I agree and disagree with your request. I agree in the fact that the terms are a little contradictory: how can something be something if it’s beyond it? It would, in theory, be something else altogether. But if I may make an argument in defense of the “post-rock” term, post-rock, to me, is a real thing that deserves the “post-” handle: it’s clearly in opposition to the defining pillars of rock and roll, what with epic song structures in lieu of verses, choruses and verses; indecipherable vocals without hooks or melodies, often sung (or spoken) in a less-than-masculine fashion; and a lack of proficency at their instruments (not to say post-rock musicians are bad players, but they’re rarely the sort of calibur of musicians that prog rock is known for). They do have a tether, albeit a small one, back to rock, in that a) post-rock usually relies on guitars, bass, and drums for its compositional core and b) it’s not quite out there to the point where it leaves popular music to become minimalism or some other type of contemporary classical music. While of course there’s a broad range of composers and musicians that operate outside the verse-chorus-verse/catchy melodies/kick-ass guitar solo variety of rock and roll but are still very much a part of the rock world, post-rock feels of a different breed, and a breed that thinks far outside of that paradigm. So while, yeah, in theory post-rock is a condtradictory term, it does make a point.

However, post-metal is a little more bullshit. Metal is something a little more narrowly defined than rock and roll, in that, in my and many others’ opinions, metal has to be heavy in order to be metal (hence its original moniker), as opposed to rock, which can be heavy or not. In order for something to be “post-metal”, it would have to arguably lack that heaviness–or be beyond heaviness, if you will– and thus making it no longer metal. All post-metal does is go through different means in order to attain heaviness as opposed to eschewing the whole thing altogether. If we had begun referring to bands playing faster or slower or overall differently from bands like Sabbath, Deep Purple, and the like as “post-metal,” arguably, it’d be just as accurate. So while I think “post-rock” is a valid and arguably necessary term, I think “post-metal” is a bit more bullshit and lazy, in that it’s applied to some bands that utilize post-rock’s twinkly guitars and free-floating, crescendo-heavy song structures and not a conscious move to “move past” metal.

Unfortunately Brandon (I can call you Brandon, right?), as a writer, the term “post-metal” is a commonly used term that evokes a certain style of metal– the kind popularized by Neurosis, Isis, Cult of Luna, scarier Mogwai, and so forth– that I found Black Math Horseman to be playing (just my opinion, Mr. Rosenbloom. You have a solid point as well). Though I have heard other terms– “metalgaze” being the one I personally preferred (though certainly didn’t make up) before post-metal came to be its accepted term– “post-metal” is the one used by many, and has been around long enough where, despite my reservations about the term, if I want people to know what Black Math Horsemen sound like, this will have to be a term I use. Like grunge– a term no self-respecting band in that scene would have self-applied– post-metal, like it or not, is what this thing has been called. Unfortunately, a bunch of lazy writers over the last decade couldn’t think of a better term to describe bands that were combining post-rock and atmospheric sludge/doom. Though, that being said, when there comes a time where I have to use the phrase “post-atmospheric sludge/doom”, I’ll probably be right there with you in terms of outrage.