The "Definition of Metal" Project

[waif]

The point was that metal has a non-vocal-centric aesthetic, and I don't think that's universally more true of metal than it is of rock.

I agree with master that we'd be better off defining the subgenres and going from there.

 

[Vossyrus]

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).

Well, from what I remember because this was quite a while ago it seemed like many online writers and mainstream critics kept implying it was new wave of modern metal while being completely oblivious to anything metal. I remember at one point when it was being called new metal, and then shortly after it was "nu-metal". I don't think any 'real' metal fans would acknowledge it as metal when it wasn't. This classification was even used for bands like Limp Bizkit, Evanescense, Papa Roach, and Linkin Park afterwards. A lot of the bands like Slipknot, Mudvayne etc were rejecting the term nu-metal themselves as well as the general labeling, and I think that sort of pushed the term to a derogatory meaning. Metal fans began to hate this style of music especially the fact that it was being called metal, and started calling everything they didn't like nu-metal. Mallcore has always been a derogatory term meaning something like poser music for mallgoths or whatever.

 

[waif]

Any term with the word mall in it is already negative...
I agree with Ars about the genesis. I think the main reason nu-metal is disliked is that bad (or at least false) image it gives to metal.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

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?

This is an important difference between the sound-based and influence-based definitions. As far as sound goes, I believe Alice in Chains are safely in the metal zone (though I'm not familiar with their whole discog - I'm mainly thinking of Dirt). But the people who think influence is how you define metal are going to say AiC comes from a different evolutionary tree than the typical metal band, and thus does not fit into any real subgenres of metal.

I'm not saying that's the way it should be, but it may be an inevitable problem with the sound-based definition. I'm really not aware of any aspect of AiC's sound that is un-metal.


edit: In all honesty, though, there's gotta be some way to differentiate between metal and grunge. No one here has really attempted to do that yet. I'd rather leave it up to someone more familiar with grunge to give me a definition of it.

 

[Necro Joe]

I remember at one point when it was being called new metal, and then shortly after it was "nu-metal". I don't think any 'real' metal fans would acknowledge it as metal when it wasn't.

I think that the shortening of 'new' to 'nu' was where the initial put-down came in; it was just a dismissive way of acknowledging that these bands wanted to be associated with metal but had a very different asthetic that gave the impression of longing for a kind of lame urban street-cred that metal traditionally didn't care about.

Also I'm not sure metal fans were always so concerned as we are now about what is and isn't metal; back in the day (lol I'm taking about the late 90s here) it often seemed like traditional metalheads were content to label nu metal as crap and move on. I wouldn't be surprised if the obsession with genre in metal coincided (to some extent) with the advent of the internet becoming all-powerful, since it gave every teen with too much time on their hands the means to become an expert on this stuff without ever leaving the confines of their bedroom.

This is an important difference between the sound-based and influence-based definitions. As far as sound goes, I believe Alice in Chains are safely in the metal zone (though I'm not familiar with their whole discog - I'm mainly thinking of Dirt). But the people who think influence is how you define metal are going to say AiC comes from a different evolutionary tree than the typical metal band, and thus does not fit into any real subgenres of metal.

I'm not saying that's the way it should be, but it may be an inevitable problem with the sound-based definition. I'm really not aware of any aspect of AiC's sound that is un-metal.

This is why I would (if writing my own definition, which I'm not about to do right now) be happy to do away with the idea of influence as a defining factor completely. If it doesn't leave enough of a tangible mark on the music itself for even an esspecially knowledgable person to identify, and subsequently discuss, then as far as I'm concerned it isn't that relevant.

edit: In all honesty, though, there's gotta be some way to differentiate between metal and grunge. No one here has really attempted to do that yet. I'd rather leave it up to someone more familiar with grunge to give me a definition of it.

I'm holding out for this as well, anyone with the ability to to point out some musical differences between styles (that aren't based on too many vague generalisations) would be very welcome in a discussion such as this.

 

[Cythraul]

I'm holding out for this as well, anyone with the ability to to point out some musical differences between styles (that aren't based on too many vague generalisations) would be very welcome in a discussion such as this.

I think that would be pretty difficult. How is one going to be able to not be vague about for instance the difference between metal and rock when there's a world of difference between, say, Gorguts - Obscura and Iron Maiden - Powerslave? We can search for important points of departure between the two styles, but these would have to be sufficiently general as to include everything that clearly is metal.

Also, I'm not opposed to the idea of mentioning lyrical themes in the definition. Lyrical concepts are important and usually do loosely connect with aesthetic features. It's not a good idea to try to define a genre according to lyrical themes, but we can find some really important points of departure between styles if we consider them.

 

[SouthernTrendkill]

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

Like I said, everyone has their own definition of metal, and nothing any of us could ever do will ever even remotely diminish that. It's called opinions. We've all got 'em and they're never going away. But like I said, I do enjoy talking about it.

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?

I'm not specifically talking about techicality per se'. It's a very hard thing to explain, but I hear it in every single metal band I've ever heard. It's the approach towards the music. Rock bands aren't necessarily less talented or precise, it's just that rock is based on a groove element that is lessened even in the most groove-based forms of metal. It's a dirty, earthy sound. But all the way back to Black Sabbath, the way that the instruments flow with each other very different from the more organic groove of rock music. Whatever the difference is, it feels more precise to me, so that's the term I used to describe it.

Not any more so than rock

Are you kidding me? Wrong. Is having multiple riffs not one of the defining elements of death metal? A typical rock song would be like Rebel Rebel by David Bowie. One riff, a chorus, a bridge. Only the prog bands like Yes have as many changes and varying passages as metal, and in those cases it often happens over a 10 minute song whereas in metal there are 10 minute songs but there are at least as many 4 minute songs with those changes and passages in them. It's the verse chorus verse distinction. Maybe the more verse-chorus based metal bands sometimes do stuff that is as simple as definitive rock music like Zep, AC/DC, etc. But even bands like Pantera and Metallica have like 5 riffs per song. Zep and AC/DC never did that. Indie rock bands don't do that. No genre does it as often as metal.

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).

Okay, for the last time, everyone defines genres differently. It's one thing to say that vocals aren't the ONLY thing to define a genre, but it'd be downright mentally retarded to say that vocals don't have anything to do with defining genres. It's not an aspect of the music or something? Should we ignore the guitar and drums too? Maybe bass is the only thing that defines genres...

I don't consider trad metal to really be metal. Borderline metal, perhaps. But I was NOT talking strictly about harsh vocals. I included aggressive, angry vocals like Slayer and Metallica. Maybe now adays you get angry vocals in rock bands by the dozen, but back when those thrash bands came out it was unheard of in rock. And even a lot of the operatic metal singers have some anger in their voice.

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.

Reread my above critique about claiming certain aspects are irrelevant when defining a genre. I know there's a lot of metal that doesn't have individualistic or satanic lyrics, but I already explained what these aspects were, and I didn't say they were something all metal bands had. There is undeniably more satanic lyrics in metal than in any other genre. Furthermore, as I stated, I was defining my own definition of metal, rather than trying to come up with something that would be applicable to the whole community, since nothing of the sort could exist.

...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.

Doom metal and black metal are still based around the chugging machinery sound just as much as death and thrash. I'm pretty willing to bet that all metal bands have at least some connection to this type of thing. Bands who don't would be bands I probably wouldn't consider metal.

 

[Necro Joe]

I think that would be pretty difficult. How is one going to be able to not be vague about for instance the difference between metal and rock when there's a world of difference between, say, Gorguts - Obscura and Iron Maiden - Powerslave? We can search for important points of departure between the two styles, but these would have to be sufficiently general as to include everything that clearly is metal.

Well I would think that the beginning might be a useful place to start. What (if anything) separated Black Sabbath from their contemporaries (Deep Purple and Zepplin for example) and did anything carry over from whatever points of departure there were to the NWOBHM and its forebearers? the next (very general) step I suppose would be to talk about punk, how it became hardcore, and what influences were transmitted via these developments to create thrash and then death metal. Obviously this is all ridiculously vague as far as history goes (in opposition to what I said earlier) but I think that if specific, fundamental differences that emerged when metal was beginning to aquire its identity (in the 'classic' albums of the 70s and early 80s), and that set it apart from hard rock and hardcore could be identified then maybe that would provide a starting point for talking about all the myriad developments of the late 80s and beyond.

Also, I'm not opposed to the idea of mentioning lyrical themes in the definition. Lyrical concepts are important and usually do loosely connect with aesthetic features. It's not a good idea to try to define a genre according to lyrical themes, but we can find some really important points of departure between styles if we consider them.

We can, but I think we should be careful not to draw too much of a line between them and act as if they are necessarily interdependant. Many influential bands admit to writing lyrics as a secondary concern and I think most great metal bands are primarily instrumentally gifted musicians who wrote lyrics to conform to the conventions they saw themselves as writing within.

 

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

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.

I agree with this as far as vocal MIXING goes. What I think we should be talking about is the actual vocal patterning, and how the vocals in metal often are either powerfully clear as in power/heavy metal (and even some extreme metal) and drive the songs forwards instead of just merely going with the rhythm as most modern rock does, OR the vocals are an afterthought, recorded last for a more human/personal connection with the listener.

 

[waif]

I'm not specifically talking about techicality per se'. It's a very hard thing to explain, but I hear it in every single metal band I've ever heard. It's the approach towards the music. Rock bands aren't necessarily less talented or precise, it's just that rock is based on a groove element that is lessened even in the most groove-based forms of metal. It's a dirty, earthy sound. But all the way back to Black Sabbath, the way that the instruments flow with each other very different from the more organic groove of rock music. Whatever the difference is, it feels more precise to me, so that's the term I used to describe it.

I understand what you're talking about. But I prefer to use the word mojo, because people don't use it enough. Rock has more mojo.

Are you kidding me? Wrong. Is having multiple riffs not one of the defining elements of death metal? A typical rock song would be like Rebel Rebel by David Bowie. One riff, a chorus, a bridge. Only the prog bands like Yes have as many changes and varying passages as metal, and in those cases it often happens over a 10 minute song whereas in metal there are 10 minute songs but there are at least as many 4 minute songs with those changes and passages in them. It's the verse chorus verse distinction. Maybe the more verse-chorus based metal bands sometimes do stuff that is as simple as definitive rock music like Zep, AC/DC, etc. But even bands like Pantera and Metallica have like 5 riffs per song. Zep and AC/DC never did that. Indie rock bands don't do that. No genre does it as often as metal.

Lots of bands in metal only have a couple riffs per song. Listen to Bathory - Home Of Once Brave. It's not just one riff, it's one fucking chord. For about 6 minutes. Still a brilliant song, though.
I agree that metal is frequently more complex than rock, but not always. And remember that we have to differentiate metal from all genres of music, not just rock.

it'd be downright mentally retarded to say that vocals don't have anything to do with defining genres.

VVVVV, you wanna get in on this?

I know there's a lot of metal that doesn't have individualistic or satanic lyrics, but I already explained what these aspects were, and I didn't say they were something all metal bands had. There is undeniably more satanic lyrics in metal than in any other genre.

There are undeniably more Gibson Les Pauls used in hard rock music than in any other genre. Thus we can say that the Gibson Les Paul is a defining element of rock music.

Doom metal and black metal are still based around the chugging machinery sound just as much as death and thrash.

No they aren't?
I'm not an expert on doom metal, but I can tell you I've never heard a black metal band going "derkaderkaderka"

Bands who don't would be bands I probably wouldn't consider metal.

Do you consider Summoning metal?

I agree with this as far as vocal MIXING goes. What I think we should be talking about is the actual vocal patterning, and how the vocals in metal often are either powerfully clear as in power/heavy metal (and even some extreme metal) and drive the songs forwards instead of just merely going with the rhythm as most modern rock does, OR the vocals are an afterthought, recorded last for a more human/personal connection with the listener.

Vocal patterning?
Like, vocal lines?
Because vocal lines are just as important in metal (if not more so) as in rock.

 

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

I don't really think so...sure some bands do, but there really is no way to make a blanket list of shit that applies to EVERY metal band. Metal is a ridiculously varied genre and there are always exceptions.

 

[Zephyrus]

No they aren't?
I'm not an expert on doom metal, but I can tell you I've never heard a black metal band going "derkaderkaderka"

Certain modern black metal bands have developed a mechanical sound. But that reinforces the point that modern, professional production can make the music of any genre sound "mechanical".

Do you consider Summoning metal?

As opposed to what? Of course they are.

Because vocal lines are just as important in metal (if not more so) as in rock.

Negative.

 

[waif]

I don't really think so...sure some bands do, but there really is no way to make a blanket list of shit that applies to EVERY metal band. Metal is a ridiculously varied genre and there are always exceptions.

Sorry, I meant to say power and trad metal. But death metal often has vocal lines too...
There are always exceptions.

Certain modern black metal bands have developed a mechanical sound. But that reinforces the point that modern, professional production can make the music of any genre sound "mechanical".

Another good point.

As opposed to what? Of course they are.

My point exactly. Yet they have no chugs.

Negative.

You listen mostly to black metal. Go listen to some Avantasia, then tell me vocal lines don't matter.

 

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

Metal doesn't need chugs, especially black metal

 

[Zephyrus]

You listen mostly to black metal. Go listen to some Avantasia, then tell me vocal lines don't matter.

Just because vocals can play such a role doesn't mean that it's integral to metal's overall principles.

 

[waif]

Metal doesn't need chugs, especially black metal

THAT'S MY POINT! STOP ACTING LIKE I'M TRENDKILL!!!

ahem.

sorry.

Anyhow.

Vocals are not integral to metal's overall principles. However, you couldn't say that a non-vocal-centric aesthetic is a defining feature of metal.

 

[Vossyrus]

I think perception too plays a part when considering the role of the vocalist in a band. This perception can persuade people into thinking the band is more vocal-oriented. Perhaps not so much in metal but often the vocalist can be looked upon as a larger-than-life figure and is usually most admired member or the centre of attention in the band. Just because this is the case in many rock bands doesn't mean it is true.

Metal generally doesn't have this problem but in cases with Cradle of Filth or Children of Bodom, some people might look at Dani or Alexei as a minor 'celebrities' - however, this doesn't mean the music is vocal-oriented, but people may get the impression it is.

 

[Dazed and Brutal]

I say we have public polls for borderlining bands

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Yes, I'm sure that would make everyone happy.

Btw guys, if you think I'm slacking on the updates, feel free to point stuff out to me. This thread has gotten a little dense for me to want to pore through (especially since most of it is just back-and-forth opinionizing). Assuming no serious negligence of mine is pointed out to me, I'm gonna be taking a backseat for a while.

As far as the list of borderline/almost-metal bands: a lot of the bands in that category seem to require a fairly detailed analysis of how much metal influence (or lack thereof) they have, so I don't think we're ready for that yet. If anyone wants to attempt a super-descriptive list for us (Zeph? V5? You guys seemed like the ones mainly interested in it), go right ahead.

 

[Dazed and Brutal]

First we need to compromise an ultimate list of bands to vote on