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.
This is pretty much the point of my definition, it explains why things that share significant characteristics with metal like industrial, hardcore punk, nu-metal, hard rock, etc. aren't considered metal. Music from these genres may often *sound* like metal in a number of ways, yet metalheads don't recognize them as metal and they exist in seperate scenes. Defining metal as sounds alone leads us to problems like "why does Rammstein/Slipknot/Godsmack sound like metal yet aren't recognized as part of the metal scene?" Defining metal as a movement influenced by Black Sabbath explains why these divisions between scenes exist when the musical characteristics seem similar.
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.
If a metal band has metal characteristics it is because they were influenced by metal bands preceding them. A band like Rammstein has metal characteristics *coincidentally* because we know that they got these characteristics from sources outside of metal. Metal does not have a monopoly on the sounds that make up its aural aspect.
Come on, don't pull that shit on me. That's one of the oldest cop-outs in the book.
I honestly read your paragraph multiple times and could not decipher what the multiple definitions of "influence" tangent was about or how it applied to the discussion.
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.
I said drop, not down-tuning. As in drop-d (DADGBE) which wasnt used by Sabbath or most influential metal bands (none that I can think of, actually, although there must be some). It is, however, a staple of hard and alternative rock such as Godsmack, Slipknot and System Of A Down.
Also note how rather than being guitar driven, most Rammstein tends to have the guitar follow along and underline whatever sounds/samples the keyboardist is playing ("Weißes Fleisch" for example). Essentially they play industrial-style melodies (for lack of a better term) with both keyboard and distorted guitar.
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.
Guitar heaviness was around in rock music before it was found in metal.
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.
When I say a serious discussion I mean one where we are actually discussing music, not just what it 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.
Perception is not reality.
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.
Pretty much, whatever influence metal had on industrial that was latently absorbed by Rammstein doesnt make them a metal band, any more than the punk influence absorbed by metal makes Mayhem a punk band.
Rammstein has no direct metal influence present in their music, at most they are an industrial rock band with some indirect metal influences. If this were enough to qualify them as metal then we would be even more justified in calling Metallica a punk band, or Opeth a progressive rock band or Cynic a jazz band. But we dont call them that, we recognize that the dominant influence in these bands is unquestionably metal, just as the dominant influence in Rammstein is unquestionably industrial.
HAHAHA! you guys are the best entertainment around,Black...White...Black...White.....
I love industrial, I have never thought about the metal or not metal part...
AND don't give a toss either way. I do know that they go hand in hand and pretty much always have.Most metal clubs I have been in play industrial,so it's always been part of the alternative scene.Yeah some of it's dance orientated some rock and some metal,a good mix and bingo,you have industrial...just industrial...and it fits well with metal tastes.It is very elitist and overly pedantic to have a need to stick things in neat little boxes.It is a really worrying trend in metal to continualy invent smaller and smaller genres to isolate the community from each other.It's all alternative music and culture.We get enough shit from the citizens and religeous nutters,tabloid press etc. without excluding ANY part of our own.The whole I am better,harder,more,true metal than you,because I am into Blackdeathmathmelodicthrashorangeyflavouredextremeonmyowncore..is passe.For fucksake grow up and become a real community.
Anyway here is my Industrial listening,some metal some not.If the urge takes you to inform me of the non metalness of my choices....go fuck yourself.
Morons of the earth unite!
