Controversial opinions on metal
- Thread starter The Ozzman
- Start date
CiG
Room with a View
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,723
- 113
Ranking of each genre's overall metalness in order from most to least:
Trad metal
Power metal
Thrash metal = death metal
Doom metal
Groove metal
Non-prefixed black metal
Prog metal
Metalcore
Alternative metal = nu metal
Goth metal = folk metal
Prefixed black metal
Trad metal
Power metal
Thrash metal = death metal
Doom metal
Groove metal
Non-prefixed black metal
Prog metal
Metalcore
Alternative metal = nu metal
Goth metal = folk metal
Prefixed black metal
suckerleaf
Active Member
Baroque
Active Member
I'd say a lot of extreme metal has surpassed trad metal in terms of metalness. It's like evolution.
CiG
Room with a View
I'd swap thrash metal = death metal with doom metal personally.
Not sure that really makes sense. You don't take metal in some purest form and add grindcore, hardcore punk, gothic rock or what-have-you and make it more metal. After all he's talking about metalness.
Not sure that really makes sense. You don't take metal in some purest form and add grindcore, hardcore punk, gothic rock or what-have-you and make it more metal. After all he's talking about metalness.
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,723
- 113
Trad metal is the truest and purest expression of metal ethos. No hardcore, no bullshit. There is nothing more metal than an album like Stained Class or Piece of Mind.
I'd agree with doom metal over thrash and death if there weren't so many polluting stoner and prefixed xxtreem doom bands these days. Obvs Sabbath, Candlemass, Trouble, Pentagram, etc at their respective peaks are just as pure as anything else.
I'd agree with doom metal over thrash and death if there weren't so many polluting stoner and prefixed xxtreem doom bands these days. Obvs Sabbath, Candlemass, Trouble, Pentagram, etc at their respective peaks are just as pure as anything else.
Baroque
Active Member
I'm saying the truest and purest idea of what metal is has evolved over the years. Trad metal started as the purest form of metal, but that's not what metal aspires to be anymore. It's an antiquated version of metal.
CiG
Room with a View
Which metal are you speaking on behalf of? Because anybody even slightly into metal would surely have noticed the massive shift in direction lately with metal musicians. In many ways, backwards has become the new forwards.
That's a fair point.
That's a fair point.
Baroque
Active Member
Not a subgenre in particular, but metal as a whole. The majority of bands are not playing trad metal these days, or even wanting to. You only see trad metal played by the older bands that wrote them, or bands doing cover songs to salute past greats. If new bands do play trad metal it's mixed with something else like prog, power, thrash, speed etc. If you ask a layman what metal is, I bet they're more likely to name a modern style extreme band or something than a trad metal band (which some even refer to as classic rock).
There are some bands going backwards, but also very many bands going forwards.
Baroque
Active Member
For example, at one point I revealed to my class that I like metal. The response wasn't "oh like black sabbath, judas priest, iron maiden?" it was "oh like metallica and megadeth?" and that represents a real shift in perceptions of what is metal from the 70's.
Also I had a friend in high school who refused to accept that ozzy and iron maiden were metal. Metallica was the entry point to metalness for him. Any band had to be at least as heavy to be considered metal. This worshipping of ancient trad metal is really only a cult thing among select metalheads living in the past imo.
I honestly can see their point too. Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, Black Sabbath are very classic rock radio station friendly compared to a lot of modern metal, or even 80's metal. There's nothing about that music that seems counter popular music culture, or even very heavy these days. It's as easy to listen to as like Led Zeppelin.
Also I had a friend in high school who refused to accept that ozzy and iron maiden were metal. Metallica was the entry point to metalness for him. Any band had to be at least as heavy to be considered metal. This worshipping of ancient trad metal is really only a cult thing among select metalheads living in the past imo.
I honestly can see their point too. Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, Black Sabbath are very classic rock radio station friendly compared to a lot of modern metal, or even 80's metal. There's nothing about that music that seems counter popular music culture, or even very heavy these days. It's as easy to listen to as like Led Zeppelin.
Last edited:
CiG
Room with a View
I disagree with everything you've said and implied and also I think you've entirely missed the point, when it comes to rating subgenres on a metal purity basis. All you're doing is making an argument for popularity disparity among the subgenres.
Not to mention Metallica aren't even that far removed from traditional heavy metal. Live in the future all you like, doesn't make your views more relevant than anybody else's of course, the fundamental objective point is that there is such a thing as metal purity and it has nothing to do with outsider reactions, popular opinion or a general distaste for foundational metal music.
Not to mention Metallica aren't even that far removed from traditional heavy metal. Live in the future all you like, doesn't make your views more relevant than anybody else's of course, the fundamental objective point is that there is such a thing as metal purity and it has nothing to do with outsider reactions, popular opinion or a general distaste for foundational metal music.
Baroque
Active Member
You didn't give any counter examples, or respond to my points. you basically just said "i disagree with you, you're wrong, i'm objectively right" whatever then, not worth it. Live in the past all you like. "metal purity" is bullshit. metal is meant to evolve. How metal is it to just be a follower? f that.
CiG
Room with a View
You're following metal forwards, what's the difference? We're talking about metal purity, if you think it's a bullshit concept that's fair enough but if you're trying to tell me that for example, technical death metal is more metal ("metalness") than NWOBHM that makes zero sense to me and the uneducated reactions of your students changes that very little.
I can only interpret this as a defect in your perception of heavy metal music, likely brought upon by a preference for metal that is heavily removed from it's roots.
Edit: I'd also like to point out that it's somewhat ironic to be called a follower because I personally take a preservationist stance when it comes to heavy metal even though as far as I can tell the metal masses overwhelmingly support evolution in metal. People like me are a minority, at least in my experience.
I'm not following anybody backwards or forwards, I'm just trying to pick a spot I like and stand still as much as I can.
I can only interpret this as a defect in your perception of heavy metal music, likely brought upon by a preference for metal that is heavily removed from it's roots.
Edit: I'd also like to point out that it's somewhat ironic to be called a follower because I personally take a preservationist stance when it comes to heavy metal even though as far as I can tell the metal masses overwhelmingly support evolution in metal. People like me are a minority, at least in my experience.
I'm not following anybody backwards or forwards, I'm just trying to pick a spot I like and stand still as much as I can.
Vilden
From the holy kingdom of Harmonia
Who even listen to nowdays metal anyway? New bands pushing new bounderies are usually bad, new bands playing throw back metal of some sort are usually bad. I see a pattern here. 
EspaDa
Damage Case
No fucking way Metalcore bands are more metal than Type O Negative. Wrong.
CiG
Room with a View
CiG
Room with a View
Similar threads
