Industrial Metal

[Cythraul]

The argument reaches the conclusion that "a band does not have to have metal influences in order to be metal" based on analyzing the influences of the original metal band. Clearly this is not a typical case, as most metal bands are not the original metal band (only one is, actually). Claiming, as the conclusion to his argument does, that no metal influence is required to be considered a metal band creates a definition with no practical boundary. The example of Mr. Nelson, though hyperbolic for dramatic effect, illustrates this flaw in his logic fairly, I think.

I don't think there's any flaw in his logic, and I don't think you're seeing the consequences of your view. Let's take a look. Here are the claims being made.

1. In order for a band to be a metal band, it must have metal influences.

2. Black Sabbath is supposedly the first metal band.

3. Black Sabbath did not have any metal influences.

4. Therefore, Black Sabbath was not a metal band.

All of these claims have the consequence that there never were any metal bands at all. This is because any so-called metal band which came after Black Sabbath would have taken influence from either Black Sabbath or non-metal bands/artists or both. If Black Sabbath was not a metal band, and if nothing else was a metal band prior to or during Black Sabbath's existence then nothing after could've been a metal band either. That's because there never was any metal influence to be had, and all of this is a consequence of your view that in order for a band to be metal they must have metal influences. Doesn't that seem a bit ridiculous to you?

As for the other point you're making about there being no practical boundary to the definition of metal as some sort of consequence of vihris-gari's view, well I simply don't see how it is a consequence. I think you must be equivocating with respect to the term 'influence'. What do you mean by 'influence' and what do you think it means for a band to have influences? When you draw this surprising consequence from vihris gari's conclusion, I take it that you are using the term 'influence' in the sense that any band with x influence is a band that simply has some aesthetic traits that are characteristic of x. But I'm sure that this is not what he means by 'influence'.

 

[Sabin Frost]

Back on Industrial...

I recommend Front Line Assembly's Millenium and Hard Wired, their other albums cant really be considered metal, but those are, and they are good. Also, My Dying Bride released a good Industrial album, it is not good for My Dying Bride but if a band that was not My Dying Bride had of released it it would be considered a strong album.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Well... I can't find any downloadable torrents of Laibach at the moment, but I've got some OOMPH! on the way. In the meantime, let me make a few more points regarding this whole debate.

One of the things that makes genre debates such a pain in the ass is that there are different ways of defining a genre. The big dichotomy I've noticed is between defining genre by influence and defining it by its technical elements. Obviously formicatable and I are on opposite sides here, each of us appealing almost entirely to one method of classification.

In the interest of having a more useful debate at the moment, let's try looking at some arguments in favor of either method. You may have to help me with the "by influence" side, since I'm not used to thinking in those terms.



By Influence
This method basically assumes that music is an expression of the band who creates it, not just some collection of sounds. That explains the existence of "schools of music", and the phenomenon of one or a few bands pioneering a new style that proceeds to become imitated by tons of other bands. When this happens, it's quite easy to classify things along the lines of "punk", "thrash", "goth", etc., and to draw a clear-cut evolutionary tree containing all the styles with their various offshoots.

By Technical Elements
Contrary to "by influence", assumes that music is actually just a collection of sounds. Thus, when heavy metal was created, it wasn't about Black Sabbath "infusing rock with the soul of metal", but rather about some guys who just decided to put a shitload of distortion in their guitars, and write creepy-sounding songs about Satan and the end of the world.

It's entirely possible to break down the Black Sabbath sound into concrete elements. This collection of musical elements can exist without Black Sabbath in the equation. That explains why there are so many styles of music that sound similar to metal, i.e. hard rock, punk, industrial, and so forth. These musical elements really aren't that hard to mix and match. Even if a band like Rammstein were avid followers of some industrial music scene, they'd obviously heard heavy metal at some point in their lives, and it wasn't that hard for them to focus more on the elements of metal for songs like "Du Hast", "Sonne", or "Sehnsucht".

Ultimately, there's no limit to the number of combinations of elements that a band can employ. While there are plenty of clean-cut cases out there of a band adhering to a certain school of music (i.e. black metal), or creating an obvious fusion between two styles (i.e. classical music + traditional heavy metal = neoclassical metal), there are other cases of bands who have so many different elements that they can't really be categorised.



I don't know if I actually want to say that either of these theories is correct, because I think there are some bands who get their style by fixating on certain musicians, and other bands who simply fuck around with their instruments until they find something cool, regardless of how trendy or common that sound already is.

One thing that the "by technical elements" method allows me to do is to classify a band without having heard the entire history of music leading up to the band. That's why I consider Rammstein to be highly "metal" -- because the elements in their music sound very close to the elements I've heard in other metal bands.

If bands are actually supposed to be classified according to their influences, then I'm probably wrong in calling Rammstein "metal" because of their background in the industrial scene. But I'll be pretty surprised if you can prove to me why bands "should" be classified by influence.

 

[CAIRATH]

Back on Industrial...

I recommend Front Line Assembly's Millenium and Hard Wired, their other albums cant really be considered metal, but those are, and they are good.

It may interest some to know that Devin Townsend provided guitars for those albums. Too bad that Millennium contains the very unfortunate "Victim of a Criminal" track which is damn near unlistenable.

 

[CF87]

I have Selfless and have heard Streetcleaner and am curious what other Godflesh albums are worth looking into.

 

[thisisaformicatable]

Here's a sexy Mortiis video before we get into the long, rambling debate part of the post:



Also may I recommend Iperyt, whose new (2006) album Totalitarian Love Pulse won't disappoint fans of brutal death/black/industrial in the vein of Zyklon's World Ov Worms.

I don't think there's any flaw in his logic, and I don't think you're seeing the consequences of your view. Let's take a look. Here are the claims being made.

1. In order for a band to be a metal band, it must have metal influences.

2. Black Sabbath is supposedly the first metal band.

3. Black Sabbath did not have any metal influences.

4. Therefore, Black Sabbath was not a metal band.

All of these claims have the consequence that there never were any metal bands at all. This is because any so-called metal band which came after Black Sabbath would have taken influence from either Black Sabbath or non-metal bands/artists or both. If Black Sabbath was not a metal band, and if nothing else was a metal band prior to or during Black Sabbath's existence then nothing after could've been a metal band either. That's because there never was any metal influence to be had, and all of this is a consequence of your view that in order for a band to be metal they must have metal influences. Doesn't that seem a bit ridiculous to you?

Please review the discussion. Black Sabbath is the exception, which I allowed for many posts ago:

Metal: bands influenced primarily by preceding metal bands (i.e. are part of the ongoing development of the genre dating back to Black Sabbath) while not incorporating a majority of foreign influences.

In reality, there is a grey area with bands like Deep Purple, Motorhead and Rainbow where actual percentages of influence and whatnot could conceivably be argued; the key is that for a band to be considered metal they need to take a majority of their influences from (either directly or through derivations of) the 1970s "blueprint" of metal.

As for the other point you're making about there being no practical boundary to the definition of metal as some sort of consequence of vihris-gari's view, well I simply don't see how it is a consequence. I think you must be equivocating with respect to the term 'influence'.

There is no practical boundary in that it includes anything that shares superficial characteristics with metal within the genre - if Rammstien, why not KMFDM or Atari Teenage Riot or hardcore punk or crust or nu-metal (etc.)?

What do you mean by 'influence' and what do you think it means for a band to have influences?

When a band gets ideas from another band? For fun, here's an example of D.A.F. influencing Rammstein:

Now theoretically the opposing position would present a concrete example of how Rammstein is influenced by a metal band. However, to my knowledge, such examples do not exist (depending on how we classify Ministry perhaps, maybe someone can draw some comparisons there for us).

When you draw this surprising consequence from vihris gari's conclusion, I take it that you are using the term 'influence' in the sense that any band with x influence is a band that simply has some aesthetic traits that are characteristic of x. But I'm sure that this is not what he means by 'influence'.

As he touches on and will be addressed below...

One of the things that makes genre debates such a pain in the ass is that there are different ways of defining a genre. The big dichotomy I've noticed is between defining genre by influence and defining it by its technical elements. Obviously formicatable and I are on opposite sides here, each of us appealing almost entirely to one method of classification.

Not really, a major way of determining influence is looking at similarity in technical elements. You've been focusing on vague similarities between Rammstein and metal, but are neglecting to provide any evidence that these elements actually came from there:

loud, distorted guitars, chugging rhythms, heavy drumming, bombastic lyrical themes, etc.

...you are assuming that these things must have come from metal when they are available elsewhere from far more likely sources. There is no element in Rammstein's music that *must* have come from metal, and there is no evidence that I am aware of that suggests they were inspired by metal bands.

In the interest of having a more useful debate at the moment, let's try looking at some arguments in favor of either method. You may have to help me with the "by influence" side, since I'm not used to thinking in those terms.



By Influence
This method basically assumes that music is an expression of the band who creates it, not just some collection of sounds. That explains the existence of "schools of music", and the phenomenon of one or a few bands pioneering a new style that proceeds to become imitated by tons of other bands. When this happens, it's quite easy to classify things along the lines of "punk", "thrash", "goth", etc., and to draw a clear-cut evolutionary tree containing all the styles with their various offshoots.

By Technical Elements
Contrary to "by influence", assumes that music is actually just a collection of sounds. Thus, when heavy metal was created, it wasn't about Black Sabbath "infusing rock with the soul of metal", but rather about some guys who just decided to put a shitload of distortion in their guitars, and write creepy-sounding songs about Satan and the end of the world.

It's entirely possible to break down the Black Sabbath sound into concrete elements. This collection of musical elements can exist without Black Sabbath in the equation. That explains why there are so many styles of music that sound similar to metal, i.e. hard rock, punk, industrial, and so forth. These musical elements really aren't that hard to mix and match. Even if a band like Rammstein were avid followers of some industrial music scene, they'd obviously heard heavy metal at some point in their lives, and it wasn't that hard for them to focus more on the elements of metal for songs like "Du Hast", "Sonne", or "Sehnsucht".

Ultimately, there's no limit to the number of combinations of elements that a band can employ. While there are plenty of clean-cut cases out there of a band adhering to a certain school of music (i.e. black metal), or creating an obvious fusion between two styles (i.e. classical music + traditional heavy metal = neoclassical metal), there are other cases of bands who have so many different elements that they can't really be categorised.

I don't know if I actually want to say that either of these theories is correct, because I think there are some bands who get their style by fixating on certain musicians, and other bands who simply fuck around with their instruments until they find something cool, regardless of how trendy or common that sound already is.

One thing that the "by technical elements" method allows me to do is to classify a band without having heard the entire history of music leading up to the band. That's why I consider Rammstein to be highly "metal" -- because the elements in their music sound very close to the elements I've heard in other metal bands.

If bands are actually supposed to be classified according to their influences, then I'm probably wrong in calling Rammstein "metal" because of their background in the industrial scene. But I'll be pretty surprised if you can prove to me why bands "should" be classified by influence.

Bands "should" be classified according to their influence because this most accurately reflects reality. It explains why Rhapsody, Deicide, Godflesh and Von are all called metal and why different scenes exist for industrial/metal/punk. Classifying bands by sound alone is useful for the convenience of the consumer and to simplify the efforts of the record industry marketer, but fails at describing music as an art form with evolving movements and ideas and content and all that good stuff. Classifying bands by sound alone is what gives us stuff like nu-metal and alternative metal and glam metal - people lumping bands into a scene that they actually have nothing to do with for convenience, all based on a few superficial characteristics they share.

I have Selfless and have heard Streetcleaner and am curious what other Godflesh albums are worth looking into.

Slavestate I found good, though not on the level of Streetcleaner.

 

[Cythraul]

Please review the discussion. Black Sabbath is the exception, which I allowed for many posts ago:

Yeah, I'm already aware of this and I'm telling you that your response was not adequate. You are not seeing the point I'm trying to make. It's not just that there's this one weird little anomaly (e.g. Black Sabbath), my point is that if you allow for that one case, then the consequence is that there have never been any metal bands at all. I'm going to try to go over this again and if you still don't get it then I give up.

1. Black Sabbath was the first metal band.

2. In order for a band to be metal, then that band must have metal influences.

3. Black Sabbath did not have metal influences.

4. Therefore, Black Sabbath was not a metal band.

5. If Black Sabbath was the first metal band, and if in order for a band to be metal it must have metal influences, then the next "metal" band after Black Sabbath would have had to take influence from Black Sabbath. But Black Sabbath was not a metal band according to (4).

6. Therefore, said band could not have been metal. Furthermore, no other subsequent band could have been metal based on the considerations above.

7. Therefore, there have never been any metal bands.

Do you see where this is going? I don't know how I could make this any clearer. When you define metal in the way you have, you run into a huge conceptual problem. Change your definition.

There is no practical boundary in that it includes anything that shares superficial characteristics with metal within the genre - if Rammstien, why not KMFDM or Atari Teenage Riot or hardcore punk or crust or nu-metal (etc.)?

There's a difference between being influenced by x and merely sharing characteristics with x. It's logically possible for someone to have written a Slayer song even if that person never heard any metal music in their entire life. Such a song would share certain characteristics with other metal music, but the person who wrote the song never had any metal influences. A band A has an influence X if A's exposure to X is relevant to how A's music turned out. That is, A has influence X if A's music would have turned out differently had A not been exposed to X. This is the sense in which I think most people use the term 'influence'. When this sense of the term is being used you run into the conceptual problem in your definition of metal. But now it seems like you're arguing from a slightly different standpoint. You're claiming that we'd be permitted to consider Willie Nelson's music metal. This is not a consequence of the argument if 'influence' is being used in the sense I outlined above, because we could simply say that Willie Nelson's music has none of the characteristics that are associated with metal music. If, however, 'influence' is being used in another sense as in 'merely has certain characteristics', then you would run into the problem we're discussing, because it would allow one to say that band X has no characteristics that are associated with metal but nevertheless X is a metal band. But if you're using the term 'influence' in this sense then I really wonder why you are so adamant about defining metal as music that is part of a lineage starting with Black Sabbath.

 

[Fury of the Storm]

for me, I enjoy Ministry, Godflesh, and Red Harvest. I would also say Rammstein but I guess most don't consider them metal.

 

[thisisaformicatable]

Yeah, I'm already aware of this and I'm telling you that your response was not adequate. You are not seeing the point I'm trying to make. It's not just that there's this one weird little anomaly (e.g. Black Sabbath), my point is that if you allow for that one case, then the consequence is that there have never been any metal bands at all. I'm going to try to go over this again and if you still don't get it then I give up.

1. Black Sabbath was the first metal band.

2. In order for a band to be metal, then that band must have metal influences.

3. Black Sabbath did not have metal influences.

4. Therefore, Black Sabbath was not a metal band.

5. If Black Sabbath was the first metal band, and if in order for a band to be metal it must have metal influences, then the next "metal" band after Black Sabbath would have had to take influence from Black Sabbath. But Black Sabbath was not a metal band according to (4).

6. Therefore, said band could not have been metal. Furthermore, no other subsequent band could have been metal based on the considerations above.

7. Therefore, there have never been any metal bands.

Do you see where this is going? I don't know how I could make this any clearer. When you define metal in the way you have, you run into a huge conceptual problem. Change your definition.

Are you serious? We select Black Sabbath as the first metal band regardless of any criteria, the definition (metal bands must be influenced by metal bands etc.) is based on having already "chosen" Black Sabbath as the starting point. There is no reason to apply the definition to them. Try:

1. Black Sabbath was the first metal band.

2. In order for a band to be metal, then that band must have metal influences (i.e. are part of the ongoing development of the genre dating back to Black Sabbath).

3. Black Sabbath did not have metal influences, but are part of the ongoing development of the genre dating back to Black Sabbath.

4. Therefore, Black Sabbath was a metal band.

Better? Don't needlessly complicate this simple concept.

There's a difference between being influenced by x and merely sharing characteristics with x. It's logically possible for someone to have written a Slayer song even if that person never heard any metal music in their entire life. Such a song would share certain characteristics with other metal music, but the person who wrote the song never had any metal influences.

Possible perhaps, but is it reality? Does this happen often? How is this relevant?

A band A has an influence X if A's exposure to X is relevant to how A's music turned out. That is, A has influence X if A's music would have turned out differently had A not been exposed to X. This is the sense in which I think most people use the term 'influence'. When this sense of the term is being used you run into the conceptual problem in your definition of metal.

Yes, that is what influence means, I agree. The "conceptual problem" doesn't exist, as I hope my above statements will explain.

But now it seems like you're arguing from a slightly different standpoint. You're claiming that we'd be permitted to consider Willie Nelson's music metal. This is not a consequence of the argument if 'influence' is being used in the sense I outlined above, because we could simply say that Willie Nelson's music has none of the characteristics that are associated with metal music. If, however, 'influence' is being used in another sense as in 'merely has certain characteristics', then you would run into the problem we're discussing, because it would allow one to say that band X has no characteristics that are associated with metal but nevertheless X is a metal band. But if you're using the term 'influence' in this sense then I really wonder why you are so adamant about defining metal as music that is part of a lineage starting with Black Sabbath.

You are turning this into a ridiculous game of semantics. Hopefully I've cleared things up above, because I'm finding your line of commentary exhaustingly confusing. If not, I politely ask you to clarify your criticisms of my model before I spend a bunch of time trying to figure out what you're on about.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Not really, a major way of determining influence is looking at similarity in technical elements. You've been focusing on vague similarities between Rammstein and metal, but are neglecting to provide any evidence that these elements actually came from there:

How is my comparison vague when pretty much every single technical element of metal is present in much of Rammstein's music? Can you name me one that isn't? When you say that all of these elements are present in industrial music, you make it seem like every metal band 'sounds like industrial music' upon first listen.

...you are assuming that these things must have come from metal when they are available elsewhere from far more likely sources. There is no element in Rammstein's music that *must* have come from metal, and there is no evidence that I am aware of that suggests they were inspired by metal bands.

Then apparently the industrial scene developed the metal sound completely independently from the metal scene. Wherever Rammstein got the ideas for distorted guitars, chugging rhythms, heavy drumming, and bombastic lyrical themes, be it Laibach or OOMPH! or D.A.F. (I wouldn't know), do you really think that whole scene developed those elements without ever having listened to a single metal song? That would surprise me, since metal had become a well-established and widely-known genre by the time any of these German guys started making music.

Bands "should" be classified according to their influence because this most accurately reflects reality. It explains why Rhapsody, Deicide, Godflesh and Von are all called metal and why different scenes exist for industrial/metal/punk. Classifying bands by sound alone is useful for the convenience of the consumer and to simplify the efforts of the record industry marketer, but fails at describing music as an art form with evolving movements and ideas and content and all that good stuff. Classifying bands by sound alone is what gives us stuff like nu-metal and alternative metal and glam metal - people lumping bands into a scene that they actually have nothing to do with for convenience, all based on a few superficial characteristics they share.

Good point. In the sense that it helps preserve awareness of the evolution of the various styles in music, it is a good thing to classify bands according to their influence. But since 99% of music listeners aren't music historians, and have no desire to do tons of research and 'peripheral listening' before finding a band that they actually enjoy, influence-only classification is not too practical. And, since it doesn't account for bands who don't latch on to one particular musician or style for their inspiration, it can't offer a complete map of the history of music anyway.

Basically, I think both methods of classification have their importance.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Are you serious? We select Black Sabbath as the first metal band regardless of any criteria, the definition (metal bands must be influenced by metal bands etc.) is based on having already "chosen" Black Sabbath as the starting point. There is no reason to apply the definition to them. Try:

1. Black Sabbath was the first metal band.

2. In order for a band to be metal, then that band must have metal influences (i.e. are part of the ongoing development of the genre dating back to Black Sabbath).

3. Black Sabbath did not have metal influences, but are part of the ongoing development of the genre dating back to Black Sabbath.

4. Therefore, Black Sabbath was a metal band.

Better? Don't needlessly complicate this simple concept.

I agree with your logic. However, quite franky, Black Sabbath did not create heavy metal out of thin air. They were basically a successful synthesis of various hard/psychedelic rock bands up to 1969-70, i.e. Deep Purple, Blue Cheer, Iron Butterfly, and (of course) Led Zeppelin. They're certainly not the only band from that time period to have influenced the later metal scene. Therefore, I think you need to rework your definition of "heavy metal" anyway.

 

[thisisaformicatable]

Who knows something about Planet A.I.D.S.? Is this actually them? Seems appropriate for this thread anyway...

How is my comparison vague when pretty much every single technical element of metal is present in much of Rammstein's music? Can you name me one that isn't? When you say that all of these elements are present in industrial music, you make it seem like every metal band 'sounds like industrial music' upon first listen.

But these aren't just technical elements of metal, they are elements that have been present in other genres for long periods of time.

Loud, distorted guitars? Rock, punk, industrial.

Chugging rhythms? Rock, punk, industrial.

Heavy drumming? Probably more of a staple of industrial than of metal, again found also in punk and rock.

Bombastic lyrical themes? Well, that one's pretty vague, you have to admit. Opera had that long before metal.

For a more specific example, Rammstein's riffing isn't really metal in nature:

Ich Will:
----------------|-----------------|
----------------|-----------------|
----------------|-----------------|
---0-0-0-0-0----|-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-|
---0-0-0-0-0----|-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-|
---0-0-0-0-0----|-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-|

Drop-tuning power chords are a staple of Rammstein's guitar work. While found in metal, this style isn't typical or standard to the genre by any means.

All this is somewhat missing the forest for the trees, all we have to do is look at the big picture - there is no intent by Rammstein to create metal, there is no intent to participate in the metal scene or to advance the genre in any way. There intent lies squarely in the industrial rock category not only musically but in themes and imagery.

And honestly, this discussion would be easier if you had any sort of background at all in industrial music, as you are essentially arguing from a position of ignorance/incredulity.

Then apparently the industrial scene developed the metal sound completely independently from the metal scene. Wherever Rammstein got the ideas for distorted guitars, chugging rhythms, heavy drumming, and bombastic lyrical themes, be it Laibach or OOMPH! or D.A.F. (I wouldn't know), do you really think that whole scene developed those elements without ever having listened to a single metal song? That would surprise me, since metal had become a well-established and widely-known genre by the time any of these German guys started making music.

...argument from personal incredulity. Listen to industrial for a year or two and you will see how much it differs from metal and how Rammstein fits far better into the development of that genre than of metal.

Good point. In the sense that it helps preserve awareness of the evolution of the various styles in music, it is a good thing to classify bands according to their influence. But since 99% of music listeners aren't music historians, and have no desire to do tons of research and 'peripheral listening' before finding a band that they actually enjoy, influence-only classification is not too practical.

Basically, I think both methods of classification have their importance.

They do, as long as it is recognized that there is a difference between the "layman's" metal definition and the more "scholarly" one. Problem is you get people constantly bringing up the "loud and heavy" definition in serious discussions about music where it has little or no value.

And, since it doesn't account for bands who don't latch on to one particular musician or style for their inspiration, it can't offer a complete map of the history of music anyway.

Sure it does. It maps out movements; some artists fall between the boundaries but all artists have influences that can be recognized.

I agree with your logic. However, quite franky, Black Sabbath did not create heavy metal out of thin air. They were basically a successful synthesis of various hard/psychedelic rock bands up to 1969-70, i.e. Deep Purple, Blue Cheer, Iron Butterfly, and (of course) Led Zeppelin. They're certainly not the only band from that time period to have influenced the later metal scene. Therefore, I think you need to rework your definition of "heavy metal" anyway.

Black Sabbath is chosen because they were the first to create the combination of sounds and (this is important) themes that became the foundation of heavy metal, there is nothing that came before them that needs to be factored in that Sabbath didn't have. Only bands like Deep Purple and Rainbow that came shortly after that may have added something without being mainly Sabbath-derived, as noted:

In reality, there is a grey area with bands like Deep Purple, Motorhead and Rainbow where actual percentages of influence and whatnot could conceivably be argued; the key is that for a band to be considered metal they need to take a majority of their influences from (either directly or through derivations of) the 1970s "blueprint" of metal.

Honestly the only doubts I have is that you may need to factor in post-Sabbath Deep Purple (In Rock to Machine Head) in order to get Judas Priest and the NWOBHM to fit nicely, but that's a discussion for another day. I don't really see Led Zeppelin as being of major importance, and proto-metal like Iron Butterfly and Blue Cheer are made redundant by Sabbath's inclusion.

 

[Cythraul]

Are you serious? We select Black Sabbath as the first metal band regardless of any criteria, the definition (metal bands must be influenced by metal bands etc.) is based on having already "chosen" Black Sabbath as the starting point. There is no reason to apply the definition to them. Try:

1. Black Sabbath was the first metal band.

2. In order for a band to be metal, then that band must have metal influences (i.e. are part of the ongoing development of the genre dating back to Black Sabbath).

3. Black Sabbath did not have metal influences, but are part of the ongoing development of the genre dating back to Black Sabbath.

4. Therefore, Black Sabbath was a metal band.

Better? Don't needlessly complicate this simple concept.

I suppose I can accept that. Maybe I could nitpick about it further but quite frankly I am tired of this.

Possible perhaps, but is it reality? Does this happen often? How is this relevant?

It doesn't matter whether anything like what I described ever occurred. I guess one of the points of the hypothetical case I described is to bring to light the fact that if such a thing ever occurred you would be inclined to say "No, that's not a metal song." But I'm sure most people would say it is a metal song. It would seem pretty counterintuitive to deny that it is a metal song, but your definition would force you to do just that.

And then you're arguing against vihris-gari by claiming that the characteristics which he thinks make it ok to call Rammstein a metal band aren't characteristics which are unique to metal. So now I don't understand what your standard for deciding what counts as metal is. It is entirely possible that a band could be entirely influenced by metal music and nevertheless make music whose characteristics are not unique to metal music. But then I think you would say that said band's music does not possess "the right aesthetic properties." Shouldn't said band be considered metal though? After all, they are a part of this historical lineage you speak of. I must be missing something important and perhaps entirely obvious here but I'm not interested in pursuing this any further so I'll end this line of thought right here.

You are turning this into a ridiculous game of semantics.

Come on, don't pull that shit on me. That's one of the oldest cop-outs in the book.

Hopefully I've cleared things up above, because I'm finding your line of commentary exhaustingly confusing. If not, I politely ask you to clarify your criticisms of my model before I spend a bunch of time trying to figure out what you're on about.

I'm not going to bother to dissect my previous post since it would take too much time and I'm too lazy. I'm also not interested in pursuing this discussion any further because I'm obviously confusing you and starting to confuse even myself. If you want to understand what I'm saying in the previous post then read it again. Don't feel obligated to respond to me again.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

@ formicatable:

Wait a minute... drop-tuned power chords aren't typical in metal? Isn't that one of the styles that Black Sabbath themselves popularized? Power chords are all over metal, and drop-tuning is used by many bands to get a heavier sound - especially stoner and doom bands. I'm not sure where you were going with that point.

And here, again, is my reason for arguing from incredulity: the guitar heaviness in Rammstein's music, while it may have been borrowed from predecessors in the industrial scene, was already a popular trend in metal by the time industrial came around. If you can confidently state that the industrial scene developed this guitar heaviness completely independent of any metal influence, then feel free. It just seems highly unlikely to me.

 

[The Ozzman]

rammstein sucks!

I like Rammstein

 

[zabu of nΩd]

One other thing I wanted to throw in:

They do, as long as it is recognized that there is a difference between the "layman's" metal definition and the more "scholarly" one. Problem is you get people constantly bringing up the "loud and heavy" definition in serious discussions about music where it has little or no value.

I'm pretty sure that even the most learned of metal listeners listen to metal more out of interest in the sound than out of interest in the members of Black Sabbath and all of their "spiritual offspring" throughout history (unless they have a serious nerd complex, that is). Given that, I'd say there's damn well plenty of value in the "layman's" definition of metal, since it's based on what the music actually sounds like.

I'm pretty sure that the reason I listened to Rammstein is because I like metal, and because Rammstein sounds like metal to me. This is why I consider them metal, and this whole giant bloated debate over a single word isn't going to change what Rammstein sounds like to me.

 

[Jreg]

@ formicatable:

Wait a minute... drop-tuned power chords aren't typical in metal? Isn't that one of the styles that Black Sabbath themselves popularized? Power chords are all over metal, and drop-tuning is used by many bands to get a heavier sound - especially stoner and doom bands. I'm not sure where you were going with that point.

And here, again, is my reason for arguing from incredulity: the guitar heaviness in Rammstein's music, while it may have been borrowed from predecessors in the industrial scene, was already a popular trend in metal by the time industrial came around. If you can confidently state that the industrial scene developed this guitar heaviness completely independent of any metal influence, then feel free. It just seems highly unlikely to me.

I don't think he meant it exactly that way, even if that's how it was worded. It's entirely possible that Black Sabbath had a small hand in the development of that element of some industrial. I mean, when you're at the level of bands like Sabbath, Maiden, Metallica and so forth, your impact and degree of success transcends the confines of any strictly metal scene. That means that other styles of music, by definition, may display trace elements of the ideas and techniques introduced by metal. But I would argue that such influences are secondary to those from other kinds of music which, as previously mentioned, would not place them under the umbrella of metal. So even if Rammstein can't be classified as metal, I don't really think that means anyone has to claim their similarities to the genre were developed independently through some kind of convergent evolution. But I'm no great authority on industrial, so I could be wrong.

 

[Alasdhair]

I think I'm into industrial metal, I'm just not sure if the bands I would think of as Industrial Metal ARE in actual fact Industrial Metal... Genres are fucking confusing... I'm into stuff like Static-X, Red Harvest and Ministry, do they count?

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Just stick with the "layman's definition" of metal, and you should be safe.

 

[J.]

I have Selfless and have heard Streetcleaner and am curious what other Godflesh albums are worth looking into.

Try Hymns.

As for the thread, I like Godflesh and Fear Factory. Red Harvest's "Hybreed" is the only one worth looking into from them.

Rammstein sucks and is not metal. End of discussion.