.

On the genre thing, I think I can see the point being made, which is that almost all bands share broad characteristics with at least some other group of bands.

I can see the other side as well though, IE to be in a genre, you have to be generic.

Personally I don't bother with genres, I just listen to what comes out of the speaker.

Having said that, genres do serve some function in terms of a kind of pre-judgment which can save time. Not gonna go into detail on that because just realised how far off topic it'll go- but yeah, if I know something is Garage, I know it's unlikely I'll like it. That's not the same as definitively pre-deciding that I won't though.

Of course, when you get to the point of calling something post-post-nu-NWOBHM emocore, there's no point in doing it anymore.

Originally posted by Lana
Why does everything have to be labelled as being part of a genre?

So that when you go to a store and say "I want something that sounds similar to (X)" then the person can actually help you. So that when you go to a movie you know what type you are going to see instead of being just suprised. Don't you think you would be pissed if you hated horror movies and walked into one thinking it was a funny one? Just deal with the fact that genres exist. If they didn't, what would you describe your musics as? "Uh, I like it cuz it goes duh-duh-duh reall heavy and then teh drums are all like: clash boom boom clash. It's radical!"

Read Victor's post, he gets it spot-on.

And actually, I can't say I've ever gone into a store saying that I want something that sounds similar to ______, usually I go in with what I want to get already in mind, or just wander around and listen to samples and buy something that sounds good.

I like both bands quite a bit.