New RYM genre: downtempo deathcore

https://rateyourmusic.com/genre/downtempo-deathcore/

So it's a slower brand of metalcore with some deathy guitar tones.  It's also going under the names "sludgewave" and "funeral deathcore."  Well, I'm gonna call it "funeral metalcore" since it's not really a "deathcore" genre, but still feels appropriate under metalcore.

Btw, here's an example.

https://blacktongue.bandcamp.com/album/falsifier

Now I really can't wait until next Tuesday to see what the chart will look like.  That way I can edit my genre tags on my log if necessary.  Until then, I'm gonna binge on jazz and Cheers.

I'm also hesitant in calling it "downtempo deathcore" because before I've even heard of this subgenre, the only "downtempo" genre I knew is an electronic music genre used synonymously with trip hop. Since it's basically slower deathcore, I might go with either "sludge-deathcore" or "death-doomcore". I've listened to only 3 releases that have the downtempo deathcore tag in RYM; Admiral Angry's Buster (which I highly question its position in metalcore, let alone downtempo deathcore) and The Acacia Strain albums Wormwood and Coma Witch. Following the albums from the latter band, it sounds like it's on the line between deathcore and metalcore, inching towards the former. Now I don't know if we can add downtempo deathcore into Metal Academy just yet as there aren't really many releases of the genre in RYM at the moment, but the amount is growing quite fast. Throughout the time I wrote this comment, the amount of releases in the subgenre grew from 71 to 87, 91, and 97. Here's an example of downtempo deathcore, in a 27 and a half minute doomy epic to summarize it all:

Now I don't know if we can add downtempo deathcore into Metal Academy just yet

No fear of that Andi. There's next to no chance of this ever occurring as this is possibly RYM's most ridiculous metal subgenre yet & that's really saying something.

Random but serious question: Are all of these new subgenres coming from the basis of Electronic genres? 

I only ask because the label "Downtempo Deathcore" seems to only differentiate based on tempo, not actually what style of music is being played. I've only seen tempo be so monitored on certain Electronic genres, saying stuff like "140-150 bpm" acting like there are different categorizations for each subgenre based on beats per minute. Which I guess is a useful categorization but it seems absurd to me looking in from the outside? 

I'm aware that if you, say, slow down a Thrash riff to a certain BPM it eventually isn't a Thrash riff anymore, but I can't say I'm a fan of people (obviously not the folks here at MA) wanting "Fast" and "Slow" versions of the same genre.

Random but serious question: Are all of these new subgenres coming from the basis of Electronic genres? 

I only ask because the label "Downtempo Deathcore" seems to only differentiate based on tempo, not actually what style of music is being played. I've only seen tempo be so monitored on certain Electronic genres, saying stuff like "140-150 bpm" acting like there are different categorizations for each subgenre based on beats per minute. Which I guess is a useful categorization but it seems absurd to me looking in from the outside? 

I'm aware that if you, say, slow down a Thrash riff to a certain BPM it eventually isn't a Thrash riff anymore, but I can't say I'm a fan of people (obviously not the folks here at MA) wanting "Fast" and "Slow" versions of the same genre.

That's a pretty good point, and it ties in with my own annoyance of doing just that with various EDM genres.

HEY ASTRAL PROJECTION!  Listen to some JUNO REACTOR and call me in the morning!

At the same time, this feels more like an atmospheric choice, like the difference between black metal and atmo-black metal.  I mean, some bands like to use slowness to drag out an atmosphere, even if they're still using a slow beat with repetition of the same note.  Hence black metal, or even songs like The Glowing Man.  And if this decision can have a very different appeal from standard deathcore, which gets very samey and overdone, I'll give this a shot.  Proving how much you can do with one notable difference is the benchmark of making new genres.  So once the RYM chart comes out, I'll give it a go and see if I can make something of it.  I heard "Sex With a Stranger" by Admiral Angry and think it MIGHT have some meat.  Emphasis on "might."

Random but serious question: Are all of these new subgenres coming from the basis of Electronic genres? 

No, they're not. They're coming from a desperate need to want to further & further dissect what are already perfectly suitable & tried-&-true subgenres until every ounce of originality results in a new subgenre of copycats. It's a completely pointless exercise in my opinion. If you take The Acacia Strain's "Wormwood" as an example, I checked that album out at the time of release & really enjoyed it but not once did I ever think that it required a new subgenre to be created because it fit perfectly well under the original. RYM has completely gone to shit when it comes to genre-tagging these days with a large majority of releases being mistagged by people that aren't educated enough to know any better which is frustrating given our reliance on using them as an initial guide when adding releases to the site. It certainly doesn't help matters when the administrators are creating new subgenres that no one understands every other week. When it comes to adding new subgenres to Metal Academy though, we've chosen to run our own race because we have no time for this unnecessary breaking down of established sounds. An artist should be allowed to expand on the metalcore sound a little without being isolated from their original subgenre.

Although I get the rationale behind RYM being a guide for adding releases, I had thought (may be incorrectly) that the point of MA was to breed a little common sense on these frankly irritating, constant waves of new tags and subgenres that are clearly out of control over there.  Bizarre then that RYM seems to get so much press here really.

Although I get the rationale behind RYM being a guide for adding releases, I had thought (may be incorrectly) that the point of MA was to breed a little common sense on these frankly irritating, constant waves of new tags and subgenres that are clearly out of control over there.  Bizarre then that RYM seems to get so much press here really.

Probably because they're being so active in attempting to be a database of all "possible genres."  Of course I never would've mentioned it if we didn't have a good share of genres being carefully dissected in a series of forum reviews.  Reading Daniel's reviews is an integral part of the forum activity here, and I admit I posted this genre here under the impression that there may be merit here.

Of course, considering his response, I should've chosen noisegrind instead.  As a fan of grind and noise rock, I wanna check this out pretty badly.

I had thought (may be incorrectly) that the point of MA was to breed a little common sense on these frankly irritating, constant waves of new tags and subgenres that are clearly out of control over there.  Bizarre then that RYM seems to get so much press here really.

You're correct Vinny. That is one of the aims of this site & it does frustrate me that people still talk about RYM so much & like it's a source of factual information when it comes to metal which couldn't be further from the truth. If the "Roots of Metal" project has taught me anything it's to confirm that the majority of the RYM audience doesn't know what metal is to begin with. Don't get me wrong. I still use RYM regularly myself (mainly just to record my individual track ratings & genre tags) but their metal charts & genre-tagging seem to have less & less relevance with each passing year.

I admit I posted this genre here under the impression that there may be merit here.

Of course, considering his response, I should've chosen noisegrind instead.  As a fan of grind and noise rock, I wanna check this out pretty badly.

I'd suggest that we'll only be looking to incorporate new genres or subgenres when we find significant pockets of releases that don't fit in with the existing ones. Dissonant death metal is a prime example of where we've done that because it simply made sense to differentiate those releases from technical death metal given that they're not necessarily technical & are a polarizing sound. If noisegrind releases are essentially noisier variations on grindcore then I'm not sure there's any point in adding a new subgenre for it. I'm actually still looking at removing a few of the fairly pointless subgenres we adopted at the beginning of the Academy journey actually.

I think that ultimately it must come down to the site owners to decide the policy for genre differentiation as ultimately it comes down to their vision for how they want the site to operate with respect to genres and how broad or narrow they wish the site's genre focus to be. Sure we could pick every release apart and debate the minutiae to arrive at a definitive sub-sub-genre, but what's the point, when you could just be digging on some cool sounds instead of stressing over whether something needs yet another new pigeonhole to be put into.

I get the whole "the listener may not like sub-genre A, but love sub-genre B" argument, but give people credit for being able to pick out what they do and don't like from within a reasonably broad genre definition. It sometimes sounds like we are saying that new music discovery is a trial rather than something exciting and we fear that  some listeners may be too fragile to accidentally hear something they don't enjoy and need to be shielded from the possibility.

All this deep-genre talk feels to me like reading an operating manual for a Ferrari rather than actually driving a Ferrari. Personally, I'd rather we kept the genres reasonably broad and let people make their own minds up.