[QUOTE="Aoki__"]

[QUOTE="Episode_666"]Also, Pantera is worse than AIDS. They're a bunch of redneck idiots who single-handedly destroyed 99% of metal to this day. Dimebag wasn't an exceptional guitarist by any means, and Phil Anselmo has only gone on to be a total douche bag and plague the world with one of the worst bands to ever exist, Superjoint Ritual.elite_destroyer

ok ok ok seriousllly!!

Almost ANY band will say something about Pantera influencing them. exceptional, just like Hendrix and Paige right?

Episode_666 You WERE sounding good until you said that.. Dimebag from pantera influenced about 99% of the metal artists up to this day look here and scroll down, and down and down.

The only reason you think that is because your definition of "metal" includes some of the worst bands on the planet.

[QUOTE="Episode_666"]Also, Pantera is worse than AIDS. They're a bunch of redneck idiots who single-handedly destroyed 99% of metal to this day. Dimebag wasn't an exceptional guitarist by any means, and Phil Anselmo has only gone on to be a total douche bag and plague the world with one of the worst bands to ever exist, Superjoint Ritual.Aoki__

ok ok ok seriousllly!!

Almost ANY band will say something about Pantera influencing them. exceptional, just like Hendrix and Paige right?

The only bands Pantera influenced were already established bands who unfortunately chose to alter their style for the worse (see: Metallica, Sepultura, In Flames), nu-metal bands, and mallcore crap like Lamb of God and Trivium.

Going by what you're saying, I still don't see how its difficult to see how metalcore/metalcore/metalcore/metalcore can just be considered its own genre.

Blood-Scribe

I mean, it can. Since genres are really just a product of subjective analyses and comparisons, theoretically anything could be a genre in its own right. But it still stands that metalcore bands by their very nature comprise strong elements of both metal AND hardcore, and therefore can be encompassed by both genre labels.

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.

Blood-Scribe

If all metalcore is in fact metalcore, it can all be considered metal and it can all be considered hardcore. I don't see what's so difficult to understand about that. You are thinking in black and white, because you're still saying that a band can't be both hardcore and metal at the same time.

The point I was trying to make with Opeth is that bands can very easily transcend genres, and it's not always that simple. You're underestimating Opeth's influence from 70's progressive rock. I'd argue that they employ more progressive rock in their music these days than metal by far. But you'd have to be familiar with that kind of music more to understand.

Nina Simone - Feelin Good

andyboiii

You know she didn't write that song, right?

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.