The "Definition of Metal" Project

[zabu of nΩd]

Please read the first two sections of this post ("purpose" and "procedure") before replying in this thread.


PURPOSE

There are a lot of arguments among UMFers about whether a band is "metal" or not. These arguments are often complicated by the fact that people usually don't have a clear definition for the term, or can't agree with each other over the definition. This results in a lot of circular, unproductive debates here.

The purpose of this thread is to decide on a standard definition of "metal" to which people can refer, so that there won't be so much ambiguity and confusion in debates. My guess is that we'll end up with a small handful of definitions, since people tend to think differently about how the term should be defined. If such is the case, that's okay - it will at least let people "agree to disagree" if they refuse to accept each other's preferred definitions.

This thread should also serve to keep everyone in GMD a little more informed about metal in general, which is part of what this place is all about. If we can get even an approximate set of definitions through this, it should make all metal discussions we have here a little more intelligent.

Now, down to business:

PROCEDURE

The goal of this thread is to arrive at a complete and unambiguous set of one or more definitions for "metal". I've posted some starting definitions below. Here's how the updating process is going to work:

1) You read through the definitions below
2) If you find any errors or omissions, post them in the thread, and propose some changes
3) Proposals for changes will be discussed among the members
4) If a consensus is reached on a needed change, the original poster (or a mod) will update this post accordingly

Note: please be PATIENT with the updates. I won't be on the forums 24/7 to keep up with the thread, but eventually I will read everyone's posts, and respond appropriately. I'll try to be as neutral as possible when doing this, and I invite V5, unknown, and any other mods to edit this post if things get out of line.

DEFINITION OF METAL

There is some ambiguity between the terms "metal" and "heavy metal". This needs to be addressed before any other definitions are given.

The term "heavy metal" can be used as a synonym for either of the following:
(1) "metal" (i.e. the entire genre)
(2) "traditional metal" a.k.a. "classic metal"

To avoid confusion, the term "heavy metal" will hereafter only be used as a synonym for "metal", and not as a synonym for "traditional metal".

Definition #1 (by sound)

A style of music, originating from rock, which has the following characteristics:
(1) the use of one or more highly distorted electric guitars
(2) a reliance on emphatic rhythms and drum beats to achieve a "heavy" sound
(3) a dramatic or aggressive vocal style which emphasizes the vocalist's tone of voice over the lyrical content
(4) a focus on instrumental power which reduces the role of the vocalist's persona relative to many forms of rock music

Definition #2 (by influence)

A style of music whose members trace the majority of their stylistic influences to the founders of heavy metal.
* Black Sabbath is considered the primary founder of heavy metal, while Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple play smaller roles in influence.

Founders of metal:

Black Sabbath
The first heavy metal band, and the most influential of the genre.

Led Zeppelin
Created a revolutionarily heavy, dark, and mystical style of rock music which set a precedent for Black Sabbath. Robert Plant's falsetto vocals, and Jimmy Page's complex soloing techniques, would come to be widely imitated among metal bands.

Deep Purple
A major influence on NWOBHM and speed metal through their use of galloping rhythms, aggressive vocals, and an upbeat, adventurous sound.

METAL SUBGENRES

(none yet - will add later)


SOURCES
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_metal_music (Wikipedia)

 

[zabu of nΩd]

(I'll be using this post as a reference point for comments, goals, etc. for the thread, in order to keep clutter out of the first post.)


Just so everyone knows, I'm going to be mainly in support of the "by sound" definition, since I think it's the only way to unambiguously define the genre. Anyone who supports the "by influence" definition is going to have to help me flesh it out, because I don't really know where to take it.


Note to V5: I need to get some clarification on the subgenre definitions you have on your last.fm page. I think it needs some cleaning up before we can include it as part of a definition.


Oh, by the way, if anyone is wondering what the fuck is going on here, and has any questions, feel free to ask. The idea for this thread arose out of a debate I was having with V5 over whether Alice in Chains is a metal band, when we realised that we didn't have a solid definition of "metal" to refer to in the debate. So that's mainly why this thread exists.

 

[Enemy242]

tldr
honestly this seems kinda boring and a waste of time, does it really matter if something is or isn't metal? you can usually tell and if you like it so be it, debating so intensely over the genre of a certain band/album isn't really that worth it imo.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

It matters if you're actually interested in debating such things. If you're not, so be it, but I think it would be useful to a number of us here.

 

[Silent_Scream]

this thread proves metal is serious business.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Death to False Metal (definitions)

 

[Thoth-Amon]

Death to False Metal (definitions)

 

[Vossyrus]

I really don't think it's possible to achieve a single criteria useful in differentiating between what is and isn't metal. To an extent it is, but there's far too many bands who care not and whose sound is a product of varying influences found in the band's sound, but also non-musically as inspiration and direction.

Ie. A band like the Deathstars. Most metalheads wouldn't consider them to be a metal band, however, they have roots in black metal and not to mention one of the band's members is the brother of an infamous figure in black metal. Some might then say they are industrial - but to those in the industrial scene, they wouldn't agree with this.

So where do you draw the line? You can't really say a band has to have 90% metal influence in their sound to be considered metal because these numbers are non-existent, and subjective. Not to mention even if a band fits a criteria for what makes a metal band, perhaps they also fit a similar criteria for what makes a hard rock band, or whatever else as well.

A subgenre of rock music with the following characteristics:
(1) a loud, harsh sound originating from the use of a heavily distorted electric guitar
(2) hard, emphatic drum beats
(3) a dramatic or aggressive vocal style which emphasizes the vocalist's tone of voice over the lyrics
(4) a focus on instrumental power which keeps the vocalist out of the forefront of the sound

^ This I find is quite general. I see plenty of non-metal bands fitting this criteria. Everyone's favourite love-to-hate band, Slipknot, would fit this list. How about a band like Sunn O))) - where are 'hard emphatic drum beats'?

Also, I'd like to point out a flaw in the argument that some would say the guitar must be the central element in reaching a metal sound - because in a lot of cases the guitar isn't the main instrument being utilized. Symphonic black metal for example often originates from and has significantly more focus on synth/keyboards/symphonics than it does guitar or any other instrument. And let's remember a lot of metal bands are made up of highly simplistic instrumentation, especially on guitar.

 

[SouthernTrendkill]

I would never and will never accept a standardized definition of metal. There is no standard definition for any musical genre, never should be or would be. Despite what anyone may say, it's a personal thing. People literally hear, interpret, and experience music wildly differently, so people's definitions vary intrinsically. People will always argue over it and it's a very fun thing to talk about, but in the end there will always be people arguing over whether Peter Green or Son House are true blues and whether Grunge exists as a genre or not. Metal is a lightning rod for this stuff because there is a discrepency between what mainstream music audiences experience under the metal banner and what metal fans experience under the metal banner.

I have MY definition of metal and that's all I need. I can respect other definitions and usually empathize greatly with where the other people are coming from. But in the end of the day I only give a shit about what "metal" is to ME, and so I don't give a fuck that people will never accept the fact that I don't consider Judas Priest, Iron Maiden or Motorhead metal. Being a classic rock fan, a lot of people I encounter consider stuff like Blue Cheer, Zep, Queen, Hendrix, and glam metal to be the epitome of metal. I can easily understand their perspective, it's just a wildly different one than my own. I like to look at metal from the perspective where it makes sense to what metal actually means to me.

I actually wrote a college paper about it once, haha... For me the most important thing is to dispel the myth that metal is a subgenre of rock. Metal to me is an obviously autonomous music style. And having metal influences has absolutely nothing to do with it for me, I think that's silly. Regardless of who you listen to, the sound of the music is what defines it to me. If you're interested, here are some of the things I lined out as core aspects of metal:

- Unwavering adherence to precision.
- A higher emphasis on multi-faceted music (as in having many different riffs and segments. Like prog, but all occuring over a few minutes instead of necessarily resulting in epic pieces)
- Abrassive vocal styles (low, angry, screechy, screaming, distorted) that would be considered unconventional or unacceptable in most other genres (punk is the probably the only other major place I've heard these vocals)
- Far greater emphasis on dark, satanic, and individualistic lyrical themes.
- characteristic use of low, chugging insturmental riffs reminiscent of industrial machinery.

That's not to say that every metal band has all of those aspects, but to say that those are some common threads that tie metal bands together among each other and seperate it from other genres.

I personally believe that a lot of people try to exclude forms of metal they don't like from their own definition of metal. And that's cool with me, since I sometimes do the same. But I don't think it pans out "logically". There's nothing stopping heavy nu-metal and metalcore bands from being metal other than their scene. Musically they're heavier and more metallic than a lot of stuff that is considered metal (traditional metal, power metal). Just 'cause things are popular doesn't necessarily mean they aren't metal, it seems like the metal community disowns anybody who has any chart success what-so-ever. And I can understand that from a certain perspective. I think in a certain sense I can understand very easily the perspective of someone who would think true metal has an aspect of uncommerciality. And so bands that become popular must be lacking that or they would not have become popular. But I wouldn't personally go along with that because I think underground sounds frequently make their way to the mainstream popularity because good music is good music.

long rambly post end.

 

[The Butt]

I posted my definition of what I consider to be metal and what isn't on another board... I'll see if I can dig it up.

 

[Zephyrus]

Don't forget the addendum on borderline bands. It can save time when people don't want to read through the whole article to see whether a band is metal or not. They can just look at the list of bands and see which category we agree to put them in. And as I suggested in the other thread, put a brief explanation with each band as to why they are thus categorized.

Some bands worth sorting into metal and non-metal categories:

Led Zeppelin
Slipknot
Alice in Chains
AC/DC
Deep Purple
Rammstein
System of a Down
Atreyu

 

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

All of those are mainly non-metal. Led Zeppelin are classic rock with a few more metal songs, Slipknot is hardcore for the most part, they just have a semi-metal approach. AIC are grunge rock with acoustic and blues influences, but they don't fit into any of metal's subgenres so that's that. AC/DC are just too poppy to be considered metal. They are pretty heavy for a rock band, but heaviness is not all. Deep Purple wrote a couple of very influential, fucking metal songs, but were for the most part trippy classic rock. Rammstein is industrial rock. System of a Down are annoying rock (tm). Atreyu are nearly-metalcore.

For me the most important thing is to dispel the myth that metal is a subgenre of rock. Metal to me is an obviously autonomous music style.

Absolutely! I totally agree with this. To me, metal has evolved outside of the need to be nestled firmly inside rock as a subgenre of a form of music. Metal is so diverse and quite frankly, different than any rock nowadays (for the most part), that it deserves to be called its own main form of music alongside jazz, folk music, rock, etc.

 

[Zephyrus]

All of those are mainly non-metal. Led Zeppelin are classic rock with a few more metal songs, Slipknot is hardcore for the most part, they just have a semi-metal approach. AIC are grunge rock with acoustic and blues influences, but they don't fit into any of metal's subgenres so that's that. AC/DC are just too poppy to be considered metal. They are pretty heavy for a rock band, but heaviness is not all. Deep Purple wrote a couple of very influential, fucking metal songs, but were for the most part trippy classic rock. Rammstein is industrial rock. System of a Down are annoying rock (tm). Atreyu are nearly-metalcore.

Excellent. We have our explanations on why these bands are not metal. Now we just need to formalize the list (and explanations) and create a neat little addendum. Under this heading:

THE FOLLOWING BANDS ARE NOT METAL

 

[General Zaroff]

I just hope you guys are a bit more lenient than MA is.

On their list of bands being rejected they call Foreign Objects pop-punk, LMFAO they must be on some sort of mind altering drugs.

 

[Andromidius]

Metal is mainly defined by using a more Blues style scaling system, from what I remember.

Plus it's more a feeling I get when I listen to music - if it's Metal, I know.

And yeah, even Metalcore is Metal. Just not my prefered variation of it.

~Andromidius

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Jesus Christ, I've got my work cut out for me.

Anyway, great posts guys. I'll try and get through Ars's post for now. I've got classes starting in two hours, so it'll be a while before I can digest the others.

 

[Vossyrus]

I just hope you guys are a bit more lenient than MA is.

On their list of bands being rejected they call Foreign Objects pop-punk, LMFAO they must be on some sort of mind altering drugs.

Metal-Archives really doesn't use a proper criteria, it's a selective bias against/for certain bands.

Moi Dix Mois is on there under gothic metal. It doesn't take an idiot to know that they aren't a metal band.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I really don't think it's possible to achieve a single criteria useful in differentiating between what is and isn't metal. To an extent it is, but there's far too many bands who care not and whose sound is a product of varying influences found in the band's sound, but also non-musically as inspiration and direction.

Well, I think there are plenty of bands which will always blur the lines, and elude classification (although plenty of metal purists on these forums would disagree). However, that doesn't mean there isn't still some idea of what a metal band is supposed to be. Otherwise, we wouldn't even be able to use the term.

Ie. A band like the Deathstars. Most metalheads wouldn't consider them to be a metal band, however, they have roots in black metal and not to mention one of the band's members is the brother of an infamous figure in black metal. Some might then say they are industrial - but to those in the industrial scene, they wouldn't agree with this.

I'm curious to hear this band. Though I think we'll have to hold off on dissecting borderline cases until we have stronger definitions on-hand.

So where do you draw the line? You can't really say a band has to have 90% metal influence in their sound to be considered metal because these numbers are non-existent, and subjective.

Well, I would say this is one of the biggest problems with a "by influence" definition. Tracing a band's influences can be virtually impossible at times. However, I believe the proponents of such a definition would argue that most metal bands will be part of a well-established scene or school (i.e. NWOBHM, Bay area thrash, British doom, etc.), and that the linkages between the various schools is relatively easy to trace.

Not to mention even if a band fits a criteria for what makes a metal band, perhaps they also fit a similar criteria for what makes a hard rock band, or whatever else as well.

This is an interesting point. I think the solution to this, though, is that a good definition of metal will include criteria that cancels out other genres. For example, using the current definition in the OP, I would say most hard rock bands fail conditions (3) and (4) to varying degrees: The lyrics (typically witty and humorous - think AC/DC, Van Halen, etc.) are a big focus in the sound. And the vocalist's persona has a much bigger role in the band, otherwise they wouldn't be so idolized by young females. Think about it - how often does a metal vocalist attain such star-quality as a hard rock vocalist?

^ This I find is quite general. I see plenty of non-metal bands fitting this criteria. Everyone's favourite love-to-hate band, Slipknot, would fit this list. How about a band like Sunn O))) - where are 'hard emphatic drum beats'?

Basically what I've been getting at, in my replies to the above paragraphs, is that it's impossible for a definition of metal to apply to every single case. I see the goal of this project being to come up with a definition that covers the most possible cases, even if a few fall between the cracks.

V5 actually brought up the very genres you hint at above (nu-metal and drone doom) in our discussion last night. V5 doesn't consider either to be metal, and I think I may be in agreement with him, for the following reasons:

Nu-metal, as I understand it, is basically a cross between metal, grunge, and hip-hop (and maybe a few other things). The thing about nu-metal is that its non-metal influences often play more of a role than its metal influences. This would make it a fusion genre, as opposed to a subgenre (in which metal remains the clear primary influence).

Drone doom is a genre that evolved out of metal, but to the point that it actually has more in common with ambient music than with metal. I think your classification of drone doom might vary depending on whether you use a "by sound" or "by influence" definition. The genre is minimalistic enough that hearing the music without knowing anything about the genre would easily lead you to believe that it's not metal. However, since its primary influences can be traced back to metal (I think), it might qualify under the "by influence" definition.

Also, I'd like to point out a flaw in the argument that some would say the guitar must be the central element in reaching a metal sound - because in a lot of cases the guitar isn't the main instrument being utilized. Symphonic black metal for example often originates from and has significantly more focus on synth/keyboards/symphonics than it does guitar or any other instrument.

I probably made condition (1) of the "by sound" definition a little too elaborate. If I simplified it to just "use of a heavily distorted electric guitar", the issue of symphonic metal would be taken care of (though it could, of course, create other problems I'm not aware of).

And let's remember a lot of metal bands are made up of highly simplistic instrumentation, especially on guitar.

I'll need more specifics from you on this claim before I can respond to it. I'm not sure exactly what bands you have in mind.

 

[entanglement]

You guys have too much spare time on your hands.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I think the sound-based definition needs to be reworded a bit, so I'm thinking to make the following change:

(old definition)

A subgenre of rock music with the following characteristics:
(1) a loud, harsh sound originating from the use of a heavily distorted electric guitar
(2) hard, emphatic drum beats
(3) a dramatic or aggressive vocal style which emphasizes the vocalist's tone of voice over the lyrics
(4) a focus on instrumental power which keeps the vocalist out of the forefront of the sound

(new definition)

A style of music, originating from rock, which has the following characteristics:
(1) the use of one or more highly distorted electric guitars
(2) a reliance on emphatic rhythms and drum beats to achieve a "heavy" sound
(3) a dramatic or aggressive vocal style which emphasizes the vocalist's tone of voice over the lyrical content
(4) a focus on instrumental power which reduces the role of the vocalist's personality relative to many forms of rock music

If anyone has any objections, let me know.