Actually, as old a question as this is, I find this a pretty interesting debate. I definately used to think of AC/DC as metal....but I guess I tend towards hard rock more these days, not for any terribly specific reason. If nothing else, I've pretty much gotten into the mode where I let the band themselves decide, and then just go with whatever they think. I'm pretty sure nobody in AC/DC uses the term metal, so that's good enough for me.
Anyway, for a good long while it was extremely uncool to consider yourself a metal band....and now it's kind of envougue again. I read multiple interviews with Steve Harris in the 90's where he said, "I don't know that I think of us as a metal band...." but I don't think he was altogether avoiding that name, only that when they started metal was still not terribly well defined. That is, what fit into what category was still a bit vague, and most of Steve's influences are decidedly not-metal. These days though, he seems pretty comfortable with it. So.....fine. I have to admit though, that I tend to have a tad more respect for bands that call themselves metal, have always called themselves metal, and don't find that a "bad" thing, ala King Diamond or somebody else like that from "the old days."
I think the key here is that metal has always been thought of as a non-art form, and as everyone in here is sure to agree, it most definately is an art form.
Even Toni Iommi and Geezer Butler are quick to say...."We are just a heavy "rock" band..." but one must remember that when the term heavy metal began to be thrown around, it was usually by journalists who were trying to put a band down in a review in the early days. So, you can easily see why guys like Iommi and Bulter never warmed to that name. Seriously. I read a pretty good interview with Geezer Butler about this some time back, and the above is almost exactly what he said. The first generation of metal bands were suffering terrible press and putdowns, and at first "heavy metal," was not a compliment by those who used the term.
