Is metal a subgenre of rock?

[sonofhendrix13]

Ive heard lots of people arguing over this idea. Metal definately does share alot in common with different kinds of rock (especially the older stuff) and it did stem from rock in the first place but then again it is much different in some other ways.

Some who arent too familiar with metal might consider it just a heavier form of rock. However, some who are very acquainted with the genre might place it in a different category.

In either case I believe that metal is far too diverse and far removed from traditional rock to be considered a subgenre of rock. What do you think?

This question has probably been brought up before so feel free to delete this thread if necessary.

 

[Kenneth R.]

while i think metal is a lot closer to rock than rock is to rock'n'roll and the blues, and metal has stemmed from rock, metal is vast in its scope and unique enough to deserve its own genre. i don't think metal deserves 1000's of subgenres that seem to be popping up everywhere i look. it seems as if each band has their own genre, which nullifies the purpose of defining a genre in the first place.

 

[The Grimace]

There are only 5 kinds of (modern) music.

Pop (all music centred around a vocal performance and/or "hook" rather than instrumental aspects. Rock music, BTW, is pop w/ guitars)
Punk (which includes all forms hardcore and indie, except post-rock which is...)
Progressive (which contains all forms of standard-instrument-based "experimental" music)
Metal (which contains all forms of riff-based/non-"hook"-based, dynamically diverse music with guitar/vocal/live drums at the core)
Electronica/IDM (which contains all purely synth/computer/sampling-based music including noise and soundscapes).

Everything else is a combination of these things. Period. So sayeth I. Goddammit.

 

[Zivilyn]

Yes, it is. Most of the other answers you get here will probably be biased, because we all know how high and mighty metal is to some people. Metal is a form of rock. The proof is in the 70s.

 

[Kenneth R.]

i disagree grimace, "pop" by definition, is what is popular. thus it changes when people's tastes (and bands styles) change.

therefore rock defined as pop w/ guitars, isn't totally the way it is... maybe in the context of modern 'pop' music, its true, but it wasn't always, nor will it be. my other disagreement is with your description of progressive, i don't think its limited or defined by what you stated.

 

[The Grimace]

i disagree grimace, "pop" by definition, is what is popular. thus it changes when people's tastes (and bands styles) change.

No, "pop" by definition is what I said it is, it's just called "pop" because it almost always happens to be the most popular style of music at any given time, because people are fucking vapid. I, by the way, am a huge fan of "pop" music from all eras, so don't tell me what it is and isn't. I own Duran Duran albums.

EDIT: And how could you possibly find 'experimental music that uses real instruments' to be a "limiting" description in any way?

 

[MasterOLightning]

Metal is a subgenre of rock. I mean, how far removed from rock is something like Iron Maiden? Or even Black Sabbath and Deep Purple, the most commonly recognized roots of metal. I think punk is also a subgenre of rock. In both cases I don't think anyone should hesitate to separate from the rock genre.

 

[Cynical]

Metal is not a subgenre of rock; their theory is completely different. Where rock is all about strumming a chord to sound pleasant and harmonize with the vocals and having a catchy chorus while still maintaining consistency, metal is about creating riffs based off of sequences of notes, and structuring based off of sequencing of elements that purposely break consistency while maintaining coherence.

 

[AsModEe]

When I think of Rock, I think of Elvis Presley. When I think of metal, I think of Testament. Ressemblance? No. Conclusion: Metal isn't a subgenre of rock.

 

[MasterOLightning]

I think most people would consider Elvis rock 'n roll, which is very different than rock. Rock conjures names like Led Zeppelin, Jimi Hendrix, AC/DC. The early metal bands aren't too different from those guys. There's a progression from Blues>Rock 'n Roll>Rock (Classic Rock). By around 1977, punk, metal, and a more pop-ish rock grow out of that. A rock radio station will probably play metal songs, but draw the line with extreme metal. This is where metal is really its own genre and is no longer really under the rock umbrella.

 

[Birkenau]

There are only 5 kinds of (modern) music.

Pop (all music centred around a vocal performance and/or "hook" rather than instrumental aspects. Rock music, BTW, is pop w/ guitars)
Punk (which includes all forms hardcore and indie, except post-rock which is...)
Progressive (which contains all forms of standard-instrument-based "experimental" music)
Metal (which contains all forms of riff-based/non-"hook"-based, dynamically diverse music with guitar/vocal/live drums at the core)
Electronica/IDM (which contains all purely synth/computer/sampling-based music including noise and soundscapes).

Punk doesn't really deserve it's own title, or whatever you want to call it, if anything, punk belongs with rock in the Pop section, especially with the increase of 'pop-punk' bands like Green Day, Simple Plan etc, and Punk isn't that much different from rock other then the fact that the singer is usually some whiny 18 year old.

Other then that, I agree.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

There are only 5 kinds of (modern) music.

Pop (all music centred around a vocal performance and/or "hook" rather than instrumental aspects. Rock music, BTW, is pop w/ guitars)
Punk (which includes all forms hardcore and indie, except post-rock which is...)
Progressive (which contains all forms of standard-instrument-based "experimental" music)
Metal (which contains all forms of riff-based/non-"hook"-based, dynamically diverse music with guitar/vocal/live drums at the core)
Electronica/IDM (which contains all purely synth/computer/sampling-based music including noise and soundscapes).

Everything else is a combination of these things. Period. So sayeth I. Goddammit.

Completely correct.

In order to be a subgenre of somehting, you need to sound like a more narrowed-down version of the parent genre. Metal is completely separated from rock music as a whole, which is, essentially, pop-structured music with an often gritty, more "angry" (often confused with "angsty") feel and more focus on repetitive power chord-ed riffs, often with no more then one or two in a 3-4 minute song.

Punk doesn't really deserve it's own title, or whatever you want to call it, if anything, punk belongs with rock in the Pop section, especially with the increase of 'pop-punk' bands like Green Day, Simple Plan etc, and Punk isn't that much different from rock other then the fact that the singer is usually some whiny 18 year old.

Other then that, I agree.

Just because you don't know of any more examples than Green Day of "modern punk" (which the Japanese scene loves to procreate, and most of which are quite good) doesn't mean the world is completely devoid of them. You have to be aware that most every genre of music contains an underground scene, even nu-metal/rock (except pop, whose main focus is to use vocal hooks and catchy non-technical songwriting to become popular).

 

[Nile577]

Metal (which contains all forms of riff-based/non-"hook"-based, dynamically diverse music with guitar/vocal/live drums at the core)

Just wondering: With the exception of maybe two bands, how is Metal 'dynamically diverse'?

 

[anonymousnick2001]

There are only 5 kinds of (modern) music.

Pop (all music centred around a vocal performance and/or "hook" rather than instrumental aspects. Rock music, BTW, is pop w/ guitars)
Punk (which includes all forms hardcore and indie, except post-rock which is...)
Progressive (which contains all forms of standard-instrument-based "experimental" music)
Metal (which contains all forms of riff-based/non-"hook"-based, dynamically diverse music with guitar/vocal/live drums at the core)
Electronica/IDM (which contains all purely synth/computer/sampling-based music including noise and soundscapes).

I'll ignore the fact that you completely missed jazz, country, and ethnic music, all of which have modern forms which do not fall into those 5 categorizations, which illustrates the fallacy of using categorization and genres in such clear-cut and objective terms.

Yes, it is. Most of the other answers you get here will probably be biased, because we all know how high and mighty metal is to some people. Metal is a form of rock. The proof is in the 70s.

I agree that metal and rock may have been simialr in metal's early inception, but if you study the structure or method behind Sabbath or Zeppelin or Deep Puprle, you will see nuances in composition and atmospherics unlike any before attempted in rock music in the traditional sense.

Metal is a subgenre of rock. I mean, how far removed from rock is something like Iron Maiden?

You'd be surprised.

When I think of Rock, I think of Elvis Presley. When I think of metal, I think of Testament. Ressemblance? No. Conclusion: Metal isn't a subgenre of rock.

To a certain degree this method of ear-recognition works. Look at what the genres have become. Metal is a pseudo-classical (therefore meticulously constructed) and rather diverse form of self-expression and intense musical performance/composition; catharsis of the individual is put before a cash return. Rock bands like Jet or Nickelback still exist...not too far off from what Elvis was in relation to the 'underground' groups of his time.

Metal is not a subgenre of rock; their theory is completely different. Where rock is all about strumming a chord to sound pleasant and harmonize with the vocals and having a catchy chorus while still maintaining consistency, metal is about creating riffs based off of sequences of notes, and structuring based off of sequencing of elements that purposely break consistency while maintaining coherence.

Hmmm....YES. FUCKING YEAH.

Just wondering: With the exception of maybe two bands, how is Metal 'dynamically diverse'?

Listen to Judas Priest, Candlemass, and Lykathea Aflame. Then, put your head down on your keyboard and cry.

Also, creating catchy riffs or generally enjoyable music doesn't negate the metal-ness of a band. Pop music is music created with the sole purpose of having 'hooks' for commercial success. Metal is entirely capable of being catchy, listenable, and extremely enjoyable in a non-artistic manner. Fun and sophistication are not exclusive. Metal not being a subgenre of rock doesn't make it "better" than rock music, you see.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Haha @ Nile577

I'll ignore the fact that you completely missed jazz, country, and ethnic music, all of which have modern forms which do not fall into those 5 categorizations, which illustrates the fallacy of using categorization and genres in such clear-cut and objective terms.

OK yeah you got him there.

 

[WNxScythe]

I'll ignore the fact that you completely missed jazz, country, and ethnic music, all of which have modern forms which do not fall into those 5 categorizations, which illustrates the fallacy of using categorization and genres in such clear-cut and objective terms.


I agree that metal and rock may have been simialr in metal's early inception, but if you study the structure or method behind Sabbath or Zeppelin or Deep Puprle, you will see nuances in composition and atmospherics unlike any before attempted in rock music in the traditional sense.


You'd be surprised.


To a certain degree this method of ear-recognition works. Look at what the genres have become. Metal is a pseudo-classical (therefore meticulously constructed) and rather diverse form of self-expression and intense musical performance/composition; catharsis of the individual is put before a cash return. Rock bands like Jet or Nickelback still exist...not too far off from what Elvis was in relation to the 'underground' groups of his time.


Hmmm....YES. FUCKING YEAH.


Listen to Judas Priest, Candlemass, and Lykathea Aflame. Then, put your head down on your keyboard and cry.

Also, creating catchy riffs or generally enjoyable music doesn't negate the metal-ness of a band. Pop music is music created with the sole purpose of having 'hooks' for commercial success. Metal is entirely capable of being catchy, listenable, and extremely enjoyable in a non-artistic manner. Fun and sophistication are not exclusive. Metal not being a subgenre of rock doesn't make it "better" than rock music, you see.

This guy's got it right. In fact... I think the best metal bands are the ones that are both sophisticated AND fun, which isnt exactly an easy thing to achieve.

 

[The Grimace]

Don't be so quick to sell me out, V.!

I'll ignore the fact that you completely missed jazz, country, and ethnic music, all of which have modern forms which do not fall into those 5 categorizations, which illustrates the fallacy of using categorization and genres in such clear-cut and objective terms.

Though I could argue instrumental Jazz as the logical precursor to Progressive music (read my description again, it fits perfectly), I did mean 'modern' as in 'firmly rooted in 20th-century innovation', which does not describe jazz by any means, it ultimately having roots in a mixture of pre-20th black 'soul' music and around 16-19th century traditional English music and Scottish highland folk. Hardly modern.

Country is the quintessential 'pop' music, simple music for simple people, where there is absolutely no value placed on the music itself, which, in traditional country at least, hardly changes from song-to-song or artist-to-artist. The instrumentation is usually just a backing for the performer to recite his catchy 'lyrical hook' over top of. Honestly, name a pure Country "band". There's not one. Just "artists", which really means "vocalists" supported by a hired backing group. The country singer-songwriter Willie Nelson/Johnny Cash thing didn't happen until... well, Willie Nelson and Johnny Cash, among others, and that was just an extention of Americana folk music, another non-modern style.

Oh, and don't get on my ass for generalization if you're going to use the ridiculous term "ethnic music" to describe an entire world of indigenous folk music.

 

[The Grimace]

Punk doesn't really deserve it's own title, or whatever you want to call it, if anything, punk belongs with rock in the Pop section, especially with the increase of 'pop-punk' bands like Green Day, Simple Plan etc, and Punk isn't that much different from rock other then the fact that the singer is usually some whiny 18 year old.

Punk belongs in the 'pop' section because Green Day had a few hit albums? Ehhh....

The only argument against punk receiving it's own classification is that in essence it is a perfect hybrid of 'pop' and 'progressive', two styles that in theory could seemingly never be combined. The style, to me, encompases all music that is both catchy and abbrasive at the same time, a totally unique dynamic to punkrock and it's spawn sub-genres. It's the idea of "We're gonna have a catchy chorus, but we're going to sing it at 27 times the speed a pop group would, and put it over a dun-dat-dun-dat-dun-dat 1450-bpm beat that never changes and a wall of loud-ass guitar noise."

That, to me, is why punk and it's children get their own grouping, simply because you can't call the Ramones or the Clash or Minor Threat or FEAR anything but punkrock.

 

[Kenneth R.]

Originally posted (and badly pasted cause i'm lazy) by: The Grimace-
No, "pop" by definition is what I said it is, it's just called "pop" because it almost always happens to be the most popular style of music at any given time, because people are fucking vapid. I, by the way, am a huge fan of "pop" music from all eras, so don't tell me what it is and isn't. I own Duran Duran albums.

you first say pop is unchanging, almost always constant, and that your definition is correct. then you say you're a fan of pop music from all eras, which implies that it was not always the same. which is it?

i agree that it's not a "genre" that changes overnight, but pop music of the 70s, 80s, 90s, and now are surely not the same style.

 

[The Grimace]

you first say pop is unchanging, almost always constant, and that your definition is correct. then you say you're a fan of pop music from all eras, which implies that it was not always the same. which is it?

This is a strange combination of some point I didn't make, and something which doesn't even oppose that point in the first place.

Mini-WTF!? gallery: