Originally Posted by
Garland
So, if I understand right, if you replaced the lyrics of say, the Sagas album to say, all about Barbie and My Little Pony, but you kept the instruments the same, it'd still be Viking Metal? I believe you, of course. I don't think you're wrong. I think if you're right, then the means of classification is wrong, to an extent. I don't think lyrics are everything, but I do think they should count for more than they apparently do. When a song can be viking metal and have nothing to do with anything viking, or even scandinavian, there is something fundamentally wrong. The whole genre was invented, so to speak, out of pride of heritage. I think the heritage is as much a part of the genre as the use of bombastic keyboard fanfares. That's just my opinion, though.
EDIT: Amon Amarth do seem to be typically labelled Viking Metal, btw. They're listed as Viking Metal in the wikipedia list of Viking Metal bands, on the "others also bought" list on itunes when buying undeniable viking music, and when I was initially reading the web on this genre, I came upon a heated debate on whether Amon Amarth was Viking Metal, or Black Metal singing about vikings. That was one of the sources of my disillusionment with the idea of so many categories to begin with. I think they should be broader. If a person says: "I like Equilibrium. Can you recommend more viking metal?" and strict category adherence were followed, potential bands that the person probably would like would get passed up, most likely. Finntroll might not be viking metal to some, and the status of Amon Amarth varies with who you ask, but they're close enough to the general concept a person is looking for when they look for viking metal.