R&M Forum Project: Definitive Albums

[Jom]

Greetings, all.

A few users wanted to make a forum-specific thread that would be linked and stickied to the top of R&M containing albums that the forum consensus feels are defining albums in the genres our forum discusses. To newcomers and veterans alike, this resource will prove to be useful (hopefully, anyway, assuming that this actually goes through).

There are a slew of genres in both rock and metal that need to be covered, and this is just a very rough draft of the form, but this is what the forum's summer (or winter, for you Southern Hemispherians) project will be is compiling a definitive list for each of the below genres (at bottom of post).

This is more of a discussion thread before we get the ball rolling. This is not my personal project, but I will be doing all the math and calculations and whatnot.

Please discuss the following issues:

- How many nominations per genre? Fill up the form, submit as many albums as you like, submit just one per genre, etc.

- How do we handle bands that transcend genres (e.g. Opeth being both death and progressive metal... we don't want one of their albums showing up on both lists!)?

- How many albums per band will be permissible (e.g. only one Iron Maiden album on the entire list, etc.)?

Again, this is only a discussion thread and not set in stone. If you have any glaring remarks to make, let us know and we'll try to set a timetable for when we're going to rock this out.
---


Traditional/Heavy/Classical Metal
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Black Metal
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Death Metal
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Thrash Metal
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Doom Metal
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Power Metal
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Progressive Metal
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Folk/Viking Metal
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Grind
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Metalcore
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Nu/Mainstream Metal
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Mainstream Rock
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Classic Rock
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Glam/Hard Rock
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Jam Rock
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Alternative Rock/Grunge
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.



If you have questions about any of the genres, my guess is to ask in their respective threads, visit the reviews site, or ask away here. Some of the genres are understandably (and obviously) vague, and for that I apologize. I'm just hoping for a more well-rounded presentation of both rock and metal.

[UmphreysHead]

I think that if we are only going to have 5 albums from each genre, then only one per band. If we decide to do more then I think we can raise/lower that, but for now just one.

And nominations per genre, like 10 or so. To many more and people will just name albums they like, and not necessarily important ones.

For bands like Opeth and such, just a general consensus of what genre they are. Maybe have a separate thread/poll with like 2-3 genres it could fit, and whichever gets the most votes wins.

[Jom]

Yeah, the point of this is to vote for albums that best represent the genres at hand, not the albums you like. That was the point of the other polls, but this one's aim is a little different. Good call there.

I have no problem bumping it to ten albums per genre, either. This is just going to be an enormous pain in the *** for me to tally if it doubles.

[Angmar]

I'll make a list in a day or so of some albums I would like to see, too much to do tonight.

[Jom]

I'll make a list in a day or so of some albums I would like to see, too much to do tonight.

This part's coming later! I just want to nail the basic tenets of this project down before we start diving in.

[Angmar]

Oh right, well I agree that it should be limited to one band each list, and I think 10 per genre would be a solid number, it leaves more room for others to express their opinions and see that really important albums aren't left out.

[Jom]

Alright, I adjusted the form to have ten entries, but I am going to make a rule that says I do not expect everybody to fill out the entire freakin' form. People can if they wish, but it's not a requirement. They can also fill it up partially, just make sure that they assign the album to a corresponding rank (e.g. say they really want Blackwater Park as their #1 choice for progressive but stop there, but only want Significant Other at #8 for nu/mainstream).

The scoring is going to be stratified, with higher-ranking albums getting more tilt.

For example:

1. 60 points
2. 48 points
3. 35 points
4. 26 points
5. 18 points
6. 12 points
7. 7 points
8. 4 points
9. 2 points
10. 1 point

The stratification doesn't have to be that intense, but I don't want it to be 10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1, that's all.

[Angmar]

Sounds like a good plan, are you gonna count up all the points and such?

[dinosaurxbrocore]

i like idea

[Jom]

Aye.

This is more of a discussion thread before we get the ball rolling. This is not my personal project - it's for the forum derived by forum members - but I will be doing all the math and calculations and whatnot.

[Riva]

I'd rather see 5 nominations per genre per person. I think this would force people to really think about which bands they put on their list.

[Jom]

Obviously, that would be preferred. I can expand the official list to ten, but each person should be limited to no more than five per genre.

Thank you.

[dinosaurxbrocore]

imo, it should be 10 nominations per genre, as its the top 10 definitive bands

[Riva]

It's not the Top 10 Definitive Bands, though, simply the Definitive Albums of each genre. And I don't see why we can't make the nomination process a little more robust (and Jom's life a lot easier) by limiting it to five nominations per person per genre. That's still a heck of a lot of albums, and if you can't limit yourself to five, you're either indecisive or eager to show of your elite knowledge.

[Kage]

That's still a heck of a lot of albums, and if you can't limit yourself to five, you're either indecisive or eager to show of your elite knowledge.

Good point.

[Riva]

Grammatical error notwithstanding.

[UmphreysHead]

5 is good. Like i said before, if you get up much higher than people will start to nom their favorites and not necessarily the definitive albums for the genre.

[Jom]

I will expand the final lists to ten, but each person should be restricted to five at most because he/she needs to REALLY consider which albums are going to get the bigger tilt (the #1 stratification is going to be enormous) and which albums he/she wants to see on the list. There are going to be nominations that don't make the final cut, so I don't want anybody rocking himself/herself to sleep in the fetal position. Choose wisely!

/Indiana Jones

[Stevie II]

I'm against stratified scoring. When it comes to essential material in genres I don't think that there's one album that's more essential than another. Or, if we are going to have stratified scoring have it quite "weak". Also I believe that not everybody should be involved in every genre, hence splitting the project between genres so that only people who know what they're talking about vote for any genre - it would only damage it if I started voting for jam or glam.

I'd be happy to be responsible for a few genres.

[Pete]

I'm against stratified scoring. When it comes to essential material in genres I don't think that there's one album that's more essential than another. Or, if we are going to have stratified scoring have it quite "weak". Also I believe that not everybody should be involved in every genre, hence splitting the project between genres so that only people who know what they're talking about vote for any genre - it would only damage it if I started voting for jam or glam.

I'd be happy to be responsible for a few genres.

Well he did say you got to vote where you wanted and could skip what you wanted. Also, are you serious about this? I always thought the "eliter than thou"-attitude on these forums was kind o f a joke, not something where you actually think you are better and know better than everyone =/ Of course if 150,000 idiots came and voted for Dethklok for best death metal, something would have to be done, but this is a music community and I think we can trust most people to have opinions they can back up.

[Stevie II]

What I mean is that I don't think people should feel obligated to vote for genres they don't know anything about, which would happen if this project wasn't split. I'm not being elitist, I just think that people shouldn't feel like they should take part in every genre.

[Pete]

What I mean is that I don't think people should feel obligated to vote for genres they don't know anything about, which would happen if this project wasn't split. I'm not being elitist, I just think that people shouldn't feel like they should take part in every genre.

Yeah, most definitely, if one doesn't feel comfortable picking albums for a genre, then don't. It's just the idea that people would be assigned genres based on self-importance seems counter-productive. Then again, mayeb you weren't suggesting that and I'm just being an assumptive ***. :)

[superpeer]

I'd replace Grunge with Alternative Rock.

[Stevie II]

I'd replace Grunge with Alternative Rock.

wouldn't it be more suitable for an alternative rock list to go in the alternative forum?

[ThrashMaster27]

I'm for the 1 band per genre rule.

I'm happy for the 10 per genre to stand, but that may be biased towards Thrash, because there is quite a few defining albums.

Maybe we could look at different eras to give a timeline of the genre... might be complicating it slightly though.

[superpeer]

wouldn't it be more suitable for an alternative rock list to go in the alternative forum?

No. It's alternative rock. All grunge bands can go under alternative rock, anyway. There's no way you can find 10 definitive grunge albums since there are only like 5 bands who get the grunge label.

You just want to have Therapy? on the list :p
You're absolutely right, though -- it's a good idea and I fixed it.

[RetiredAt21]

Can I do grind?

[Txus]

Good idea, guys. I think we should keep it to 3 albums per genre, it'll be harder to think about them, but it makes the process faster and easier for Jom. Anyway, if you guys want to keep the whole monstrous thing 5 albums per genre it's good for me. Very good idea, if I must say again.

[Joe]

I like either 3 or 5 per person and then 10 as a final. And I also really like 1 album per band, maximum. It allows for less fanboyism...

Would you have to fill out for every genre? Because there are a good few that I don't really listen to

[pate]

I think 5 per person would be fine, with the final list being 10.

And I don't like the stratification system.

[Stevie II]

If genres are delegated to volunteers then there isn't much work for Jom, or anyone to do.

This is what I suggest:

The way I see it, 5 nominations is not enough. In death metal and black metal I struggle to get it down to 10. So perhaps people could submit albums that they see essential but there's no need for anyone to fill lists. Limited to a band appearing once per list. Delegates could do tallying for their delegated genre. Would this be followed by a voting round, or would it be decided straight from these nominations? If it's decided straight from nominations then limiting to 5 per person wouldn't be enough as there probably wouldn't be enough participation to get enough nominations going.

I don't think it's important if a band crosses lists, but for bands like Opeth I think it's more important to consider where their contributions are important. Opeth's contributions are surely more important to progressive metal than death metal, for example.

Delegates could open up voting in respective genre's threads so that it's really a matter of those who know the most about the genres nominating, rather than people voting in genres they don't know about. Again this is not a matter of elitism but a matter of discouraging nominations for the sake of nominations. Also it would open up attention to those who are unaware of this project.

We've already had the following volunteers for respective genres:

Black Metal - Stevie II
Death Metal - Stevie II
Traditional metal - pate
Grind - retiredat21
Thrash Metal - FatalEnergy
Doom Metal - the2stranger
Power Metal - pate
Metalcore - dinosaurxbrocore
Jam - UmphreysHead

[Joe]

I totally see where you're coming from, but I'm getting the vibe that this is not for essential albums. It's definitive albums - like genre-defining albums, not only which albums you think everyone should have. I think there's a difference there - and there should be a struggle. You shouldn't be voting for 5 albums you like and 5 albums that define the genre. It should just be the latter. For example, I think Iron Maiden's Brave New World is in my top 3 favorite Maiden albums, but it's far from definitive.

I think 5, max.

[Apocalyptic Raids]

yeah I like five.

[Txus]

I vote 5

[Stevie II]

I think it should be essential albums, not definitive. I see the difference, but I think this should be a matter of giving a list of where to get started with a genre, i.e. essential, not a list that says what the genre is, i.e. definitive. Eg. I know what doom metal is, but I don't know what's the essential doom metal albums.

Anyway, it seems like everyone's happy with 5 so whatever I'll 'roll over' on that one.

[Jom]

I vehemently dislike the idea of having representatives for each genre, and let me tell you why: if they do anything outside leading the discussion, such as steering people one way or another, that taints the whole purpose. It also stands to reason that these genres are going to be only one person's opinion, and this is supposed to be a forum-building exercise, so each person's contribution matters.

I thought I indicated rather clearly that people do not have to fill out each genre. Concession: this is going on the Honors system in R&M, a place where people are typically dishonest. However, I feel pretty confident that people will know the difference between genre-defining albums and albums they like. There are going to be a few tweaks once we get going and I'll make it clear (again) that discussion can take place in the genre threads, but the final thread is going to be form-only posts (unless there are questions).

Five albums per genre to start, ten for the final list, one album max per band seems to be the consensus. I still favor a stratified scoring system (my example was far too extreme, I think, which is why people freaked out) but if we don't go with it that's completely fine with me.

[Stevie II]

OK, I understand. Would it be a matter of then 5 nominations each, followed by voting 10 with stratified voting? May I then suggest a mix of stratified and unstratified - ie top 3 have same value followed by other values for others, eg:

1st - 10 points
2nd - 10 points
3rd - 10 points
4th - 8 points
5th - 7 points
6th - 6 points
7th - 5 points
8th - 5 points
9th - 3 points
10th - 3 points

[Jom]

Each person can submit UP TO five albums (they don't have to fill out all five and they DEFINITELY don't have to fill out each genre [for instance, I'm not going to be filling out Doom, Folk/Viking, Grind, etc.), but the final, stickied, official list will have ten albums.

That scoring system is a good example, if people like that we can use something like that, sure.

Let me see if I can explain why I wanted to have the stratified system:

Because people are submitting UP TO five albums for their genre(s) of choice, it forces them to REALLY consider what albums they want to see on there. For instance, say I am going to pick an Anthrax's Among the Living for thrash metal, but because most people scoff at Anthrax in general, it might not make the list although I consider it to be a definitive thrash album. I will rate that more heavily on my list (#1, 2, or 3, where the stratification is greater) in order to elevate it on that final top ten... it would also help if people voted for Among the Living as well. Does that make sense? If the scoring system was straight-up 10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1, it would lead to more ties. Using a stratified system, I will be able to have a better sense of what the final ten will look like in each genre.

If I'm being confusing, I apologize... I'm just kind of excited about forum participation and the final product already, haha :)

[Stevie II]

Oh, I understand. I too am looking forward to this. I'm glad to see this is coming together and I'd like to see it go well. :D.


I'd be happy to help out at least with any calculations that need doing

[Joe]

Yea I really like the idea of having the top three (or maybe two) worth 10 points each and then count down from there.

And yes, this will be good

[Tyr]

I definitely support a stratified system.

[Jom]

I reckon that this will take awhile to complete, anyway. We want to give people as much time to discuss and debate in the genre threads and everything. I'm not sure what kind of timetable you were envisioning, but I figure that we've got the basics basically nailed down for the most part, so we can start this as early as tonight? I'm still trying to figure out what to do about discussion for genres that don't have an official thread... I figure I can make a second thread (the first one can be the just-form thread, the second can be general discussion).

I would just like to see a few more opinions from people before we get going. Discussion can already start, by all means, but the two new threads don't need to go up right away, haha.

And I know this will mean **** all in R&M, but the staff writers at the reviews site used a stratified system for their 2007 Best-of consensus list, and that was albums from JUST 2007... we're talking albums that could potentially span decades, and that's why I was pushing for a more stratified system because there won't be so many ties, you know?

[Apocalyptic Raids]

I like stratified.

[pate]

I like that modified stratified system.

[dinosaurxbrocore]

could we add deathcore to the list maybe? considering there's a few albums that could definitely be considered definitive to that style, but not definitive to death metal in general.

[pate]

They couldn't just go in metalcore? And no, I'm not trying to make fun of you.

[Shattered_Future]

Now, would prog rock albums go under the prog metal category as well? Because there's bands like King Crimson who aren't really metal, but are still progressive...

I like the stratified system idea too.

[Kage]

The rock subgenres need an overhaul.

[Jom]

The rock subgenres need an overhaul.

Again, it was just a rough draft because people were all like "blah blah we only talk about metal in this forum" so that's where you come in (if you can help me out, anyway). What am I missing, what needs to be taken out, what needs to be 'overhaul[ed],' exactly? Cheers.

[Eliminator]

hello im jom I LIKE PARGAPHskijedDDDDDDDDDDDD

[masscows]

Greetings, all.hi
- How many nominations per genre? Fill up the form, submit as many albums as you like, submit just one per genre, etc.Methinks each person should be able to submit up to 10 albums from each genre (they don't have to submit them for every genre ofc)- How do we handle bands that transcend genres (e.g. Opeth being both death and progressive metal... we don't want one of their albums showing up on both lists!)?Determine somehow which one they fall under better. I personally think Opeth should be under progressive metal.- How many albums per band will be permissible (e.g. only one Iron Maiden album on the entire list, etc.)?One methinks

my 2cents

[Silenius]

I can handle folk/viking

[UmphreysHead]

We should just use what the CD Review site has for the albums that are various genres, I'm pretty sure a good amount of thought and debate has gone into deciding those.

[masscows]

Those are just based on album ratings and have nothing to do with how 'definitive' something is. This isn't a 'top 10 best every of each genre' list, it's a 'top 10 albums that defined what this genre is' list.

[UmphreysHead]

I meant for what genre they'd be in, not their rank.

[masscows]

Oh no, anyone can just go in and change those whenever they want. Plus the review site doesn't have every genre, like Doom metal and Folk/viking metal would just go under metal for example.

[Jom]

Yeah, the reviews site lacks a considerable number of genres. The reason why I brought it up was to illustrate the benefits of the stratified scoring system.

[dinosaurxbrocore]

GUYS

CONVERGE JANE DOE

could you just put it as #1. for metalcore right off the bat? cause i guarentee it will be

[UmphreysHead]

You're forgetting about Atreyu.

[dinosaurxbrocore]

epic fail

[UmphreysHead]

u just don't understand because you're not deep

[dinosaurxbrocore]

nah, i like some atreyu stuff, but what the hell, did you really have to sully converge (see: perfection) with such a comparisson?

[UmphreysHead]

yes

[Dave de Sylvia]

I'd rather see 5 nominations per genre per person. I think this would force people to really think about which bands they put on their list.
This makes sense for the genres that will get like a million votes, but I think it would be counter-productive in the less popular ones like jam rock and hard rock. 10 would at least afford a little more diversity in those particular genres.

[Correction]

I'm liking this idea, newer users could discover a lot of good music this way.

[Pete]

GUYS

CONVERGE JANE DOE

could you just put it as #1. for metalcore right off the bat? cause i guarentee it will be

also dillinger escape plan "calculating infinity", indecision "most precious blood", shai hulud "hearts once nourished with hope and compassion"

[Shred Danson]

nah, i like some atreyu stuff, but what the hell, did you really have to sully converge (see: perfection) with such a comparisson?

lol it's metalcore so it must be terrible, right?

[MBS]

i'm not sure if this has been voiced or not, but alternative and grunge together...? in some cases, they're on opposite ends of the spectrum

[Dave de Sylvia]

It was originally just grunge, but it was changed to "alternative rock" to broaden the heading. It'd probably be better off to remove grunge altogether and just assume it goes under alt rock so people don't feel compelled to nominate grunge bands.

[MBS]

okay yeah i just got myself caught up and that works well

some grunge albums did help define the alternative sound of the early 90s, but i wouldn't base an entire genre around them

i'll dig up the list the CR regs came up with for the CR definitive albums. give me a second.

Classic Rock Albums You Should check out:
Neil Young-On the Beach
Love-Forever Changes
The Beatles-Abbey Road
Pink Floyd-Wish You Were Here
Jimi Hendrix-Electric Ladyland
Nick Drake-Pink Moon
Bob Dylan-Highway 61 Revisited
The Grateful Dead-Workingman's Dead
Quicksilver Messenger Service-Happy Trails
Spirit-12 Dreams of Dr. Sardonicus
The Beatles-Revolver
The Allman Brothers-Eat a Peach
Cream-Disraeli Gears
Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
Neil Young-After the Goldrush
Frank Zappa-Hot Rats
Bob Dylan-Bringin' it All Back Home
The Who-Live at Leeds
Led Zeppelin-I
Crosby Stills Nash and Young-Deja Vu
The Doors-Strange Days
Led Zeppelin-III
The Allman Brothers Band-Live at the Fillmore East
Jefferson Airplane-Surrealistic Pillow
Jimi Hendrix-Axis:Bold as Love
Black Sabbath-Black Sabbath
Funkadelic-Maggot Brain
The Doors-The Doors
The Band-Music from the Big Pink
Country Joe and the Fish-Electric Music for the Mind and Body
Black Sabbath-Master of Reality
Led Zeppelin-Houses of the Holy
Grateful Dead-American Beauty
George Harrison-All Things Must Pass
The Beatles-Rubber Soul
CAptain Beefheart-Safe as Milk
The Zombies-Odessy and Oracle
Cream-Wheels of Fire
The Velvet Underground-Loaded
Traffic-John Barleycorn Must Die
Blind Faith-Blind Faith
Santana-Abraxas
The Rolling Stones-Let it Bleed
The Grateful Dead-Live Dead
Quicksilver Messenger Service-Quicksilver Messenger Service
The Who-Tommy
The Band-The Band
Neil Young & Crazyhorse-Everybody Knows This is No Where
Pink Floyd-Meddle
The Doors-Morrison Hotel
MC5-Kick Out the Jams
Can-Ege Bamyasi
Iggy and the Stooges-Raw Power
Led Zeppelin-II
Black Sabbath-Paranoid
The Yardbirds-The Yardbirds (Roger the Engineer)
John Mayall-The Bluesbreaker with Eric Clapton
Emerson Lake and Palmer-Tarkus
Frank Zappa-Freak Out!
Jeff Beck-Wired
Canned Heat-Boogie with Canned Heat
Captain Beefheart-Trout Mask Replica
Led Zeppelin-Pyhsical Graffiti

kind of long but that should give an idea of what we thought was essential/good 2 years ago

[Eliminator]

who cares this isn't then eliminator eliminator

[masscows]

that post just mind****ed me, not gonna lie

[UmphreysHead]

I say the Dead should go under Jam opposed to psychedelic/classic rock.

[MBS]

jam bands are like the grunge of classic rock

we should just loop them in with their respective parent genres (allmans and dead -> classic rock, gov't mule phish moe. etc -> alternative)

[Dave de Sylvia]

That would probably make sense. Otherwise the classic rock category would just consist of one album from each of Neil Young's side-projects plus the obligatory AC/DC mention. Because everyone in the CR thread loves AC/DC.

[Eliminator]

nazareth will dominate

[UmphreysHead]

That'd be if we weren't going with jam band. But if we are then all of those bands would be jam imo.

[Jom]

That's fine, but if metal is going to get lip-service for ten or so genres, I figured that rock should get somewhat parallel treatment. If not, that's fine, but if the metalheads are going to get super picky between black and doom (or whatever), a distinction can arguably be made for jam and alternative.

[MBS]

That would probably make sense. Otherwise the classic rock category would just consist of one album from each of Neil Young's side-projects plus the obligatory AC/DC mention. Because everyone in the CR thread loves AC/DC.

there's gotta be some kind of godwin's law on these forums that applies to neil young, i swear to god

[Dave de Sylvia]

That's fine, but if metal is going to get lip-service for ten or so genres, I figured that rock should get somewhat parallel treatment. If not, that's fine, but if the metalheads are going to get super picky between black and doom (or whatever), a distinction can arguably be made for jam and alternative.
I would support separate categories for grunge and alt. rock, if only because the best grunge bands were more metal than anything and wouldn't fit anywhere else.

Also glam, sleaze and hard rock need separate genres.

[UmphreysHead]

stop talking about jam bands you ****ing large bundle of sticks

ok fine

[MBS]

I would support separate categories for grunge and alt. rock, if only because the best grunge bands were more metal than anything and wouldn't fit anywhere else.

Also glam, sleaze and hard rock need separate genres.

differentiate hard rock from rock plz

also sleaze rock = kind of same thing as glam, yeah? idk

[Jom]

All I really want in the next day or so is a finalized set of genres. Metal seems to be covered (shocker) but rock is proving to be unresolved at this point.

[Dave de Sylvia]

ya that's the joke

Actually, if you wanna get technical, sleaze is the more rootsy, Stones-influenced music typified by the New York Dolls, Guns N' Roses, Faster Pussycat etc., while glam is more the likes of T. Rex, David Bowie and the bands influenced by them. Hair metal is probably different enough to warrant its own category since it's effectively anything influenced by Van Halen, but that'd probably be overkill so yeah.

[UmphreysHead]

Which is shocking that rock would be the one with all the debate.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Nobody here listens to rock it's all extreme metulz.

[UmphreysHead]

If there is above decent production then it's lame.

[Jom]

See, I thought hair metal and glam rock were somewhat parallel... bands like Motley Crue and whatnot. I figured that Appetite for Destruction would go under this category or Hard Rock or whatever. I just want to know which rock subgenres we're adding, taking out, etc.

[MBS]

maybe if we did it by decades?

edit - or albums that were around in a specific time

[UmphreysHead]

I like what Jom had in his first post. It's not complicated and everything necessary is included.

[Dave de Sylvia]

See, I thought hair metal and glam rock were somewhat parallel... bands like Motley Crue and whatnot. I figured that Appetite for Destruction would go under this category or Hard Rock or whatever. I just want to know which rock subgenres we're adding, taking out, etc.
Motley Crue aren't really a typical hair metal band in that they were more influenced by punk and '70s power pop, both of which were influenced by the first wave of glam bands, while Dokken were more traditional in their influences. Poison were influenced by Foreigner and Boston ffs.

But yeah, I don't think anyone apart from me actually listens to glam rock in its original carnation so it can just stay in hard rock.

[Jom]

Let me try to break these all up into subgenres as small/specific as I can get them, and we'll decide from here which ones we can combine/get rid of/add from there:

Mainstream Rock
Classic Rock
Alternative
Grunge
Jam Rock
Hair Metal
Hard Rock
Glam
Sleaze
Progressive Rock
Pop Rock
additions?

EDIT: oic

well, the reason why the rock categories were smaller in number is because I have a feeling not many people will vote for them or vote half-assedly on them... it was an attempt to give rock an entire spectrum while trying to avoid ambiguity

[Dave de Sylvia]

Does pop rock need a heading? I think glam rock, hard rock and pop rock/power pop could become one heading, while sleaze and hair metal could become another.

[Skyler]

Glam rock is kind of a subgenre of pop rock, yes, but hard rock?

When I think of hard rock, I think of bands like Guns N' Roses, Van Halen, Stone Temple Pilots, etc.

Otherwise, I pretty much agree with SOP.

[Jom]

That looks good to me if you are okay with having four sub-genres under one heading. What about splitting them in two, the first half (glam/hard) and the second half (pop rock/powerpop), with hair metal and sleaze being combined to make a third category?

[Kage]

I think you need to collapse a lot of what you've got and add these:

Psychedelic rock
Fusion
Krautrock
Folk
Noise Rock
Post-Rock
Industrial (probably should go in metal)

And I think we should have some category for the fringe/outsider stuff. I hesitate to call it "avant-rock" because everyone will get their panties in a twist, but it should still be there.

[dinosaurxbrocore]

also dillinger escape plan "calculating infinity", indecision "most precious blood", shai hulud "hearts once nourished with hope and compassion"

10.21
jhazmyne's lullaby
we are the romans
of malice and the magnum heart

[Pete]

10.21
jhazmyne's lullaby
we are the romans
of malice and the magnum heart

the healing process
doom
hate malice revenge

because you know theyre gonna combine deathcore and metalcore

[Stevie II]

There are surely not 10 essential grunge albums?? I don't know anything about catagorising rock, I'm afraid.

Also, Jom, could you change the project title from "definitive" albums to "essential"? I think the latter is more useful because definitive tells you what the genre is, whereas essential gives you a place to start in the genre.

[Eliminator]

lol folk isn't a subgenre of rock

[Dave de Sylvia]

Yes it is! And so is blues, don't you know anything about history?
Glam rock is kind of a subgenre of pop rock, yes, but hard rock?

When I think of hard rock, I think of bands like Guns N' Roses, Van Halen, Stone Temple Pilots, etc.

Otherwise, I pretty much agree with SOP.
Well STP would probably fit more comfortably under grunge or alt. rock, but both GNR and Van Halen were heavily influenced by glam and power pop.

If you guys think they'd be better split up, that's cool, but I was just thinking in terms of getting as many votes as possible.

That looks good to me if you are okay with having four sub-genres under one heading. What about splitting them in two, the first half (glam/hard) and the second half (pop rock/powerpop), with hair metal and sleaze being combined to make a third category?
This could work.

[masscows]

'folk' could mean a plethora of things though, it should be more specific if it's going to be used as a category

[MBS]

folk music =/= rock music

srs guys

come on

[Kage]

Folk-rock, then.

[Jom]

As soon as we can get a consensus of some sort, I'll be ready to start the new threads. I'm holding out for a little more discussion to get there, so that's completely alright with me. Post-rock is an awesome idea; I figured it was an A&I thing so that's why I didn't have it on there. I really, truly don't believe people are really going to go for Krautrock, Fusion, and Noise Rock, but I've been proven wrong before.

[illpressureurhinges1]

10.21
jhazmyne's lullaby
we are the romans
of malice and the magnum heart

Really? Misery Signals as a definitive metalcore album?

[Kage]

Why wouldn't they go for those? Are we looking to get a well-rounded view of metal and a narrow-minded view of rock?

[Kage]

Well, let's get a consensus, then. As far as I can tell, here are all the proposed genres for rock:

Mainstream rock (is this necessary?)
Pop Rock/powerpop
Classic Rock
Alternative
Jam Rock
Hair Metal/Sleaze/Glam
Hard Rock
Progressive Rock
Psychedelic rock
Fusion
Krautrock
Folk-rock
Noise Rock
Post-Rock
Stoner Rock

Here are the proposed genres for metal:

Traditional/Heavy/Classical Metal
Black Metal
Death Metal
Thrash Metal
Doom Metal
Power Metal
Progressive Metal
Folk/Viking Metal
Grind
Metalcore
Nu/Mainstream Metal
Industrial
Drone/Sludge

If you have any additions or any arguments against one of these genres, speak up now.

[Jom]

Why wouldn't they go for those? Are we looking to get a well-rounded view of metal and a narrow-minded view of rock?

No, the more the merrier, especially with rock. My perception is that, when I think of twenty-five R&M regulars, I would be astounded/pleased if half of them were competent in knowing what those genres entail. Stemming from that, I am initially fearful that we're not going to get ten representative picks unless people like you take it upon themselves to make sure the albums that are selected are indeed representative of those genres... does that make sense?

EDIT: are we really in that big of a hurry? I frown upon snap decisions. Metal has already been solidified, but all of a sudden we got eight nominations to add for rock and I'm seriously doubting the manpower to bolster some of them. If I'm wrong, awesome, it wouldn't be the first time.

[Kage]

Yeah it makes perfect sense, and I share your worries. But I think we should at the very least include them in the nomination process, and if it doesn't seem to be working out/only turns into my/a couple other people's favorite noise albums, then we can cut it.

[illpressureurhinges1]

So is deathcore going to be intergrated into metalcore?

[Jom]

Yeah it makes perfect sense, and I share your worries. But I think we should at the very least include them in the nomination process, and if it doesn't seem to be working out/only turns into my/a couple other people's favorite noise albums, then we can cut it.

I'm fine with the ones you proposed (I think it's awesome, for the record, I just don't know if they're heavily discussed here?), just curious if anybody else besides you and a couple others will fill them out, especially if we're supposed to get to ten genres, you know?

[Kage]

Well, hopefully we'll get some other people's opinions in here if we can get anyone to discuss rock and not exclusively metal. XD

[Jom]

So is deathcore going to be intergrated into metalcore?

I don't really trust Mappy-created genres. What's next, pornogrind? I don't want a bunch of Intense Hammer Rage or Gut albums in this list.

Well, we'll get some other people's opinions in here if we can get anyone to discuss rock and not metal. XD

Haha, good one.

Seriously, though -- should we just try out the list you proposed and see what happens?

EDIT: the reason why "Mainstream Rock" is there is just because there's a Nu/Mainsteam Metal category, and I really want to get an Alien Ant Farm record somewhere on that final list :evil:

[illpressureurhinges1]

Alright then. Thanks.

[Jom]

I mean if people REALLY want it, that's fine, but I am trying to keep things on an even keel here. I don't want to see 238028302342 bastard-core genres in the list unless people REALLY want to see them.

[Kage]

Seriously, though -- should we just try out the list you proposed and see what happens?

EDIT: the reason why "Mainstream Rock" is there is just because there's a Nu/Mainsteam Metal category, and I really want to get an Alien Ant Farm record somewhere on that final list :evil:

I've been thinking about it and I agree it's necessary. At first I was thinking those albums could be included in the pop/rock category, but that's really not the same thing.

I think we should give people some time to object to the list, but if no one does then we should just proceed. I didn't mean to make it seem like I was rushing it; sorry if the "speak up now" line in my post made it seem that way.

[Stevie II]

There's nothing to say that a genre couldn't be redone if the results are sour.

[illpressureurhinges1]

I mean if people REALLY want it, that's fine, but I am trying to keep things on an even keel here. I don't want to see 238028302342 bastard-core genres in the list unless people REALLY want to see them.

Well deathcore seems like more of a legitimate -core than any of that other crap. Just metalcore and deathcore seem reasonable.

[Jom]

I reckon that if we get good discussion for the rest of the day, I can start this project tonight. One thread is going to be the form thread; the other can be for discussion. The reason for two threads is that it'll help me with scoring.

Let me double-check, if I may:

Form with each genre f/ five slots per genre
Stratified scoring system (I need to know what the stratification will be for five albums: 15-10-6-3-1?)
Final list will feature ten albums with the highest score
Final results thread (so we can see what missed the cut)
Final locked/stickied thread
Kage's proposed lists... and I guess deathcore, for whatever reason.
No discernible time limit... I guess until the thread starts dying or 1-2 weeks or something?

I just would like a few more hours of discussion before I throw up the threads... some people are still in school and whatnot.

---

Well deathcore seems like more of a legitimate -core than any of that other crap. Just metalcore and deathcore seem reasonable.

Fair enough, if that's the consensus.

[Kage]

If you add deathcore, seems to me everyone's going to want to have melodic death and symphonic black, etc. It'll never end.

That said, if people want to **** with that it could be okay, or it could be totally absurd.

Also, I think we need to add stoner rock.
And perhaps a drone/sludge category to metal as well.

[Jom]

Yes, we must have some Boris/Sunn 0)))/Earth/Moon D))) albums in this list!

I agree, it seems to be an important genre. Do you think I should combine post-rock and post-metal? It seems fair enough to see Isis and Neurosis in with Explosions in the Sky and Mono on the same list, but that could be separated as well I suppose.

[Kage]

I suppose that could just be included with doom metal. Depends on what everyone else wants. But bands like The Melvins and Swans need some place to go

[Tyr]

I reckon that if we get good discussion for the rest of the day, I can start this project tonight. One thread is going to be the form thread; the other can be for discussion. The reason for two threads is that it'll help me with scoring.

Let me double-check, if I may:

Form with each genre f/ five slots per genre
Stratified scoring system (I need to know what the stratification will be for five albums: 15-10-6-3-1?)
Final list will feature ten albums with the highest score
Final results thread (so we can see what missed the cut)
Final locked/stickied thread
Kage's proposed lists... and I guess deathcore, for whatever reason.
No discernible time limit... I guess until the thread starts dying or 1-2 weeks or something?

I just would like a few more hours of discussion before I throw up the threads... some people are still in school and whatnot.

I like that scoring system, and I'm with Kage on the deathcore issue.

[Kage]

Yes, we must have some Boris/Sunn 0)))/Earth/Moon D))) albums in this list!

I agree, it seems to be an important genre. Do you think I should combine post-rock and post-metal? It seems fair enough to see Isis and Neurosis in with Explosions in the Sky and Mono on the same list, but that could be separated as well I suppose.

I was pondering the same thing. Ultimately, I think they combining them is the better option.

[Stevie II]

Not so extreme scoring system please - perhaps 10-10-8-6-5.

[Jom]

Well, remember, I have a 10,000 character limit per post. I agree that we should encapsulate as many genres as possible, but within reason. The aim of this was supposed to be, "These are, without question, ten essential albums that are definitive of the genres," but the problem stems back from an earlier page: bands tend to transcend genres, so how do we account for explaining that in this list? The easy answer would be: duh, the band threads. Of course, people might not make that connection... and I seriously can't wait for the inevitable "ugh you fags [this band] is [this genre] and [not that one]," heh.

This one album per band rule is going to be pretty amusing as well... however, one thing I was considering can be better illustrated with an example:

For progressive rock, say The Wall and Dark Side of the Moon end up at 2 and 10 on the list. I could give Pink Floyd the #2 spot, list both albums, and then slide the #11 album at #10. I think this could be cool, considering people can only vote for one album per band to begin with, which forces them to REALLY think about what album they want to see on the final list.

What do you think?

---

10-10-8-6-5

Eh, that's fine, I suppose, but I am a staunch believer in the #1 album having more weight than 2-5. The reason why there are different numbers is to help break ties with participation.

[Kage]

Not so extreme scoring system please - perhaps 10-10-8-6-5.


Nah, making it so top-heavy forces people to think about which albums they really want on there.



This one album per band rule is going to be pretty amusing as well... however, one thing I was considering can be better illustrated with an example:

For progressive rock, say The Wall and Dark Side of the Moon end up at 2 and 10 on the list. I could give Pink Floyd the #2 spot, list both albums, and then slide the #11 album at #10. I think this could be cool, considering people can only vote for one album [per band] to begin with, which forces them to REALLY think about what album they want to see on the final list.

What do you think?

Great idea, no doubt you should do that.

*my edit

[Stevie II]

No, what you get is the equivalent of on metal archives people rating an album 0% whilst others have rated it 90% just to drag it down as low as possible to fit their own view. I think we should discourage such behaviour.

So, if someone wants Anthrax's Amongst the Living on there they might make it their top choice just to try and force it through whilst they don't believe that Amongst the Living is THE most essential thrash album by any means. Thus we get a warped result of people trying to force through their own choices that they think nobody else will go for rather than really thinking what would be their actual choice should they themselves be the sole judge for the list.

[Eliminator]

guys lets make this way more complicated than it needs to be

this is probably the best route

[Jom]

No, what you get is the equivalent of on metal archives people rating an album 0% whilst others have rated it 90% just to drag it down as low as possible to fit their own view. I think we should discourage such behaviour.

I don't see how the two are connected? Let me clarify:

If a lot of people are voting for the same album to be #1, those points are going to accumulate because of the #1's heavier tilt. It's not based on averages (there are no outliers here), it's based on total points, like the past competitions. The example you're citing involves averages, and outlier(s) have impact there.

With the expected participation, a couple non-votes will not adversely affect an album's placement if it is primarily getting #1 votes.

[Stevie II]

see edit...

[Jom]

Wouldn't the discussion thread be helpful in that regard? I'm considering opening the discussion thread right away but locking the final form thread for a couple days (say I start both threads tonight, I'll let the discussion thread open and then open the form thread on Monday).

What I don't want is people editing their form 2034022349234 times. I can see who edits and who doesn't; the forms should be as final as possible.

Does that help clarify? :p

[Stevie II]

No, that'd make it worse. People would see that nobody agrees with them on album X so they'd be more likely to put it at the top. If the scoring isn't so extreme people arn't going to do that sort of thing.

We're nearly there, I just think this scoring system is too extreme. Also, it would be very hard for me to say that one album is in a sense 15 times more essential than another. If you've got a good knowledge of a genre it's hard enough getting down to 5 albums anyway, let alone saying that 1 album is far more important than another since they're all very important to the genre!

[Jom]

I'm trying to figure out your example, but it's not making sense to me. Say Among the Living is highly regarded by User A, but Users B-Z don't feel it's essential. If those users don't even have it on their 2-5, then Among the Living surely isn't an essential record? With either stratification system, AtL wouldn't be getting any points at all (can't score if it's not on the list!).

But if, say, M-Z have it at #5, it's still going to garner a lot of points - enough to make that final cut. People have to really, genuinely have to pick which albums they want to see with their five.

[Stevie II]

Say I see that anthrax has got 10 points in total and is in 6th place. Suppose that megadeth has 5th place with 20 points. Suppose I hate megadeth. I would be tempted to put anthrax in top place just to knock megadeth off the top 5 slot, even though if I was just deciding the list on my own I would put anthrax in 4th or 5th place. hence i am not being truthful to my views, but i'm just manipulating the scores for my own view.

[Eliminator]

lol wow

[Stevie II]

If you want to go with it then by all means do so - I don't want to hold this thing back any more. I do think that the scoring system is bad, but if you want to stick with it then I won't protest. I want to see this thing get going.

[Tyr]

Most people here are too lazy to count the number of points a certain album has, anyway.

[Stevie II]

you're wrong. internet is serious business

[Tyr]

Mmmkay.

[Jom]

I see what you're saying, but there will be rules to keep track of that. Postcount is going to be one of them, no alternate accounts (unless the primary is banned, etc.), no double votes, and so on. I originally was going to set it at 1,000 posts, but that wouldn't be that fair considering you have 400-something, haha. But don't worry, since I'm keeping track, I will be watching out for 'troll' votes.

[Stevie II]

alright

then I'm happy to see this get going...

[Jom]

Right now? Or give it a few hours and throw it up tonight?

[Tyr]

Give it a few more hours, I say.

[Stevie II]

idk - any americans who would want to say something that haven't logged on today yet? maybe wait a few hours....

[Jom]

Yeah, I vote for a few hours as well. It's nearly 16:00 EST, so I reckon 22:00 would be the earliest I'd put the threads up.

Cheers.

[Crimson]

ah schmucks, postcount, would I be allowed to cast my votes in this?

[Jom]

Yeah, of course, I'm counting review site postcount as well.

Bottom line: if any username looks suspicious, people will narc to help me out :p

[masscows]

Well, let's get a consensus, then. As far as I can tell, here are all the proposed genres for rock:

Mainstream rock (is this necessary?)
Pop Rock/powerpop
Classic Rock
Alternative
Jam Rock
Hair Metal/Sleaze/Glam
Hard Rock
Progressive Rock
Psychedelic rock
Fusion
Krautrock
Folk-rock
Noise Rock
Post-Rock
Stoner Rock

Here are the proposed genres for metal:

Traditional/Heavy/Classical Metal
Black Metal
Death Metal
Thrash Metal
Doom Metal
Power Metal
Progressive Metal
Folk/Viking Metal
Grind
Metalcore
Nu/Mainstream Metal
Industrial
Drone/Sludge

If you have any additions or any arguments against one of these genres, speak up now.
Speed metal should be added to the heavy/traditional/classical metal genre line thing maybe sort of

Gothic metal could go in there somewhere too

[Jom]

I dunno, these Wikipedia subgenres need to be nipped in the bud at some point just because we have thrash and power metal... surely a speed metal band can find a home there. Pretty soon, someone is going to want NWOBHM, then someone is gonna be like wooo we need NWOAHM because Lamb of God and Shadows Fall rulz!!1 wooo

[dinosaurxbrocore]

Yeah, of course, I'm counting review site postcount as well.

Bottom line: if any username looks suspicious, people will narc to help me out :p

does that mean i get two votes because my review site name is different?

[masscows]

Thrash and power metal are both different enough from other genres to have their own categories

Speed metal however is (in a general sense) faster heavy metal so it should just go under that same one. Gothic metal probably doesn't need its own category because most of the time that has more to do with aesthetic than actual music though.

[illpressureurhinges1]

If you add deathcore, seems to me everyone's going to want to have melodic death and symphonic black, etc. It'll never end.

That said, if people want to **** with that it could be okay, or it could be totally absurd.

Also, I think we need to add stoner rock.
And perhaps a drone/sludge category to metal as well.

Well for the more, generic listening people who like all the -cores, there should at least be 2, and metalcore and deathcore seem to be the most well known. But whatever you guys decide. I guess metalcore is the most important.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Pop Rock/powerpop
Hair Metal/Sleaze/Glam
Hard Rock

I'm thinking

Pop Rock/Power Pop/Glam Rock

Hair metal/Sleaze Metal/Hard Rock

might be the best formulation in order to avoid repetition

[Jom]

does that mean i get two votes because my review site name is different?

no double votes

...

Thrash and power metal are both different enough from other genres to have their own categories


I know... that's not being contested. Speed metal is. We don't need it because we have those two categories.

EDIT: agreed with Dave

[masscows]

I know I know, sorry for wording my post poorly but instead of Traditional/Heavy/Classical Metal it could maybe be Traditional/Heavy/Classical/Speed MetalThough what the hell is classical metal?

[Jom]

The less backslashes the better, to be honest. We're trying to avoid ambiguity, not confuse people further!

EDIT: I think Stevie meant "classic" metal, i.e. bands that are unquestionably madd metulz but don't need to be bogged by subgenres... I think he used Iron Maiden in his example.

[Dave de Sylvia]

I know I know, sorry for wording my post poorly but instead of it could maybe be Though what the hell is classical metal?
But speed metal bands is a mixture of other genres. You can't really say all speed metal bands fit into one category, so it's best just to leave it completely open.

[Jom]

Also, as a part of this project, I will need SHORT descriptions of the genres. Credit will be given to the user(s) who create/collaborate original descriptions. Copypasta Wikipedia is unacceptable!

It can be anything - the tempo, the structure, the history, etc. - just make it good! I want to include these descriptions in the final list :)

This might be what Stevie meant by people claiming genres, now that I think about it.

Example:

Rap

moar liek crap lol
moar liek retards attempting poetry lol

- lol, lulz, whitey

[Stevie II]

I'd include speed metal under heavy metal. It's fast heavy metal so I don't consider it separate enough from heavy metal.

Also I'll be the first to say that I'd personally be crap at describing genres in words....

[illpressureurhinges1]

Also, as a part of this project, I will need SHORT descriptions of the genres. Credit will be given to the user(s) who create/collaborate original descriptions. Copypasta Wikipedia is unacceptable!

It can be anything - the tempo, the structure, the history, etc. - just make it good! I want to include these descriptions in the final list :)

This might be what Stevie meant by people claiming genres, now that I think about it.

Example:

So anyone can do this for any genre?

[pate]

I support everything said so far, except lumping Post-rock/metal in with doom.

[pate]

Another thing...

About the bands that touch multiple genres: Before filling out the form, you should post the form with just bands in each, and if you put Death in Progressive Metal, people can fight it out. After the fighting, you can post your official entry.

In the discussion thread, it would be like this:

Doom Metal:
Isis
A Life Once Lost
Slayer
The Rolling Stones


Then people could discuss and correct, etc.


Something like that, anyway.

[G_Mac07]

lumping Post-rock/metal in with doom.

That would be exceptionally gay.

[Jom]

So anyone can do this for any genre?

Yeah, but I prefer that people know what they're talking about (e.g. you won't see me writing about doom metal). If people wish to collaborate (e.g. the deathcore thread writing a cumulative intro), that is also awesome.

Another thing...

About the bands that touch multiple genres: Before filling out the form, you should post the form with just bands in each, and if you put Death in Progressive Metal, people can fight it out. After the fighting, you can post your official entry.

In the discussion thread, it would be like this:

Doom Metal:
Isis
A Life Once Lost
Slayer
The Rolling Stones


Then people could discuss and correct, etc.


Something like that, anyway.

Yeah, that would be the aim of the discussion thread. I'm not going to have the "final copy" thread go live until... Monday or Tuesday. The discussion thread will go live in an hour or two... I agree about the post-rock/metal thing shouldn't be filed under doom, but should post-rock and post-metal be integrated as one?

[masscows]

but should post-rock and post-metal be integrated as one?

isn't 'post-metal' just a way for hipsters to say sludge?

[Jom]

I don't know... hipsters, can you help out with this one?

EDIT: I figured post-metal and post-rock being together would be beneficial. I thought we were combining drone and sludge together.

EDIT (2): I'm thinking that post-rock can stand on its own if we combine sludge, drone, and post-metal together, but I would like to see some sort of agreement to this.

[Kage]

isn't 'post-metal' just a way for hipsters to say sludge?

No, that is highly inaccurate.

I guess putting drone/sludge/post metal together would be good.

[Jom]

Okay, I did a little bit of jockeying, but I believe I have an acceptable compromise (unless I'm wrong with genre names and whatnot):

Fourteen categories for metal and fourteen categories for rock, that look like this:

Metal

Traditional Heavy Metal
Death Metal
Thrash Metal
Black Metal
Doom Metal
Power Metal
Progressive Metal
Folk/Viking Metal
Grind
Metalcore
Deathcore
Nu/Mainstream Metal
Industrial
Drone/Traditional & Stoner Sludge Metal

Rock

Classic Rock
Mainstream Rock
Hard Rock/Hair Metal/Sleaze
Pop Rock/Powerpop/Glam Rock
Alternative
Post-Rock/Post-Metal/"Atmospheric Sludge Metal"
Progressive Rock
Psychedelic Rock
Jam Rock
Fusion
Folk Rock
Krautrock
Noise Rock
Stoner Rock

---

How does this look?

EDIT: oh good, Kage is here. I value your instinct on this one.

[pate]

Looks good to me. I'm glad a bunch of drone albums won't be taking up doom metal slots.

[masscows]

I don't really see why deathcore gets its own category but it looks fine

[Kage]

That list looks good, the whole post metal thing was a judgment call and I think the way you have it is fine.

Deathcore does seem a little odd, though.

[Jom]

I don't really see why deathcore gets its own category but it looks fine

Neither did I, but two users advocated for it and you're the first to :rolleyes: at it so I figure we'll be okay so Mappy can be happy.

EDIT: late after Kage, make that two users. I can take it out without hesitating, but people seemed to want it a few hours ago. Your guys's call, I never knew this genre existed until I saw a thread with 3,000 posts in it. Probably all spam, but hey :p

[masscows]

yeah he's probably the only one who will name albums for that category -_-

[Jom]

Kage/pate/whoever else is online - does it stay or does it go?

[Silenius]

I think Deathcore is a bit overkill. Otherwise both genres look very well covered.

[Kage]

Deathcore isn't worth tossing in, no. Albums can be mostly put into death metal or metalcore, it's not strong enough to include.

Cocaine confirmed my own thoughts. I think it goes.

[Jom]

Yeah, I'll take it out. How does the rest look if we take it out? Representative, or am I missing anything?

[Kage]

I can't really think of anything else without passing the threshold of generality we want to uphold.

[Jom]

Well, what did you have in mind, exactly?

Also, while you're here (I'm typing up the threads now), are there any specific rules/outlines/etc. that you would want to see to help clarify what we're trying to accomplish with this? I'm trying to make the explanation/rationale specific with reason(s) that justify the methods to our madness, haha.