[fullofbees]

I like how this is visualised (at least aesthetically) and I appreciate the utility of genre in that it creates expectations, but at the same, it sort of reeks of this feigned complete knowledge of music and this obsession with categorising things that cannot be neatly categorised. The techno section has this 'these are the types I've read about on reddit'-ness to it and the metal section... I remember crunkcore but I really dont understand how it could be in such large text.

[poincaredisk]

I'm only familiar with metal genres, but it doesn't look bad. It's way better than Wikipedia, for example. There are no "gimmick" genres like aliencore, and every style mentioned is distinctive, historically important and accepted by me and the people I interact with. The only thing that surprised me is that first wave of black metal is called "extreme metal" here.

If anything, it's not detailed enough. For a long time I was listening almost exclusively to technical death metal, while for example I don't line brutal death metal at all. These subgenres of death metal (and band self-identification) are very different, and yet here they are all lumped into just "death metal", as far as I can see.

I'm not sure about the quality of other sections.

[rob74]

Yup, categories are useful, but when you obsess too much about them, it starts to look like "pigeonholing". Also, in my experience the most interesting musicians/bands are those that can't be easily categorized...