Metal bands do have neat classifications, which are termed "genres" of metal, in which they fit (more than one, even). It's not inaccurate in any way, shape or form. Are spelling and grammar errors "inaccurately categorized" by placing particular examples into different kinds of problems? No, it is actually helpful and specific, but you have to know what you're talking about.
It
is inaccurate when you assume that metal is a completely isolated microcosm of music which has absolutely NO interaction with other genres. This is absurd, and, as Zeph pointed out, rock and metal are fundamentally similar.
It's not a physical impossibility for a metal band to have rock influences (duh) and for a rock band to have metal influences. At certain points, there's enough crossover that the lines become blurred, and you can't simply say "this is clearly metal" or "this is clearly not metal".
Opeth have always played progressive extreme metal, sometimes darker on earlier albums and more psychedelic and even catchy on some of their other material.
It should have been obvious to you (and Mort) that I had
Damnation in mind when I mentioned Opeth. As trivial an example as that was, I was just using it to point out that not everything a metal band does is metal (which further supports my claim that you cannot simply call a band "metal" or "not metal").
Isn't it important that a carrot be 100% a carrot for you to call it a carrot? You can say this about anything; it's pretty important; actually, it's integral for classification to exist or serve a purpose.
Let's try a more relevant analogy:
Consider the various elements that make up music - i.e. melody, rhythm, structure, and intentional composition. If a set of sounds has some of these features and not others, it can create borderline cases.
Since you are trying to prove an affirmative, I think you should present some evidence that they are metal which I can review and we can discuss.
Actually, I think it would be much, much simpler if you could just find a single criterion for metal that AiC doesn't satisfy, instead of making me hunt down an entire list of criteria and check off every single one that they
do. However, I have a feeling that our definitions of "metal" aren't the same, so it would be pointless to even attempt this until we can actually agree on a definition.
There is nothing "un-metal" about any non-metal except that said bands just aren't metal. It's really simple (almost deceivingly so).
I don't know why you even bothered to say this. Circular reasoning has no place in a debate.
I have heard every album and have been a fan since about 10-12 (that's around 7-9 years). There are no compelling argument for AiC being metal.
I don't care how familiar you are with them. If you can't actually describe their music to me in a way that makes it possible to compare them to a definition of metal, then your familiarity with them is useless. (But again, we have to agree on a definition of "metal" first.)
heavy metal: Of course beginning with the founders of metal (you should know who) and eventually becoming very significant in the late 70's/early-mid 80's, heavy metal gained strength through a renaissance from Britain known as the "NWOBHM" (New Wave of British Heavy Metal"). It is characterized by powerful, energetic, and driving songs, often anthemlike in songwrtiting quality, with many unique takes on melody and usually very high-pitched and emphatic clean vocals.
That's a pretty flawed definition, tbh. You could easily call a lot of electronic dance music "powerful, energetic, driving, and anthemic", and "unique takes on melody" is far too ambiguous to understand what that really means. "High-pitched and emphatic clean vocals" are certainly not a "usual" feature of metal, either.
I don't mind looking for a definition of metal myself, but it's probably going to take a lot of work (i.e. parsing/interpreting the Wikipedia page on heavy metal), and I don't feel like doing that right now. For now, let's just focus on the other arguments I've made above that don't require a working definition of "metal" to reach a conclusion on (i.e. my claim that the lines can become blurred to a point of indistinguishability between rock and metal).
EDIT #47364: And BEFORE you begin with the cries of "but these are just your opinion": no, they're really not. There is fact and falsity in defining what classification bands fall into. You can be wrong.
Uh... okay, thanks for the tip.
In the sense that both overarching forms of music use guitars, drums, bass and usually vocals; yes. But if you have heard enough and have a good ear for analysis, you can immediately tell if bands are metal or not, and what genre they are.
If you really have a good ear for analysis, you should actually be able to
analyze the music into its consituent parts (i.e. guitar distortion, lyrical themes, tempo, etc.), and not just say "it is" or "it isn't". If you yourself are claiming to have such an ear for analysis, you've done a pretty poor job of demonstrating that so far.
Dude, no. Just fucking no. There is no intentional style shift to be found here. The same shit with minor variation =/= style shift.
See above.
Damnation is not a "minor variation" on Opeth's main style. Try actually thinking about what you're saying before acting like a know-it-all.
. I can't name specific criteria for being "heavy metal" if you're going to deny me access to the things which classify bands as metal in the first place; do you like to make science without evidence? It's the same deal here.
