Ok I probably said something too much in distinction itself being pointless, I don't think thats what I meant, it was more like getting really nit-picky about distinctions that was bothering me, and chthonian's question seemed to be doing that, trying to say something to the effect of "we improperly understand black metal, it must be defined in terms of aesthetic and philosophy, the black metal aesthetic and philosophy include bands other then the typically considered black metal bands and may exclude some of the typically considered black metal bands".
I don't think this works simply because the distinction for black metal is in the fact that it was an artistic movement, that it was defined by those who were a part of it, and we can label it like a historical period. This leaves out the possibility of new black metal, and I personally think that this is fine.