What do you mean by "there's always something to be outdone in a lot of these genres you're mentioning"?

I mean that there seems to be one-upsmanship. I.e. its not fast enough, heavy enough, real enough...and it tends to have the direction of being negative toward a band, more than positive toward another.

In short, there seems to be something thats acceptable, and then something thats not. "Band A plays (for example) fast enough. I don't compliment them for that, I just find it acceptable. However, Band B does not play fast enough. Therefore, they aren't real [Genre]."

Its almost as if purists are trying to defend the true root of that genre.

I'm still not sure what you're getting at. Traditionally in jazz there was a certain amount of competitiveness among musicians, and it's something that the genre probably benefitted a lot from since it inspired people to really push themselves. I think a similar thing exists in most other virtuoso-type genres from metal to classical to bluegrass. But I don't see what that has to with the value of metal subgenre naming.

Because by segregating, you can retain purity.

Huh?

The conversation isn't going to go anywhere unless you tell me what isn't clear to you about my statement.

I am unclear on its meaning with regards to heavy metal subgenre naming by fans of the genre.

I think what big3 is trying to say here, is some fans don't like experimenting with tried and true formula, while other music fans like new and more adventurous elements introduced into the formula. For example, I've been going through a deathcore kick lately, and I like the fact that bands like "The Contortionists" are injecting post-metal and even Pat Metheny melodious ambient passages into the music. The so called "deathcore" purists, if they can be called that, hate it. If you listen to their new album "Instrinsic" it does beg the question, are you listening to deathcore, or is it something else? Dare I say, could this be "progressive deathcore", or "ambient deathcore", or even "post-deathcore"?

:afro:

I understand what you're saying though. By bands classifying different qualities of music, they keep their interests defined.
But it seems to me that it's really about the motive behind the reasoning. In Janszoon's scenario, people seem to use the classification as a uniting and identifying means, and in yours, they seem to use it as an exclusionary means.
Two motives for the same system.

Or am I just sleep deprived?

Thanks for understanding, Almauro.