There are some bands that seem to do the opposite of crossing over - like they piss off both worlds. I'm thinking of Jucifer. Kind of metal, but not really. Kind of indie/noise, but not really. I love 'em, but I think most metal dudes would think they're "wussy", while most indie dudes think it's too heavy/sludgy. This is probably why The Melvins (or Harvey Milk) never really got mainstream appeal either.

Yeah, I found it kinda odd that Jucifer got signed to Relapse.

I never really realized how old Neurosis was until Ezatldude pointed that out (and my subsequent research into the topic... sorry for doubting you, and they formed in 1985, much to my surprise).

I don't really understand how Mastodon is a crossover act, or can be labeled as such. Sure, they crossed over to indie-success, but that doesn't really mean they carry those musical qualities. Hell, Boris had a crossover album with Pink, one of the most brilliant and heavy albums put to tape this decade, so that doesn't really say much to call something a crossover.

And, having been a fan since Remission, i can't really say Mastodon changed their style too dramatically in order to gain that appeal, which is a big signifier for me on whether that is a band's aim or not. Sure, clean vocals became more prominent, but even they have that kind of bark/yell feel to them. Shit, i want to listen to Leviathan right now.

well said.

Well the term crossover itself is interesting. When you say Mastodon didn't change their style "in order to gain appeal" and that "they crossed over to indie-success" muddles the difference between indie music and indie media platforms. Mastodon has no indie in them as far as music goes but I can see them definitely appealing to indie fans who digest webzines (bringing everything back to the topic at hand). Masotdon's riffing has always struck me as a little loose and off the cuff, which probably works perfectly for indie kids who love the more loose-knit aesthetics of indie rock. On top of that rocknroll revival is massively popular with indie crowds and has been over time (The White Stripes "reviving" blues, Vampire Weekend "invoking" The Clash, etc.) and Mastodon has always had a more lo-fi rocknroll edge to their metal. They have trebly, brittle guitar tones as well as heaving, chugging ones, appealing to both indie and metalheads, though in an unexpected way.

I've always looked at it in the sense that Mastodon has a strong hardcore influence in their sound. And I can see the connection between indie rock and the loose-knit aesthetic you describe, but I'd still tie it in with more of a hardcore thing. That's just my observation.

quote:

Originally posted by cuneyt81:
I've always looked at it in the sense that Mastodon has a strong hardcore influence in their sound. And I can see the connection between indie rock and the loose-knit aesthetic you describe, but I'd still tie it in with more of a hardcore thing. That's just my observation.

Wow, I hear little to no hardcore in their music. I'm a pretty big hardcore person too so I'm super surprised to here you say that. Please explain, because I'm baffled. Where are the double-time drums, shouted vocals, and breakdowns?

Hardcore is a tough one to define.

There's loads of bands who are called 'hardcore' from S.O.D to Suicidal Tendencies and Napalm Death. To the untrained ear, the heavy guitar sound is a common factor, but in terms of metal I find all those bands wildly different from one another.

I suppose hardcore was intended to define extreme metal, but I've never been convinced by the term - I think we have too many sub genres these days. At one time it was just thrash, glam, NWOBHM, AOR or traditional heavy metal.

If I wrote every different current genre in metal it would be a very long list.

quote:

Originally posted by Duncan Black:


If I wrote every different current genre in metal it would be a very long list.

You don't need to.

quote:

Originally posted by Duncan Black:
Hardcore is a tough one to define.

There's loads of bands who are called 'hardcore' from S.O.D to Suicidal Tendencies and Napalm Death. To the untrained ear, the heavy guitar sound is a common factor, but in terms of metal I find all those bands wildly different from one another.

I suppose hardcore was intended to define extreme metal, but I've never been convinced by the term - I think we have too many sub genres these days. At one time it was just thrash, glam, NWOBHM, AOR or traditional heavy metal.

If I wrote every different current genre in metal it would be a very long list.

Whoa whoa. Hardcore has a very specific sound. Napalm Death is a grind band. Suicidal Tendencies is a hardcore/thrash (I always avoid the term crossover as a genre label). I don't see it being that difficult to define hardcore as a sound.

Well, yeah, I suppose hardcore has as broad a reach as metal does to some respect. But I can hear similarities between Mastodon and groups like Refused, Botch, Dillinger Escape Plan (at their less extreme moments). Not so much with, like, Gorilla Biscuits or Ten Yard Fight. It's not even that they're ::that:: similar to these bands. But they share a sort of visceral urgency.

quote:

Originally posted by DFelon204409:

Whoa whoa. Hardcore has a very specific sound. Napalm Death is a grind band. Suicidal Tendencies is a hardcore/thrash (I always avoid the term crossover as a genre label). I don't see it being that difficult to define hardcore as a sound.

That's my point. Napalm Death weren't always defined as 'grindcore'. I don't know how old you are (if you are older than me I apologise in advance), but I seem to remember when they started they were called hardcore. The grindcore tag came along later.

So many sub genres...

quote:

Originally posted by Duncan Black:

quote:

Originally posted by DFelon204409:

Whoa whoa. Hardcore has a very specific sound. Napalm Death is a grind band. Suicidal Tendencies is a hardcore/thrash (I always avoid the term crossover as a genre label). I don't see it being that difficult to define hardcore as a sound.

That's my point. Napalm Death weren't always defined as 'grindcore'. I don't know how old you are (if you are older than me I apologise in advance), but I seem to remember when they started they were called hardcore. The grindcore tag came along later.

So many sub genres...

See I am a young boy of 22. I understand that I'm coming from hindsight's position, but I think there is something to say about that. Napalm Death were producing a brand of hardcore that was so infused with death metal, thrash, and an inexplicable x-factor that as people were given the opportunity to look at their music in retrospect and with regard to bands and general trends ND influenced, the term grind was applied afterwards. Grind captures all of the x-factors as well as the genre blending. So while you say hardcore and some whelp insists on grindcore, there is certainly accuracy and merit to each nomenclature. It's hard to put a good label on anything new and different when people haven't copied it ad infinitum yet I suppose. Not to say "grind" is an awesome label but I feel like most genre nomenclature is originally an epithet ("emo" or "math rock" for example) that gets adapted, or the handy poetic licence of a whimsical journalist who is late enough to the party to have some third part perspective, and the resulting "terminology" gets adapted. The name isn't important but the salient musical commonalities that are present in a genre are.

Taking the other seminal grindcore (ok, goregrind) band, Repulsion, they apparently started off as a thrash band (covering Slayer, Metallica) and only later became influenced by hardcore. This is really the opposite of how ND arrived at the grind "sound". This difference also probably explains why the lyrical themes of the two bands were vastly different (ND was political, while Repulsion focused on gore/horror).