The "Definition of Metal" Project

[Necro Joe]

My objection isn't with the definition itself, but with the phrase 'has the following characteristics' since I believe (like SouthernTrendkill) that if you try to provide some list of criteria which all metal bands must possess you're pretty much doomed from the outset as there will always be bands who conform to most (but not all) of them, despite being widely considered metal.

Also I was about to say that I consider Slipknot metal (not hardcore) when it occurred to me that even if they were undeniably hardcore they would still fulfil all of your requirements. By the above definition pretty much all hardcore, from Minor Threat to Hatebreed, appears to also be metal.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

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.

I'm cool with having a list of "almost metal" bands below the definitions - I just want to make sure we actually have some unambiguous explanations for why they aren't metal.

Let me know if this looks good:

SBD = sound-based definition
IBD = influence-based definition

Alice in Chains
IBD: A member of the grunge rock genre, which derives primarily from non-metal influences.

Led Zeppelin
SBD #4: Robert Plant had a very prominent persona in the band.
IBD: Were not significantly influenced by Black Sabbath.
NOTE: produced some metal songs (i.e. "Kashmir").

Slipknot
IBD: A member of the nu-metal genre, which is a fusion genre (not a subgenre of metal).

I'll do the rest when I have time. I've got to get ready for class now, though.

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.

I think this is just an idealisation of metal. What definition of rock music do you think metal doesn't fit under? Last I checked, rock is pretty fuckin' broadly defined.

 

[Necro Joe]

SBD = sound-based definition
IBD = influence-based definition

Alice in Chains
IBD: A member of the grunge rock genre, which derives primarily from non-metal influences.

Led Zeppelin
SBD #4: Robert Plant had a very prominent persona in the band.
IBD: Were not significantly influenced by Black Sabbath.
NOTE: produced some metal songs (i.e. "Kashmir").

Slipknot
IBD: A member of the nu-metal genre, which is a fusion genre (not a subgenre of metal).

Ok I don't get this. If AiC 'derive primarily from non-metal influences' shouldn't we stick to explaining the ways this is manifested in their music? Isn't that what this debate should be about, rather than setting the goalposts at how much a band was influenced by Black Sabbath?

 

[Vossyrus]

Vihris-gari, I agree with a lot of what you’re saying but still, I don’t believe an ideal criteria is obtainable - I’m mainly just pointing out the difficulties in doing so.

One can come up with good reasons to say why or why any band isn’t metal if you judge them band by band (but of course, that would open up controversy, if certain points are contradicting). But, if you’re adhering to a criteria for all bands - I just don’t believe this works.

With the Deathstars, I was mainly pointing out here, that bands can come from a metal background and produce music that isn’t metal, but could possibly (?) retain metal influences that are debatable in the band’s sound - the band may believe they do incorporate metal into their music, and often when a band comes from a metal background it is easier to persuade those into believing that the metal elements are still there in their music. On their myspace they are listed as "industrial / gothic / metal." However, they aren't metal.

A singer involved in some fairly-known industrial and goth bands recently said in a chat the Deathstars weren’t industrial, they were metal. Here I’m just pointing out that when a metalhead uses the term industrial for example (or gothic or whatever else) it often isn’t completely accurate or to the point so that diehard industrial fans (for example) would ever accept this usage - just like when a person who doesn’t listen to metal says Limp Bizkit or Korn is metal, metalheads could never accept this because it isn’t true, and certainly not to them.

To come up with a proper criteria, (or as you mentioned, perhaps one that cancels out other genres in the process) the people making it should be well-knowledgeable on all genres, not just metal.

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

I believe this is better but it still opens itself up to many "nu-metal" or heavier rock bands. And also, there are many aggrotech/terror ebm groups who already qualify for the last 3 points, and have implicated that they may choose to incoporate guitars into their music (seeing as some of these electronic-based bands are influenced by metal also). I'm sure there are some who have already done this, but I'm just not fully aware of them. Perhaps added to the list, should be a requirement that bands' primary influence be metal - but here again, this is highly debatable. Otherwise you could have like I mentioned bands from a completely different and unrelated style of music making the list should they add guitars. And I don't believe you can make it a requirement that instruments be 'real' as opposed to electronic, because many metal bands use drum machines. And what if a band was to have come from a non-metal genre, and unintentionally evolve their sound into a metal one, they wouldn't be originating from a rock/metal form and the core of their music would be debatable - I'm sure there are examples.

Also, I'd like to point out that "nu-metal" isn't a real genre. It essentially was an ignorant term used by many naive mainstream critics and whomever, to call what they believed to be modern metal via bands like Slipknot, Korn, Mudvayne. Most of these bands are (arguably) a more modern form of hard/heavier rock - I'm sure we can all agree on the ambiguity of how general, the term rock is. Many "nu-metal" bands don't incorporate rap/hip-hop into their music (and even Slipknot make little use of rap, they actually have more metal influence than rap). What defines a fusion genre? Would bands who mix black metal with electronics not be considered metal?

 

[Vimana]

Alice In Chains's biggest influences were various blues, Led Zeppelin, Metallica, and Sabbath.

Even though they are Grunge I think they do have a lot of Metal influence in their sound. Sure most of their solos are bluesy but they have some like Them Bones which are Metal. I wouldn't call them Metal, I'd call them Metal influenced Grunge.

 

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

I think this is just an idealisation of metal. What definition of rock music do you think metal doesn't fit under? Last I checked, rock is pretty fuckin' broadly defined.

I don't think it is a matter of metal not falling under rock by definition of rock, I think metal has evolved so much further that it is not necessarily a style of rock music anymore, but an autonomous form of music. Sure the instrumentation is the same, but it is a very different artistic achievement on the whole, no matter what genre is partook of.

 

[Necro Joe]

Also, I'd like to point out that "nu-metal" isn't a real genre. It essentially was an ignorant term used by many naive mainstream critics and whomever, to call what they believed to be modern metal via bands like Slipknot, Korn, Mudvayne. Most of these bands are (arguably) a more modern form of hard/heavier rock - I'm sure we can all agree on the ambiguity of how general, the term rock is. Many "nu-metal" bands don't incorporate rap/hip-hop into their music (and even Slipknot make little use of rap, they actually have more metal influence than rap). What defines a fusion genre? Would bands who mix black metal with electronics not be considered metal?

Actually I'm pretty sure that nu metal was a initially derogatory term developed by fans of 'real' metal to insult the funked-up variety of hard rock which Korn made popular before it was a media label (the same as 'mallcore'; which never caught on presumably because its much less easy to use in a purely descriptive or neutral way).

I do agree with you that all this talk of 'hybrid genres' or diffuse influences gets away from the central point of what elements define metal, how many of them need to be present and in what proportions (regardless of whether or not a band incorporates other styles into their sound) before you can really describe something as 'heavy metal'. I would honestly be more interested to hear any musicians reading this discuss how riff and drumming styles differ between metal, punk and hard rock than get involved in these 'oh but they're more rock' discussions without any reference to why or to what 'rock' even means.

 

[waif]

Read the OP, but didn't finish reading all the posts. But...

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.

This seems like a good idea until you realize how many threads get derailed into an argument over the definition of a genre.

Anyhow, your elements of metal seem pretty off to me...

- Unwavering adherence to precision.

What? A certain amount of technical metal has this, yes, but that's nowhere near universal. Obviously bands try to avoid making mistakes, but...have you ever heard Venom?

- 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)

Not any more so than rock

- 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)

Okay, for the last time, vocals don't define a genre. But even if they did, most thrash and trad metal doesn't have harsh vocals, and that's about 30% of all metal (that number comes from nowhere, by the way).

- Far greater emphasis on dark, satanic, and individualistic lyrical themes.

For the last time, lyrics don't define a genre. But even if they did, there's plenty of metal about just chillin' out, while there's plenty of rock that plays around with satanic themes.

- characteristic use of low, chugging insturmental riffs reminiscent of industrial machinery.

...in some genres of metal. If you want to define a subgenre, this would work. But this applies to thrash, a lot of death and trad metal, and a certain amount of power metal. But what about black metal, folk metal, and doom metal? Not applicable to vast swaths of metal, so it's no good. Also, more and more rock and even punk-pop bands are using chugs...kind of annoying, tbh.

 

[Black Friday]

Well, really I think that there is no completely metal band. They are just metal to different degrees. What makes something metal is if metal is the defining influence. And, as you all probably know, there are plenty of bands that the defining influence is pretty hard to see. I just see those bands as belonging a little bit in all of the genres they're influenced by.

 

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

Read the OP, but didn't finish reading all the posts. But...


This seems like a good idea until you realize how many threads get derailed into an argument over the definition of a genre.

Anyhow, your elements of metal seem pretty off to me...


What? A certain amount of technical metal has this, yes, but that's nowhere near universal. Obviously bands try to avoid making mistakes, but...have you ever heard Venom?


Not any more so than rock


Okay, for the last time, vocals don't define a genre. But even if they did, most thrash and trad metal doesn't have harsh vocals, and that's about 30% of all metal (that number comes from nowhere, by the way).

For the last time, lyrics don't define a genre. But even if they did, there's plenty of metal about just chillin' out, while there's plenty of rock that plays around with satanic themes.

...in some genres of metal. If you want to define a subgenre, this would work. But this applies to thrash, a lot of death and trad metal, and a certain amount of power metal. But what about black metal, folk metal, and doom metal? Not applicable to vast swaths of metal, so it's no good. Also, more and more rock and even punk-pop bands are using chugs...kind of annoying, tbh.

All great points, I endorse this post for sure!

 

[Necro Joe]

Okay, for the last time, vocals don't define a genre...

For the last time, lyrics don't define a genre...

Why not?

 

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

Deicide sing about Satan but use growling vocals. If we were defining by vocals, they'd be death metal. If we were defining by lyrics, they'd be stereotypically black metal. This is why we don't put bands into genre based SOLELY on vocals or lyrics; because it's made of fail.

Vocals and lyrics can sometimes play a VERY SMALL PART of putting a band into a definite category, but should never, under any circumstances, be the SOLE characteristic, lest we become very confused.

 

[Necro Joe]

But no one is arguing that vocals should be the sole factor for defining a band as one thing or another; that's the point of this thread, to discuss which factors play a role and how large that role should be. Why are vocals afforded less weight that anything else?

 

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

Because bands have been known to utilize very many different vocal styles in already established genres. It would be genre-breaking to afford vocals more weight since there is even more experimentation in there. I know it sounds silly, but I think it is perfectly okay to be honest. I mean, sure we can say A GREAT MAJORITY of black metal = screaming/higher vocals, and death metal = lower, guttural vocals and this could suffice for a very shallow definition of the styles, but it is much deeper than that of course.

 

[waif]

Well, really I think that there is no completely metal band. They are just metal to different degrees. What makes something metal is if metal is the defining influence. And, as you all probably know, there are plenty of bands that the defining influence is pretty hard to see. I just see those bands as belonging a little bit in all of the genres they're influenced by.

If you want to argue, you can say that metal is an offshoot of hard blues rock (Sabbath, as well as Purple and Zeppelin) and punk rock (Maiden, Motorhead, and the whole NWOBHM and thrash movements). But then you'd basically be saying that there are no new genres of music and that it all comes from African tribal music (African tribal music -> Slave songs -> blues -> jazz -> rock n roll + pop- > rock, punk, metal, etc). And that would just be silly.

But you do have a point, so let's pick some albums that are undeniably pure, archetypal heavy metal. I would say Iron Maiden - Number Of The Beast is a perfect example of the classic heavy metal sound, for example. And Morbid Angel - Covenant is a perfect example of the old school death metal sound. And we could go on. And these albums are pure fucking metal, there's no argument. So instead, to avoid arguing about bands, let's just use albums, and the sound and style of those albums (which is better anyways because bands do change sounds and styles).

 

[Necro Joe]

@5V: Well in this thread people have been advancing arguments that suggest that one of metal's defining characteristics is the way in which it allows guitars to take the traditionally central role played by singing in rock music. Sometimes this even results in vocals being used as a rhythmic instrument rather than a melodic one with another instrument taking their place in leading the songs. This would seem to very strongly support what you're saying about vocals being a secondary, and highly varied, element within metal subgenres. But when differentiating between metal and the wider musical world I think the same point runs backwards; because metal is so un-vocal-centric, compared with rock, this difference becomes an important feature to mention when defining it.

 

[waif]

I challenge the assertion that metal is universally un-vocal-centric compared with rock. Listen to something by GNR or Audioslave and then put on a Hammerfall album. The vocals are mixed about the same, and
the music follows them about the same. In extreme metal (especially black, but also death) the vocals might be pushed back more, but in metal as a whole that's not necessarily the case. I think we need to remember that extreme metal is disproportionately represented on this board and on the internet in general.

 

[Necro Joe]

Except I wasn't really making that argument, I was saying its a position that some people in this thread (including the OP) have taken and therefore should be taken into account before we dismiss vocals as being of no importance at all.

Also I would suggest that your examples aren't good ones; Hammerfall (from my thankfully limited exposure) push twin guitar harmonies and melodic guitar lines far more to the 'front' of their sound than do Audioslave (who aren't really that far removed from the RATM school of funky, bass heavy hard rock) and GnR (who I know even less well than Hammerfall, but I thought were more famous for their dirty rock stylings and flashy solos than big, in-your-face melodic riffs).

 

[waif]

No, I realize you weren't making that argument. I'm just challenging that argument.
But anyhow, my point is the vocals. Hammerfall, Audioslave, and GNR have roughly the same balance of vocal and instrumental sections, vocals are pushed about equally in the mix, etc.

 

[MasterOLightning]

The volume of the vocals and how much of the song has vocals is not what is being discussed here, and it is irrelevant.

I really don't think there's anything you can say about vocals that applies to metal as a whole, and it shouldn't be factored into the definition.

It's much easier to define subgenres, and then say metal is simply an umbrella for the following types of music.